Who did Sarah See?

[Wickerman]

But none of this is even correct, Jon, let alone “coincidence”.

Sarah Lewis did not describe a “well-dressed” man.

Hi Ben.
The reason the man Lewis saw in Bethnal Green Road is described, in quotes, as a "gentleman", is because he dressed like one. Lewis stated clearly she saw the same man on Friday morning.

Astrakhan and BG-man were not reported as being “on the same street corner”.
They were not reported as “heading in the same direction”.

Once again, Lewis saw this "gentleman" in Commercial St., outside the Brittania, on the corner of Dorset St.

Hutchinson said, "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them." (from Commercial St.
The same corner Ben, Dorset St. & Commercial St.

They were not reported as “heading in the same direction”.

Once again.... "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them."

Sarah Lewis did not describe a “hatless” woman.

Really!
"...I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

As far as Kennedy’s parroting is concerned, there’s no “maybe” about it.

The only demonstrable instance of parroting we can see, and that you can claim actually occured, is that by Mrs Prater.
On the morning of the 9th she told the press she heard nothing all night, then suddenly on the morning of the 10th she comes forward with this "murder" cry that Sarah Lewis had heard.
This is the only instance that exists Ben, just the one!, but please feel free to find another example. As yet I cannot find another.

I hope you won’t mind my saying so, but as far as the killer’s identity is concerned, you seem quite insistent that a respectably-dressed, possibly wealthy and/or educated individual should feature in the equation.

As Sarah Lewis describes him:

"The man appeared to be about 40. His bag was not very large, about six or nine inches long. The hat he wore was a round hat, rather high - a stiff felt hat. He had a long overcoat on and a short black one underneath. His trousers were dark pepper and salt."

Whether this "respectably-dressed" gentleman was her killer or not is another question.

I am just dealing with what the papers published. If you wish to re-interpret, "respectably dressed", and "dressed like a gentleman", as something else, like "shabby-genteel" perhaps? - thats you're perogative.
Shabby-genteel is often stated as such, so I have no reservations about interpreting this strange man as "well-dressed".

I am calling it as it is written. And yes, I am well aware that the typical 'Jack the Ripper as a Toff' is so silly as to be embarrassing, but this is real.
Whoever this man was he really existed, he acted strange, he accosted women, so we must deal with it.

All the best, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

"The reason the man Lewis saw in Bethnal Green Road is described, in quotes, as a "gentleman", is because he dressed like one. Lewis stated clearly she saw the same man on Friday morning."

It seems more likely to me that "gentleman" may have struck Lewis as a more official and "proper"-sounding alternative to "man", in much the same way that a policeman in court might make a statement to the effect that he "arrested the gentleman concerned", when he is actually talking about an uneducated ruffian. I don't know if pepper and salt trousers would indicate a well-dressed individual.

Lewis stated that the couple were outside Ringers, near the market, which was not on any street "corner". Meanwhile, according to Hutchinson's statement, the only corner Kelly and Astrakhan would have passed would have been the south-east corner of Dorset Street where it met Commercial Street. In order for Astrakhan to get to BG-man's 2:30am location, therefore, he would have needed to pass by the entrance to Dorset Street and head further north along Commercial Street. But according to Hutchinson, who you appear to believe, this didn't happen.

Once again.... "They both went into Dorset Street I followed them."

But no evidence that BG-man and his female companion ever set foot in Dorset Street.

"...I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

This was just the Daily News' reporting, which also included the claim that the loiterer was standing in the doorway of the deceased house. To accept this as true would necessitate the rejection of all other reports that state otherwise.

Prater and Lewis were evidently genuine witnesses, and were interviewed by the police called to the inquest as such. One of these women had her account coped by "half a dozen" unscrupulous women, and as Sugden points out, the identity of the parottee was Sarah Lewis, while Kennedy obvious fits the bill for one of the parroters (which explains her non-attendance at the inquest).

Again, I can only reiterate my previous suggestion to focus on the inquest evidence and police statements from those witnesses in whom a more lasting trust was invested. They are considerably more reliable sources than the notorious press snippers from the 10th November.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"As it happens, I was only offering advice, which unlike “oppression”, you are at liberty to ignore if you wish."

Just who do you think you are? Some sort of Casebook Supreme Court judge? What you are doing, Ben, is trying to hinder another poster to express his thoughts. You have done it before, many, many times. It is abundantly clear that when somebody does not agree with you, you do not rationally deal with it - you instead "advice" people to shut up and stay away from posting the kind of information that you find "nauseating".

What I have said stands - if you ever get the idea into your head to once more comment on what I discuss with others in terms of advising me not to express what I choose to express and am perfectly ENTITLED to post, you will have me breathing down your neck each and every time you as much as utter the word Hutchinson.

