| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 952
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | 
|
Hi all!
Just some musing here.....after the horrors at Millers Ct.. what happened to the bed!!!??? Was it taken away as some kind of 'evidence' and in which case what then?....Or did Mr Mc C just hastily cover it over with another palliasse of some description and re-let to some other 'unfortunate' in THE room....can't imagine that Mrs Prater wouldn't have had something to say though to the new occupant though!
Well?
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 949
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 3:02 am: |
|
Hi Suzi,
I would have imagined that the bed was taken out of the room and destroyed, along with any other soiled furnature, and the area would have been scrubbed intensly.
Still the partition showed some signs of markings, one can not wildly imagine what it would have been like to spend the night in that disgusting place knowing the previous history, i would have no hesitation in describing it as a night in hell, far worse then spending a week alone in the chamber of horrors.
Ones imagination, would be extremely damaging to ones mental state.
Richard. |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 22
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 4:34 am: |
|
I read in Paul Begg's book that Joe McCarthy turned down offers from people who wanted to buy the furniture as souvenieres |
Eduardo Zinna
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eduardo
Post Number: 54
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 5:52 am: |
|
Hi Belinda,
It was John McCarthy, wasn't it? I think Joe McCarthy made his reputation in a different way.
Best wishes,
Eduardo |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Hi all
If the Kit Watkins story about her visit to Miller's Court in 1909 has any truth, the room at 13 Miller's Court was still blood-stained 21 years after Mary Jane Kelly's murder as we learn from "KIT, KITTY, KITTEN" by Andy Aliffe:
Still residing there was Elizabeth Prater, who lived above Mary Kelly on the night of her murder, but was now living opposite. She told Kit how she had been woken by her kitten "Diddles" at about 4am and had heard a faint cry of "oh murder" from somewhere near by.
Elizabeth then took Kit across the court to meet the current occupant of Mary Kelly's still blood stained room of number 13, a lady who went by the name of "Lottie".
"I was her friend" said Lottie, speaking with difficulty because of a broken and battered nose given to her by a kick from her husband's heavy boot. "I was living further up the court then. She (Mary Kelly) says `I'm afraid to go out alone at night because of a dream I had that a man was murdering me. Maybe I'll be next. They say Jack's been busy in this quarter'. She said it with such a laugh ma'am that it just made me creep. And been sure enough ma'am she was the next to go. I heard her through the night singin' - she had a nice voice - "The violets grow on your mothers grave" - but that's all we 'urd". Lottie seemed to have no repugnance in sleeping in the room with its now blood blackened walls.
Following is my theory about the probable disposition of the bed.
As with the partition, which apparently remained bloodstained, possibly the bed was reused even if stained and may just have been scrubbed afterward, given the probable value of any stick of furniture in impoverished Spitalfields and Whitechapel. My assumption is that it may have remained in the room, was slept on by other unfortunates and down-and-outs and eventually, sometime later, was junked. If this is how it went down, it does boggle our minds as students of the case, but only just in the same way that we are amazed today at the apparent lackadaisical disposition of other evidence and artifacts of the case in the hands of the police, the doctors called into the case, and others.
Best regards
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on July 09, 2004)
(Message edited by chrisg on July 09, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 950
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Hi chris,
I have always thought that Kit Watkins report was intresting, it gives a insight how rough the area was, and also gives a possible explanation for the 4am cry heard by the residents 'Oh Murder' is that not possibly a person having a nightmare response, exspecially as it was the type of dream that kelly told Lottie she had experienced.
I feel that if the cry heard was the response from kelly awakening suddenly having a recorrence of that past nightmare, the sightings in the morning would certainly hold more credence.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 954
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Hi all thanks for all that response...
Chris- Kit Watkin's story has some credence!.. I guess... but poor old Lottie living in that room blood be -spattered as it was!!!! you cant tell me that Mrs P.. with or without 'Dids' didnt(!) come down for a chat tho!
