|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 8:11 am: |       |
G'day Busy,
What points do you have on these lists? Why do you think he would have flipped and confessed? I remember reading about countless murder cases where the guilty party was thought to be the last person to committ the crime.
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 299
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Hi Carlo,
Some days ago you wrote:
“What I have been wondering about is why the killer would at all need extra light.
He has done more accurate mutilations before with less light.
…
The killer himself must have been covered in blood including his clothes, could he have burned some of his bloodstained clothes?”
I’m not saying Mary’s killer did light a fire, but he might have. Not in order to mutilate her more accurately than he did without any light, because I don’t think it was his goal to cut up his victims nice and clean. I think he just wanted to mutilate, destroy. The light would most probably have added to his feelings of power and enjoyment, because he could now better see what it looked like, what his victim looked like. So, in this respect a fire could have been very important to the killer.
As to the killer getting covered in blood, he might have used Maria’s clothes to wipe himself clean after which he threw the clothes in the fire or, if there was no fire burning yet, he might have wanted to burn the bloodstained clothes and did so. It’s also possible that he took off some or even all of his clothes now that he was killing indoors, wiped his body clean with Maria’s clothes after his bloody deed, threw them in the fire or made a fire with them, put on his own clean clothes again and left as clean as a whistle. This way he would avoid having to burn some of his own bloodstained clothes.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 300
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
Hi Richard,
You wrote:
“i feel strongly that if Barnett was the killer of kelly , he could only have committed the act in the hours between 845 am and 930am, any earlier would not correspond with maxwells sighting, and any later would not allow him the time frame to commit such an act.”
I’m a bit confused. Does this mean that you don’t believe Maurice Lewis’ accounts any longer? Because if you still do, Mary was still alive shortly after 10 a.m., drinking with some other people. I think you can’t simply believe one or two of his statements, because they fit and even support your theory, and simply discount another, because it doesn’t. I think you either believe him all the way, or you should at least treat all of his accounts with caution.
You also wrote:
“Plus collecting press clippings starting with Tabram, and ending with McKenzie, does point directly to his guilt , as how did he know that Tabram was going to be the start of the series , unless he was the culprit.”
I’m also a bit confused here. Accepting the press clippings would not only mean that you believe Joe killed more than only Mary Kelly, it would also mean that the series didn’t end with her, which seems very odd, since according to you the reason behind the murders was to scare Mary off the streets. After Mary was killed there obviously would no longer have been any need to do any killing.
By the way, although I don’t agree with you, your post of June 29 (4:47 am) was one of the best I’ve read of you. It’s quite a sound scenario, based on facts and, although some uncorroborated, newspaper accounts from that time.
Furthermore, I have to say you made a good point some weeks ago when you wondered why the police didn’t use the broken window to open the door to Mary’s room if it was that easy, making it a bit unlikely for her killer to have entered her room like that while she was sleeping.
All the best,
Frank
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 932
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
Hi all
Hmmmm quite a lot to deal with here
a) Lizzie Albrook was 20 yrs at the time and lived allegedly (but where?) in Millers Ct and worked in a lodging house in Dorset St (Crossinghams?),the only thing we have here is that she came up with the line at the inquest 'Whatever you do dont do wrong and turn out as I have' etc etc
b) Joe
Ok Frank I agree with your timings but also think that Joe was of course the obvious invisible man!!! He was living with Mary for an amount of time and would have been a familiar figure in Dorset Street dressed as he was..if he had affected some form of disguise....then he
would have been noticed!....Joe I'm sure is not the man we're looking for here disguise notwithstanding.
c)Mrs M
Still cannot believe that Mrs M mistook Mary on the fateful morning...if it was of course 'fateful' for Mary!........She knew and recognised her and the fact that Mrs M said that Mary referred to her as 'Carrie'....and that Mrs M replied 'I pity your condition' etc etc odd line there of course which can be interpreted in many ways...suggests a certain familiarity.d)The fire
Frank-Think that the killer may have used Maria's leavings to 'mop up' and then throw them onto the existing fire that Mary had lit to warm and dry herself,would explain the smouldering fire,Mind you cant see him swabbing the blood off with a bonnet!Also believe IMHO that the kettle spout had been off for some time prior to the night of 9th Nov... it was probably the last thing on Mary's mind,as long as she could heat water was it a big deal that the kettle had no spout!
