Help On Some Details

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

Was it this one from the Morning Advertiser 10 Nov. Jon?

"Mrs. M'Carthy, the landlady, might easily have seen the murderer as he passed out of the court, but she observes a strict reticence, having apparently been cautioned by the police."

[Wickerman]

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.

As it was three o'clock, we might assume he saw Astrachan leaving. Precisely because Bowyer does not mention seeing Kelly.

This is all speculation of course, but if he saw someone, and using the established timeline, it had to be Astrachan.

Hutchinson does say he walked up the court to look in her window, he stood listening, then left to stand in Dorset St.
So, it is possible Bowyer saw Hutchinson and not Astrachan, but the time Hutch was in the court had to be long before 3:00, because he says he left Dorset street at 3:00, yet he had been standing there a while before he left.
Which leaves us with Astrachan, as the only reasonable candidate.

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?'

That was a leading question.
Remember, the statement given to police by the witness (on Friday) is what the coroner uses to begin his series of questions. He is holding her statement in his hands.
In this case the coroner knew Lewis had seen a suspicious looking man, which is why it was a leading question.

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.

Thats just what he was doing.

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.

Bowyer's contribution was how he discovered the body. This is why he was called to the inquest. The question "when did you last see the victim alive?" was a spontaneous question by the coroner put to most witnesses, or most of them provided that answer by themselves. It's a basic question required of any witness who lived nearby.

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.

Right, Bowyer didn't mention it to police when he was interviewed on the Friday. But, as I have pointed out before, the most prevalent rumors on the day of the murder was that Kelly was murdered after 9:00 Friday morning.
Which is why Maxwell was called as a witness, they also had Kennedy's statement suggesting Kelly was out around 3:00 am.

The likelyhood of the murder being committed in the early hours of Friday morning only transpired slowly over the weekend. Which was after Bowyer had given his statement.

I believe it was Hutchinson's story that prompted the police to return to Millers Court to see if they could find any corroboration for the story Hutch had given them. This is when Bowyer must have described the man he saw at 3:00., and it appeared in the papers the next day (14th).

[Joshua Rogan]

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?).

That was my thought too Jon, about that line. He also "refused to leave his bag in the possession of one of the women" in one version, but another says he put it down and Mrs Kennedy picked it up. It's only at this point - after they'd accompanied him down a dark alley - that they noticed the "unnatural glare" in his eyes. It's possible he was rightly fearful that the pair were trying to hustle him.

...dismiss any potential reason for two women, professed friends, to meet up one night.

Well, Lewis says they were friends, Mrs Kennedy says she was with her sister, a widow.

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.

There's also the similar story told by Mrs Paumier and Sarah Roney, involving three women;

"Mrs. Paumier stated further that the same man accosted three women whom she knows on Thursday night, and that they chaffed him and asked what he had in the bag, and he replied, "Something that the ladies don't like." Mrs. Paumier told her story with every appearance of truthfulness. One of the three young women she named, Sarah Roney, a girl about 20 years of age, corroborates her statement."

[Sunny Delight]

Some really interesting perspectives and ideas here. So Brittania man actually may have felt he was being 'hustled' by the women. Isn't there a report that the man was apprehended by a passer by as well? To be back on the street two nights later apparantly accosting females again is important. It didn't put him off. Also there seems to be confusion as Lewis states she was with a friend whilst Mrs Kennedy was with her sister- a widow. We will never know if they were different women- Wickerman makes a good case they are. For me I don't think so though nothing can be discounted. However if Kennedy did exist- and what she saw was the truth then Brittania man has been criminally under valued as a key suspect in the case. I am trying to come up with a scenario where Brittania man is the Ripper and murdered Kelly.

[Wickerman]

Was it this one from the Morning Advertiser 10 Nov. Jon?

"Mrs. M'Carthy, the landlady, might easily have seen the murderer as he passed out of the court, but she observes a strict reticence, having apparently been cautioned by the police."

