Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[DVV]

Hi Abby

Hi Greg
This made me think. Perhaps Hutch saw BG man and used him as inspiration for Aman. just an idea.

You serious ?
There was a time we blamed stagnation. Now we enjoy regression.

[Abby Normal]

Excellent post Ben. I, like Abby, was entertaining BG as Astra but it's hard to bring them into the same frame...

Knowing how crazy and cruel people are, I feel it's likely there were characters on the streets with the specific purpose of frightening women and mimicking their idea of the ripper. Perhaps BG man was one such person

I remember a discussion of barber's (Chapman) carrying small parcels but I wonder really how common it was for people to be carrying small black bags around?

This may have circulated in the papers, produced copycats, and possibly even informed Hutch's description. People can be strange...



Greg

Hi Greg
This made me think. Perhaps Hutch saw BG man and used him as inspiration for Aman. just an idea.

[GregBaron]

Black bag boys...

I'm rather perplexed at the creative interpretations and blank-filling being placed on Sarah Lewis' evidence.

She saw two entirely separate "couples". She passed the first of these outside the Britannia "near the market" even before she turned right into Dorset Street, and thought the male half of the couple might have been the Bethnal Green Road Botherer, aged about 40, from the previous Wednesday. The woman she did not describe. Lewis then turned onto Dorset Street where she noticed three people, a young man with a woman who "passed along" (i.e. Dorset Street), and a man on his own standing near the lodging house. That's a total of five separate individuals. Some people are trying to merge the two couples into one, which is plainly impossible. Lewis even specified "another young man and woman", i.e. in addition to the man and woman near the Britannia. The young man who passed along Dorset Street couldn't possibly ALSO be the 40-year-old man who was stationary outside the Britannia at the same time.

Not one of these five people were seen in the court by Lewis. She even specified "there was nobody in the court".

Is there any good reason for assuming that either of the women seen by Lewis was Kelly? Well no, not really. Neither the coroner nor the jury seemed to think so, or else they would have quizzed Lewis for further details of the woman's appearance. Perhaps more revealingly in this regard, there is no evidence that Lewis was ever requested to visit the morgue to attempt an identification.

Is there any good reason for assuming that these two couples had anything remotely to do with Miller's Court and the events therein? Absolutely not, and there is nothing in Lewis' testimony to even hint that they did. The only person in Lewis' account who had ANYTHING to do with Miller's Court, besides Lewis herself, was the solitary man standing near the lodging house who gave the impression of monitoring the court entrance.

All the best,
Ben

Excellent post Ben. I, like Abby, was entertaining BG as Astra but it's hard to bring them into the same frame...

Knowing how crazy and cruel people are, I feel it's likely there were characters on the streets with the specific purpose of frightening women and mimicking their idea of the ripper. Perhaps BG man was one such person

I remember a discussion of barber's (Chapman) carrying small parcels but I wonder really how common it was for people to be carrying small black bags around?

This may have circulated in the papers, produced copycats, and possibly even informed Hutch's description. People can be strange...



Greg

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

I often wonder about the woman who was talking to "the solitary man standing near the lodging house". She made a brief appearance in Sarah Lewis's original witness statement.

"Statement of Sarah Lewis No 34- Great Pearl Street Spitalfields, a laundress Between 2 and 3 o’clock this morning I came to stop with the Keylers, at No 2 Millers Court as I had had a few words with my husband, when I came up the Court there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street ['talking to a female' — deleted] but I cannot describe him."

At the inquest Sarah Lewis said, "When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him."

"There was no one talking to him." An odd remark, and it's hard to mistake one person for two [or vice versa] when Dorset Street was only twenty feet wide.

The woman appears to have been airbrushed out of the scenario.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

I'm rather perplexed at the creative interpretations and blank-filling being placed on Sarah Lewis' evidence.

