Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    For what it's worth, I believe the ELA 17 Nov description of Julia Vanturney as a German could well be a misreporting of her saying she was a charwoman, as other papers report.
    You may be right Joshua, her maiden name was Cook, born in Kensington, c.1841.
    https://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w...Venturney.html
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
      ... Considering Sarah Lewis was a young lone female at the height of the Ripper scare and had just seen a creep who had accosted her and her friend two nights before I would say she would have been hurrying along at a decent pace.
      Yes, quite likely. She did say in her testimony that she was frightened as she passed the man. So hurrying along is quite conceivable, and when your mind is occupied as hers would be she isn't paying much attention to others in the street.

      ... Abberline in my opinion probably went into the room with Hutch thinking 'here we go again'......
      All of us in this forum wouldn't have one millionth of the knowledge Abberline had even if all knowledge was put together. He knew the streets. The people. The workings of the society. Could he have bedn duped? Of course he could but it is extremely unlikely such an experienced and fine detective would have been.
      You've certainly put a great deal of thought into this question, which is encouraging. I like your practical approach.

      I think AK man was the killer but Brittania man is certainly worthy of more interest. He could be the killer hiding in plain sight and mentioned in a witness statement that most people were more interested in whether the loiterer was George Hutchinson. It is that type of case isn't it.
      Given the Jewish businesses throughout the East end; sweatshops, tailors, furniture, pawnshops, moneylenders, etc. Seeing a well dressed Jew in the streets like Astrachan is not so surprising as some try to argue.

      Could he have been a target for a mugging?, people were mugged all the time, yet they continue to wear their finery in public, day or night. The frequent belief "It'll not happen to me" is not limited to our day.
      I just can't see a man being shadowed (he must have known Hutch was following them), going on to murder the woman he was seen with.

      If it wasn't for Kennedy's statement, we would have no other option but to regard Astrachan as the prime suspect.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
        Charging interest with a tenant who could be gone at any moment (no real possessions to pack?), maybe more like wishful thinking if you can't get what is owed in the first place.
        Just as Trevor has reminded us, rents are got as best you can.
        Hi Abby, I know i have mentioned this before but i have often wondered if Wideawake man was someone [not Hutch], keeping an eye on the court for McCarthy in case Mary, [possibly others] did do a moonlit flit. Especially since it was rent day the next morning.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          Yes, quite likely. She did say in her testimony that she was frightened as she passed the man. So hurrying along is quite conceivable, and when your mind is occupied as hers would be she isn't paying much attention to others in the street.



          You've certainly put a great deal of thought into this question, which is encouraging. I like your practical approach.



          Given the Jewish businesses throughout the East end; sweatshops, tailors, furniture, pawnshops, moneylenders, etc. Seeing a well dressed Jew in the streets like Astrachan is not so surprising as some try to argue.

          Could he have been a target for a mugging?, people were mugged all the time, yet they continue to wear their finery in public, day or night. The frequent belief "It'll not happen to me" is not limited to our day.
          I just can't see a man being shadowed (he must have known Hutch was following them), going on to murder the woman he was seen with.

          If it wasn't for Kennedy's statement, we would have no other option but to regard Astrachan as the prime suspect.


          I agree that only for Kennedy Astrachan man is the only real suspect. But was Kennedy really Sarah Lewis or someone copying her story. The jury is out on that for me though I know many are convinced there is no chance they were two different women. Brittania man remains a person of interest to me precisely because I can't answer if Kennedy and Lewis were the same or not.

          Thank you Wickerman. Yes reading these forums I thought to myself- Abberline doesn't get anywhere near as much respect as he should. He was a top quality detective. He just didn't have fingerprinting or DNA or CCTV or anything else to work with. Looking at it as an historian the chances of hunting down the Ripper without these was always going to be incredibly difficult. A man with 85 commendations on retirement will know the lighting situation on the streets I am quite sure and he will also be well aware of what it was possible for people to be wearing or not wearing in localities. He believed Hutch and for that reason I do too.


          I actually like your idea on Lewis seeing Astrachan and Kelly. So she is hurrying along and comes to Dorset street. She sees a man and woman further ahead. They pass up the court. She continues on a little bit frightend and apprehensive and on the other side of the street her eye catches a dark figure looking up the court. She hurries along as she is almost at her destination. Tries to ignore the strange man(can you blame her) and goes into Mrs Keylers. Hmmmmm it sort of fits.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
            I agree that only for Kennedy Astrachan man is the only real suspect. But was Kennedy really Sarah Lewis or someone copying her story.
            The press did expose a few women who chose to copy the 'cry of murder' story, but as is often the case with copy-cats like this, they get details wrong. The times they said they heard the cry were all over the place. It's not difficult to weed out such false claims, the press demonstrated that.
            People did make false claims, the police knew it and the press knew it. So both were on the lookout for deceptive stories.