e)Maurice Lewis
Claims to have known Mary for five years!....this must mean that he knew her prior to her living in Dorset St...is this recorded?...Also if he'd known her and was that familiar with her why did he confuse 'Joe' and 'Danny' unless they were uncannily alike or maybe Mr Lewis's eyesight.......as a tailor was somewhat impaired!or he was just plain lying or had a date problem!!
Enough of this....just thoughts!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 937
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
A couple of points,
Regarding Maurice Lewis statements to the press, I do have to agree that his apparent sighting of kelly at 10am is strange, even i cannot imagine the killer taking such a short time to complete that act, i still believe he saw kelly that morning but i believe his timing may be well out of sequence, he claimed to have known kelly for several years, which does not ring true, the fact that he apparently claimed to have seen her with a man he describes as her lover, could indicate that Barnett was on the scene at some point that morning but i would not suggest they were drinking at 10am.
Regarding the press clippings, what i should have said was i believe that he cut out the report on Mckensie's murder to read about the crime, to see if the police attributed it to the Ripper murders, and to find out if they were looking for any suspect, call it a curiosity clipping.
Richard.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 938
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
Just a footnote, it appears that the cuttings ended in april 91, which would have included Coles murder, if the cuttings originated from Barnett, it would appear that he took a particular intrest in murders occuring in whitechapel since Mjk that could have been interpreted as 'Jack'.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 933
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Hi all
Cuttings what are these and where did they come from?
Maurice Lewis obviously 'knew' Mary ....I still find it hard to believe that he mistook Danny for Joe...if he'd known Mary 'for five years'and Joe presumably for some of that time...SHURELY he'd have happened upon the ubiquitous Danny at some point! At the risk of flippancy here.....were Sarah and Maurice related I wonder..maybe!!!???! Whatever old 'Ginger' still has some explananing to do re the boy living with her as mentioned by Mr Barnett to The Star (10th Nov 1898!)
cheers
Suzi |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Hi Frank,
Is It possible that the Killer undressed himself and then killed Kelly? After he was done he sliped his cloths back on, Keeping his cloths clean? His hands would have been bloody but maybe he slipped on gloves after he subdued Kelly.
Take care,CB |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 939
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
CB
I feel the 'clippings' to be a tad spurious! If and I say if..Mary had had some education of sorts the I fel that she may have been able to read the newspapers for herself...ok maybe she didnt have the 'spare' to buy them.....hence Joe but if he provided then maybe it was just some sort of coqettishness that made her ask Joe to read it/them to her! Again I ask why...........?perhaps just to reassure herself that what was being said on the streets may be true...Mind you you mustn't believe everything you read in the papers than as now!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 939
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 4:01 am: | |
Hi CB,
The clippings saga comes from imformation that Paul Harrison received when writing his book, he spoke of a meeting with a descendant of Barnetts, who Showed Mr Harrison a envelope containing a collection of press reports relating to the murders stating with Tabram, and continuing to april 1891, after the murder of frances coles.
The descendant imformed Mr Harrison that these were collected by Barnett himself.
Alarm bells ring here for many people, And of course as none of us were present at the alleged meeting, we tend to be somewhat suspicious, however Harrison claimed that the cuttings were original, if so take it from me,as someone who poccesses a huge collection of truely original papers[ not copys] they are extremely expensive to purchase, and to have a number of cuttings from reports covering that time span , would have cost this person a fair sum of money if purchased in modern times.
All of my collection are carefully looked after and I certainly would never dream of cutting out articles.
If the meeting took place, and if as Mr Harrison claims they were genuine clippings , and if this person was a descendant of Barnett, and if his assurance that they came from Joseph Barnett is the truth. then a very intresting picture starts to emerge.