She saw two entirely separate "couples". She passed the first of these outside the Britannia "near the market" even before she turned right into Dorset Street, and thought the male half of the couple might have been the Bethnal Green Road Botherer, aged about 40, from the previous Wednesday. The woman she did not describe. Lewis then turned onto Dorset Street where she noticed three people, a young man with a woman who "passed along" (i.e. Dorset Street), and a man on his own standing near the lodging house. That's a total of five separate individuals. Some people are trying to merge the two couples into one, which is plainly impossible. Lewis even specified "another young man and woman", i.e. in addition to the man and woman near the Britannia. The young man who passed along Dorset Street couldn't possibly ALSO be the 40-year-old man who was stationary outside the Britannia at the same time.

Not one of these five people were seen in the court by Lewis. She even specified "there was nobody in the court".

Is there any good reason for assuming that either of the women seen by Lewis was Kelly? Well no, not really. Neither the coroner nor the jury seemed to think so, or else they would have quizzed Lewis for further details of the woman's appearance. Perhaps more revealingly in this regard, there is no evidence that Lewis was ever requested to visit the morgue to attempt an identification.

Is there any good reason for assuming that these two couples had anything remotely to do with Miller's Court and the events therein? Absolutely not, and there is nothing in Lewis' testimony to even hint that they did. The only person in Lewis' account who had ANYTHING to do with Miller's Court, besides Lewis herself, was the solitary man standing near the lodging house who gave the impression of monitoring the court entrance.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
Totally agree. Eventhough I am entertaining the idea that Bethnal Green man (who i have to admit is a rather intriguing shady charactor) and A-man could possibly be the same person with Wicker, i find it highly unlikely and generally agree with yours and Garry's view.

[Abby Normal]

Just suppose for the minute that they were the same man.
Lewis leaves BG-man & woman, outside the Britannia while she walks down Dorset St.

Her story then shifts to seeing a man opposite Millers Court and a couple walking up the passage.
If we assume this is a continuous narrative then we would also assume the man up the passage (with a woman) is a different man from the one Lewis left outside the Britannia (BG), also with a woman.

Consider though, McCarthy's shop was open, it often closed about 3:00am. Lewis makes no mention of stepping into the shop, but it is not impossible that she did.
Afterall, Lewis is not telling a continuous story at the Inquest, she is providing answers to specific questions. Much may have happened that is ommitted.

If Lewis stepped into the shop, the same couple, BG-man & woman, followed down Dorset St. a minute or two behind her and walked up the passage.
Hutch follows and takes up his position opposite in Dorset St.

Lewis then steps out of the shop, looks across the road and sees the loiterer (Hutch?) for the first time looking up the court. Lewis also notices a man & woman in the shadows of the passage walking away from her.

If Lewis had been in the shop Mrs McCarthy might have remembered her?

(Quote)
Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”. Mrs McCarthy says she has been so worried by the shocking affair that she cannot now remember the customer who thus spoke to her.
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

McCarthy only remembers 'a customer' but not 'a lodger', whom she surely would have known by name. Whoever this late night visitor was Mrs McCarthy did not know her, and Lewis was not a lodger.
So was the customer Lewis?

This missing interlude, Lewis stepping into the shop, would explain the shift in narrative, first Lewis is ahead of BG-man & woman, then suddenly Lewis is behind a 'man' (BG?) & 'woman' (Kelly?).
Its a possible solution.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker
Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting, but frankly I find this version of how BG man and Aman could be one in the same rather convoluted. Better to just say that after seeing BG man and the woman that SL tarried somewhere nearby (not at McCarthys shop)long enough for BG/Aman, MK and Hutch to get "in front" of her. Would be more probable and simpler dont you think?

[Ben]

I'm rather perplexed at the creative interpretations and blank-filling being placed on Sarah Lewis' evidence.