Hi Joshua.

Actually it was this:

"The news of the tragedy spread like wildfire, and soon every street was blocked near the locality - Wentworth-street Middlesex-street, and White's-row-street - were excited groups of bystanders living in the immediate vicinity could not for sometime form the faintest conjecture as to who the victim was, for the police gave peremptory instructions to everyone not to allude to the circumstances in the faintest way."
Echo, 9 Nov.

[Wickerman]

Well, Lewis says they were friends, Mrs Kennedy says she was with her sister, a widow.

Yes, that difference has always been a point of contention. Yet, in 19th century terminology a close female friend was referred to as "sister", according to a 19th century dictionary.



Very unnatural to us in our day, but there are several examples of words having different applications a century ago.
Most people today would not refer to 8:30-9:00pm as being the "afternoon", but the Victorians did. Evening & Afternoon were synonymous.

There's also the similar story told by Mrs Paumier and Sarah Roney, involving three women;

"Mrs. Paumier stated further that the same man accosted three women whom she knows on Thursday night, and that they chaffed him and asked what he had in the bag, and he replied, "Something that the ladies don't like." Mrs. Paumier told her story with every appearance of truthfulness. One of the three young women she named, Sarah Roney, a girl about 20 years of age, corroborates her statement."

The description given by Paumier is similar to the Britannia-man.

[Sunny Delight]

Yes, that difference has always been a point of contention. Yet, in 19th century terminology a close female friend was referred to as "sister", according to a 19th century dictionary.



Very unnatural to us in our day, but there are several examples of words having different applications a century ago.
Most people today would not refer to 8:30-9:00pm as being the "afternoon", but the Victorians did. Evening & Afternoon were synonymous.



The description given by Paumier is similar to the Britannia-man.

I am nearly certain I read somewhere on another forum that Mrs. Paumier actually had relatives by the name Kennedy. What if Mrs Paumier is really Mrs Kennedy?

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Joshua.

Actually it was this:

"The news of the tragedy spread like wildfire, and soon every street was blocked near the locality - Wentworth-street Middlesex-street, and White's-row-street - were excited groups of bystanders living in the immediate vicinity could not for sometime form the faintest conjecture as to who the victim was, for the police gave peremptory instructions to everyone not to allude to the circumstances in the faintest way."
Echo, 9 Nov.

Thank you! I was sure I'd seen something more than the Mrs M'Carthy one, but couldn't locate it again. Should have looked in my out-tray.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, that difference has always been a point of contention. Yet, in 19th century terminology a close female friend was referred to as "sister", according to a 19th century dictionary.

I'm happy to believe sister could have been used in the close friend sense. Less comfortable accepting that a married woman would be described as a widow, even if she'd lost a previous husband.

The description given by Paumier is similar to the Britannia-man.

Quite. He was a busy chap apparently.

[Wickerman]

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......

Indeed there are a host of possibilities, though you seem to be intent on avoiding the more reasonable conclusions.

Copying, or parroting the story of someone else we will agree is not uncommon, and both the press & police were on the lookout for these deceptions.
The Wednesday story was not about one woman, it was about two.

If one woman told a story about being accosted, then another woman told a similar story. Clearly someone is lying, or parroting, because there was only one woman involved.
But there were two women involved!
So that assumption doesn't fly.

Several woman claimed to hear that cry of murder, the fake claims were exposed by the press, which was easy to do they couldn't even get the time right.

All that aside, you still have the problem of Mrs Kennedy being the first to talk to the press.
No story from Lewis was published before the inquest. And, as we can appreciate just how hungry reporters were for any juicy rumors. It isn't conceivable that these stories would go ignored by the London press, especially when we have such wayward rumors as Kelly being murdered upstairs, or her having a child, or her being murdered late in the morning.

Mrs Kennedy, speaking to the press on Saturday, had no story to copy, no story to learn. So you have to now invent a source out of thin air for which there is no factual basis. Then build your theory on that.