            Sarah Lewis did not share her story over the weekend, there are no published accounts before the inquest. So where would Kennedy, or any copycat get to know these two stories?
            There was nothing available in written form to memorize, so having Kennedy as a copycat already on Saturday morning is laughable.

            Mrs Kennedy was telling her side of events in the Saturday morning papers, before anyone knew of Sarah Lewis.
            Then again, if Lewis was Kennedy, how come her story changed between Saturday and the Monday?

            First (as Kennedy) she claims to pass the Britannia about 3:00, and saw two women talking to a man. One woman was Mary Kelly.
            Then (as Lewis) at the inquest she changed the time to 2:30, and only one woman talking to a man, but then invents this loiterer opposite Millers court?
            All the while, some stranger comes forward on the same day and claims to be that 'invented'? loiterer.
            Does that really make sense to anyone?

            The press even reported that Kennedy was interviewed by Abberline. Could this Mrs Kennedy deceive Abberline, where Hutchinson couldn't? He already spoke to Lewis, I'm sure he could tell if he was talking with the same woman.

            Lewis & Kennedy had to be separate women.
            Last edited by Wickerman; 12-31-2018, 02:45 PM.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              The press even reported that Kennedy was interviewed by Abberline.
              ALL the press?
              Lewis & Kennedy had to be separate women.
              Two separate women don't decide to up-stumps and decamp to a relative/friend's room located in tiny Miller's Court, at roughly the same time of night, and report almost identical experiences throughout.

              For a man whose opinions I value, Jon, your ongoing belief in "Kennedy" continues to mystify me.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                The press did expose a few women who chose to copy the 'cry of murder' story, but as is often the case with copy-cats like this, they get details wrong. The times they said they heard the cry were all over the place. It's not difficult to weed out such false claims, the press demonstrated that.
                People did make false claims, the police knew it and the press knew it. So both were on the lookout for deceptive stories.

                Sarah Lewis did not share her story over the weekend, there are no published accounts before the inquest. So where would Kennedy, or any copycat get to know these two stories?
                There was nothing available in written form to memorize, so having Kennedy as a copycat already on Saturday morning is laughable.

                Mrs Kennedy was telling her side of events in the Saturday morning papers, before anyone knew of Sarah Lewis.
                Then again, if Lewis was Kennedy, how come her story changed between Saturday and the Monday?

                First (as Kennedy) she claims to pass the Britannia about 3:00, and saw two women talking to a man. One woman was Mary Kelly.
                Then (as Lewis) at the inquest she changed the time to 2:30, and only one woman talking to a man, but then invents this loiterer opposite Millers court?
                All the while, some stranger comes forward on the same day and claims to be that 'invented'? loiterer.
                Does that really make sense to anyone?

                The press even reported that Kennedy was interviewed by Abberline. Could this Mrs Kennedy deceive Abberline, where Hutchinson couldn't? He already spoke to Lewis, I'm sure he could tell if he was talking with the same woman.

                Lewis & Kennedy had to be separate women.
                The change in story is significant. I agree there. Certainly if Kennedy and Lewis were friends and after a fight with her husband Lewis decides to take solace at her friends house then it makes sense that she would go to Mrs Kennedy. I often wondered how old the Keylers were. Lewis states at the inquest she knows Mrs Keyler. Would it therefore be safe to say she was seeking solace from Keyler. The fact that Brittania man is seen by both is not a significant similarity insofar as only a half hour had passed from Lewis sighting until Kennedys. There is another problem though. If there were two women talking to Brittania man and one was Mary Kelly then who was the other woman and a) why wasnt she at the inquest and b) why no further mention of her anywhere at anytime? In regards Lewis Why did people change their name when talking to the press? What would be her motive? Did the Police tell Lewis- dont speak to the Press but she did anyways and then tried to hide it by changing her name, a 30 minute period and adding an extra person with Brittania man. Did she get a few quid for the statement to the Press? I don't rule out Lewis and Kennedy being different women but I am not convinced they were the same either.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  ALL the press?Two separate women don't decide to up-stumps and decamp to a relative/friend's room located in tiny Miller's Court, at roughly the same time of night, and report almost identical experiences throughout.