She saw two entirely separate "couples". She passed the first of these outside the Britannia "near the market" even before she turned right into Dorset Street, and thought the male half of the couple might have been the Bethnal Green Road Botherer, aged about 40, from the previous Wednesday. The woman she did not describe. Lewis then turned onto Dorset Street where she noticed three people, a young man with a woman who "passed along" (i.e. Dorset Street), and a man on his own standing near the lodging house. That's a total of five separate individuals. Some people are trying to merge the two couples into one, which is plainly impossible. Lewis even specified "another young man and woman", i.e. in addition to the man and woman near the Britannia. The young man who passed along Dorset Street couldn't possibly ALSO be the 40-year-old man who was stationary outside the Britannia at the same time.

Not one of these five people were seen in the court by Lewis. She even specified "there was nobody in the court".

Is there any good reason for assuming that either of the women seen by Lewis was Kelly? Well no, not really. Neither the coroner nor the jury seemed to think so, or else they would have quizzed Lewis for further details of the woman's appearance. Perhaps more revealingly in this regard, there is no evidence that Lewis was ever requested to visit the morgue to attempt an identification.

Is there any good reason for assuming that these two couples had anything remotely to do with Miller's Court and the events therein? Absolutely not, and there is nothing in Lewis' testimony to even hint that they did. The only person in Lewis' account who had ANYTHING to do with Miller's Court, besides Lewis herself, was the solitary man standing near the lodging house who gave the impression of monitoring the court entrance.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I can echo Garry's points, and would defer also to the opinion of a qualified historian, Philip Sugden, who wisely cautioned:

“Our search for the facts about the murderr of Mary Kelly must discount the unsupported tattle of the Victorian press"

He is absolutely correct. We must. Because, for the most part, the "tattle" in question amounted to hearsay, and was often flatly refuted at the inquest when the more reliable, police-endorsed evidence was aired. It was also very sensationalist in nature, and tended to involve "well-dressed" individuals seen out and about wearing silk top hats(!). It's all complete nonsense, and probably borne - as the Star reporter suggested - of a desire on the part of a few Spitalfields residents to be "interesting".

Contrary to your suggestion, there is not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the evidence that appeared at the inquest was adjudged to be more reliable that the press puke that didn't, and with respect, I have never heard it suggested by anyone other than your good self, that the two should be considered equal in terms of investigative importance. We must be prepared to give some credit to the abilities of the contemporary police to separate the wheat from the chaff, and in the cases of Barnett, Cox, Lewis and the other inquest witnesses, it is clear that they were "vetted" for credibility when their police statements were taken, and passed. Conversely, the nonsense that appeared in the press around 10th November sank without trace before the inquest took place precisely because it didn't pass muster.

Should we really be surprised about this? No, of course not. Take "Sarah Roney" for example. There is no evidence that she had any communication with the press, let alone by the police. She was just a name passed along by yet another bogus-seeming witness who, tellingly, also didn't appear at the inquest either. Terrible provenance. Even worse, we have McCarthy's unidentified informant who claimed to have seen Kelly in the pub with a well-dressed man. This account was elsewhere attributed to Bowyer, and falsely so, because he told that inquest that he had last seen Kelly alive on Wednesday afternoon in the court, not in the pub. Here again, Sugden concludes: "...the story, as it stands, is worthless as evidence".

But you never seem to have anything critical to say about these and other tall tales, despite the wealth of criticism they invite. Indeed, you seem far more inclined to treat them as genuine sightings of Kelly and Jack the Ripper, which they're definitely not. The only witnesses you do criticise are the ones that were approved by the police - the ones who gave police statements and inquest evidence. I'll never understand this. You're now trying to cast doubt on Cox's evidence, purely because it wasn't wholly verified. Rest assured that a lack of verification is the least of the problems associated with Roney, Kennedy, Paumier and chums.

There is no reason to doubt the evidence of Mary Cox. She provided her police statement and inquest evidence, and there is no indication that she was later discredited. The "inconsistencies" that you mentioned are nothing of the kind. The cry of "murder" was obviously loud enough to attract the attention of her nearest neighbours, above and opposite (Prater and Lewis respectively), but no so loud as to reach the other end of the court, where Cox lived. There is absolutely no reason that she "had her times all wrong", and Prater's failure to mention any rain is neither here nor there. If she was standing under the arch waiting for her "man", there would be no reason for her to wear wet clothes, although given the likely extent of inebriation, that isn't so unlikely either.

