|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through May 15, 2005 | Carolyn | 50 | 1 | 5-15-05 8:31 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 549
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 8:34 am: | 
|
Paul, welcome to casebook.
I think one has first to accept that the "Dear Boss" letter originated from the murderer - which is highly questionable.
Phil |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 391
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
If that letter leads to any idea it is that ginger beer bottles were quite common and many people saved them and/or had them around the house.
Mags
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1930
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Well a flash of inspiration maybe but what you and others have said is quite true.I remember myself how "empties" were saved for their deposits.In fact I think I trundled a few of my nan"s lemonade bottles round secretly when I was about 8 years old and in need of a spot of cash!She herself collected Guiness bottles,her drink of preference!
I falter though over Mary Kelly and the ginger beer bottles.Good sense tells me its unlikely but then I have never trusted boring old good sense!
Mary though may indeed be the key to it.
Her inquest,which took place almost immediately after the murder [on the Monday-her murder taking place on the Friday], was the briefest by far.The idea seemed to have been to get it over as soon as possible,not to ask too many questions and leave it all to a police investigation.
All we are given is a brief statement from John McCarthy confirming that he let a room to her for the previous 10 months,that she drank a lot but was never seen dead drunk,that she had lived with Joe and that he had seen letters sent to her from Ireland.
Well this is surely "significant" information that was passed over in the inquest.For a start it implies that her relatives or whoever wrote to her from Ireland were literate!So too it implies Mary herself was considered "literate" by whoever wrote those letters.And if she as indeed an educated girl this implies she was from an educated family-and if she was from an educated catholic family that just might mean something!
[along the lines of was she who she said she was?]
The name Joe Flemming was also passed over,
a previous boyfriend?
Strange he hadnt been traced or at least that a recommendation came from someone or other that he should be traced----yet non exists that we know of.
Nor,and perhaps even more significantly,was any recommendation made by the coroner that her parents or these relatives in Ireland should be traced!
The government- and especially Matthews the home secretary were knee deep in the explosive question of Ireland .The liberal prime minister Gladstone was regarded by some as blatantly pro-catholic.
But a number of key figures in the police and the government were on the other side---and with a vengeance.Various members of the government such as Randolph Churchill and others were strongly in support of the Orange-Lodges etc.
Then in the police force there were Anderson,Monro,Machnaghten and a number of others
who were not only anti-catholic but were strongly anti Fenian as well Machnaghten we need to remember was descended from the original "Orange-men",the apprentices of Derry, and Anderson and Monro had led specifically secret service activities against the Fenians and had employed spies and "agents provocateurs" to help flush out nests of Fenians in both England and Ireland.And there was last but not least Supt.Charles Cutbush ---anti catholic to the point of complete madness for goodness sake!
And the Jack the ripper murders were taking place in the midst of all this frenetic activity, including bombings, where these ginger beer bottles were often used for Molotov cocktales.
So with so much at stake it is possible ,that, had Mary ever been in any way caught up in either side of this bloody and terrible war with its secret service activities its secret police,its "agents provocateurs"and spies[women and men]then she could easily have met a fate such as she did----especially if,as has been hinted at from time to time the series of murders were part of either a Fenian plot[to cause resignations and create a parallel "disturbance" with the effect of distracting the police from their Irish surveillance work or in the case of Mary Jane,perhaps the very opposite and much less likely,in my view, an angry customer who knew he had been duped into giving away secrets!
Now if Jack was a "sexual" serial killer then I would not accept such an hypothesis.Even if it were proven that he was a complete nutter[as I suspect to be the case]I would not accept such possibilities.But if the murders can ever be proved to be cold-blooded affairs then I think it is a possibility that the killings were politically motivated.
Thanks for your comments ,Jane,
Natalie
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
A fascinating post, we appear lately on these boards to be heading towards a conspiracy theory, with kelly being the key to it all.
I Would not reject that possibility, and even the wild idea that kelly was not the victim of millers court, it is entirely possible that it was the intention of someone or more than one person to get Mjk out of a dangerous situation by false identification of the body.