Regards Richard. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 44
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 5:55 am: | |
Hi Leanne, will post my list when it's ready! Still got some further research to do.
cheers
Busy Beaver  |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
G'day Suzi,
'Mrs. M' (or Caroline Maxwell for the viewers at home), had known Mary Kelly for just four months, and during those four months had spoken to her merely twice. Plus I notice that when giving her account of what happened to the reporter of the 'Times' the day before the inquest, she described no exchange of first names.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 940
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 10:02 am: | |
Hi Leanne
OK I know that Caroline (Mrs M) Maxwell had only allegedly known Mary for four months.........slightly odd that though as Caroline was the wife of the deputy at Crossinghams opposite (ish)
Millers Ct .She obviously knew Mary well enough to recognise her clothing..the bodice and maroon crossover shawl etc etc
If she recognised the clothes......then whoever she thought she saw talking to the stout man in the plaid coat outside The Britannia was probably Mary I feel.I still think that this maroon cross over shawl is something that Mary was known to wear and despite all of her other 'stand out' features may have been a common point of recognition
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 301
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
Hey there CB,
I’m not completely sure what you mean, so for the moment I just assume that you wonder if Mary’s killer undressed before he launched his (initial) attack.
The stabs in the sheet, the small incision to her right thumb, several abrasions to the back of hand and forearm, even some of the extensive and jagged wounds to both forearms and the possible cry of ‘Murder’ suggest that very shortly before the attack began Mary Kelly realized what was about to happen and tried to defend herself. And they do more than suggest that the killer was already using his knife at that point. We know that she was already lying in bed when she was attacked. I assume that her killer first rendered her unconscious, then cut her throat and then started mutilating her. This may be concluded from the sprays of blood on the wall in a line with Mary's neck.
From Mary Ann Cox’ statement we know Mary had made a light earlier in the night when she took the blotchy faced man into her room, so it’s probable that she would have done the same with the Ripper, if he posed as a client. A piece of candle was found in her room the next afternoon and a fire had been burning in the fire place.
If the Ripper indeed posed as a client, he may have undressed himself in order to avoid running the risk of alarming Mary. She might have been somewhat alarmed if he didn’t undress like she did, although not necessarily, because I think the Ripper probably seemed to be a rather quiet and timid man in the first place. Not wanting to undress could therefore have been readily accepted by Mary.
So, he may have undressed himself, but if he did, the knife would have alarmed her even more if she was to see it. He could of course have kept it behind his back so she wouldn’t see it at all, but that would have been suspicious. He could have hid the rather large blade behind his forearm while keeping his arm as normal as possible at his side, but then he’d run the risk that she still saw it. If he undressed before attacking, he also ran the risk that she saw him taking the knife out of his coat or wherever he kept it.
The facts tell us that Mary probably realized what was about to happen very shortly before she was actually attacked, perhaps not much more than only one second before, which suggests that Mary’s killer must have been very close to her at that point. Otherwise, there probably would have been signs of a struggle - she might have tried to defend herself with her legs and feet, she would have had (more) time to scream.
All in all, it is possible that he undressed before attacking Mary, but I think it’s unlikely. First of all because he may not have wanted to as this might have made him feel vulnerable or something like that. Secondly, because he would run the risk that she would raise an alarm if he acted suspicious or if she saw the knife. And thirdly because in the previous cases the Ripper most probably attacked fairly quickly after he and his victim had reached the crime scene, and as far as I know it’s also fairly typical of mutilating killers to kill rather quickly.
I think he may have (partially) undressed after rendering her unconscious or killing her and before mutilating her. If he was the one to burn Maria’s clothes, he could have used them to wipe himself clean (although I don't think that he did), if he didn’t he could have used a handkerchief he brought with him or even one of his own clothes, or, like you suggested, he could have put on gloves.
Hmm, I wanted to keep it short, but I see that, once more, I completely failed at that…
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 302
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 2:41 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
In addition to Leanne’s post about Caroline Maxwell I can say that in her official police statement, which was taken on 9 November, she doesn’t mention any exchange of names either. She also stated that she hadn’t seen Mary for 3 weeks!
