Report of the Kelly murder in The Scotsman

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for that confirmation, the idea was purely tonque in cheek, as Chris did suggest that it was possibly a coal merchants in a later census, but was not certain if it was during the relevant period.

Well, coal-yard or not, Nunners, one thing's for certain - if McCarthy was renting it out, it was probably a complete tip

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sam.
Thanks for that confirmation, the idea was purely tonque in cheek, as Chris did suggest that it was possibly a coal merchants in a later census, but was not certain if it was during the relevant period.
I still stand by my assesment that McCarthy refered to Barnett[ alias Kelly] as a coal porter, for the obvious reason , he believed him to be.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Joseph Barnett... Coal porter
Could he have been employed at that Coal merchants, just yards from Millers court.?
And dare I suggest Number 39.

Hi Richard,

39 Dorset Street wasn't a coal merchant's premises in 1888. It was a tenement building, probably another one of McCarthy's "rents", as he seems to have been the owner or lease-holder at that time.

[Tom_Wescott]

The reference to a a 'Coal porter' was made by McCarthy to the press refering to the man calling himself Kelly, that the deceased moved in with, not in any way a reference to a mine worker allegedly named Davies.
You are clutching at straws in suggesting that surely?

I'm clutching at nothing because it means nothing. Barnett was not a coal porter and he was not named Kelly, but he was the man Kelly was living with, not a coal porter named Kelly. So either McCarthy or the reporter made a mistake. My money is on the reporter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[richardnunweek]

Hi Tom,
Must respond to that.
The reference to a a 'Coal porter' was made by McCarthy to the press refering to the man calling himself Kelly, that the deceased moved in with, not in any way a reference to a mine worker allegedly named Davies.
You are clutching at straws in suggesting that surely?
Are you suggesting that her landlord knew all of her sordid past?
If Barnett for reasons known to him and Mary, called himself Kelly, and Kelly was Mjs surname, then as McCarthy knew her, as posing as his wife, it would naturally follow that letters from Mother/brother would be addressed to their daughter/sister, would it not?
Sorry Tom, I am on a roll with this one, especially if a coal merchants, number 39 , was actually resident in that street[ Dorset] in 1888.
Regards Richard.

[Tom_Wescott]

She was commonly known in the court as Mary Jane, infact she only became known as Mary jane Kelly to McCarthy because she posed as the man he knew as Kelly as his wife.

Not entirely. McCarthy handled her mail, including mail received from members of her family, who apparently addressed it to Mary Jane Kelly. I imagine McCarthy was relating the tale of her alleged deceased husband when he mentioned 'coal porter' and this got confused by a pressman to mean her most recent lover, Barnett.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Folklore? The fact that the uterus was taken in two previous murders was discussed during the inquests and reported in the papers quite widely. It wasn't just something going around in rumors but fully documented.

I phrased it that way with the evidently erroneous belief that it wouldn't be attacked.

Regards,

[Dan Norder]

I believe at least in folklore around the area, there may have been a belief that this killer was after womens uteri.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Folklore? The fact that the uterus was taken in two previous murders was discussed during the inquests and reported in the papers quite widely. It wasn't just something going around in rumors but fully documented.

[Supe]

A man engaged as a market porter, and residing at 3 Miller Court, states that, although his rooms face the scene of the murder, he heard nothing of it until he went out in the morning at half past ten to get some milk and was stopped by the police.

Just one small example why these contemporary newspaper accounts must be parsed very carefully. This not only contradicts what was written previously in the issue but would suggest the police were on the scene even before Bowyer went on his rent-collecting rounds.

Don.

Thanks for posting that article Chris, as you say, the earlier ones can be dodgy. It was interesting reading it for the points that were correct though. It caught my eye that the organ missing was suspected to be a uterus..."as in the case of the Mitre Square victim"...but they could not get confirmation of that.

I think its revealing that they mention a uterus, in that it was not the intact organ taken from Kate, but the partial one.

I believe at least in folklore around the area, there may have been a belief that this killer was after womens uteri. And mutilation.

