Mary’s TOD and Mrs Kennedy’s respectably dressed man.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Obviously, the witness statements seem somewhat contradictory. By way of example, Sarah Lewis’s statement and George Hutchinson’s statement in that he didn’t mention seeing Sarah Lewis as he looked up the court and Lewis walked into the court.

Are we able to piece together a decent bet for TOD based on parts of witness statements that are not so contentious?

In terms of night-time activity:

Most will know that during Victorian times pattern of sleep was not what it is today. The view that one continuous sleep of say 7 to 8 hours is the optimum sleeping pattern is a modern invention, while in Victorian times the optimum sleeping pattern was deemed to be a few hours, followed by getting up for a few hours to do whatever including house chores, and then back to bed for a few hours.

The pubs were open early in the morning and Elizabeth Prater woke at 5am and was back in the pub between 5.30am and 5.45am. When Prater left Miller’s Court, men were harnessing horses in Dorset Street. Prater mentions that McCarthy’s shop was open at 1.30am, from which it can be inferred that there was sufficient activity at that time of night to generate custom.

Sarah Lewis retires at approx. 2.30am; Mary Ann Cox retires at approx. 3am; Mrs Kennedy at approx. 3am. No witnesses mention retiring to their lodgings after this time. Whether or not you believe Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy to be one and the same, it doesn’t alter the proposition that this appears to be the approximate time when the last people were coming in off the streets and activity was at its lowest.

I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest the period of least activity was between 3am and 5am.

What would this mean for the murderer’s optimum time-frame?

Well, it would depend on his thought process. My instinct is that in terms of undertaking the mutilations and leaving Miller’s Court, the safest bet would be the time of least activity, and upon reasoning I would maintain that conclusion. That said, my reasoning couldn’t possibly account for his state of mind and when opportunity arose.

Mary Ann Cox Testimony:

Cox returns at approx. 3am and is awake all night. Cox hears men or a man going to work in the market, and she hears a man walking in the court at 5.45am. Clearly Cox can hear people walking in the court from her position.

My Conclusion:

The murderer would most likely have left that room by the time activity begins to bubble again at say 5am. Dr Phillips suggested the extensive mutilations would have taken two hours to perform. This timeframe is supported by Cox not hearing a couple walk up the court after 3am. The obvious flaw in this conclusion is Cox not mentioning someone going down the court between 3am and 5am. Cox did mention hearing men or a man going to work in the market, perhaps she assumed the murderer was a market worker. Alternatively, perhaps Blotchy is the murderer and leaves as he arrived: walking noiselessly.

I’d suggest this conclusion would increase the likelihood of any one of: Blotchy, the ‘well dressed man’, George Hutchinson and the man with the wideawake hat; being the murderer.

Any thoughts on the above are welcome and I have a question: why is Mrs Kennedy’s respectable man with the dark moustache rarely discussed? Particularly when considering PC Smith’s sighting.

[Wickerman]

Good questions, skipping aside the fact I take Lewis & Kennedy as being two different women, so I would deal with their accounts separately.

Moving on to Cox, she didn't hear the scream, but she thinks she should have. This may be due to the fact she lived at the far end of the court, in the last house, or room.
Because of this, I also wouldn't expect her to hear anyone walking up or down the bottom end (passage end) of the court. She may only hear men living next door, or opposite, leave the court.
I can't think why she agreed that the footsteps she heard may have been a constable, by all accounts they never came down the court, though we can't say for sure.

I agree the killer was likely out of there before 5:00am, and here is another case where I think Phillips over extended himself. Those mutilation would not take 2 hours. Back in my misspent youth I spent three years as a Butcher's Apprentice. What I see in the photo of Kelly's remains wouldn't take a focused mutilator any more than 20-30 minutes. Surgeons of the time did work slow & methodically, so I understand where Phillips is coming from, but surgeons work from the perspective that they expect their patients to live.

Against the time I think it is necessary to point out that even the sharpest knives go dull very quickly cutting muscle, and I would expect this killers knife would need sharpening before the 30 mins were up, or he brought more than one knife. This though is only my experience with a regular boning-knife, not a surgeon's scalpel.

As for Mrs Kennedy's suspect, I might add, the same man was seen by Lewis, just at a different time.
Some have said on here that a man who openly accosts women so blatantly, even in daylight, cannot be this fly-by-night killer. I tend to disagree.