Richard- I still feel that the 'Oh Murder' came from WITHOUT the window on pulling aside the Pilot Coat rather than from within....IMHO!
Go Diddles eh! purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Suzi
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 795
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Hi, Suzi and Richard
Glad you both found the Kit Watkins story a useful reference point. We might wonder if the story is somewhat romanticized, the woman with the bloody and broken nose given to her by her husband's boot plus Mary's reported dream about Jack, giving the reader everything they need to conjure up the place, along with the bloodstains, naturally, the quote supposedly from Mary Kelly, "I'm afraid to go out alone at night because of a dream I had that a man was murdering me. Maybe I'll be next. They say Jack's been busy in this quarter" and Lottie's comment, "She said it with such a laugh ma'am that it just made me creep." Was all of this possibly too good to be true? The other thing I noticed, maybe not particularly a final cause to doubt the authenticity of the report--though it might legitimately raise some question-- is the woman's reported use of "ma'am" surely a North American expression more than typical East London usage, possibly an addition of the Canadian author and not actually said by Lottie?
Incidentally, I anticipate that in an upcoming issue an author will have some new information about pioneer Canadian woman journalist Kit Watkins and her reported visit to the Kelly murder site.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 23
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Oops my memory for names deserts me when I really need it.
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 621
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 3:06 am: |
|
You may be interested to know (plug, plug, plug) that my book, which now (touch wood) has a publisher (plug, plug, plug, plug) will contain a first hand account from someone who visited the room with the inquest jury. And no, not putting it on here just yet, I have to keep a few things back!!!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 951
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 3:22 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
The American expression would be prenounced Mam[ as written] and the English version would be prenounced Marm[ as written]therefore i would suggest that Lottie was showing respect to Kit by refering to her in the British way.
We should not underestimate witnesses accounts, we know that Barnett [ by his own admission] read the newspapers to Kelly, we know that she was real scared of the Ripper, and it is more then possible if Barnett drummed it in to her that she may be a victim of 'Jack' unless she altered her ways, that she could have had a nightmare that she was being murdered during October, which must be the case if Lottie says 'She was next', and it is a fact that bad nightmares can repeat themselves, like for instance 4am on the morning of the 9th November.
The trouble with Kelly was she although scared out of her wits, refused to believe it would be her, and laughed everything off.
Richard. |
Belinda Pearce
Sergeant
Username: Belinda
Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 8:57 am: |
|
Hi Alan when does the book come out |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 622
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 9:49 am: |
|
Too early to say just yet, I only got the publisher's offer this week! I'd like to have it out for Christmas but that might be too early so hopefully early next year. Certainly in time for the conference at the latest! Preliminary title is London Correspondence: Jack the Ripper & The Irish Press, although that might change.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 955
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Alan
Looking forward to the book!!
Chris -
All this stuff about Kit Watkins (who was probably OK ).Lottie (!) and the dream(!!!) has to taken with an awful lot of salt I feel....hmmmmmmm
Richard- all this business about Mary having Joe to read to her is rather odd I feel to say the least....Sorry butI just feel maybe.. just maybe.. she could have read 'em for herself but had a sort of frisson about Joe reading to her.......cant help but think that Kate and Mary KNEW who our chum was....................
Well?
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 953
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
We often doubt witnesses on this site suggesting that they are unreliable, or attention seekers, that is fair play, however we should look carefully in the way the evidence is presented, ie, is there wording that gives credence to a event, for exsample , Hutchinsons quotation from Kelly' Oh I have lost my hankerchief' would indicate truth as it is not a indication of a false account.
With regard to Lotties remarks to Reporter Kit, she first of all makes it clear that she lived further down the court at the time, and states kelly said that since she had a dream [ that she was being murdered] she was scared to go out alone at nights, and remarked that kelly laughed it off.
I personally do not find that hard to swallow, she remarked to Lizzie on the evening before her death, that this whole business concerned her. and I Consider Lotties remarks as very intresting.