                  For a man whose opinions I value, Jon, your ongoing belief in "Kennedy" continues to mystify me.

                  Sam Hi there,

                  I am confused here- did Kennedy also say she had upped stumps and decamped from elsewhere and ended up in Millers Court?

                  Comment


                  • Hello SD
                    Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
                    I am confused here- did Kennedy also say she had upped stumps and decamped from elsewhere and ended up in Millers Court?
                    According to the most widely carried report: "A woman named Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house in the court... About three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset street on her way to her parents' house."

                    The implication being that she'd arrived at her parents' "house" from somewhere else. Whether she'd decamped from elsewhere isn't explicitly stated but, even if that weren't the case, we've got the rest of her story - and its parallels to Lewis's - to explain.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      The "wretched locality" is the court, not the whole street.
                      the lodging-house (like Crossinghams) across the road had kitchens, they had to in order to be registered. Water was supplied to houses mostly accessed in the back yards. The water tap was for No.27 & 26, as those rented units were added long after the houses were built.

                      Scrubbing down, a chore always done at closing time.
                      I see. On the strength of the news report, Bowyer was certainly working in the shop at 27 Dorset Street and entering the courtyard through the backdoor, not entering Dorset Street and possibly not seeing Hutchinson - but might some part of Dorset Street be visible through the covered passage? - perhaps he saw Hutchinson as he stood watching the court?

                      I struggle to picture how Bowyer could have seen Astrakhan man, as Astrakhan would have arrived with Mary Kelly - and Bowyer stated he had not seen MJK since Wednesday. It would surely be notable if he saw a man with MJK.
                      So when could he have seen Astrakhan? - as he was leaving 13 Miller's Court? - surely this would have been extremely significant, too.

                      So when would Astrakhan have been around to be seen in the early hours of Friday by Bowyer?
                      On the balance of likelihood, given how long Hutchinson stood around to be seen, it may actually be more probable that Bowyer saw Hutchinson. Hutchinson stood around for 45 minutes acting suspiciously where he could easily be seen.

                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      Is it also strange that McCarthy makes no mention of forcing the door with the pick?

                      If you ever find yourself at an inquest or a trial, you will see that a witness only responds to specific questions. If they are not asked, they will not tell.
                      It's really that simple.
                      I'm not as confident of this as you and here's why. The coroner specifically asked Sarah Lewis 'Have you seen any suspicious persons in the district?'
                      I doubt the coroner just happened to ask this question of Lewis and was following up / exposing to the jury a matter Lewis had previously mentioned to the police. The questioning of Prater, Cox and Lewis specifically seems to be aimed at establishing what people were seen in and around Miller’s Court that night.
                      Yet Bowyer who worked in the shop at 27 Dorset Street through to 3AM, made several trips to get water in the courtyard through the night and now says he saw a man who looked like ‘the murderer’ somewhere in the early hours of the Friday morning, is not asked any questions about Thursday night/ Friday morning.

                      Seems like there might be a reason why he is not asked about this. One of the reasons could be that he’s not mentioned it before.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        Hello SD
                        According to the most widely carried report: "A woman named Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house in the court... About three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset street on her way to her parents' house."

                        The implication being that she'd arrived at her parents' "house" from somewhere else. Whether she'd decamped from elsewhere isn't explicitly stated but, even if that weren't the case, we've got the rest of her story - and its parallels to Lewis's - to explain.

                        I see. Yes especially the 'staying' at her parents is significant as well- staying there so she was not permanent there but somewhere she was 'staying'. Just like Lewis who was 'staying' at Mrs Keylers. So in that case Lewis is really Kennedy using a false name to the press with a slight change in story- no loiterer, 3am and not 2:30 am she passed the Brittania and 2 women with Brittania man not one. How do we explain those differences though?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
                          I see. Yes especially the 'staying' at her parents is significant as well- staying there so she was not permanent there but somewhere she was 'staying'. Just like Lewis who was 'staying' at Mrs Keylers. So in that case Lewis is really Kennedy using a false name to the press with a slight change in story- no loiterer, 3am and not 2:30 am she passed the Brittania and 2 women with Brittania man not one. How do we explain those differences though?
                          There's a whole host of possible explanations for the discrepancies. My guess is that Kennedy was a bullshitter who picked up Lewis's story 2nd or 3rd hand and passed it off as her own, with embellishments. Alternatively, if Lewis and Kennedy were one and the same, then she could have been embellishing in her own right, leading to inconsistencies in her story; more innocuously, she might genuinely have remembered some things differently on the day after the murder than she would at the inquest.