At the inquest Maxwell deposed that Mary ‘was a young woman who never associated with any one.’ This doesn’t fit with what we know about Mary. Mary did associate with several people. Joe Barnett, Maria Harvey, Lizzie Allbrook and Julia Venturney were close to her. Catherine Pickett knew her well enough to go to her to try and borrow a shawl, she could even say that Mary ‘was well liked by all of us’. According to Walter Dew she ‘paraded around, usually in the company of two or three friends.’
Furthermore, Maxwell claimed in the newspapers that Mary ‘was a pleasant little woman’, whereas according to Elizabeth Prater, who certainly knew Mary Jane, and Elizabeth Phoenix Mary wasn’t little, but tall.
Unlike what Maxwell claims, it couldn’t be corroborated that Mary Kelly had gone to the Brittania at any point that morning, nor that she was served at any other public house in the neighbourhood on the morning of her death.
All of this leads me to think that Maxwell didn’t know Mary Jane as well as she thought she did and that she spoke to another woman.
All the best,
Frank
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 1:47 am: | |
G'day,
Was Caroline Maxwell Timothy Donovan's wife? Timothy was the deputy manager of Crossingham's Common Lodging House, (which contained over 300 beds), and a witness at Annie Chapman's inquest. If she was, is that any reason for her to know everyone, even those who lived in the court opposite?
Do we know if the maroon shawl was found in Room 13 of Miller's Court when the body was found? I wonder if it met the same fate as the man's black coat that covered the window?
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 944
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Good point..........dont THINK that Caroline was Tim Donovan's wife...........quite sure she wasn't........have we blundered onto something here? I was only assuming that Caroline's deputy husband was at Crossinghams tho and think maybe that was not necessarily the case it could have been ANY of the common lodging houses in Dorset St after all.
Dont recall any mention of the shawl being found in the room either...
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 4:38 am: | |
Hi,
If Maxwell was mistaken, she would have soon realized her mistake, before the inquest, i would have imagined the whole of Dorset street was remarking on it the entire weekend.
Remarks like 'It was that kelly woman that copped it, you know lived with that Joe'
'Poor old Mary Jane'
' Butchered she was, in that little room'
It would have soon become apparent to Maxwell that she had seen the wrong woman, therefore to swear on oath at the inquest, after being warned , would have been just plain stupid.
I do not believe we should read anything into her remarks that she kept herself to herself, she would not have followed Kellys footsteps everywhere , also i would have imagined Maxwell was used to a noisy lifestyle residing in Crossinghams, and Kelly may have appeared quite compared with the people she dealt with on a daily basis.
It is a fact that Abberline himself interrogated her, and remarked 'Although i tried i could not break the woman'
Like it or not, she fundamently believed she saw the victim of millers court that morning, and talked to her, and nothing she saw or heard that weekend before the inquest changed her mind.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
G'day,
I just read the 'Times' 13 November 1888 and it said that Caroline Maxwell lived at 14 Dorset Street and was the wife of Henry Maxwell. Crossingham's was number 35.
I remember that maroon shawl was discussed on Casebook years ago. Anyone remember?
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 945
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Well I guess that sort of proves it!Of course The surname Maxwell may have been a slight clue!!(ha ha!) Oh well guess we'd better get the maps out again then.....As I understand it Carrie was returning these plates for her husband and dont know why but imagine she was going UP the road towards Commercial St and would have course have to have passed The Brittannia...seeing ....or not our girl in her shawl and Mr
Tartan coat!
Richard-Where did the Abberline /Maxwell line come from?
Cheers
Suzi
ps Leanne....seem to recall it as well and have miles of the old stuff printed out.......will have a look when i've got a fortnight off with **** all to do!! : )))
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
Where did the story that Maxwell was returning plates originate? I remember seeing it somewhere.
The 'Times' 12 November reported that she: 'went into Bishopsgate street to make some purchases, and on her return saw...', "I went to the milkshop for some milk...","....she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time..."
That newspaper also reported that she, herself, was the deputy of the: 'Commercial lodging house which is situated exactly opposite Miller's Court.'