Regarding the papers, kelly according to Barnett asked him to read the papers to her, yet we are led to believe that she infact was quite a scholar, i would put it that Barnett insisted on reading the gory bits to Mary, literally frightening the daylights out of her, and causing her to have nightmares.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2687
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
Re the paper-reading, they had two windows both facing north, and the most comfortable place to sit was probably on the bed. The windows would have been grimy and unwashed. I bet there wasn't much light getting into that room, and it may be that reading a newspaper would most easily have been done by standing right next to the window, or sitting on a chair placed by the window. Might it not be that Kelly simply preferred the more comfortable bed, leaving Joe to stand or sit by the window?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 957
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Richard-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe...on all counts..Kit interests me though..when she spoke to Mrs Prater and was shown the room what actually happened?.....Must check this Canadian press account out.
Wonder if the Sarah Lewis's and Kennedys (AND of course the Maxwells and the Barnetts!) of this world et al...were still about and available for comment at the time of Kit's visit?
The 'I've lost my handkerchief' comment....does worry me....its an odd comment...unless she really had ..and it caused her a problem..... (odd!) This is however the sort of comment that one makes (IMHO) when one has spent rather too long in Mrs Ringers!..as little things like that can become curiously important at times like this!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 958
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 5:30 pm: |
|
And furthermore!.....
Just another thought though....The Handkerchief....Ok.. we know that all things like this were amazingly expensive at this time!! I don't imagine that Mary bought her own.. and that maybe the handkerchief in question was a prized possession of some kind ... a gift maybe...
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 954
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 4:32 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
We will never know if the papers were read to kelly by Barnett because she requested it, or she was forced to listen to him reading out all the gruesome details, we must understand that during that era peoples eyes were accostomed to the lack of illumination, rather like people during the last war became used to the blackout, therefore the reading of a newspaper in room 13 would have been no big deal regardless where in the room the reader was.
Suzi.
The Hankerchief issue is important in two ways,firstly it gives credence to Hutchinsons statement, for it is a strange remark to have made by him , if the event never happened.
Secondly we should ask the obvious ie. Why did kelly make that remark to the astracan man, and why did she imply that she required the use of a hanky?.
The most logical answer is that she needed to blow her nose, and we can therefore speculate further in suggesting that she may have had a cold, which as i have said before happens to help confirm maxwells sighting, as i have seen two statements in the past remarking on maxwells sightings.
a] 'Her eyes looked queer as if she was suffering from a heavy cold'
b] she appeared all muffled up , like with a cold.
It therefore does not require much brain matter to suggest that if Kelly was killed between Hutchinsons sighting and Maxwells sighting , how would it be that Mrs maxwell would be able to possibly confirm a physical condition, when the victim had been dead for 4 hours.
I have for over thirty years considered the hankerchief point as a valuable argument to suggest that both Hutchinson and Maxwell were telling respective truths.
Regards Richard.
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 309
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 8:23 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
“The Hankerchief issue is important in two ways,firstly it gives credence to Hutchinsons statement, for it is a strange remark to have made by him , if the event never happened.”
By itself Mary’s alleged remark about her handkerchief isn’t odd or suspicious, but to say that it would indicate truth as it is not an indication of a false account goes way too far. If we’re looking at the bigger picture, we may see that Hutchinson description of the well dressed man contains several bits and pieces from descriptions given by other witnesses. Lawende for instance described Eddowes’ companion as wearing a reddish neckerchief. If Hutchinson wasn’t telling much of the truth, he could still have included the remark and the reaction of Mary’s client in his statement for the very important reason of making his account seem more credible. By the way, it seems a bit unlikely to me that at a distance of some 25 yards in a rather poorly illuminated street in the middle of the night Hutchinson would have been able to clearly see what colour the hanky was.