If the press can get wind of several claims of a cry of murder, how can they completely miss any equally false claims about a Wednesday & Friday morning encounter with a suspicious man?
The press even say there was only one source for this encounter, yet several for the cry of murder.
So they did have their ears to the ground.

Yet, rather than accept Kennedy was the 2nd woman, you choose to invent an unknown source for Kennedy to 'parrot' to the press?

Arn't we supposed to follow the evidence, not make up our own?

[Wickerman]

I am nearly certain I read somewhere on another forum that Mrs. Paumier actually had relatives by the name Kennedy. What if Mrs Paumier is really Mrs Kennedy?

If I'm not mistaken that association (a relative?) was posted by Debs, though in what context I can't remember.

[Debra A]

If I'm not mistaken that association (a relative?) was posted by Debs, though in what context I can't remember.

Hi Jon
The link was that Mrs Paumier's mother was first married to a man named Kennedy and had a family with him. Still progressing the research...slowly.

I am also the guilty party in questioning Chris Scott's Sarah Lewis identification I'm afraid. Despite the descendants claiming a link, the family that Chris Scott researched had no known links to Spitalfields and that Sarah Lewis had in fact recently given birth to a child at the family home in Mile End. The descendants got those details wrong as Robert Linford showed.

The Sarah Lewis I stumbled across was married in an apparent 'clean-up' operation by City Missionaries in the lodging houses of Spitalfields, highlighted by poster 'San Fran'. She was a Spitalfields regular doss house resident named Sarah Pike who married George Lewis in 1888, a short time before the murder in Miller's Court. I thought she somehow fitted better but I can't prove she is the right woman.

Sarah Lewis claimed she had a row with her husband on the night of the murder that caused her to go to Miller's Court in the early hours.

[Wickerman]

I'm happy to believe sister could have been used in the close friend sense. Less comfortable accepting that a married woman would be described as a widow, even if she'd lost a previous husband.

Yes, Mrs Kennedy described her friend Lewis as a "widow".
Yet Lewis herself indicates she had a husband.

We both know people who lived together often claimed to be married, we even read that with Kelly, and she was a widow too (assuming her story was true).
It all depends who is telling the story.
Legally speaking Kelly would have been a widow, regardless of her current claims.

The Sarah Lewis located by Chris Scott only claimed to be married to Joseph Gotheimer, yet they lived common-law until 1914, when they finally did get married.
I don't remember Chris mentioning if he looked for a marriage certificate for Sarah Lewis prior to 1888.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon
The link was that Mrs Paumier's mother was first married to a man named Kennedy and had a family with him. Still progressing the research...slowly.

I am also the guilty party in questioning Chris Scott's Sarah Lewis identification I'm afraid. Despite the descendants claiming a link, the family that Chris Scott researched had no known links to Spitalfields and that Sarah Lewis had in fact recently given birth to a child at the family home in Mile End. The descendants got those details wrong as Robert Linford showed.

The Sarah Lewis I stumbled across was married in an apparent 'clean-up' operation by City Missionaries in the lodging houses of Spitalfields, highlighted by poster 'San Fran'. She was a Spitalfields regular doss house resident named Sarah Pike who married George Lewis in 1888, a short time before the murder in Miller's Court. I thought she somehow fitted better but I can't prove she is the right woman.

Ah, terrific Debs, thankyou for the update.
I couldn't find your posts mentioning the details I vaguely recalled, so was treading gently

[Wickerman]

Some really interesting perspectives and ideas here. So Brittania man actually may have felt he was being 'hustled' by the women.

According to Kennedy, it would seem so.
Ever since the Chapman case the police had been cautioning prostitutes to walk around in pairs.

As far back as Sept. 10th, we read:
"The unfortunates who are the objects of the man-monster's malignity should be shadowed by one or two of the amateur patrols. They should be cautioned to walk in couples."

Even before that, Tabram & Pearly Poll stuck together, which didn't work out too well either.