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 1:01 am: | |
G'day,
I see it written in 'The Jack the Ripper A to Z': 'Pressed by the coroner to be sure of the time and date, Mrs Maxwell insisted that she could place the date because she had been returning china her husbsand had borowed from a house opposite...' but what about the story about going to the shop for some milk? Ok, she may returned the plates first.
'The Ultimate Companion' says she testified: 'I know the time by taking the plates my husband had to take care of from the house opposite.' She wasn't comming out of Crossingham's because she lived at Number 14. The house opposite would have been Number 13 or Number 15, so the plates weren't being returned to Miller's Court, (which was Number 26).
Living at a house with an even number means that she would have lived on the same side of the street as Mary, at a distance of 6 houses away.
LEANNE
|
steve johnson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 12:02 am: | |
the entire ripper case is heading towards this climax, the other victims are a diversion, such ferocity and destruction is at a PERSONAL level, the killer was out to destroy Mary Kelly, and without forensic evidence to the contrary, who's to say it's not 'Jill the Ripper'? |
Sarah Mitchell
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 05, 2004 - 8:05 am: | |
Hi.
I have read the autopsy reports for all of the women killed around the time Jack the Ripper was killing and it seems that Mary Kelly was killed in a much more brutal way than any other Ripper victims.
Could it be possible that someone else killed Mary Kelly and made it look like a Ripper killing?
Or is it more possible that Jack the Ripper killed Mary Kelly and the reason she was mutilated alot more than any of the other victims is because the murderer had alot more time in which to do the murder and he knew he wouldnt be interupted?
Has anyone got any answers?
Sarah |
Gary Adams
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 04, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Okay, I'm going to make a suggestion here, and please be kind! Speaking as someone who has witnessed some very odd things, I'm wondering why no one has ever suggested that it might have been Mary Kelly's ghost that was sighted on the morning of her murder. It wouldn't be the first time such a thing had happened -- especially in England. Of course, things like this can't be proved, and people will argue, correctly, that they have no place in a fact based investigation. It's just something to think about. Violent, unexpected death does seem to lead to spirits unsure of their state. It's hard to believe that other women could occupy that room for years afterward with Mary's blood still staining the walls, isn't it? |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 948
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | |
Ok Gary
We'll be kind!!!! well as kind as we can naturally be!!!Yup the 'ghost' idea is a great one! It really is but........ok am a great believer in the old Stone Tapes theory... but the immediate after death thing is a tad different...not saying its any less probable cos I think it may be... but Mrs M was the only one to have seen this 'appparition' of MJK and allegedly she didnt know her that well.....H ave passed by what was The Brittannia many times in the cold light of modern Commercial Street and although I do have an ear (!) for these things have felt nothing at his corner at all but Mitre Square........verrrrrrrry definately so
Comments then chaps!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 949
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 5:00 pm: | |
Emoticon in odd place there but so was Mary!!!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 945
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 4:22 am: | |
Hi Gary,
The simple answer to a ghost theory is no, ghosts do not hold conversations with you , or appear in solid form, the truth is either she was seen between 8am-845am that morning , or the three people that claimed to have seen her were simply telling porkies.
I find it incredible that we dismiss Maxwells evidence, when she describes her clothing exactly as witnesses the night before described them, and then risks serious consequences by swearing on oath at the inquest, when she would have had ample opportunety to retract her statement.
All common sense points to a morning killing, the police may well have considered this option seriously, as the statement issued refering to 'There are circumstances in this case, which were lacking in the others, that make it more likely that the killer had a accomplice, who if not assisted the killer, during the killing did so afterwards,[ not a quote, but near enough].
Question > what circumstances?
One would imagine it was the undeniable fact the killer have been saturated in blood, and his appearence afterwards would have been suspiscious, and if the murder occured during daylight hours , he would not only have to get to a place of refuge, but proberly have assistance in cleansing himself and destroying clothing.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 9:35 am: | |
G'day,
Oh Rich, Maxwell didn't risk 'serious consequences' at all, if she genuinely believed it was Mary Kelly! But that doesn't mean it definately WAS Mary Kelly!