So, although Mary actually may have made the remark and her client may have actually given her a red hanky we cannot draw the conclusion that Hutchinson must have been telling the truth simply because the remark itself doesn’t seem to be a lie, or even because it seems to have been a strange remark if it never actually happened.
All the best,
Frank
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 959
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 8:31 am: |
|
Hi Robert-
Comfortable!!? that bed!!! agree tho re the windows,not that they were sparkling clean!!! Errgh can you imagine!!!probably didnt need the 'pilot coat' to keep people from seeing in!..or out!!!
Richard-
Yes ok.. take your point re Mary having a cold and Mrs M making her remarks as to her eyes etc etc but Hutch says that he overheard the handkerchief conversation after the 'Come with me and you will be comfortable' comment...God he was attentive!!
...maybe too attentive....If Hutch had 'devised' the handkerchief as a useful minutiae to his witness statement then the addition of the colour red can only have embellished his statement,along with the red-stoned seal on the watch etc 'Red George' may just have had one red too many!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 960
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 8:34 am: |
|
Frank!
How spooky is that!!! Just checked to see if Id posted and there was your post!!! THIS RED HANKIE thing is a RED tooooooofar I feel!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2689
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 9:30 am: |
|
Hi Suzi
I only meant that given a choice between a chair and the bed, Kelly would probably have preferred the bed - not that the bed was particularly comfortable in itself.
Re the hanky, I believe someone has already made the point that a man visiting a prostitute might want a handkerchief for certain purposes entirely unconnected with colds or noses....
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 310
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 9:46 am: |
|
Didn’t mean to scare you there, Suzi!
Cheers,
Frank
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 961
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 10:13 am: |
|
Hi Frank-
Did tho!!!! ha ha !
Robert!- Thanks! yes seem to recall that from way back.hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
still still think that RED GEORGE has some questions to answer!..........seem to have strayed some way from THE BED here tho!!! so to speak!(maybe to get a better look at the paper!!!!!)
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2690
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 10:36 am: |
|
Re the bed, OK I know my eyes aren't the greatest in the world but I just find it hard to see the bed as being in its original position for that full length photo. The rectangles on the wall "behind" the head of the bed just look all wrong. To me, it looks more as if the bed and table have been dragged forwards, and that the rectangles "behind" the head of the bed are in fact a continuation of the partition. In other words, we're not seeing the bed head tucked into the corner of the room but rather shifted halfway up the room, the foot of the bed presumably almost touching the far wall where the fireplace was.
If the room were to be divided into squares
A B
C D
Then I see the bed as being in square B not D.
I have to go and feed my guide dog now.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 962
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:25 am: |
|
Robert-
I think you're right.....there is something verrrrrrry odd about the position of THAT bed in THAT room!!....just doesnt look right!. I feel the corner of the room to be just to the left of the left hand bed post in THE PIC which puts the bed out from the wall/partition and into the room quite a lot.. certainly enough for the photographer to get behind that bed to take the 'Table pic!'
Cheers
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 955
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I am aware of the possible contraception method regarding the hankerchief, but I feel that as she felt for her hanky in Dorset street, rather than when she reached her room, that the hankerchief was required by kelly for more obvious reasons, I do agree about the rearanging of the room, which proberly occured whilst taking the photographs, that washstand intriques me, it is sketched alongside the partition. then in the photo it vanishes, whoever drew the positioning of the room and its contents obviously originally , or at some point saw a washstand in that spot.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 964
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Richard
Re the hanky panky so to speak.....I agree... BUT..
I dont believe that the washstand was ever between the bed and the wall/partition!...I.. (NOT PERSONALLY!)...oddly..seem to recall that it was on the same wall as the fireplace at the right hand foot of the bed so to speak.. the corner of the room I mean!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2692
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi
I'm sure I've seen a reference to a "disused" washstand. I don't quite understand how a washstand can be disused, but if it really was disused, surely it would have made sense for Joe and Mary to chuck it out - space in there was at a premium.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 965
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Robert!
