The Legend Of Mary Jane Kelly

[seanr]

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.

[seanr]

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.'

[Abby Normal]

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?

[Wickerman]

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?

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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?

[Wickerman]

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?

[Wickerman]

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.

[mpriestnall]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.