The Legend Of Mary Jane Kelly

[seanr]

Agreed, it's just a shame Lewis was not close enough to describe the man.
Mrs McCarthy did say "such a funny man" was seen in the court this morning.
Bowyer saw a man in the court at 3:00am ("who's description tallies with that of the supposed murderer"), he described the man to Abberline. This was reported in the Echo, on the 14th. The only suspect in the papers on the 13th & 14th was Hutchinson's "Astrachan".
It would appear then that Bowyer had also confirmed Hutchinson's story in so far as how the man looked.
As Bowyer saw the man around 3:00am, but makes no mention of Kelly, it may be Bowyer had seen him leaving.

Sarah Lewis statement does not tally with Astrachan Man.

The 'funny man' mentioned by a customer to Mrs McCarthy, who she then was not able to remember who that customer was, is so vague that to suggest it confirms the description of Astrachan Man, stretches credulity past breaking point.

Bowyer remembering seeing a suspicious man in the court on the morning of the murder only after the inquest, seems pretty sketchy. I don't think this sighting can be considered reliable.

[rjpalmer]

Just to tie up this loose end. I found the report I mentioned above and during cross examination by by Mr J.O. Byrne at hearing in January 1883; when asked how old she was, Alice replied that she would be seventeen years of age next April. The Alice Carroll I traced was born 28 April 1866, meaning she would have turned seventeen in April 1883.
Derry Journal 29/01/83

Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap.

The unmistakable sound of a coffin nail.

[Debra A]

Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap.

The unmistakable sound of a coffin nail.

"Fingers crossed," she said, peering over the top of her half full Rosé tinted glasses.

[seanr]

Jersey Independent and Daily Telegraph - Saturday 17 November 1888

Officials from The Royal Irish Constabulary visiting Dorset Street.

[seanr]

Bowyer remembering seeing a suspicious man in the court on the morning of the murder only after the inquest, seems pretty sketchy. I don't think this sighting can be considered reliable.

Well, I stand corrected. There is an earlier report from the 12th November, in the Western Mail of Bowyer's sighting. He resembled Packer's man from Berner Street, apparently.

[Wickerman]

Sarah Lewis statement does not tally with Astrachan Man.

It was around 2:30am, she was likely walking some distance behind the couple.

This is from the Daily Telegraph:
"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

Then, from the Daily News, Lewis continues:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

So Sarah Lewis is walking along Dorset street, a man & woman are ahead of her. It's too dark for her to describe the man, but the female was "the worse for drink", and she had no hat on.
Mrs Cox had noticed earlier that night that Kelly was a bit drunk, and wore no hat.
Only when Lewis reached Millers Court could she see across the road that a man was standing opposite.

The 'funny man' mentioned by a customer to Mrs McCarthy, who she then was not able to remember who that customer was, is so vague that to suggest it confirms the description of Astrachan Man, stretches credulity past breaking point.

Sure, though some have said he was dressed funny for that part of town. How many fancily dressed men do we suppose entered Millers Court on Friday morning? We would hardly characterize Blotchy as that class of person.

Bowyer remembering seeing a suspicious man in the court on the morning of the murder only after the inquest, seems pretty sketchy. I don't think this sighting can be considered reliable.

I notice you have corrected yourself in a later post, it isn't so much what you say, but why you say it.
I mean, you call Bowyer's sighting 'sketchy' and 'unreliable', but why?
Why is it unreliable?
He also reported seeing a man "who fit the description of the suspect", in the court on Friday morning.
Why would he lie?
It isn't only one isolated report, there's four of them, they are all taken together - Sarah Lewis, Geo. Hutchinson, Tom Bowyer & Mrs. McCarthy's customer. They all saw a man, not your typical 'local', enter or within the court around the same time.

[Wickerman]

This is the Friday morning encounter, by Bowyer.

Echo, 14th Nov. 1888.

[seanr]

It was around 2:30am, she was likely walking some distance behind the couple.


This is from the Daily Telegraph:

"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

Then, from the Daily News, Lewis continues:

"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

So Sarah Lewis is walking along Dorset street, a man & woman are ahead of her. It's too dark for her to describe the man, but the female was "the worse for drink", and she had no hat on.