Best regards and thanks again for the piece.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chris,
Intresting account, its wonderful how accounts can differ, yet still relate [ so to speak].
What intrests me is the reference by McCarthy to 'Coal porter'.
I mentioned to you on the old Casebook, that I had seen this said by McCarthy, and have no reason to doubt his word, for surely the very nature of the job, and the appearance of such a man after a days shift, would not lead to a mistake to his profession.
Could the press have been mistaken?
Does Fish porter/market porter sound like Coal porter?
It therefore seems that Mary Jane, came either with a man using the name Mr kelly, and they both occupied room 13, or she joined the man posing as Kelly when he had moved in.
She was commonly known in the court as Mary Jane, infact she only became known as Mary jane Kelly to McCarthy because she posed as the man he knew as Kelly as his wife.
Obviously we all know that Kelly, was infact Barnett and kelly was an alias, but what was Barnet hiding from,? he apparently was a hard working decent man, [ at least considered by many to have been on this site] did he leave other accomodation owing rent?
Chris.
Back on the old Casebook, I mentioned the coal porter aspect to you , as I remembered you once posted that there was a coal merchants at number 39 Dorset street , found in a later census, but you did not know if it was there in 1888. I wonder if you could verify its exsistance , one way or another.
I Guess its therefore not hard to fathom out what I am speculating.
Joseph Barnett... Coal porter
Could he have been employed at that Coal merchants, just yards from Millers court.?
And dare I suggest Number 39..
Regards Richard.

[Chris Scott]

The Scotsman
10 November 1888


STATEMENT BY THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE
In an interview with a Press representative, John M'Carthy, the owner of the houses in Miller's Court, made the following statement as to the murdered women:-
"The victim of this terrible murder was about 23 or 24 years of age, and lived with a coal porter named Kelly, passing as his wife. They, however, quarrelled some time back, and separated. A woman named Harvey slept with her several nights since Kelly separated from her, but she was not with her last Thursday night. The deceased's Christian name was Mary Jane, and since her murder I have discovered that she was an unfortunate and walked the streets in the neighbourhood of Aldgate. Her habits were irregular, and she often came home at night the worse for drink. Her mother lives in Ireland, but in what county I do not know. The deceased used to receive letters from her mother occasionally. The unfortunate had not paid her rent for several weeks - in fact she owed me 30s. altogether, so this (Friday) morning, about 11 o'clock, I sent my man to ask her if she could pay the money. He knocked at the door, but received no answer. Thinking this very strange, he looked in at the window, and, to his horror, saw the body of Kelly lying on the bed covered with blood. He immediately came back to me and told me what he had seen. I was, of course, as horrified as he was, and I went with him to the house and looked in at the window. The sight I saw was more ghastly even than I had prepared myself for. On the bed lay the body, as my man had told me, while the table was covered with what seemed to me to be lumps of flesh. I said to my man, "Harry, go at once to the police station and fetch some one here." He went off at once and brought back Inspector Back, who looked through the window as we had done. He then dispatched a telegram to Superintendent Arnold, but before Superintendent Arnold arrived, Inspector Abberline came and gave orders that no one should be allowed to enter or leave the Court. The Inspector waited a little while, and then sent a telegram to a Sir Charles Warren, to bring the bloodhounds, so as to trace the murderer if possible. So soon as Superintendent Arnold arrived he gave instructions for the door to be burst open. I at once forced the door with a pickaxe, and we entered the room. The sight we saw I cannot drive away from my mind; it looked more like the work of a devil than a man. The poor woman's body was lying on the bed undressed. She had been completely disembowelled, and her entrails had been taken out and placed on the table. It was those that I had seen when I looked through the window and took to be lumps of flesh. The woman's nose had been cut off, and her face gashed and mutilated, so that she was quite beyond recognition. Both her breasts, too, had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver. I had heard a great deal about the Whitechapel murders, but I had never expected to see such a sight as this. The body was, of course, covered with blood and so was the bed. The whole scene is more than I can describe. I hope I may never see such a sight again. It is most extraordinary that nothing should have been heard by the neighbours, as there are people passing backwards and forwards at all hours of the night, but no one heard so much as a scream. A woman heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" at one o'clock this (Friday) morning, so up to that time, at all events, she was alive and well. So far as I can ascertain, no one saw her take a man into the house with her last (Thursday) night." Mr. M'Carthy is spoken of by the police as a most respectable man, and was recently awarded a prize for collecting money for the hospitals.