We just have to adopt a critically selective approach to the evidence, just as the police did in 1888. Treating everything as gospel just because it can't be proven false, and regardless of its filthy or non-existent provenance, is irrefutably a flawed approach.

All the best,
Ben

[niko]

fact's and imagination.

Hi everyone, as we are debating "facts" correct me if I'm wrong, it is a "fact" that a knife with a twelve inch blade and black hilt,covered in dry blood with a hankerchief wrapped around the handle secured with a string, was found along the Whitechapel Road on October the 1st 1888, this is a "fact", the police said it and the newspaper's said it. Like someone posted on this thread, that what the police knew the newspaper's would know of, and vice versa.

Can anyone demostrate me the "fact" that the knife was an "actual" hoax and not a "possible" hoax.

Many newspaper report's discribe the finding of the knife and the actual knife itself, BUT there is little or nothing indicating that the blooded knife was a hoax. If the knife was defintely a hoax, why did'nt the newspaper's write this once they had found it out from the police, as they had done on previous ocassion's "if you know what I mean", OR did the police, really did not think it was a hoax.

I personally think the knife was a hoax, BUT I must addmit the three notches carved on the side of the handle and the human blood found on the knife are "getting me at it" and have seriouslly got me thinking, hmmmmm.

Can you imagine for one minute that you believe in what I say and that the knife I possess "IS" the Coram knife, and "YES" it was used in the Whitechapel murder's, can you imagine what that "COULD" mean!!

There goes my imagination again, "I love it", all the best, agur.

niko http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6kjQhVJ9Y

[Garry Wroe]

I thought I explained earlier why I brought up the Cox issue, not because I disbelieve her, but because you (and others) were so critical of "unverified" press reports being untrustworthy.

No, Jon. What this amounts to is that you adhere rigidly to certain views which cannot be supported by the available evidence. In order to sustain your position you cite ‘evidence’ that is nothing of the kind, and disregard any information that fails to conform to your premise. Thus you cite unsourced, uncorroborated and unreliable press reports that emerged in the in the immediate aftermath of Kelly’s death as ‘confirmation’ as to Kelly’s movements in the hours immediately preceding the Cox sighting, whilst at the same time sticking obdurately to the notion of Hutchinson as an honest and reliable witness. In order to compensate for the unsustainability of these arguments you then introduce other equally implausible elements such as the assertion that the Bethnal Green man was Astrakhan, that the Keylers were the Gallaghers, and that Sarah Lewis observed a couple entering Miller’s Court. As if this isn’t enough, you endeavour to maintain your argument by citing precisely the kind of press reports that you were only too happy to castigate just a few months ago.

There you go again, "overwhelming evidence" (exaggeration). No such thing.

More of the same, I’m afraid. The evidence that Hutchinson’s account was discredited by investigators is overwhelming, Jon. Or are you suggesting that Walter Dew got it wrong? Or indeed that Hutchinson was Anderson’s Jewish witness?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Questions.
Why did the police believe the velvet jacket, and bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained.?
Why did the police believe the murder happened in daylight.?
These are two points that have got to be looked at.
Why would the killer in Millers court, be concerned that these two items of clothing,were smeared with blood so needed to be burnt, in the case of the velvet jacket cut into pieces?
Was these items a clue to the T.O.D?, would these blooded clothes indicate a day time murder , rather then one occurring in the hours of darkness ie, night.
I open this for debate.
My view is as MJK was found wearing just a chemise, with the bedding rolled, and knowing that she had informed residents that she wished to attend the Lord mayors show , and the words of Mrs Harvey ,the previous evening'' I shall leave my bonnet then'', I would suggest that she was in the process of dressing when she encountered her killer , either by letting him in the room, or him entering by invitation ie ''come in '', and her black velvet jacket, and her bonnet were on the bed when attacked, and as a result of that were burnt, because the killer had the soundness of mind, to realize that the items now bloodstained if left where they were, would indicate that she was not killed during the hours of darkness, as leaving these clothes on the bed would indicate a daylight attack, which I believe it was.
Maxwell's sightings, seen talking to a stout man in plaid, may have been the man that killed Kelly. he would not want to be seen walking with her back along Dorset street , and into the passage in daylight, so he waited until she had returned to her room, she had informed the man of its location, an simply walked there by himself completely unnoticed , and entered the unlocked room.
So what led the police to believe my first two questions of this post.?
simply by being a good detective.....[like myself Ha ha]
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

