|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Police Constable
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 7:20 am: |       |
Hi everyone.
My first contribution on our new layout, concerns the newspaper reports, after Mary kellys death.
Having had a week of idleness, so to speak I decided to read up on as much press as I could, and confusion is the word that springs to mind.
Mary Kelly was according to one source, not known as that ,just simply Mary Jane. John M;carthy knew her as Mary Jane M;carthy although he knew she used the name Kelly. She also was called Lizzie Fisher.
On the night of her death , Kelly was seen by four men in Dorset street, with a man who appeared harmless , and the couple were seen to be laughing at the Whitechapel murderer reward poster [ proberly the carroty man with a quart of ale].
It was also stated that a woman was escorted to the room by a gentleman that paid somebody who lived at 26, Dorset Street some money so he could have some privacy, and this woman was not known in the area.
I know that most people will say its just shoddy reporting, but the above paragraph, was said to be an a fact.
We are all guilty of accepting Kellys last night ,as singing in her room, meeting Hutchinsons astracan man, murdered about 4am, [ or some people later] but have we got it all wrong.
Is it not possible , that Mary jane let her room to a man who offered her a tempting price ,and when she returned to her obode sometime later discovered the murder, that would tie in nicely with the witnesses reports on seeing her the following morning, it could even be the case that Boyer was sent to check on Kelly at 10.45am because the occupants of no 26 could not make Kelly wake up as stated in some reports.
One final point.
It was reported that her name was Lizzie Fisher, I am aware that it could be an error, however if Fisher was her married name and she was a widow, then the print hanging over her fireplace; The Fishermans Widow would be appropiate.
Regards Richard. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Police Constable
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 11:23 am: | |
Richard,
One of the major problems that we have in reviewing the history of the case is the fact that the press reports are, for the most part, chock full of errors and mistakes.
There are a number of reasons for this. First, the police refused to provide the press with any information. Second, the media was clamoring to put out into the public as much information as frequently as possible because they were selling newspapers hand over fist. And many of the papers took liberties with the facts.
So I would read most of the newspapers with an extremely large grain of salt, and would compare their stories with the police reports. It's not even enough to compare papers because they frequently cribbed their stories from other press reports (see the Fairy Fay myth) and sometimes got their stories from News Agencies who also were in the business of selling their stories.
It is critically important to view the press - particularly the London press of the time period - not as the champion of the common people, or as a means of keeping the people informed, but as a BUSINESS. They were in the business of selling papers, and whatever they wrote, it had to sell.
B |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Police Constable
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 12:34 pm: | |
Hi Brian,
I agree with you with regard to newspaper reports, and I view them like yourself with a pinch of salt.
My aim was simply to get a new prospective about the Kelly case , and read new reports [even if their is a good chance of it being inaccurate reporting] for the possibility that some forgotten clue may emerge.
As I stated in my post the vast majority of us have a set idea in our minds of the events of the 8th/9th nov,which have been fed to us over the last forty years or so, and who is to say that the press reports that have inspired this pattern is the correct one.
Have any of us checked records for a Mary jane m;carthy, or a Elizabeth Fisher. Not many I would say , and if it is true that the victim of Millers Court was only known as Mary Jane, why are we so preoccupied in searching records under the surname Kelly?.
Regards Richard |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 4:10 pm: | |
Richard,
Sounds like a project for Chris Scott!
B |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Police Constable
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 7:16 am: | |
Brian.
I agree , he is the man for the job, When I have searched cencus, I usually receive not found to my entries.
While I am on the subject of Mary Jane.....?. I asked on the last day of the old format a question. Did any of our well imformed members know of a reference mentioned by Mrs Maxwell in either press or police statements that Kelly looked like she was suffering from a cold?.
I am aware of Donald Mcormack passage ; All muffled up like a cold, also although other posters have disagreed I believe Leonard Matters wrote Mrs Maxwell said ;Her eyes looked queer as if suffering from a heavy cold;
The above passage would have significant meaning if it could be confirmed, for it would give a major plus to Maxwells reliability
As soon as there is confirmation of this I will disclose what that is.
Regards Richard. |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 9:31 pm: | |
Richard,
There are a couple of references to Mrs Maxwell's comments of Mary Kelly looking ill in Robin Odell's book.
1) On p90,(1966 pbk edition), Mr Odell writes, with reference to Mrs Maxwell; "Kelly looked ill at the time, and Mrs Maxwell asked her if she would like a drop of rum."