The description of Hutchinson haunts me, and the very fact that later in life he mentioned that 'It was someone like Randolf Churchill'is chilling.
The very fact that Churchill was interviewed by Abberline some time after is also intresting.
I Have always squirmed at the conspiracy idea, but if Kelly infact during her west end days had obtained delicate information from clients in high places, and used it for a cause then her life may well have been in danger.
It is more then possible that the Ripper ceased activities after the double event, and kellys departure was to be a Ripper victim.
How many pints have I had....?
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 551
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
I was not aware that Abberline interviewed Lord Randolph.
Is this supported by more than Gorman's "Abberline Diaries" and Fairclough's book?
Where does Hutchinson make a comment about Lord Randolph?
Turning from detail to the wider issue, I think Natalie's post is very well balanced. I don't think we should get carried aware by a Fenian hypothesis or link, but since i read Nick Warren's piece in the "Mammoth Book" a couple of years ago, I have been of a mind that IF there was a "conspiracy" involve din the JtR case, then the Irish angle is much more likely than the royal one, and more likely to be soundly based.
Such an approach has the advantage of pulling together odd remarks about "hot potatoes" and searching for the ripper in the higher echelons of society; written evidence such as the Ruggles-Brise "hint" from Monro to CID; Rumbelow's knife; the mystery of MJK's background and perhaps things like the unpaid rent; the Irish/secret service connections of Anderson, Monro etc; Tumblety; why the murders stopped with MJK's death; not to mention the ginger beer bottles!!
Of course, all these could have alternative and simpler, separate, explanations, but the Fenian angle is worth further research, I believe.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on May 15, 2005) |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2502
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Hi all
Im not aware that Hutch made any reference to Lord Randolph!!! The fact that Hutch's description may well have fitted a wandering Randolph cannot be denied BUT that's where the description ends! (Interesting tho Nats that Mr C had an orange connection)
'Mary Mary' is as they say is 'quite contrary.'..... and until we get some 'facts' which of course we all live in hope of.....we flounder about... in and out of conspiracy!
Suzi
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1933
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
Thanks Richard and Phil,
Well I think that Gorman went on to say he had made it all up so that seems to put paid to that theory.
No, I wonder more about the link regarding the knife that Don Rumbelow acquired from Dorothy Stroud. This has been found to belong to a batch
bought in Oxfod Street from Weisss,that were used in the Phoenix Park Murders.Don R.was told at the time he was given the knife that it was Jack the Rippers Knife.To me that makes a link of some sort.
Three of these knives were recovered by the police who used electromagnets to drag the river in Dublin.
Noone knows where the other knives got to.So we have a scenario where there are twelve knives,three retrieved by the police and nine still missing.... presumably still in Ireland?
One of the twelve is believed to have belonged to Jack and was passed on via a Major Hugh Pollard who in turn was an associate of Robert Churchill[not Randolph Churchill mind] , Churchill was the Scotland Yard ballistics expert and Intelligence Officer to the Chief of Police in Dublin during the troubles[taken from Nick Warren"s"The Great Conspiracy"---the Mammoth Book of etc....
But you dont have to believe in a conspiracy if you think about it.Why couldnt somebody have acquired one of the knives-either from the police
-ie one of the three they had ,or on the other hand from an Irishman who "possibly" had taken part in the assassination of Lord Cavendish----but
need not have done?
It doesnt have to be part of a conspiracy.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
hi Suzi,the loyalists of Ulster were Lord Randolph"s shock troops! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 2:37 am: |
|
Hi Natalie, Phil,
The trouble with the conspiracy theory is it derives from unreliable sources and oral history.
I believe Gorman was refering to his relationship with Knight with reference to him 'Making it all up'
It is claimed that in the case of Faircloughs book he was relaying all his true evidence.
Hutchinsons account of 'It was someone like Randolf Churchill' is again unreliable as the source is a disputable Son Reg.