It is your own choice - give it some long hard afterthought, and then you act as you choose. In discussions inbetween you and me, I have no problems with you expressing that I am repeating myself - just like you do - but stay away from my exchanges with other posters.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I don’t want to sound pedantic but do we know that Dorset Street was anti-Semitic? Several posters have stated this recently. I have seen this passage before:
“No Jews lived there. Only a few bold Choots had the temerity even to walk through it.”
However this does not imply that the street was a hotbed of anti-Semitism – merely that it was a rough and unsalubrious place.

Also ‘Ringers’ was of course on the corner of Commercial Street and Dorset Street. There would have been nothing to stop the A-man and Kelly crossing the end of Dorset Street to the corner by ‘Ringers’ before turning down Dorset Street. Miller’s Court was on that side of the road after all. So there need be no inconsistency between Hutchinson’s and Lewis’s story there.

[Wickerman]

Again, I can only reiterate my previous suggestion to focus on the inquest evidence and police statements from those witnesses in whom a more lasting trust was invested. They are considerably more reliable sources than the notorious press snippers from the 10th November.

Ben.
I'm sure you didn't mean to be patronising, but I can assure you every avenue has been pursued over the past decade or more to tweak out as much legitimate data, records, documents, medical reports, etc. as can be found.
So yes, 'we' are extremely familiar with all the official documents & inquest records, ad infinitum.

What we have also done is generally followed a dubious consensus to largely ignore statements in part or in total by the likes of Packer, Hutchinson, Maxwell, etc., and a host of other occasional lines or paragraphs from seemingly honest witnesses who may have made some observation that 'we' did not like to read - so 'we' have responded by ignoring what 'we' do not understand.

So when I choose to quote from some of these despicable witnesses you can take it as my meagre attempt to open up a cold-case file to see what precisely our decision to disregard their statements was based on.
To date, what I am finding is a large slice of subjective reasoning, while some of these witnesses may not have been absolutely 'clinically' clear in what they tried to describe, they do appear to have been honest in their intent. And we can, with a little effort, make some attempt to join the dots.

And just to offer a point of trivia, the newspaper reporter in many cases fulfilled a role very similar to the investigative arm of the police.
Even Sugden had noticed this, that the press would find the witnesses and the police would read their accounts the next day and follow up with an investigation. The press had their uses.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

I don’t want to sound pedantic but do we know that Dorset Street was anti-Semitic?

Many years ago, Lechmere, I came across several newspaper pieces which exposed not only widespread anti-Semitism in Dorset Street, but xenophobia too. I believe that Fiona Rule explored this issue in some depth in her book and has spoken of it on one of the podcasts.

[Sally]

I believe that Fiona Rule explored this issue in some depth in her book and has spoken of it on one of the podcasts

Yes:-

"..Dorset Street became so full of anti-Semitic feeling that some Jews couldn't walk past the end of the road without being called 'Christ Killers', let alone venture down it"

"The Jews, believing there was safety in numbers, began to heavily populate the streets to the south of Dorset Street such as Butler, Freeman, Palmer and Tilley Street"

(p.102)

The Worst Steet in London, Fiona Rule 2008

There is more, but the above should serve to illustrate the point. According to Rule, Irish immigrants were dominant on Dorset Street at this time (1880's)

[Ben]

“if you ever get the idea into your head to once more comment on what I discuss with others in terms of advising me not to express what I choose to express and am perfectly ENTITLED to post, you will have me breathing down your neck each and every time you as much as utter the word Hutchinson”

That wouldn’t work out very well for you, though, in the long run.

It would just generate more off-topic bickering.

I’m quite happy to accede to your request, but don’t threaten me please, Fisherman.

“There would have been nothing to stop the A-man and Kelly crossing the end of Dorset Street to the corner by ‘Ringers’ before turning down Dorset Street”

It would strike me as a rather illogical route to take, Lechmere. After arriving at the south-east corner of Dorset Street (from Fashion Street), Astrakhan and Kelly would surely have made a direct beeline to the Miller’s Court entrance. This is somewhat beside the point, though, which was that Sarah Lewis’ couple were described as being “near the market”, i.e. further up Commercial Street and beyond the entrance to Dorset Street. Astrakhan and Kelly were never described as being in this particular locality, and it makes no sense at all from them to have moved from Fashion Street to Miller's Court via that location.

Hi Jon,

I’m afraid I don’t consider Hutchinson and Packer to have been “honest”. Indeed, I regard it as very obvious that they were not. The police discredited their accounts because they doubted the credibility of the men who provided them. The overwhelming impression is not, therefore, a favourable one, and this has nothing to do with subjective likes or dislikes. It would be extreme folly to “ignore” these accounts, but I feel that with some of the more obviously dubious “witnesses”, we should have progressed from asking "if" they lied to asking why.