On Tuesday I explained how Caroline Maxwell couldn't have spoken to Mary Kelly from directly across the street! She lived at Number 14, and Miller's Court was Number 26. It was on the same side of the street, and six houses away. If Maxwell went across the street to return the plates to house Number 13 or 15 Dorset Street, she would have been about five or six doors away and on the other side of the street.
If she then went to Bishopsgate Street to buy some milk, she would have turned in the opposite direction and walked away from Millers Court.
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 941
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
Hi All,On page 413 of the Source book it states that "I Caroline Maxwell live at 14 Dorset Street My husbands name is Henry Maxwell and he is a lodging House Deputy.
It seems possible that the husband may have had business links with McCarthy and there might have been an attempt to divert attention from a night time murder.i often wonder if McCarthy himself had some "arrangement" with Mary and may himself have "visited" her having "seen off Joe" .This doesnt mean he was therefore her killer but he may not have wanted the police to know of his "arrangement".But some may have known or guessed such as a local Lodging House keeper or his deputy who kept an eye on their lodging houses through the night[or had others to keep an eye for them.
Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Obviously there are two options here
1] Maxwell was mistaken
2] she was lying
If she was mistaken , and did not see kelly but someone else she believed was her, then how come she gave a description of the previous evenings clothing that kelly wore?.
she returned plates that morning [9th] which was confirmed by the receiver, and she claimed that it was on that very same day she saw kelly.
If she was mistaken then of course if she was sure in her own mind that she saw her, then her concious would be clear to swear on oath,
However if she simply invented the whole episode for attention, and knowingly swore on oath, and her lies were proven to be so, then i would suggest that this woman would have been in serious trouble for giving knowingly false imformation to the police , and attempting to mislead the inquest.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 304
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I agree with Leanne here. I think Mrs. Maxwell genuinely thought she saw Mary Jane Kelly. She may even have been too proud or pig-headed to admit she could have been wrong. She mentioned the exchange of names in the testimony she gave at the inquest, something she didn’t do in her original statement to the police on 9 November, nor in her account of what happened to the 'Times' the next day. She may have done this to make her deposition seem more reliable. Do you remember Mary Malcolm, who identified Elizabeth Stride as her sister Elizabeth Watts? Even after having seen Stride’s body three times she persisted it was her sister’s body – which it turned out not to be.
Not unimportantly, the two doctors involved in this case were of the opinion that Mary Jane was killed somewhere during the night. I can hardly imagine that the police didn’t confront the medical men with Maxwell’s statement, asking them to reconsider. It would be the logical thing to do. From the coroner’s remarks directed at Mrs. Maxwell just before she gave her testimony it may be concluded that the doctors stuck to their original opinion.
All the best,
Fran
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 305
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I agree with Leanne here. I think Mrs. Maxwell genuinely thought she saw Mary Jane Kelly. But she may even have been too proud or pig-headed to admit she could have been wrong. She mentioned the exchange of names in the testimony she gave at the inquest, something she didn’t do in her original statement to the police on 9 November, nor in her account of what happened to the 'Times' the next day. She may have done this to make her deposition seem more reliable. Do you remember Mary Malcolm, who identified Elizabeth Stride as her sister Elizabeth Watts? Even after having seen Stride’s body three times she persisted it was her sister’s body – which it turned out not to be.
Not unimportantly, the two doctors involved in this case were of the opinion that Mary Jane was killed somewhere during the night. I can hardly imagine that the police didn’t confront the medical men with Maxwell’s statement, asking them to reconsider. It would be the logical thing to do. From the coroner’s remarks directed at Mrs. Maxwell just before she gave her testimony it may be concluded that the doctors stuck to their original opinion.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 306
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hmm, strange how you sometimes fail to notice the things you actually do…
Or is it my computer? |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 47
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
I would guess the name Mary Kelly would have been as common as John Smith in the whitechapel area. Caroline Maxwell may well have known quite a few Mary Kellys from working in lodging-houses. I think she has simply got them all mixed up with each other. Catherine Eddowes also went by the name of kelly and she had in her posession a pawn ticket in the name of Mary Kelly.
