The Legend Of Mary Jane Kelly

[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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

This is the Friday morning encounter, by Bowyer.

Echo, 14th Nov. 1888.

[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.

[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.

[seanr]

Jersey Independent and Daily Telegraph - Saturday 17 November 1888

Officials from The Royal Irish Constabulary visiting Dorset Street.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Debra A]

I do recall, but can't find it now, that Alice gave her exact age in her sworn testimony (x years and x months, or x months from her x birthday, something like that) it would be useful if anyone can find that again as Alice was born 28 April 1866 and this could then be compared. A more precise age other than about 17 was definitely given in one source at least.

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

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

If Hutch had only come forward because he had been seen loitering by Sarah Lewis [which is what some suspect theorists believe], he'd have been taking a risk if he gave a totally false description of the man with MJK, given that Lewis also saw the couple.

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[rjpalmer]

As I'm the proponent of the Mary Thomas theory which Martyn feels is a waste of time, I can assure you whilst it is pain-staking, I do believe I am making headway and producing good evidence is time-consuming. That's the nature of evidence versus theory.

If I was on the Emerald Isle, I'd bite the bullet, park myself in front of a microfilm reader, and go through the painful task of studying every page of every Limerick newspaper, 11 Nov 1888- 31 January 1889, and see if something hasn't been missed.

If there is a trace left to be found, I suspect it will be found locally, either in County Limerick or in Wales.

[caz]

I think that is less likely, Sarah Lewis saw Kelly with a man as Hutchinson looked on, so we know Astrachan was not an invention - he existed.
We could query whether the actual suspect was dressed so ostentatiously as Hutchinson described.

Hi Jon,

If Hutch had only come forward because he had been seen loitering by Sarah Lewis [which is what some suspect theorists believe], he'd have been taking a risk if he gave a totally false description of the man with MJK, given that Lewis also saw the couple.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Sarah Lewis did not know Mary Kelly. She said she saw a man with a woman at the bottom of Dorset Street, a man she knew as he had previously behaved suspiciously towards her in Bethnal Green but the woman could have been anyone. It can't have been astrachan man she saw though - her man wore no overcoat.

It's the other sighting at Miller's Court I'm talking about.

[mpriestnall]

Well, I note that Astrachan Man is very definitely associated with Joseph Isaacs who was said to have answered the description given by George Hutchinson but turned out to have a cast iron alibi (was at her majesty's pleasure) on November the 8th, but had also stayed at a local lodging house so his description might be known to local people. His description may have been singularly distinctive... what are the chances of two Astrachan Men in the East End at the time?

You may also note that in the case of the Kitty Ronan murder at Miller's Court in 1909, there was coincidentally again a man stood in Dorset Street opposite Miller's Court; we have Alfred Wilkins as a witness apparently seeing the victim with a man before entering the court and waiting until he sees the man leave.

Almost every picture we have, whether illustration or photograph, appears to have a chair or a group of women sat outside Miller's Court. In George Duckworth's walk through Dorset Street the PC guiding him notes a woman who has always sat staring out of the window (of what maybe Crossingham's lodging house) for years. The street seems like it is under constant watch.

Then add a dose of the claims the lodging house keepers, specifically John McCarthy were 'gang' leaders. McCarthy was certainly involved in illegal boxing... which may also suggest illegal sports betting and so maybe the more organised crime such as the illegal casinos, protection rackets and the tobacco smuggling in the East End at the time. More directly related though is the suspicions of the Dorset Street lodging houses operating as brothels, and more specifically Miller's Court being such. This would provide a reason for the street to be watched. George Hutchinson may have been working on behalf of John McCarthy, either on the 8th of November or afterwards when he came forward and fingered a locally recognisable eccentric.

John McCarthy may have been operating as police informant against the Fenian's who were operating in London at the time and with whom, as an alleged Irish gang leader, he may have had associations with. You may have illicit money, useful police information (about affairs of state no less, which might be judged as 'more important' than the lives of East End unfortunates) and perhaps organised crime. All the kinds of associations which tend to be found in situations where police corruption is present. I believe John McCarthy attended Abberline's retirement party, by the way.

Then there's Blotchy... possibly identified (by a modern source and not necessarily reliable) as Henry Buckley, a man employed by John McCarthy as a shopman but some seem to be of the opinion he was McCarthy's hired muscle.
Some wonder if Blotchy so exactly matched the description of a man who lived in Dorset Street, how he wasn't ever brought into the investigation. He was in police custody for a stabbing in Dorset Street in December 1888. I wonder why the police wouldn't be interested in him, too, but don't necessarily conclude it was because he might not reasonably be considered a suspect.

A lot of crazy speculation, but if only a little more of it could more definitely proved...

Thanks seanr. That's a lot to digest!