STATEMENTS AS TO THE MURDERED WOMAN'S ANTECEDENTS
Mrs Prater, who occupied a room in 26 Dorset Street, above that of the deceased, stated to a press representative last night that she had a chat with Kelly on Thursday morning. Kelly, who was doing some crochet work at the time, said, "I hope it will be a fine day tomorrow, as I want to go to the Lord Mayor's show." "She was a pleasant girl, " added Mrs Prater, "and seemed to be on good terms with everybody. She dressed poorly, as she was, of course, badly off."
The young woman Harvey, who had slept with the deceased on several occasions, also made a statement. She said she had been on good terms with the deceased, whose education was much superior to that of most persons in her position in life. Harvey, however, took a room in New Court, off the same street, but remained friendly with the unfortunate woman who visited her in New Court on Thursday night. After drinking together, they parted at half past seven o'clock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman Street, which she was in the habit of frequenting. She was perfectly sober at the time. Harvey never saw her alive afterwards. Hearing yesterday that a murder had been committed, she said, "I'll go and see if it's anyone I know," and, to her horror, found it was her friend.
Joseph Barnett, an Irishman, at present residing in a common lodging house in New Street, Bishopsgate, informed a reporter last evening that he had occupied his present lodgings since Tuesday week. Previous to that he had lived at Miller's Court, Dorset Street, for eight or nine months with the murdered woman, Mary Jane Kelly. They were very happy and comfortable together until an unfortunate came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights, he quarrelled with his "wife" and left her. Next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days, and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. He was indoors yesterday morning when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset Street, but he did not know at first who the victim was. He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct, and therefore released him.
A woman residing at near 5 Miller Court informed a reporter that she heard the deceased singing at a quarter past one o'clock yesterday morning. This confirms the evidence of other people in the court, and proves that the victim and her murderer spent some time together in the room upon the most friendly terms, so that there could have been nothing in the appearance of the man to create alarm or suspicion. Other residents in the court declare that about a quarter to two they heard a faint cry of murder, which would seem to fix with tolerable exactitude the time at which the crime was committed; but against this must be set the statement of the woman residing at 26 Dorset Square (sic), a house the back rooms of which abut upon the court, according to which a cry of murder was heard at three o'clock. It is characteristic of the locality that no one thought anything of the incident, which, indeed, is of too common occurrence to cause interest or alarm. A man engaged as a market porter, and residing at 3 Miller Court, states that, although his rooms face the scene of the murder, he heard nothing of it until he went out in the morning at half past ten to get some milk and was stopped by the police.

It occurred to me when looking at those photos more closely that a natural shot to include would be one from the foot of the bed, and perhaps the head to the dresser. They did shoot her from her left and right, although how exactly the positioned the camera and activated the shutter in the shoot across her empty abdomen could have a few different answers. If they moved nothing to get that shot, then that would explain why they might omit the head to foot shot, there was no room for anything but a remote shutter, and they may have only had a conventional camera, which means viewed from the rear or above to frame and focus.

Best regards all.

[Supe]

Graham,

With regard to the photography, if two reasonable-quality negatives could be taken inside the room, then so could any number of others.

It was likely a question of time--the time the police would accord the photographer and the time each exposure would take the photographer. The former probably was not all that long. Crime scene photogrpahy was in its infancy and underappreciated. The physicians in attendance would surely want to start examining the body parts in detail and the police doubtless were chaffing to get on with their own investigative efforts

As for the photographer, the level of ambient light was quite assuredly low and he would probably want to "bracket" his exposures. That is, make an exposure for less time than he guessed was right, another at his best estimate and finally a third for a greater length of time. Considering that period cameras were not designed for speed and that he also had to juggle with with the complicated glass plates of the time, just to end uo with the two images we do have could take up more time than either the police or doctors were happy to yield.

By the way, flash pictures were possible, but the flash powders in use at the time would have spread a fine ash over everything in the room and created a pall of smoke that would take a long time to dissipate.

Don.

[Graham]

Gentlemen,

I just checked my battered and dog-eared A-Z (which is what I should have done before I wrote my post) and see that a Dr William Dukes (with an 's') is listed as being the first medical man on the scene in Miller's Court. A name I've missed for all the years I've been interested in JtR. No other information about him is given in the A-Z.

With regard to the photography, if two reasonable-quality negatives could be taken inside the room, then so could any number of others. Flash-photography was not unknown at the time, but I'm not sufficiently versed in photography to say whether the two 'known' pics were taken with flash. I'd doubt it, though. I have a vague memory that on the old boards some enterprising soul had actually traced the identity of the photographer at Miller's Court. I'd have thought that a photo of the fireplace would have been taken, given the interest of the police in it, and also (maybe) one of the bed after the body had been removed.

Concerning what actually happened at Miller's Court (ref: Supe's comment) I keep a pretty open mind - obviously a woman was brutally killed and mutilated, but the truth is that that's about all we know.

Cheers,

Graham