                          Over all this we also have any errors, exaggerations and misunderstandings that might have been thrown into the mix by the press and the jungle grapevine.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            ......Two separate women don't decide to up-stumps and decamp to a relative/friend's room located in tiny Miller's Court, at roughly the same time of night, and report almost identical experiences throughout.
                            As you know, we are not told why Kennedy came home at that hour.

                            Kennedy may have finished work and normally arrived home between 2-3:00.
                            Given their Wednesday evening stories, at least that told by Kennedy, they seem to be acting like casual prostitutes (the man refused to stand them a drink?).

                            Lewis does not tell us what she argued with her hubby about, was the reason embarrassing?.
                            It could have been this very act of casual prostitution.
                            Perhaps, this is why Lewis was not out with her friend that Friday morning (like she was on Wednesday)?
                            Did Lewis wait for hubby to fall asleep in a chair, or leave for work on a night shift?
                            Knowing her friend normally stopped soliciting around 2-3:00, Lewis left home to be with her friend & family, because of the aggravation she had been getting at home?

                            There's no shortage of reasonable possibilities to fill in the blanks.

                            The respect Gareth, is entirely mutual.
                            Which is why I fail to understand why you basically dismiss any potential reason for two women, professed friends, to meet up one night.
                            It would be a different matter if the reason's they gave made no sense, but Lewis only provides half her story & Kennedy no reason at all.
                            So, on what basis is there to dismiss their claims?

                            I hope you do accept the Wednesday evening encounter did involve two women?
                            If so, then where is the second account if it is not by Mrs Kennedy?
                            It's not like there are several women all coming forward making the same claim. It's a story involving two women, and we have two women telling their story.

                            Once you accept these two women were friends, then the Friday morning encounter is less of a problem.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              Once you accept these two women were friends, then the Friday morning encounter is less of a problem.
                              What remains a problem is that two women - whether friends or not - independently decided to head for Miller's Court to stay with family/friends at broadly similar times, reported almost identical experiences on that night, and ensconced themselves in a room directly opposite Kelly's, in which they both happened to be awake and alert at precisely the right time to hear the cry of "Murder!".
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
                                The change in story is significant. I agree there. Certainly if Kennedy and Lewis were friends and after a fight with her husband Lewis decides to take solace at her friends house then it makes sense that she would go to Mrs Kennedy. I often wondered how old the Keylers were. Lewis states at the inquest she knows Mrs Keyler. Would it therefore be safe to say she was seeking solace from Keyler.
                                Yes, it all sounds perfectly reasonable.

                                We have no idea how old the Keyler's were, but both Lewis & Kennedy describe the Britannia-man as "about 40". Yet both also call him a "young man". This may simply be an expression of etiquette because he was of a higher class than they were.
                                Or, both Lewis & Kennedy may have been older than he looked?
                                Who knows...

                                [Note: the Sarah Lewis discovered by Chris Scott seems to have been about 23 years old in 1888, though I am led to believe this identification is now being questioned?]

                                There is another problem though. If there were two women talking to Brittania man and one was Mary Kelly then who was the other woman and a) why wasnt she at the inquest and b) why no further mention of her anywhere at anytime?
                                Your point a), I don't see as a problem. It could be this woman was the intended victim that night, and she got away (she apparently left).
                                The police need a name to trace her, and to be summoned to the inquest.

                                In regards Lewis Why did people change their name when talking to the press? What would be her motive?
                                It was very common to use a different name, sometimes just an alternate first name, sometimes just change the second name. Sometimes both.
                                Annie Farmer always used "Smith" when she went to the infirmary.
                                Mrs Long (Chapman case) used Durrell/Darrell, when talking to the press. Then again we have Bowyer referred to in the press as either Thomas, Tom, Harry, Henry or John.

                                Did the Police tell Lewis- dont speak to the Press but she did anyways and then tried to hide it by changing her name, a 30 minute period and adding an extra person with Brittania man. Did she get a few quid for the statement to the Press? I don't rule out Lewis and Kennedy being different women but I am not convinced they were the same either.
                                The police did caution a witness not to talk about their experience. We find what Mrs Prater said to the press on the weekend is contradicted by her testimony at the inquest, so she left out critical details in the press.
                                I have a couple of direct quotes where the police have told witnesses not to talk. Joshua also came up with one he sent me on P.M. some time ago.
                                Witnesses still talked
                                But, the intent was there.

                                The press might have offered a few pennies, or bought a witness a drink, but nothing much. It would all depend on the story.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X