If you read something of interest in the papers, the police will have jumped on it the next day. Conversely, if a witness gave a statement to the police, the press will report it the next day.
Either way, whatever we read in the press, the police knew about, and if they dismissed it, the press will often say so the same day or the following day.
This reality is overlooked by most people. Which is why press interviews with the public are so important and not to be discarded in some altruistic mission.

In other words, witness interviews in the press are a backdoor into some missing police records.

Which is precisely the opposite of what you argued last year, Jon, when insisting that press reports (especially those emanating from The Star) ought to be treated as unreliable. Your contention back then was that information that had emerged from police interviews and inquest hearings should always take precedence.

[Heinrich]

...
Anyway, we often forget the conditions that night when we read these accounts of the crime--but we should take the weather more into consideration. For example, it is quite unlikely that Mary would have removed all her clothing to go to sleep in those conditions, despite whatever fire she might have managed in the grate; it is much more logical that she disrobed with the intention of having sex.

This makes sense.

Also, I would like very much to know why everyone in the discussion of the Kelly murder takes the mythical cry of "murder" at circa 4 am so seriously. Two witnesses claimed to hear it, two other witnesses didn't. ...

What isn't mythical is the testimony of two witnesses' This could mean something.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

That cannot be an option because Lewis also saw a "couple" pass up the court, so whoever they were their presence confirms Hutchinson's observations.
Regards, Jon S.

You sure ? Or are you joking ?
I'm sure you are joking.

[Rya]

Well, if you're looking for a Ripper fact, here's one for you: the killer or killers had a great affection for inclement weather. As far as I can tell, all of the canonical murders, plus Tabram, occurred during or immediately after rainy weather. This may have been part of some psychic predisposition, or it may have been deliberate calculation (I'll let the organized/disorganized folks gnaw at that idea). Not that rainy weather is unusual in London during those parts of the year--or anytime--but the Fall of 1888 was apparently uncommonly warm and dry overall.

In any event, the weather on the evening of November 8/9 was simply terrible, with strong winds, heavy rain, and temperatures that dropped close to 0 Celsius. The rain continued until daybreak, after which it seemed to gradually abate to occasional light drizzle in the late morning. So when we consider the various testimony regarding what witnesses claimed to see and hear that night in the wee hours, we should bear in mind that the conditions for doing either were not good. Nobody would have been going out at all except in desperation, and the people hunkered down in those little unheated rooms were probably freezing half to death. Its a good explanation why they might have slept with all their clothes on (however damp), and why they might have ventured to the public houses as soon as such establishments opened for a bit of beer or rum--it was warmer there. Mary's wish for fine weather on Lord Mayor's Day did not come true.

Anyway, we often forget the conditions that night when we read these accounts of the crime--but we should take the weather more into consideration. For example, it is quite unlikely that Mary would have removed all her clothing to go to sleep in those conditions, despite whatever fire she might have managed in the grate; it is much more logical that she disrobed with the intention of having sex.

Also, I would like very much to know why everyone in the discussion of the Kelly murder takes the mythical cry of "murder" at circa 4 am so seriously. Two witnesses claimed to hear it, two other witnesses didn't. Perhaps the police should have taken a poll of everyone in the court. Oddly, more of them seemed to have heard the poor girl singing ballades a few hours earlier.