“Even Sugden had noticed this, that the press would find the witnesses and the police would read their accounts the next day and follow up with an investigation.”

Yes, but Sugden also said:

“Our search for the facts about the murder of Mary Kelly must discount the unsupported tattle of the Victorian press”.

He cites the Daily News as one such tattle-touter, observing that a report that appeared in the 10th November edition of that paper regarding Bowyer’s alleged sighting should be dismissed as worthless. I’ve been arguing as much for quite some time now on these threads. This is not to negate the fact that the press can be useful, but it appears that when it came to the Kelly murder in particular, they created considerable confusion in the early stages of the investigation.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m quite happy to accede to your request, but don’t threaten me please, Fisherman."

What I do in this context is entirely led on by you, Ben. I had not been anywhere near as upset if you had not kept up your campaign to keep me and my views hushed. Now that you state that you will refrain from it, nobody could be happier than me, and I can assure you that as long as you stick to this promise of yours, you will not have any trouble with me in the same genre.

The best,
Fisherman

[Colin Roberts]

I don’t want to sound pedantic but do we know that Dorset Street was anti-Semitic?

Many years ago, Lechmere, I came across several newspaper pieces which exposed not only widespread anti-Semitism in Dorset Street, but xenophobia too. I believe that Fiona Rule explored this issue in some depth in her book and has spoken of it on one of the podcasts.

Yes:-

"..Dorset Street became so full of anti-Semitic feeling that some Jews couldn't walk past the end of the road without being called 'Christ Killers', let alone venture down it"

"The Jews, believing there was safety in numbers, began to heavily populate the streets to the south of Dorset Street such as Butler, Freeman, Palmer and Tilley Street"

(p.102)

The Worst Steet in London, Fiona Rule 2008

There is more, but the above should serve to illustrate the point. According to Rule, Irish immigrants were dominant on Dorset Street at this time (1880's)

I believe that Lechmere is questioning the semantics of the term 'anti-Semitism', as they would apply to the prevailing mindset of the inhabitants of Dorset Street, in 1888, as opposed to the mindset, itself.

A mindset of bigotry, and perhaps more specifically, xenophobia, was almost certainly prevalent, amongst the socio-economic classification of Londoners that Charles Booth labeled "Vicious (i.e. 'vice-ridden'); Semi-Criminal", in the publication of the first of his three surveys: Labour and Life of the People: London; Williams & Norgate, 1889-1891.

But, are we to assume that the inhabitants of 1888's Dorset Street were actually anti-Semitic, purely on the basis that they were a bunch of yobs.

Was Dorset Street some sort of rallying point, for those that would become - some fifty years later - the so-called 'Blackshirts'?

I am quite certain that in 1888, the passage through Dorset Street, of any Ashkenazim that had emigrated from Warsaw or Moscow, in 1885, would have raised more than its fair share of eyebrows.

But, what about that of any Sephardim that had emigrated from Amsterdam or Hamburg, in 1865? Would such passage have raised nearly as many eyebrows?

I don't believe that it would!

But, in the eyes of an outright anti-Semite, a Yid is a Yid, is a Yid.

Jerry White's Rothschild Buildings quotes several tenants of the dwellings that insisted that Jews typically avoided the inhabitants of Dorset Street, like the plague.

But these proclamations were made in the late 1890's / early 1900's, after the dismantlement of the 'Flower & Dean Street' rookery had helped to make Dorset Street even more of a bastion of Gentile bigotry, than it had already been.

I will have to re-visit the census records, in order to be certain; but, I seem to recall that Dorset Street, Little Paternoster Row, New Court, and Miller's Court were each heavily populated by Jews, in 1851, 1861, and 1871, and that most emanated from either Amsterdam, or Hamburg; suggesting that they were Sephardim, as opposed to Ashkenazim.

By 1881, each thoroughfare/court had become almost exclusively Gentile; the exception being two-or-three Jewish dwellings, at the western end of Dorset Street, on its southern side.

Incidentally, I believe that these Jewish Dwellings were still just that; i.e. Jewish Dwellings, in 1888.

By 1891, the entire 'rookery', so to speak, had become exclusively Gentile.

But, again, I will have to re-visit the census records, in order to be certain that this was the case.

[Colin Roberts]

Jerry White's Rothschild Buildings quotes several tenants of the dwellings that insisted that Jews typically avoided the inhabitants of Dorset Street, like the plague.

But these proclamations were made in the late 1890's / early 1900's, after the dismantlement of the 'Flower & Dean Street' rookery had helped to make Dorset Street even more of a bastion of Gentile bigotry, than it had already been.

I forgot to mention the fact that I believe that White's intention was to address a prevailing sense of bigotry, amongst the residents of Dorset Street, as opposed to an institution of outright anti-Semitism.

