Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Legend Of Mary Jane Kelly

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

  • Seanr, Wickerman

    I always find the discussion of who saw what when at Miller's Court totally fascinating. I appreciate both your thoughts on this.

    My 2d:

    1. There are several sightings of someone at this and previous murder scenes as being "short and stout". I read "broad shouldered" as the same as stout.

    I believe short and stout matches Jack's physique.

    2. I believe the face carved on Abberline's walking stick belongs to Jack. His right eye is abnormal looking. Any reference to someone with "peculiar eyes" could be a reference to Jack.

    Not sure if this helps or hinders!

    Martyn

    Last edited by mpriestnall; 06-24-2021, 09:54 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seanr View Post

      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.
      You must look at the date of that report.
      Bowyer spoke of his encounter with this 'suspect' on the 14th, the "supposed murderer" on the 14th was Astrachan. Prior to Hutchinson coming forward on the 12th, and the description of this new suspect being published in the press on the 13th, no-one was aware of him.
      Therefore, even if Bowyer had mentioned the man to Abberline on the 9th (in his police statement). The observation did not appear relevant, as everyone believed Kelly had been murdered after 9:00am Friday morning.

      Here's another press quote:
      The Press Association:
      Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.

      Morning Advertiser, 14th Nov. 1888.

      Notice this is also reported on the 14th. Given the second interview with Bowyer is reported on the same day, it appears Scotland Yard had suddenly been given cause to re-interview the people who live or frequent Millers Court.
      Why would that be?
      The most significant event that occurred between the conclusion of the Inquest on Monday, and the publication of these re-interviews on Wednesday, was the publication of Hutchinson's story on Tuesday.
      Scotland Yard apparently had not pursued the possibility that Mary Kelly had been seen outside her room and in Dorset st. after 1:00am. The unexpected appearance of George Hutchinson, and his story of Kelly being in the company of a well-dressed man was total news to them causing them to go back and speak to all the witnesses again.

      So, it wasn't just Bowyer, as the report makes clear, the police obtained "statements from several persons" who now tell police information they should have known on the day of the murder.

      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?
      Different encounter, different night.
      Have you noticed this is the same night Sarah Lewis & Mrs Kennedy were accosted by that weirdo in Bethnal Green Road?
      Are you aware that Mrs Kennedy lived with her parents at No.2 Millers Court?
      The question might be asked if that Bethnal Green Man had not followed the girls (or Mrs Kennedy?) back to her home in Millers Court?
      Perhaps, this was the man Bowyer saw on that Wednesday night? Nothing to do with Astrachan.

      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'.
      It's possible a few people had time to reflect on what they may have seen & heard, yet didn't think to mention to police.


      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.
      It isn't unusual to find only one source for any report. It doesn't automatically mean the report is suspicious. You already quoted something from the Western Press, if I recall, yet that story is not to be found in London newspapers.
      The London press do not always have room for every report that comes across their desks, that's just a fact of business.

      5. Or the journalist may have misunderstood the claim about the Wednesday night sighting and moved it to Friday morning by mistake.
      You have examples of this kind of unintentional error?

      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).
      Are we feeling confrontational?
      I've already exposed one account of an assault on a woman near the Cambridge Music Hall that was totally invented, so you have no cause to challenge me as any supporter of Journalists credibility.

      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.
      The word that comes to mind is - "imaginative".

      I'll get back to this.... but let me make a final comment on Bowyer.

      If you have ever been to court you would know that as a witness you are expected to sit quiet and wait until you are called. Once called, and being sworn, you only answer questions posed to you, and nothing else. You then leave when told to do so.
      some people seem to think that when a witness appears in court they should be expected to ramble on and tell the court everything they saw & heard all night long. This is most certainly not the case, you speak when you are spoken to, and only answer questions you are given. Regardless of what else you know.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seanr View Post

        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.
        Four people, all report seeing a strange man, at the same place, at the same time, on the same night.
        And this is the best counter argument you can come up with?

        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seanr View Post

          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.
          Ah, you seem to think it makes a world of difference if there were only three sightings, and not four?
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seanr View Post

            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.
            Lewis didn't identify the woman, she says at the time she didn't know Mary Kelly. So to the court her sighting was of no consequence. Lewis say's she saw a man & a woman, who (as Hutch described) was the worse for drink, pass up the court, while the loiterer in Dorset street (Hutchinson) looked on.
            That in it's self is confirmation of Hutchinson. Abberline would have recognised that once he met with Hutchinson after the inquest.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seanr View Post

              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.
              If they didn't go indoor's, then where did they go?
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Four people, all report seeing a strange man, at the same place, at the same time, on the same night.
                And this is the best counter argument you can come up with?
                hi wick and sean
                been trying to keep up but help me out- who were the four people? whos the strange man? what time and what night?
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  If they didn't go indoor's, then where did they go?
                  So, if I am to follow your line of argument, when Reynold's newspaper reports that Sarah Lewis said the words 'there was no-one in the court', that is accurate reporting of what she said, and the only possible interpretation of her meaning is 'there were two people in the court, a man and a woman. The man was dressed unusually. They went into one of the buildings.'