The coroner did spend some time questioning Lewis about this man. To the point that the press left the inquest with the impression that Britannia-man (also seen in Bethnal Green) was one of three potential suspects. This was reported by the Star, 13 Nov.:

The inquest on Mary Janet Kelly has closed, like its predecessors, without throwing any useful light on the crime. Light of a certain sort there is, but it is so confused and shifting as to be almost worse than useless. We have at least three descriptions of an individual who may be the man wanted. There is Mrs. Cox's account of a man who went with the deceased into her room about midnight on Thursday - "a short stout man, shabbily dressed," with "a blotchy face and a full carrotty moustache." There is Sarah Lewis's description of the man who accosted her on Wednesday in Bethnal-green-road, which varies slightly from the preceding, but might fit the same man. Finally, we have the statement by an anonymous witness which has found its way into the morning papers, and which makes the suspected individual an elegantly-dressed gentleman about 5ft. 6in. in height, "with a dark complexion, and a dark moustache curled up at the ends." Why this statement has been made public at this particular juncture is one of those mysteries in the police management of the case which no one out of Scotland-yard can understand.

Out of all the so-called suspects, this man is on top of my list. I think he was seen in Berner St. by PC Smith, and earlier by Best & Gardner, with Stride, and by Bowyer in the court on the Wednesday prior to Kelly's murder.
I just wish we had a name.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Moving on to Cox, she didn't hear the scream, but she thinks she should have. This may be due to the fact she lived at the far end of the court, in the last house, or room.
Because of this, I also wouldn't expect her to hear anyone walking up or down the bottom end (passage end) of the court. She may only hear men living next door, or opposite, leave the court.
I can't think why she agreed that the footsteps she heard may have been a constable, by all accounts they never came down the court, though we can't say for sure.

I agree the killer was likely out of there before 5:00am, and here is another case where I think Phillips over extended himself. Those mutilation would not take 2 hours. Back in my misspent youth I spent three years as a Butcher's Apprentice. What I see in the photo of Kelly's remains wouldn't take a focused mutilator any more than 20-30 minutes. Surgeons of the time did work slow & methodically, so I understand where Phillips is coming from, but surgeons work from the perspective that they expect their patients to live.

Jon, I think I'll have a thorough read of Sarah Lewis's and Mrs Kennedy's statements.

In terms of Mary Ann Cox, in the event we ignore what she said and/or believe she must have been mistaken, then we're gonna go down a series of rabbit warrens making whatever guess we see fit. Cox clearly isn't Lady Summerbell from Chichester schooled in the intricacies of Anglo-Saxon ceramic pots nor the lost pygmy tribes of impenetrable rainforests in deepest, darkest South America. On the other hand, Cox has lived in the court for a while, enough to know how many people work in the market. Cox knows the court inside out and her experience tells her what is probable. Cox might not be leading the world into the coming enlightenment any time soon but Cox does have the experience of that court.

Cox's reply to the question as to whether or not it could have been a policeman, is the only reasonable answer she could have given. Aye, it could have been a policeman, just as it could have been anyone who had reason to be in that court. Had the question been asked: "could it have been Mary Jane Kelly, or the murderer, or someone going to work, or a policeman, or whomever had reason to be in that court; Cox would have answered: "yes". The reason being: it is the right answer. In a fashion, this speaks volumes of Cox as being someone who is reasonable and not prone to theatrics.

I appreciate Cox is at the top of the court and Mary just through the passage, but I believe Cox's confidence in claiming she would have heard a scream from Mary's room, lends weight to the proposition she would have had heard footsteps near Mary's room.

I am confident Dr Phillips would have taken all of the conditions into account before casting judgement. He may have been wide of the mark, but not because he didn't appreciate Miller's Court was not an operating table.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Good questions, skipping aside the fact I take Lewis & Kennedy as being two different women, so I would deal with their accounts separately.

Moving on to Cox, she didn't hear the scream, but she thinks she should have. This may be due to the fact she lived at the far end of the court, in the last house, or room.
Because of this, I also wouldn't expect her to hear anyone walking up or down the bottom end (passage end) of the court. She may only hear men living next door, or opposite, leave the court.
I can't think why she agreed that the footsteps she heard may have been a constable, by all accounts they never came down the court, though we can't say for sure.