2) On p206, Mr Odell states; "..Mrs Maxwell peered hard enough into 'Kelly's' face to determine that she looked ill, and spoke to her, eliciting a reply."
Though these two comments do not specifically state that Kelly was suffering from a cold, they do show that there is some collaboration to the story that Mary Kelly looked ill that morning.
Hope this helps.
Michael |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Michael,
Thanks for that, that is two more conformations that Maxwell was convinced that Kelly was not well that morning and Maxwell looking in to Kellys face shows where the statement ;Her eyes looked queer as if suffering from a heavy cold might have originated from.
It really is amazing that bits of imformation keeps appearing on events of the 9th nov, the point about the offering of rum is never discussed,If you read the various newspapers on the 10th nov and following days you will get a completly different picture then the standard account everybody relies on.
The Victims name, everybody knew her as simply Mary Jane, John m;carthy as Mary Jane M;carthy[ sometimes Kelly] and it was reported her actual name was Lizzie Fisher.
Her common law husband was Kelly not Barnett, he was known as Dan not Joe,
She had no children , yet she was known to have a son 7 or 8 years old [ this was confimed by Barnett].
The description of the deseased differs but if you take the description of Inspector Drew, Maurice Lewis, and Mrs Maxwell , you would get a woman of 5 ft 3 inches in height quite plump , with black hair,.
I believe that we have got to alter our way of thinking on this murder and start to assume that the victim known as Mary Jane....? was either killed between 9.am - 10.30 am on the morning of the 9th nov, or she was not the person found in room 13.
Regards Richard. |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 133
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 1:49 pm: | |
Hi all
Well I have not risen to the census project mentioned above (yet!!!) but I have managed to find a newspaper account of Kelly's murder I had not seen before. The report is from the Washington Post for 10th November 1888. the day after the murder a reporter from the Phildelphia Press went to Miller's Court and this srticle is his description of the court, some background information and an interview with another woman called Mary who lived in Miller's Court.
He mentions much of what Richard listed in the first post in this thread - McCarthy name etc. but there are a few things in this report which I don't remember seeing before:
- He alleges that Kelly was her married name and she and her husband (Kelly) separated just before she moved into Miller's Court
- he alleges her "pal" (the other Mary) gives her age as 24
- he alleges the body was photographed in its coffin (maybe this accounts for the persistent rumour of other photos in addition to the two known ones)
Hope it's of interest
Chris S
Washington Star 10 November 1888
Article re. Kelly murder
THE SCENE OF THE CRIME
The London correspondent of the Phildelphia Press gives the following particulars of the brutal crime of "Jack the Ripper", its victim, and the locality in which it was committed. The same was in a court off Dorest street. Out of the latter opens an arched passageway, low and narrow. A big man walking through it would bend his head and turn sideways to keep his shoulders from rubbing against the dirty bricks. At the end of the passage there is a high court not ten feet broad and thirty long, thickly whitewashed all around for sanitary reasons to a height of ten feet. That is Miller (sic) Court. Misery is written all over the place, the worst kind of London misery, such as those who have lived their lives in America can have no idea of.
The first door at the end and on the right of the passage opens into a tiny damp room on a level with the pavement. The landlord of this and neighboring rooms is a John McCarthy, who keeps a little shop in Dorset street, on the side of the passage. About a year ago he rented it to a woman who looked about thirty. She was popular among the females of the neighborhood, shared her beer generously, as I have been tearfully informed, and went under the title of Mary Jane McCarthy. Her landlord knew that she had another name, Kelly, that of her husband but her friends had not heard of it.
Mary Jane took up her residence in the little room in Miller Court when Kelly left her. Since then her life has been that of all the women about her. Last night she went out as usual and was seen at various times up to 11:30 drinking at various low beer shops in Commercial street. At last just before midnight she went home with some man, who appears to have dissuaded her from making a good night visit, as was her custom, at a drinking place nearest her rooms. No description can be obtained of this man.
Right opposite the passage leading to Mary Jane's room there is a big lodging-house where the charge is four pence for a bed. Some men congregated about the door are sure they saw a man and a woman, the latter being Mary Jane, stop to laugh at a poster on one side of the passage, which offers £100 reward for the Whitechapel murderer. the man must have enjoyed the joke, for he himself was the Whitechapel murderer beyond all doubt. The men who saw him can only say that he did not look remarkable.