He remember his father.....? quoting that back in the twenties.
The whole saga points to a lot of unproven sources and leaves us all a impossible task to unravel any truth.
However this scenerio is possible.
The Ripper ceases operations after the Double event thus there being a time gap throughout October.
Mary kelly was a Irish agent when she was living in the West end, and amongst her clients was someone in high office who she managed to obtain delicate information from.
When things got a bit tricky she vanished into the east end but the net was closing.
Associates of Mjk decided that she was in real danger and derived a plan that she would become the 5th/6th victim of the Whitechapel murderer, but another woman of similar appearence would take her place, in this way she would not be sought after and her life would be safe.
This speculative account would explain a remark
made by Mr Astracan ie. 'You will be all right for what i have told you'
Also Maxwells sighting would fall into place.
However my common sense tells me that there are a lot of flaws eg. why would Kelly stay in a room with a corpse?.If she was caught in there how would she explain her situation, and why not leave the room with the killer/ killers.
Therefore the whole scenerio i mentioned has the plot of a B movie, and is easily dismisssed.
Or can it....
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1935
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
The difficulty here is "Do we believe Hutchinson?"
Like you I have always inclined to believe him.
I am persuaded that that area would have been a danger zone for any well dressed client but IF that client was a member of the establishment he may have taken certain steps with regard to his safety-after all he MAY have had one of the Phoenix park knives in that newspaper packet![or a "friend" nearby on the look out]
Your scenario also fits the hint given in newspaper reports that this man and Mary may have known each other since they seemed relaxed with each other -Mary borrowing a handkerchief etc.
Something else I wonder about therefore -just as people often wonder the same about Kate-is whether this meeting was "pre-arranged"?Was Mary actually out there ready to meet him on this occasion?
On the face of it it definitely does NOT appear so since Hutchinson says Mary asked him if he could lend her Sixpence.But Mary may not have wanted Hutchinson to know she was expecting an important "client".The snippets of conversation he heard may also have been intended to "mislead" Hutchinson-putting him off the scent about things.This "sixpence" story may just have been part of the "subterfuge".Or simply that she needed the sixpence there and then to buy herself a drink!
Mrs Maxwell IMHO could have been mistaken.But if she wasnt then Mary was killed later than the Doctors thought because I think the woman in the room was certainly Mary Kelly -recognised as such immediately by John McCarthy and Joe Barnett -and others!You know yourself,Richard that you can often recognise a person from the back of their head-without seeing their face at all and they did have her hair and head shape to go by after all.
So I think that if Hutchinson was telling the truth[and actually we SPECULATE when we presume he was NOT because Abberline certainly thought he was telling the truth by all the accounts we have]
then the idea that this was a client from her West End Call girl days isnt that far fetched.Mind its then a colossal leap to have him down as Randolph Churchill or Montague Druitt-but it could have been someone she was intending to meet.
Natalie
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1749
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Now if research into MJK's backlground showed she had been killed by someone else, or even that there was good evidence that she had, would that not change the case?
Yes, indeed. It would make MJK even less likely than at present to point us in Jack's direction.
I wasn't trying to be difficult, by introducing my point about serial killers often selecting their victims at random and on a sudden whim. I certainly didn't expect anyone to assume I had rejected all other possibilities!
But if we consider today's canonical three - Polly, Annie and Kate - who were attacked, killed and mutilated outdoors in the early hours, with escalating violence, daring and trophy-taking, isn't it more likely that Jack, a complete stranger, encountered them all by chance, and seized his opportunity? Or would you argue that it just as likely that he targeted them because he knew them, and also knew where he could find them when he decided to attack them, all within a relatively small area, yet still spaced out in a way that today's geographical profilers recognise?
Love,
Caz
X
PS I go for the deposit-back-on-bottle theory, and the fact that ginger beer would have been a common drinkable, in the days before we took our constant supply of fresh drinking water for granted. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1936
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I somehow doubt Mary spent her money on Ginger beer instead of water.There was a fresh water pump just outside her room.But yes they were probably there for an innocent reason.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 553
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Richard:
The trouble with the conspiracy theory is it derives from unreliable sources and oral history.