I agree the killer was likely out of there before 5:00am, and here is another case where I think Phillips over extended himself. Those mutilation would not take 2 hours. Back in my misspent youth I spent three years as a Butcher's Apprentice. What I see in the photo of Kelly's remains wouldn't take a focused mutilator any more than 20-30 minutes. Surgeons of the time did work slow & methodically, so I understand where Phillips is coming from, but surgeons work from the perspective that they expect their patients to live.

Against the time I think it is necessary to point out that even the sharpest knives go dull very quickly cutting muscle, and I would expect this killers knife would need sharpening before the 30 mins were up, or he brought more than one knife. This though is only my experience with a regular boning-knife, not a surgeon's scalpel.

As for Mrs Kennedy's suspect, I might add, the same man was seen by Lewis, just at a different time.
Some have said on here that a man who openly accosts women so blatantly, even in daylight, cannot be this fly-by-night killer. I tend to disagree.

The coroner did spend some time questioning Lewis about this man. To the point that the press left the inquest with the impression that Britannia-man (also seen in Bethnal Green) was one of three potential suspects. This was reported by the Star, 13 Nov.:

The inquest on Mary Janet Kelly has closed, like its predecessors, without throwing any useful light on the crime. Light of a certain sort there is, but it is so confused and shifting as to be almost worse than useless. We have at least three descriptions of an individual who may be the man wanted. There is Mrs. Cox's account of a man who went with the deceased into her room about midnight on Thursday - "a short stout man, shabbily dressed," with "a blotchy face and a full carrotty moustache." There is Sarah Lewis's description of the man who accosted her on Wednesday in Bethnal-green-road, which varies slightly from the preceding, but might fit the same man. Finally, we have the statement by an anonymous witness which has found its way into the morning papers, and which makes the suspected individual an elegantly-dressed gentleman about 5ft. 6in. in height, "with a dark complexion, and a dark moustache curled up at the ends." Why this statement has been made public at this particular juncture is one of those mysteries in the police management of the case which no one out of Scotland-yard can understand.

Out of all the so-called suspects, this man is on top of my list. I think he was seen in Berner St. by PC Smith, and earlier by Best & Gardner, with Stride, and by Bowyer in the court on the Wednesday prior to Kelly's murder.
I just wish we had a name.

Jon,

I've had a good read of Sarah Lewis's and Mrs Kennedy' statements, and I'm not seeing how these can be two different people. The statements match in the main. And, Sarah Lewis visits 2, Miller's Court; Julia Venturey lives at 1, Miller's Court; Mrs Kennedy visited a house opposite 13, Miller's Court; presumably this can only mean no 1 or 2.

What piqued my interest more than anything is: Maria Harvey claimed to be a laundress; Sarah Lewis claimed to be a laundress; Julia Venturey claimed to be a laundress; Mary Jane Kelly is up to the eyeballs with clothes; mercifully there is no record of Mrs Kennedy claiming to be a laundress. There is a laundress cartel in Miller's Court.

So, I had a look at the life of Victorian laundresses. Apparently this was a common occupation in those days, it was a lengthy process also, around a day and a half, which involved many ingredients and apparently only the wealthy could afford this service.

And from there I went down a rabbit hole: the wealthy or better-to-do are turning up in Dorset Street to have their clothes washed, the 'well dressed man' may not be so out of place, there is a 0.001% chance the clothes were burned because they were the clothes of the murderer's wife and they could lead back to him.

[Damaso Marte]

Alternatively, perhaps Blotchy is the murderer and leaves as he arrived: walking noiselessly.

This is my suspicion. Keep in mind, if you believe that the C4 or C5 were all killed by the same person, then whoever killed Kelly had killed in populated areas before and made very little in the way of noise. The people living above the Nichols murder site at best heard faint moaning. The people living above Mitre Square heard nothing. Seemingly only one person on Hanbury Street heard any noise.

I conclude from this that the Ripper was sane enough to know that society considered what he was doing to be wrong and that he needed to minimize the amount of noise he was making and the amount of evidence he left behind.

[DJA]

[Wickerman]

Jon,

I've had a good read of Sarah Lewis's and Mrs Kennedy' statements, and I'm not seeing how these can be two different people.

When you wrote "thorough" I expected you to be gone a while, there's more than two statements to read.
Anyhow, lets be brief.