Yes.. I recall (distantly ) that I've seen that disused washstand thing somewhere too!!! Hmmm a disused washstand shurely(!) becomes just somewhere to deposit things like ginger beer bottles,bonnets,little boys,candles,prints of the Fishermans Widow,pipes and anything else.......except body parts which of course went on the table behind the door!!!!! Guess (semi seriously ) that it was just used as a general repository tho
Cheers
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2693
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi
Let's hope Alan's book turns up something about the articles in the room.
Great new pic, by the way.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 966
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Robert
Exactly!! will look out for all the above with of course the odd hatchet or two!!
Alan- Hope the book goes well and get it out soon as........will need time to digest before October 2005!
Robert
Ta for that!
Cheers....think we should all update our pixs in various states of disrepair!
Suzi |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 268
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Hi all
Just a thought about the bed. Considering John McCarthy wasn't bothered about bloodstains on the wall, I wouldn't be surprised if he kept the bed and gave it a quick wash down and just replaced the mattress.
Alan
Best of luck with the book.
Rob |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 623
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Sorry to disappoint, but although my man runs through a brief list of the contents of the room, the washstand is not mentioned.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 3:53 am: |
|
Hi,
What confuses me is the window covering, it appears to have been some kind of muslin fabric, we then have reports of a mans pilot coat hanging attached by two forks, with originaly stuffed rags in the hole in the pane.
Yet there is a report that nobody could see in that room during the night as the blinds were down... does that imply that at night there was a pull down blind?.
if so why was this blind not down when Bowyer called, if kelly had been dead since the mid hours of the night, the killer would have left the room without touching them, and simply used the candle to supplement light.
Yet if Kelly was alive in the morning , she would have released the blind upon wakening, which is how Bowyer was able to reach through the broken pane, and pull back the curtain [ no mention of him pulling back the pilot coat also].
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 967
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Wow!!!
Just picked up here!
Robert C
Think youre right re Mc C's attitude to the bed and the re-letting!!!! after all whats a few spatters on the wall my old dearie......think yourself lucky......you'll be comfortable!!!!!
Alan-
Seem to remember the washstand is mentioned somewhere but 'disused'.....Hmmmmm odd!
Richard-
Love the idea of the bit of muslin stuffed in the hole!!!!!!! Still think that if it was a pilot coat then of course it didnt show any light but.....would have been easily pulled aside throught the hole......after removing the muslin!!!!! of course!!!!
Best all!
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 958
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
I did not mean the muslin was stuffed in the hole, it would have just been a curtain, according to Bowyer, he put his hand through the broken pane, and pulled back the curtain, not he put his hand through the hole and pulled back a coat.
I also refered to the comment made that nothing could be seen as the blinds were down, which seems a odd expression, as i would have thought if it was refering to a curtain , it would have said the blinds were drawn.
Richard, |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 968
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Hi Richard!!
Right..... we have muslin in the hole which although a tad bizarre is not without the bounds ...I guess..'
"Put his hand throught the broken pane and pulled back the curtain"..I doubt that Mary would have had a delicate muslin number....no ..I agree.. it would have cut out the light and passing Millers Ct observers!..as a curtain....mainly cos they couldnt see in and probably not having been into the rooom (or maybe not) for some time ... Indian Harry pulled aside what was covering the window and ....naturally thought of it as a curtain!or maybe just a window covering and the Press interpreted this as a curtain!..
Blinds..........is very odd indeed!!! Frilly Venetian ones no doubt!!!!,....Come on.... Mary had a serious hole in that window and stuck up an old coat.....either from Maria,Julia or Joe or whoever and stuck....probably nailed ..it up over the hole....holes.. in the window!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 959
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
Just to clear any mistake up. I do not mean muslin in the hole, just a muslin fabric curtain , the blinds report i mentioned because when i hear of the blinds being down, i automaticaly interpret a lowering of a blind to cover the window, for surely the muslin curtain would have remained on the window 24 /7. I would hardly have thought that as it was such a small room that kelly would not have allowed everybody who left the court during the day to peer into her room upon passing.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 969
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 4:25 am: |
|
Hi Richard
Ok take your point re Mary having some sort of covering at that window to offer some sort of privacy from other Millers Court residents and passing serial killers..hmmmmmm,guess this is probably the case and that the coat went up at night to keep out the cold and because as we all know net /muslin curtains have a distressing habit of becoming frighteningly transparent at night!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 970
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Hi all
We seem to have strayed a tad from the thread here.....but good fun 'eh!!!