If you are referring to the so-called "royal" conspiracy, quite right. But something involving Fenian plots, or counter-plots, might be better and more evidentially based it seems.
It is claimed that in the case of Faircloughs book [Gorman] was relaying all his true evidence.
But as in the debate with Stan Russo elsewhere on this board, how can we be certain that anything that Gorman says now has any validity? That is the problem with (self-confessed) mendacious people like Joe Gorman, you can never wholly trust them again. I would not take anything he said as fact unless independently corroborated.
Hutchinsons account of 'It was someone like Randolf Churchill' is again unreliable as the source is a disputable Son Reg.
A hearsay report of a man recalling something someone else said years before!! And do we even know Fairclough got the right Hutchinson? The unreliability of this statement is no undermined as IMHO to be worthless.
However this scenerio is possible.
The Ripper ceases operations after the Double event thus there being a time gap throughout October.
Assuming that Stride was his victim, of course.
Associates of Mjk decided that she was in real danger and ... another woman of similar appearence would take her place, in this way she would not be sought after and her life would be safe.
The devil is in the detail here. Was the substitute, in your opinion aware of the risk? Did "MJK's associates" know she might be killed? (I assume so!!) So how did they persuade her to stand-in? Force or money?
...why would Kelly stay in a room with a corpse?.
At which stage do you see this happening?
...why not leave the room with the killer/ killers.
Are you implying here that MJK's associates killed the substitute, and NOT those who were after MJK? If the latter, surely MJK would be in serious danger if she left with them. If the former, we now have at least two Whitechapel murderers on the go?
In your scenario, you nowhere say why the other women were killed? Was it a "Dr Stanley" situation in which the killer asked for directions and then killed those to whom he had spoken? Is Eddowes use of the name Kelly of relevance here?
But surely, if it the the Fenian brotherhood after Mary more than one person would be involved. If the man you say Mary might have betrayed was "Jack" then surely the brotherhood could have spirited MJK away without resorting to a killing?
So many questions... But the possible Irish republican connection still has attractions for me...
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
The scenerio I put foreward is a different twist that being the Actual Whitechapel murder named'Jack' ceased operations after the double event, he may well have died or was placed in a institute, the police may or may not have known this , or suspected anything connecting the person to the killings.
Therefore i am suggesting that the murder in millers court was not a ripper murder, and the victim may not have been the woman known as Mary Kelly, but a woman of similar age and build.
Drastic measures but if associates of any cause that Mjk was involved in had reason to believe her life was in danger it would certainly get that threat suspended.
I keep going back to the man seen near the Ringers that was trying to entice another woman to go somewhere with him whilst another woman stood in the background, also a man and woman laughing at the reward poster outside millers court, also the rumour that another woman that was not known in the neighbourhood used the room that night [ rented out].
All these points conjour up my imagination.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 555
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Dangerous to build too much on rumour though, Richard.
Would it be too much to ask you to source each of the rumours you cite? I have limited time but would like to evaluate your sceanrio in more detail. I am not sure i even recall some of the things you mention. Which books or papers do they come from? Genuinely.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on May 16, 2005) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I have one of my rare days off tomorrow, so will look up official sources, but heres a snippit of what i was refering to.
A group of men in Dorset street saw a man and woman that appeared to enter Millers court in the early hours of the 9th stop and look at the reward poster near the entrance of the court, and mimic it.
A woman who was on her way to the court passing Ringers saw a man and two women together, one was quite smartly dressed [ woman ] also the man, who was trying to persuade the smarter woman to acompany him whilst the not so well dressed woman stood in the background.
Another account has the same amount of people outside room 13.
It is also cited in newspaper accounts[ which I will have to refresh my sources] that on that evening /morning of the 8th 9th kellys room was rented out to a well dressed young woman that was not known in the neighbourhood.
So taking all of this into account is it not possible that such a person could have been the victim?.