Busy Beaver  |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 48
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
I would guess the name Mary Kelly would have been as common as John Smith in the whitechapel area. Caroline Maxwell may well have known quite a few Mary Kellys from working in lodging-houses. I think she has simply got them all mixed up with each other. Catherine Eddowes also went by the name of kelly and she had in her posession a pawn ticket in the name of Mary Kelly.
Busy Beaver |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 948
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Hi Busy,
must make a couple of points here, first of all the name Mary kelly was not as common in that area , as you may assume , the census shows us that.
Secondly there was two pawn tickets found beside the body in a mustard tin, these were under the names of Jane kelly, for a pair of her mans boots, pledged for 2/6d , also a ticket under Emily Burrill for a mans shirt.
However it is a strange coincedence that she used the surname kelly, and that is why there has always been a belief that the killer may have been searching for the final victim all along, as Leonard Matters 'Dr Stanley ' suggests.
However we should remember that she was simply using her blokes name.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 951
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi all
OK...........Kelly was a common enough name as now.......sorry Kellys all!... .The only one s with any credence here though are John and Mary...... At the risk of a pun!!! NO CONNECTION I imagine!....Mrs M is a REAL prob here tho.....following a conversation.... am about to start a new thread cos ..................well have a look it's just a thought!
Cheers
Suzi
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 2:44 am: | |
Hi Frank,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I did sugest that the ripper undressed, maybe not completly but down to his undergarment. You make a good point when you mention Kelly haveing a light on. Mary may not have been comfortable alone in the dark with a strange man. However, the lack of light would make it easier to hide the knife. What bothers me is the timeline. If you believe the cry of murder was in fact Mary [I do] Then her time of death was between 3:30 and 3;45 If you believe that the man George saw was the ripper then he would of waited for over an hour in the room with Kelly befor killing her. If you believe that the man that Cox saw killed her then the ripper would have waited over three hours to kill her. when Cox came home she claims the light was out in Kellys room and I believe that George claimed to be watching the room and he did not see anyone leave. This might indicate that the room was dark when the ripper struck. I may have misunderstood what I read but I believe that Cox leads me to believe that Mary may when she went out at night, have left a candle lite. so she would not enter a dark room when comming home. The time still is disturbing to me. I feel the ripper would have wanted to strike quickly. The room was small and I feel the element of surprise would have been vital. So I think the question is why did the ripper let Kelly get comfortable? What went on in the room. The position of the body and the wounds indicates Kelly did put up a struggle. The ripper took a chance, somebody could have heard the cry of murder and come to investigate. The crime scene really doese point to sombody breaking in and suprising Kelly in the dark. I would suggest that in order for this to be the case then he would of had to been watching Kelly and then he could make sure she was alone. A man who was in the obvious position would be Hutchinson. Of course there is the possibility that she went back out sometime after three picked the ripper but we still after explain why he waited and he did not strike quickly he waited for her to undress fold her cloths and lay down on the bed.
all the best CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
Hi Suzi and Richard, thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I have been celebrating th 4th of july. and I really cant think but I wanted to thank you!
YOUR FRIEND, CB |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 997
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
CB!!!!!!!!!!
Hope you had a good un!!!!!! take a look at the Tin Bath thread!!!!
Chers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 998
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
NOW CB!!!!!!!!!!!!
REGISTER eh and join the rest of us!!!! its (relatively) painless I assure you!
x suzi |
Greg Hutton
Sergeant
Username: Greg
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Erm, I think you'll find that Dorset Street house numbers ran I believe from 1 to 20 on the South side and 21 to 40 on the North side which places numbers 14 and 26 directly opposite each other which sort of proves what Caroline Maxwell stated.
regards,
Greg |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 136
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 10:42 pm: | |
Hi all,
Gary, I love the ghost idea. I don't think we can ever present it as fact but it should be noted that many such encounters have been documented in the past. Mrs Maxwell steadfastly believed that she had spoken to Kelly at the time she did even when presented with irrefutable evidence regarding time of death. Other people in similar situations have come to the conclusion that they encountered a ghost.
Greg, I wondered about the numbering too, can this be confirmed?