Mrs Cox had noticed earlier that night that Kelly was a bit drunk, and wore no hat.

Only when Lewis reached Millers Court could she see across the road that a man was standing opposite.

I feel like we’ve gone over this before and I know I’ll never convince that any other possibility than Sarah Lewis seeing Astrachan is in any way plausible.

But the official inquest papers give quite a different text to what she said:

”I know Mrs. Keyler in Miller's Court. I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning she lives at No.2 in the court on the left on the first floor I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it - When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the lodging house. He was not tall - but stout - had on a black wideawake hat - I did not notice his clothes - another young man with a woman passed along - the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out”

She was able to see enough of the man to assess he was young. ‘passed along’ suggests movement, someone passed her over was so far ahead of her in the dark she could not make out their details.

And Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday 18 November 1888 (amongst others) includes a line from her which runs counter to the version of events you cling to.



There was nobody in the court.

If I squint, really try to see it, I can just about make it work for Sarah Lewis to have seen astrachan man. But I have to be ignoring other versions, even the official version of her words - and ignoring the fact she was not questioned closely about this man, as she surely should have been had she told police she had seen a couple in the court at that time. Therefore, I lack your 100% certainty and don't believe I should ever acquire it on the basis of this evidence. On balance, I consider it unlikely the [young] man and woman Sarah Lewis says she saw were Astrachan Man and Mary Kelly. I think it is reasonable, even sensible, to consider other possibilities.

[seanr]

Sure, though some have said he was dressed funny for that part of town. How many fancily dressed men do we suppose entered Millers Court on Friday morning? We would hardly characterize Blotchy as that class of person.

'some have said he was dressed funny...' who said? Where? Do you have a source other than the Echo article, a source where more detail than being 'funny' is given? There isn't a word about how the man was dressed.



This is the only version of this story I'm aware of. The Echo, 14th of November, 1888. You cannot seriously be arguing this supports the case for Astrachan Man. Or indeed anything much. It's vague tittle-tattle.

[Wickerman]

I feel like we’ve gone over this before and I know I’ll never convince that any other possibility than Sarah Lewis seeing Astrachan is in any way plausible.

But the official inquest papers give quite a different text to what she said:

”I know Mrs. Keyler in Miller's Court. I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning she lives at No.2 in the court on the left on the first floor I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it - When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the lodging house. He was not tall - but stout - had on a black wideawake hat - I did not notice his clothes - another young man with a woman passed along - the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out”

She was able to see enough of the man to assess he was young. ‘passed along’ suggests movement, someone passed her over was so far ahead of her in the dark she could not make out their details.

And Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday 18 November 1888 (amongst others) includes a line from her which runs counter to the version of events you cling to.



There was nobody in the court.

Right, so why question it?
Hutchinson did not say Kelly & Astrachan stayed outside, in the court did he?
They went indoors right? - so, was there anyone in the court, yes or no?

If I squint, really try to see it, I can just about make it work for Sarah Lewis to have seen astrachan man. But I have to be ignoring other versions, even the official version of her words -

There is no "official version".
We have the court version which was recorded in abbreviated form because it was taken down in long-hand.
Alternately, we have several press versions taken down in shorthand, so providing longer accounts, and include details not captured by the court recorder. Yet these press versions have been edited down because the fact Lewis saw a man & woman walking down Dorset street was of no importance on the day of the inquest.
This detail only became important after Hutchinson came forward and spoke of Kelly meeting a man and they both went back to her room.

[Wickerman]

'some have said he was dressed funny...' who said? Where? Do you have a source other than the Echo article, a source where more detail than being 'funny' is given? There isn't a word about how the man was dressed.



This is the only version of this story I'm aware of. The Echo, 14th of November, 1888. You cannot seriously be arguing this supports the case for Astrachan Man. Or indeed anything much. It's vague tittle-tattle.

The issue only came up because modern theorists have taken the position that no-one else saw a strangely dressed man in the court that night.
The four accounts taken together testify that position is not true.