How this speculation fits in with traditional facts I have no idea, but I will endeavour to trace newspaper sources tomorrow.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 557
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
How reliable the speculation might be is utterly dependent upon the viability of the sources. The more you can provide the better the result is likely to be.
Thanks for this, it's appreciated greatly,
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Reference East London Observer 10/11/88.
A smartly dressed woman not known in neighbourhood accompanied a man who paid someone [ in the house] to share room 13.
Reference Evening Star 10/11/88.
a group of men opposite Millers court observed Mjk, and a man [ the man mimicking the poster]
It may well appear to the doubters amongst us that these reports are confused, however if one takes all the accounts reported, it would read something like this.
Around 9am Thursday 8th November, Mrs prater meets Mjk, at the entrance to the court , both women were going out for the evening, mjk was wearing a Black velvet jacket and skirt and a hat.
Possibly just before Mjk Departing the room , she made arrangements for a young boy staying with her to go to a neighhbours house for the night.
She returns home at Midnight with a well dressed man [ not Mr blotchy face as mrs Cox allegedly reported but the description she told her neice who reported that description in the sixties.. she is then seen again by a woman who did not know kelly,with the same gentleman , this time with another woman[ smartly dressed] who endeavoured to encourage this female to accompany him to a destination.
Speculation.
Kelly leaves the room around 2am to meet a man at a prearranged location, en route encounters Hutchinson, she then pretends proverty, and makes a point that she must obtain money.
A few yards on she encounters MR astracan and the pair act out a prostitute and client liason.
They then return to Millers court, that being two men and two women were present in that room.
What Happens next is beyond any Speculation........
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 562
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 1:45 am: |
|
Press reports are so difficult to evaluate, as we know the reporters garbled things and the informants made things up or embroidered what they really knew.
Mrs Cox's neice's report 80 years after the event could be pretty garbled too. (The A-Z went further and called it inaccurate and it does seem to encapsulate the Matters depiction of a toff with top hat and Gladstone bag rather dramatically.)
So I'm not sure I can join you in your speculation, Richard. Sorry.
Phil
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
Hi Phil.
Obviously Press reports are full of flaws, but we have to try and interpret them in order to try and obtain some kind of insight to these murders.
A lot of us have a picture in our heads concerning the whitechapel murders and where does that derive from .
I Would suggest previous publications over the years have brainwashed the majority of us in seeing the same picture, but if one dives into the many reports in the press section on these boards a new picture can begin to focus, the basis is still there but bits and peices of new information can come to light.
Regarding Coxs Neice.
Of course the report obtained from her did not tally with her original statement, but my argument is why tell a lie to her neice when it clearly differs from police reports?.
Also if one looks carefully at both accounts we have the original statement from Cox saying ' I followed them into the court' and the modern version 'My aunt was standing at her door waiting for her man to come home from the pub'
Could not then the possibility that she saw kelly twice that night be acceptable.
Also the description of the well dressed man has a snippit of possible truth in it as it states the man wore a high hat ..But not a silk one.
My argument is why not if one is fragmenting the truth include the hat being a silk one?.
There are a lot of statements made to the press from tenants of the court that ring true even if it does not stand in line with traditional belief.
Statements like.
The boy was returned to her room.
Kellys neighbours became anxious when they received no answer from her room at 10am.
The tenants reporting their concern to McCarthy.
McCarthy despatching Bowyer to room 13 at the same time Mrs McCarthy and young Mccarthy went further down the court to collect rent.
The apparently lost statement in which Mrs Maxwell mentions that Kellys 'Eyes looked queer like she was suffering with heavy cold'
Which corresponds with Hutchinsons version of Kelly saying'Oh I have lost my Hankerchief'
Two independant witnesses.. Yet Kelly according to medical opinion was long dead..?