I still think IMHO that
a) Mr Mc C sold the bed for profit but to god knows who and god knows where it is now......check those church fetes,car boots and ebay!!! or
b) Just covered it with another straw filled palliasse and re let the room .....blood stained walls notwithstanding!!!
Bet Mrs P and Dids kept their 4 keen eyes on that one though!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 962
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi,
Seriously I do not share the view that McCarthy did not do his utmost to re furnish room 13, the partition may have even through scrubbed have shown a degree of smudge, but surely the bed would have been condemed, also any items reminding McCarthy of that dreadful event would have been removed.
The only horror would have been in the imagination of the occupier following that horrendous act, if of course they were in poccession of the knowledge of that event.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 971
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 11:24 am: |
|
Richard-
I agree that Mr Mc C probably made every effort to repair the ravages of 9th Nov by scrubbinh and re furnishiung as best he could to make the room 'attractive 'to the next incumbent.I am positive though that no one who had previously resided within a considerable radius of Millers Ct could have been ignorant of the details of 'that room'and also if they were I'm sure that Mrs P and the other residents would have her told albeit in hushed tones within minutes!
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 963
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 3:31 am: |
|
Hi Suzi,
I agree entirely that any new resident would have been informed of the rooms recent history, and i would hazzard a guess that many new perspective boarders would have said 'No Thanks' once they knew of its place in history.
It would be intresting to know the name of the first person[ or persons] that occupied the room, they must have had a incredible strong mind, and lacked imagination, for surely no matter how desperate there accomodation worries were, if they could afford the sum of 4/6d weekly they could afford other more pleasant surroundings.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 972
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
I agree with all that...
Yes.,.. wonder if anyone does know the name of the first incumbant/s of THAT room!..hmmmm somebody may I guess. Love the idea of a very 'strong mind'!!! probably a very weak mind and no imagination! would have fitted the new residents profile!....I do agree tho that 4/6d a week was a Kings ransom at the time!.....The Hilton of Whitechapel no less!!....odd that.....curiosity maybe!?
Cheers
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 964
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
One wonders if McCarthy charged 4/6d per week for a back parlour, how much he charged the other residents of the court.
I Find it hard to imagine that any resident of whitechapel would take on room 13 , knowing that the most revolting murder of the Ripper series had occured there, can you imagine what it must have been like laying on a bed[ even if the bed was changed] and even if you had your partner with you, knowing that only a short time had occured since that room was full of horrors, the mind boggles.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 973
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
Yes.. or rather no.... I cant!!!!!! imagine how that must have felt! Odd how it was No 13 too! ..unlucky I'd say for one at least!...
as to the price.....yes I must admit that 4/6 sounds an awful lot...As to the other residents of the court I assume they only had one or two rooms (luxury!) at the most......Hmmmmmmm SOMEONE must know or guess how much Mr McC was coining from all 13...if not many more rooms!...The 'shed' notwithstanding!
...Am going to try search engine thing to find out what 4/6d would have been worth in 1888.....
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 974
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Hi Richard!
Have just been onto google and through Medieval and early Modern Data Bank!!!!! found a 'How much is that worth today' thread!!!!!
Right....wait for this chaps..........in 1888 4/6d was worth £14.68!!!!!!!!!!!! (That was worked out for 2002 too!!!!!