Personally, I often wonder whether 'Jack the Ripper' could have been a Jew; as I must wonder whether the presence of a Jew, particularly an Ashkenazi that had recently emigrated from Eastern Europe, would have raised too many eyebrows, in such places as Dorset Street, George Yard, Buck's Row, and even Hanbury Street, in the immediate vicinity of #29, which in 1888, was still almost exclusively Gentile.

I must also wonder just how many Spitalfields dolly-mops - particularly those of Mary Jane Kelly's ilk, i.e. young, Irish, and perhaps not quite so hopelessly desperate - would have allowed themselves to associate with some filthy foreigner.

In any case; I don't believe that we should describe Dorset Street, as having been 'anti-Semitic'.

[Sally]

Mr. Roberts

In any case; I don't believe that we should describe Dorset Street, as having been 'anti-Semitic'.

You are quite correct. A street is unable to harbour anti-Semitic sentiments in itself, being a street. We should doubtless be discussing the inhabitants of Dorset Street instead.

I don't have Fiona Rule's book with me at the moment, so cannot tell whether she cites her source information for the observations she makes. I do seem to think that she goes into the matter in some details, however, as Garry mentioned above.

Any such observation must of course be a generalisation to an extent - and without qualification has limited mileage. I note that she says 'some Jews' couldn't walk past the end of the road. Some Jews evidently could, if as seems likely, Sarah Lewis was herself a Jew.

That aside, I don't see how it is possible to tell without a substantial quantity of contemporary evidence what anti-Semitic sentiment (if any) was or was not present on Dorset Street in 1888. I'm not sure the Census alone would cut it.

[Colin Roberts]

You are quite correct. A street is unable to harbour anti-Semitic sentiments in itself, being a street. We should doubtless be discussing the inhabitants of Dorset Street instead.

I don't have Fiona Rule's book with me at the moment, so cannot tell whether she cites her source information for the observations she makes. I do seem to think that she goes into the matter in some details, however, as Garry mentioned above.

Any such observation must of course be a generalisation to an extent - and without qualification has limited mileage. I note that she says 'some Jews' couldn't walk past the end of the road. Some Jews evidently could, if as seems likely, Sarah Lewis was herself a Jew.

That aside, I don't see how it is possible to tell without a substantial quantity of contemporary evidence what anti-Semitic sentiment (if any) was or was not present on Dorset Street in 1888. I'm not sure the Census alone would cut it.

You seem to be missing my point.

I perceive a distinct difference between there being a prevailing sense of bigotry and xenophobia, amongst the residents of Dorset Street, and there being an institution of outright anti-Semitism.

A Case, in Point: I believe that Severin Klosowski, aka 'George Chapman' would have been just as unwelcome, in Dorset Street, as would Aaron Kosminski have been.

Both were Polish.

But, one was presumably an ethnic Pole, whilst the other was an ethnic Jew.

And, one was Roman Catholic, whilst the other was Jewish.

I believe that the inhabitants of Dorset Street were, for the most part, very bigoted, but not necessarily 'anti-Semitic'.

I perceive a difference. Perhaps, you do not.

[Colin Roberts]

... she says 'some Jews' couldn't walk past the end of the road. Some Jews evidently could, if as seems likely, Sarah Lewis was herself a Jew.

Could you expound on the possibility that Sarah Lewis was a Jew?

I would tend to believe that the 1888 inhabitants, of Great Pearl Street, were every bit as bigoted and xenophobic, as were the 1888 inhabitants of Dorset Street.

[Lechmere]

The Jewish East End map of 1890 shows Dorset Street and the Providence Row Shelter as being less than 5% Jewish, but the streets immediately to the south were over 95% Jewish, and almost all the streets in the immediate vicinity were over 50% Jewish. I don’t think Jewish people would have been an unusual sight in the area.

If Dorset Street was such a notoriously anti-Semitic street where Jews were known to fear to tread, then Hutchinson seems to have been a bit foolish if he invented the A-man as a Jewish bogey man.

I have listened to Fiona Rule’s podcast and some of the characterisations she gives to Dorset Street are not entirely accurate. She says the buildings were run down for a long period and owned by absentee landlords. However I have studied the Board of Works plans for Dorset Street/Duval Street (some images I have reproduced on other theads) and they show that there were regular redevelopments and McCarthy and Crossingham are listed as the owners of property there – they did not just rent it. The absentee landlord reference may have related to an earlier period though.

Did the ‘anti-Semitic Dorset Street’ quotation relate to the newspaper article in 1901 that McCarthy objected to? If so then it isn’t particularly relevant to 1888.
However, in the context of the podcast it implies that the quotations come from Rothschild Buildings: life in an East End tenement block 1887-1920 by Jerry White. The book was based on research in the 1970s (published in 1980) and the reminiscences he quotes can only have related to people’s experiences in the 1910s or 1920s.