[seanr]

I notice you have corrected yourself in a later post, it isn't so much what you say, but why you say it.

I mean, you call Bowyer's sighting 'sketchy' and 'unreliable', but why?

Why is it unreliable?

He also reported seeing a man "who fit the description of the suspect", in the court on Friday morning.

Why would he lie?

You've done a wonderful job of providing the reasons why I should reject my previous correction. Amongst the reasons for thinking the story from the 14th of November Echo article is sketchy was the story had not been mentioned before. Stumbling on a report where what would appear to be the same sighting from the 12th caused me to doubt. However, as you've ably pointed out (thank you!), this sighting was from the Wednesday night and not the Friday morning.

Let's count the ways in which the Echo report of Bowyer's words (and not Bowyer's testimony) is sketchy.

1. If Bowyer saw a man in the court who tallies with the supposed murderer, he surely should have mentioned it sooner. He surely should have offered it, and been questioned about it at the inquest. Didn't and wasn't.

2. Bowyer had previously reported seeing a man whose appearance matched the supposed Berner Street murderer on the Wednesday night. Did he see a different man looking like the supposed murderer on the Friday, too?

3. Enough time may have passed since the murder and his testimony for this claim to be a post-rationalisation. A possibility which is given credence by the inclusion of a 'hero-me' narrative line like 'if I had known he was there, I don't reckon he'd of got off'.

4. The only source for this Friday morning sighting is the Echo, 14th of November. There's no official police statement containing this which we know of. He could have been blagging to the journalist.

5. Or the journalist may have misunderstood the claim about the Wednesday night sighting and moved it to Friday morning by mistake.

6. Or the journalist didn't make a mistake, it was a deliberate moving of the sighting to make better copy. (Deny this ever happens, go on, do it).

7. Or the editor made the mistake/ enhanced the copy.

That's before we even get into the reality that witnesses can often be mistaken or have their own motivations leading them to not be entirely truthful.

Sketchy.

Sarah Lewis, Geo. Hutchinson, Tom Bowyer & Mrs. McCarthy's customer. They all saw a man, not your typical 'local', enter or within the court around the same time.

Nope, no. No and no. Sarah Lewis did not report seeing a man, and certainly not 'not your typical local' enter or within the court. Nonsense.

George Hutchinson *might* not be reliable.

Thomas Bowyer originally saw a man, not your typical local with Mary Kelly on Wednesday night, but if you take the second sighting then he saw not your typical man on the Thursday night / Friday morning in the Echo, then he saw two not your typical locals who looked like murderers. Although not the same man or he would surely have said so. Interesting to see distinct 'not your typical man' on sequential nights. How often does one see these unusual men? And just how peculiar were their eyes? Peculiar eyes, must be the murderer. The eyes prove it.

Mrs McCarthy's customer may not have even existed. If she did, there might be any number of ways of interpreting the word 'funny'. And even if he did look ‘funny’ doesn’t mean he’s the murderer or even that he’s Astrachan Man.

[seanr]

The issue only came up because modern theorists have taken the position that no-one else saw a strangely dressed man in the court that night.
The four accounts taken together testify that position is not true.

No, they don't. For goodness sake man, quote a source which demonstrates Mrs McCarthy's customer saw a 'strangely dressed man' or admit your projecting that onto a tiny piece of anecdotal nonsense.

[seanr]

the fact Lewis saw a man & woman walking down Dorset street was of no importance on the day of the inquest.

Doesn't negate your point? If she saw Mary Kelly with a man in Miller's Court, then that would be of importance on the day of the inquest.

It wasn't of import, because she didn't. She did not see Astrachan Man.

[seanr]

Right, so why question it?
Hutchinson did not say Kelly & Astrachan stayed outside, in the court did he?
They went indoors right? - so, was there anyone in the court, yes or no?

What? Are you clutching at straws here?

So, what you're saying now is as Sarah Lewis went into Miller's Court, Astrachan Man and Mary Kelly were in front of her with George Hutchinson behind her. But she stated no-one was in the court because the people in the court, went indoors???

You'd be on more solid ground arguing that the Reynold's report got it wrong.