That is one hell of a lot of money for THAT room!
wow!
suzi
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 5:48 pm: |
|
G'day Suzi,
Does this help?...From Bruce Paley's book: 'With 12 pence to the shilling, and 20 shillings per pound, 1 pound could be made to go along way, In the 1880s, a cheap room could be had for under 5s per week, while a bed in a doss house or common lodging house cost as little as 4d per night.' Then he goes on to say things like: 'A nice pair of trousers went for 7s6d, corduroys for 4s5d,.......most newspapers cost a penny,...a fountain pen cost about 2s6d,...', to give a reader an idea of the value of money in those days.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2711
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Hi all
Just a couple of tentative suggestions :
Maybe the 4/6d included meals? We know that McCarthy was a grocer.
Also, maybe McCarthy actually couldn't let the room for 4/6d after the murder. Maybe he had to drop his price for that particular room?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:41 pm: |
|
G'day,
I just read a piece written by Garry Wroe and shown here titled: 'Jack the Ripper, Person or Persons Unknown?' In it he says about the rent charged for Room 13 Miller's Court: 'If anything Mary Jane had obtained a bargain, since 9d per day with Sunday thrown in gratis, (as was standard practice), represented a far cheaper proposition then many similar rooms in a locality where demand for accomodation had catapaulted rents exorbitantly.'
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 4:09 am: |
|
Hi Suzi,
14/68 does not sound right to me, if one takes a labourers salary on a site today, i would say the average guy could gross Three hundred pounds a week[ proberly more.
In 1888 the average labourer may have earned two pounds a week which would be 150 times less.
My grandmother told me that when she married in 1899 she could get a whole weeks grocerys for five shillings.
if the room cost only 14,68 per week [ todays terms that would be rather cheap, even for that sordid place.
Richard, |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 975
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Yes I know it sounds bizarre.....just checked this transference for money then to money now site....probably wrong....sounds daft to me.! God have had some bedsits in the long gone past that would have classed as sordid and paid a lot more for them!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 977
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi all
Thanks for all that.....still think that 4/6d is way too much for that room-et!!! Maybe the price was quoted by Mr McC or whoever as 4 OR 6 a week meaning pence.....the rest merely disappeared into the 'myth' thing as 4/6d....Odd that no one picked up at the time though
Cheers
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 979
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hey!
right if the going rate was 4d and Mr Mc C upped it to 8p for a few sticks of furniture and a des res view!!!! The 4/6d may just may be about right.......strange how these things come to you
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 984
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Hi all
ww seem to have ground to a halt here over the 4/6d etc etc....At the risk of kicking off again.....do we actually know who occupied THAT ROOM post Mary up until the date of it being demolished?.....we know about the Kit thing but there must have been quite a few occupants between that poor soul and demolition day!I hate to say it...but Kelly's Directory may come in useful here!!! havent seen one for years tho.....My Dad was a big fan of em!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 985
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 4:46 pm: |
|
we seem to have ground to a halt too!!!!!
suzi
 |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Hello all.
With regard to the position of MJK's bed.
Most of discussions I have read tend to be arguments as to whether the bed was situated away from,or positioned directly up against the partion wall.
Some theorists argue that because of the nature of the mutilations,there must have been space between the bed and the partion because the killer must have attacked Mary from the left hand side.
Others say there must have been a gap because that is where the elusive disused wash stand stood.
Well,to my eyes,Kelly's bed is bang up against the partition wall.
However what people don't seem to have picked up on(probably because all the diagrams of the room are wrong),is that Kelly's bed is not pushed into the corner of the room.
There is quite a considerable distance between the back of the headboard and the "Door" wall.
I made this observation only quite recently.
Looking at the Casebook high res' scan it is evident that there is wooden panelling extending beyond the headboard to the right of the picture.
The rather odd perspective of this "Corner of the room has always puzzled me before,but of course this is not the corner of the room at all.
So maybe the wash stand did exsist after all and it lived behind the headboard!
Regards,
Kane
|