So to sum up, I do not dismiss out of hand any report that appears to have a grain of truth even if it is not what we have been brainwashed in accepting.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 563
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 7:25 am: |
|
Richard, I agree the difficulty, but the desire to have more information should not lead us into going further than the evidence will allow, or to construct more on its foundations than they will bear. I was, rightly, brought up sharply in another thread for doing exactly that.
Turning to what you say:
Regarding Coxs Neice... my argument is why tell a lie to her neice when it clearly differs from police reports?
My concern would be not what, if anything was said, but HOW ACCURATE THE RECOLLECTION would be decades later. We do not know how far what the neice remembered might have been contaminated or influenced by later reading or visual images.
There are a lot of statements made to the press from tenants of the court that ring true...
How does one decide whether a statement "rings true"? Surely the only standard here can be corroborative evidence from an independent source. A statement could ring true because it was correct, even though, over the years confusion had led to a later event being recollected as part of an earlier one? Good liars and con men can also include circumstantial statements...
The boy was returned to her room.
If this is the boy said to have lived with MJK and perhaps been her son - there is no corroboration of this recorded from Barnett or official sources. Now I know you are saying that the rumours might be right, but surely Barnett would have noticed a child!!
...I do not dismiss out of hand any report that appears to have a grain of truth even if it is not what we have been brainwashed in accepting.
Quite right, but to hold an idea as interesting though unproven, is surely different to weaving a web of speculation around them.
If the rumour you cited earlier regarding "A smartly dressed woman not known in neighbourhood accompanied a man who paid someone [ in the house] to share room 13." This includes the information according to Chris Scott (citing the East London Observer, 19 Nov) that they rented a front room on the upper floor of the house... where the murder was committed. This is manifestly false. So where does one draw the line?
No criticism implied, just continuing the on-going discussion about speculation and its place.
Phil
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Just a point about the reports of a boy staying with kelly.
Firstly according to The Star November 10th 88, Barnett states that there was a boy aged six or seven staying with Kelly.
Secondly this ties in with a report that Kelly could not bear the boy starving.
Also reportedly the boy was begging the very time kelly was found.
It has been argued that the boy and mother were incorrectly identified.
However If the 'Stars ' report has any credence then surely the boy existed.
It is extremely likely that the press were told to block any mention of this after initial reports were printed, to protect the childs welfare also if the boy was sent on a errand by a man in Kellys room in the morning even at that tender age may have knowledge of the mans identity if not in sight in voice.
In my opinion we should not ignore reports concerning this when several people maintained a childs existance.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1941
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Thanks for pointing out the Star Report.Curious!
Nontheless George Sims wrote as a journalist at the time and much later wrote at length about the murders . Walter Dew also recorded his memory of Mary Kelly in his book about how he caught Crippen.
And there were others who wrote about her.None of these mentioned any child she had living with her
and they would have been free to do so all those years later.
I cant believe the press would have been told they couldnt report that there was a child involved but I think if they did then it would only have concerned the actual period covering the murders and just after.
I also noted contradictory material in the one newspaper viz.that McCarthy said her mother lived in Ireland and that Mary had letters from her.But later they say that her parents were still in Wales and that she had married a man named Davies etc.
What was intriguing was the remark made by Barnett[called Kelly in one of the reports]that
although she went by the name of Mary Kelly, her real name was Marie Jaenette.And he later had this name put on her death certificate.[I was reminded of this by Chris Scott whose book " Will the Real Mary---"--etc is absolutely first rate and has a wealth of valuable information!
Must continue to browse through these newspaper reports!
Natalie
|
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 45
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
I have always been puzzled by the account supposedly by Barnett himself that MJK had a son, either this account was totally made up by the reporter or like you say, it was hushed up to protect the child who may have been a possible witness.
This is just a thought and I am sure someone will enlighten me (please!!), but I was just wondering about the 'seaside home' identification by a witness.
When actually did it become known that the 'seaside home' referred to was a 'police convalescent seaside home'? Could it not have been one of the many orphaned children's seaside homes?
I have searched and searched on the boards to find an answer, but couldn't, maybe it was on the old boards or I am missing something very obvious
Debra |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