Here we find Kennedy's address, and quite a long account.
Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour. Passing the Britannia, commonly known as Ringer's, at the top of Dorset street, at three o'clock on the Friday morning, she saw the deceased talking to a respectably dressed man, whom she identified as having accosted her a night or two before.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881110.html

You already have Lewis's address, from the inquest.
Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday.

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_kelly.html

There must be about 10 or 12 press accounts concerning Kennedy, ranging from 10 Nov. through to 17th, some being duplicate, but edited.
Sarah Lewis did not talk to the press, so we only have her police statement taken on the 9th, and her inquest testimony from the 12th, published on 13th.

Their stories from the Wednesday evening encounter are essentially the same, naturally, they were together.
However, what they saw Friday morning differs.

- Lewis came by the Britannia, and arrived at her friends house before 2:30.
- Kennedy came by the Britannia, on her way home, about 3:00 am.

- Lewis saw one woman with one man outside the Britannia.
- Kennedy saw two women with the same man outside the Britannia, one of the women being Kelly.

- Lewis passed down Dorset st. and saw a couple walking on ahead, and a man loitering opposite Millers Court.
- Kennedy makes no mention of seeing anyone in Dorset St.

There's nothing there that suggests Lewis & Kennedy were the same person, in fact what we have demonstrates the opposite.

What piqued my interest more than anything is: Maria Harvey claimed to be a laundress; Sarah Lewis claimed to be a laundress; Julia Venturey claimed to be a laundress; Mary Jane Kelly is up to the eyeballs with clothes; mercifully there is no record of Mrs Kennedy claiming to be a laundress. There is a laundress cartel in Miller's Court.

"Laundress" was often a euphemism for street-walker. We can see this 'title' used for single women in the Census records. 'Seamstress", was another favorite euphemism for ladies of the night.

[Wickerman]

This is my suspicion. Keep in mind, if you believe that the C4 or C5 were all killed by the same person, then whoever killed Kelly had killed in populated areas before and made very little in the way of noise. The people living above the Nichols murder site at best heard faint moaning. The people living above Mitre Square heard nothing. Seemingly only one person on Hanbury Street heard any noise.

I conclude from this that the Ripper was sane enough to know that society considered what he was doing to be wrong and that he needed to minimize the amount of noise he was making and the amount of evidence he left behind.

The couple living above Kelly also slept through the whole thing.


Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. 1888.

[Parisi North Humber]

I cannot see a gentleman or gentle woman dragging their dirty linen down to Miller's court. Laundry was either done in house or if sent out would have been over seen by a housekeeper or higher status maid (counting every item in and out and keeping records of any items missing or damaged). Even the lower middle class would have had a maid of all work who if not washing items herself would have taken the laundry to the outsourced laundress, as such I cannot see a "gentleman" trawling whitechapel in the early hours looking for a laundresss to clean his necessities. If it did infact occur I believe it certainly wouldn't have been an every day occurance and would have been noted as such.

Helen x

[Wickerman]

In terms of Mary Ann Cox, in the event we ignore what she said and/or believe she must have been mistaken, then we're gonna go down a series of rabbit warrens making whatever guess we see fit. Cox clearly isn't Lady Summerbell from Chichester schooled in the intricacies of Anglo-Saxon ceramic pots nor the lost pygmy tribes of impenetrable rainforests in deepest, darkest South America. On the other hand, Cox has lived in the court for a while, enough to know how many people work in the market. Cox knows the court inside out and her experience tells her what is probable. Cox might not be leading the world into the coming enlightenment any time soon but Cox does have the experience of that court.

I'm not sure what education, experience or upbringing has to do with this, she may well have believed the footsteps were that of a policeman. The fact is she didn't know the source of the footsteps, so she offered a guess.
As for the scream, there were four women from the court who commented on the scream. Three of them lived adjacent to Kelly; Prater in the room above, but overlooking Dorset St., Lewis & Kennedy from the upstairs of the house opposite Kelly's side door.
Although these three women differed slightly on the time, they did assert there was a scream.

On the other hand, Cox contested these claims in a somewhat argumentative fashion, that "if there had been a cry of 'murder', I should have heard it, there was not the leased noise". Which means 'what' for our confidence in Cox?

[seanr]

"Laundress" was often a euphemism for street-walker. We can see this 'title' used for single women in the Census records. 'Seamstress", was another favorite euphemism for ladies of the night.