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                    hi wick and sean
                    been trying to keep up but help me out- who were the four people? whos the strange man? what time and what night?
                    Thursday night/ Friday morning. The night of the Mary Kelly murder.

                    The four people are:

                    1) George Hutchinson - Astrakhan Man

                    2) Sarah Lewis - reports seeing a man and a woman. In some accounts a young (or rather young looking) man and a woman 'in drink'. Wickerman's position is that this can *only* have been Astrakhan Man and Mary Kelly going into No. 13 Miller's Court.

                    3) Thomas Bowyer - In a single Echo report from the 14th of November, Bowyer is quoted saying he saw a man who resembled the 'supposed murder' whilst going to and from the water tap in the court.

                    4) An unnamed customer of the shop who said to Mrs McCarthy 'I saw such a funny man up in the court this morning'. Mrs McCarthy forgot who this person was. From the same 14th of November Echo article.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                      Thursday night/ Friday morning. The night of the Mary Kelly murder.

                      The four people are:

                      1) George Hutchinson - Astrakhan Man

                      2) Sarah Lewis - reports seeing a man and a woman. In some accounts a young (or rather young looking) man and a woman 'in drink'. Wickerman's position is that this can *only* have been Astrakhan Man and Mary Kelly going into No. 13 Miller's Court.

                      3) Thomas Bowyer - In a single Echo report from the 14th of November, Bowyer is quoted saying he saw a man who resembled the 'supposed murder' whilst going to and from the water tap in the court.

                      4) An unnamed customer of the shop who said to Mrs McCarthy 'I saw such a funny man up in the court this morning'. Mrs McCarthy forgot who this person was. From the same 14th of November Echo article.
                      Thanks Sean

                      well aman according to wick was not the killler-so 1 and 2 are irrelevent. I thought you guys were talking about all the same man who could have been the killer.
                      i thought bowyer only said he was in the court that night but didnt see the killer, only saying he wish he had no?
                      number four is way to dodgy.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seanr View Post

                        So, if I am to follow your line of argument, when Reynold's newspaper reports that Sarah Lewis said the words 'there was no-one in the court', that is accurate reporting of what she said, and the only possible interpretation of her meaning is 'there were two people in the court, a man and a woman. The man was dressed unusually. They went into one of the buildings.'
                        That is what was reported in the Daily Telegraph (& Reynolds News), yes.
                        What other conclusion should we arrive at, they simply entered one of the rooms.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          Thanks Sean

                          well aman according to wick was not the killler-so 1 and 2 are irrelevent. I thought you guys were talking about all the same man who could have been the killer.
                          i thought bowyer only said he was in the court that night but didnt see the killer, only saying he wish he had no?
                          number four is way to dodgy.
                          It started out as identifying four sources who all claimed to see a man inside Millers Court on the same morning, around the same time. It isn't only Hutchinson's word, Lewis, Bowyer & some unnamed customer.

                          As you know, I'm not saying they all saw the killer, that is a different issue. Bowyer certainly thought he had seen the killer, but at 3:00am that is unlikely in my view, besides he admitted the man he saw fit the published description of the (assumed) killer.
                          Blotchy's description was never published, so it wasn't him. The Britannia-man's description was never published as the 'suspect' either.
                          Only Astrachan had his description published as the latest 'suspect', and as it was about 3:00am, and Bowyer doesn't mention seeing Kelly, the man was Astrachan and, he must have been leaving.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            If they didn't go indoor's, then where did they go?
                            Kelly was NOT the victim and I assume she didn't witness her stand-in's murder.

                            Then couldn't Aman place Kelly into, say, a pre-paid cabin at the Victorian Home, while Jack as Blotchy returned to give the stand-in the good news?



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              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.
                              "I saw such a funny man..."

                              Hi Jon,

                              I'm really struggling to imagine what seanr thinks was meant by that, if not the way the man was dressed. It was November, so he wasn't stripped to the waist and sporting budgie smugglers. 90% of what was on view would have been his attire. If he was wearing typical clothing for the time and place, what could have looked so funny about him? Two heads, perhaps? A bleached blond mullet? Clown's shoes?

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                It started out as identifying four sources who all claimed to see a man inside Millers Court on the same morning, around the same time. It isn't only Hutchinson's word, Lewis, Bowyer & some unnamed customer.

                                As you know, I'm not saying they all saw the killer, that is a different issue. Bowyer certainly thought he had seen the killer, but at 3:00am that is unlikely in my view, besides he admitted the man he saw fit the published description of the (assumed) killer.
                                Blotchy's description was never published, so it wasn't him. The Britannia-man's description was never published as the 'suspect' either.
                                Only Astrachan had his description published as the latest 'suspect', and as it was about 3:00am, and Bowyer doesn't mention seeing Kelly, the man was Astrachan and, he must have been leaving.
                                thanks wick

                                i thought bowyer only said he wish he had seen the man, not actually seeing some one correct? can you post the relevent article where he actually said he saw someone the night of marys murder?

                                so you think bowyer, lewis and of course hutch all saw aman, who in your opinion was not the killer-so who saw the killer(who youve said was the britannia man/bethnal green botherer) in millers court that night? just mrs McCarthys witness?
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X