I have stated elsewhere that I believe a time of death for MJK before daylight. It should be noted though that Richard is quite right to argue his case on this point as there were witnesses who categorically stated that they saw her after her supposed time of death. The delay in entering the room and the lack of scientific expertise to ascertain an accurate time of death should not be overlooked. Frank of course does raise the very correct point that people can be very wrong in their beliefs, such as happened at the Stride inquest.
Scotty. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Hi Gary,
Yes, the ghost idea is possible. Unlike Suzi, I am not a great fan of the Stone Tape theory, but yes, we do have several similar accounts in other witness cases regarding ghost apparitions in connection with violent crimes. I have actually not thought of that possibility in this case but -- if one believes in it -- it's certainly a possibility. But it's true, such a thing can never be interpreted or documented as a fact.
Richard,
"The simple answer to a ghost theory is no, ghosts do not hold conversations with you , or appear in solid form..."
This is just simply plain rubbish.
There is no manual for what a ghost should look like. I have studied these matters for many years -- and have own personal experiences on the matter, as well as friends of mine -- and thousands of witnessed ghost appearances totally contradicts your statement.
Ghosts can appear as shadows, transparent foggy apparitions and as very clear and solid human beings. Sometimes they just appears as living in their own world and does not communicate (which is what gives rise to the Stone Tape theory, as these often seems bound to a certain place), and sometimes they can be mistaken for a human and indulge in elaborate, personal conversations with you.
We have several documented accounts (true or not) of people who according to themselves have stood and talked with a good friend or relative, just to find out later that the person had died some hours or minutes before and that he/she never had been near the area of the meeting incident at that time.
So, could this be the case in Kelly and Mrs Maxwell? Possibly. I can't rule it out. But then, there could of course also be other natural explanations. But I like the idea.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
Hi all too!
Gary-
I too love the ghost idea.........could be a 'Carrie by Gaslight' novel in here somewhere!!!...... As to the numbering of the houses (!) in Dorset St.... Shurely the aptly named Kellys Directory for 1888 would be the place to confirm this.....think I may have said this before but if so take it as me just making a point!
The delay in entering the room is of course a major bone of contention!......the way that the average East End 'mob' could move in on an 'attraction' of this kind was no doubt quite alarming..so all of this reticence to get in..pick axe or no pick axe is to say the least a tad odd
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 983
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
We really are clutching at straws here regarding that it was the ghost of MJK that Maxwell saw an spoke to considering that this solid form ghost had a conversation with a market porter half an hour later also.
If the truth be known, kelly was proberly seen by several people that morning, but they were not seen by the police, or interviewed by the press, indeed it was widely rumoured in that area , that she was killed in the daylight hours.
The fact is one is either a believer of a sighting or not.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1906
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
HI Richard,
No, I am not clutching at straws here; I really have no idea if it was the ghost of MJK Mrs. Maxwell had a conversation with and I seriously doubt it -- I just think it was an interesting thought.
I am not even sure that it was MJK she talked to at all -- dead or alive. The alternatives for and against that it really was MJK and not somebody else are numerous here -- I hardly think it's just a easy question of "believing in a sighting or not". Is it for example, really confirmed that the porter in question really did talk to MJK? Do you automatically consider this witness account as true or accurate?
What I protested against was your incorrect description of the probable and improbable appearances of ghosts, that's all. Initially you ruled out the possibility of the MJK ghost because you seem completely sure of that a ghost can't appear as a solid form, and communicating. Which is wrong.
Then, who or what Mrs. Maxwell talked to, is another question. I personally have no clear opinion on that particular matter.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 143
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:04 pm: | |
Hi all,
The Stone Tape Theory?
Please Explain! Suzi, help me out here lovey! I like to think I know a little about ghosts but clearly not as much as I thought.
Richard, I don't think the ghost idea is plausible, but I like it anyway. I should say I do believe in ghosts and have had a couple of encounters myself, I just don't think it fits in this instance.
Scotty. |
Litz
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 2:14 am: | |
hello.I am working my assigment of Jack the Ripper.what should i add in besides all sort of possible evidences..can anyone tell me about the investigative technic during now??Thank you. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