On the other hand... both laundress and seamstress were amongst the jobs available to working class women. A woman who worked such a job would not have an employer, and would take on batches of work which they would be paid for on completion. They would tend to have no fixed abode and travel to where the work was available, supporting this kind of worker was among the justifications for the existence of the common lodging houses.
When they were unable to get any piece work these women would be left in a situation where they had to find money however they could perhaps pawning what belongings they had or perhaps they did survive through casual prostitution.
When one of these women did find work they would tend to support their friends and recommend them to factories or laundries who were looking for more workers. As a result they did tend to form groups who lived and worked together.
One would expect to see these jobs in particular, being over-represented among the women in common lodging houses. The casual nature of the work perhaps did allow some full time sex workers to claim a more socially acceptable trade.

Sp, some women who claimed to be 'seamstresses' or 'laundresses' may have been sex workers or occasionally relied on sex work to support themselves. But concluding 'seamstress' or 'laundress' meant prostitute is perhaps a step too far.

[Wickerman]

Neither Laundress or Seamstress 'meant' prostitute (obviously), it was a euphemism by a number of those who followed that life, but, thats what I thought I wrote the first time.

[Wickerman]

Apparently, it originated in the 17th century.

Euphemisms for Prostitutes - Another euphemism for prostitutes in the census records, particularly for the 19th century is 'laundress' (Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work, Vol 1 .... yes, it does truly exist!!). It makes specific reference to the reform institution of the Magdalen Homes that did operate laundries in which 'fallen women' labourered! Others words include seamstress or actress.

There's a world of difference between a middle-aged wife of a labourer with four children living in Love Lane for instance, and a 21 year old single woman living in lodgings in George Street, even though they might both be described as laundresses.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/ther...-t961-s50.html

[Fleetwood Mac]

I cannot see a gentleman or gentle woman dragging their dirty linen down to Miller's court. Laundry was either done in house or if sent out would have been over seen by a housekeeper or higher status maid (counting every item in and out and keeping records of any items missing or damaged). Even the lower middle class would have had a maid of all work who if not washing items herself would have taken the laundry to the outsourced laundress, as such I cannot see a "gentleman" trawling whitechapel in the early hours looking for a laundresss to clean his necessities. If it did infact occur I believe it certainly wouldn't have been an every day occurance and would have been noted as such.

Helen x

Hi Helen,

I tend to agree with you. Laundress was a legitimate occupation among those who lived in slums during the Victorian period but of course that doesn't necessarily mean the washing was done in the slum. Then again, Mary Jane has clothes in her room. I'd imagine they had monetary value and could be taken to the likes of a second-hand clothes market in Petticoat Lane, and so I'd guess someone was expecting to see those clothes again; but then people of those slums tended to not have a spare set of clothes.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm not sure what education, experience or upbringing has to do with this, she may well have believed the footsteps were that of a policeman. The fact is she didn't know the source of the footsteps, so she offered a guess.
As for the scream, there were four women from the court who commented on the scream. Three of them lived adjacent to Kelly; Prater in the room above, but overlooking Dorset St., Lewis & Kennedy from the upstairs of the house opposite Kelly's side door.
Although these three women differed slightly on the time, they did assert there was a scream.

On the other hand, Cox contested these claims in a somewhat argumentative fashion, that "if there had been a cry of 'murder', I should have heard it, there was not the leased noise". Which means 'what' for our confidence in Cox?

Jon,

The point about Mary Ann Cox's education was/is in reply to your point that she must be mistaken (in terms of being able to hear a scream/cry/voice from her position). She might not have been well-educated, but that doesn't mean she's not capable of knowing exactly what she should have heard from her position. I think Cox gives a reasonable statement lacking in theatrics, and she knows that court well, she would have had the experience of all sorts of noises at various times of the day/night in that court. I think Cox is very well placed to tell us exactly what she should have heard. In the event you choose to ignore Cox's statement or claim she must have been mistaken, then I'd suggest any theory is immediately rendered to be on shaky foundations.

Cox didn't say she believed the footsteps were that of a policeman and nor did she offer a guess. Cox was pressed/asked a direct question, to which she could only have said yes or no. The answer Cox gave was her only reasonable option because of course those footsteps could have been from anyone with a reason to be in that court.

There is nothing in that statement which suggests Cox is being 'somewhat argumentative'.