At 10 o'clock this morning, just as the Lord Mayor was climbing into his golden carriage, three horrified policemen who had first looked in through Mary Jane's window and then drank big glasses of brandy to steady themselves, were breaking in her door with a pick axe. The Whitechapel murderer had done his work with more thoroughness than ever before. the miserable woman's body was literally scattered all over the room. Almost every conceivable mutilation had been practiced on the body.
The butchery was so frightful that more than an hour was spent by the doctors in endeavoring to reconstruct the woman's body from the pieces, so as to place it in a coffin and have it photographed.
To-night at midnight Dorset street and all the neighborhood was swarming with a typical degraded Whitechapel throng. Those with any money were getting drunk very fast. many sober women and all the drunken ones were crying from terror, while the men lounged about singing or fighting or chaffing the women according to their ideas of humor. The police were and are doing nothing of importance. The poor woman's fragments, put together as skilfully as possible, are lying in the Houndsditch Mortuary in a scratched and dirty shell of a coffin often used before. While the body was being carried from the scene of the murder thousands crowded as near as the police would allow, and gazed with lifted caps and pitying faces at the latest victim.
The most interesting individual in Miller Court was a woman who had intimately known the dead woman. Mary Jane's pal, she called herself. Her room is directly opposite the murdered woman's, and its agitated proprietor stood in the doorway urging a young girl with straggling wisps of red hair who had started for beer not to be gone a minute. She assured me that she would be glad to talk to me while Kate was away, just to forget the horrors. This woman spoke well of the dead. She had not always been on peaceable terms with the murdered women, but they were good friends, though quarrelsome. Mary Jane was pretty before she was cut up, Mary said, and she was only twenty four, not thirty, as she looked, but she would fight and did not care what sort of place she lived in.
|
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 134
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 1:53 pm: | |
Here is a scan of the article itself as mentioned above:
 |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 135
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 2:38 pm: | |
hi guys
In response to the census search mentioned above I have come up with the following:
1881 Census
All in the birthdate range 1863 + or - 2 years
MARY JANE MCCARTHY
1 Entry:
Address: 40 Sidney Street, West Ham, Essex
Born 1862 in London
Married
Husband is James McCarthy, born 1861, a labourer in a Sugar refinery.
MARY MCCARTHY:
15 Entries
1) 25 Thomas Street, Leckwith, Glamorgan
Born 1861 in Cardiff
Daughter of Mary McCarthy
2) 9 Caroline Street, manchester
Born 1861 in Manchester
Rag sorter
Daugter of Julia McCarthy
3) 8 Rendle Street, Plymouth
Born 1861 in Portsmouth
Fressmaker
Daughter of Patrick McCarthy
4) 7 Park Terrace, Fisher Street, Barking, Essex
Born 1862 in Peckendon
Jute weaver
Daughter of Anetta McCarthy
5) 2 Dews Court, Cardiff St Mary
Born 1862 in Cardiff
Ships Stewards Wife
Married to Michael McCarthy
6) 12 Red Cross Court, Southwark
Born 1862 in Southwark
Furrier
Daughter of Mary McCarthy
7) 19 Maison Dieu Road, Charlton, Kent
Born 1862 in Newport, Monmouth
General domestic servant
Employed by Ernest Brandreth
8) 15 Eaton Square, London
Born 1863 in Cork, Ireland
Domestic servant
Employed by Thomas Forster
9) 4 Gamlyn Place, Aberdare, Wales
Born 1863 in Trevethin
Domestic
Daughter of Daniel McCarthy
10) 7 Phoenix Street, London
Born 1864 in St Giles, London
Pickle manufacturer
Unmarried
11) Waterloo Terrace, Newhapton Road, Wolverhampton
Born 1864 in Ireland
Domestic general servant
Employed by Walter Blake-Burke
12) 3 Canton Square, Llandaff, Wales
Born 1864 in Canton, Wales
Grass packer Paper Mill
Daughter of William McCarthy
13) 32 Thomas Street, Leckwith, Glamorgan, Wales
Born 1865 in Cardiff
Scholar
Daughter of Honorah McCarthy
14) 2 Ashentree Court, London
Born 1865 in London
Bookfolder
Daughter of Mary NcCarthy
15) 14 Armenia Street, Leeds, York
Born 1865 in Ireland
Boot machinist
Daughter of John McCarthy
LIZZIE FISHER (same birthdate range)
2 Entries
1) 22 East Beach, Lytham, Lancashire
Born 1862 in Wrightington, Lancs
Waitress
Employed by Robert Dawson
2) Wade Street, Lichfield St Mary, Stafford
Born 1864 in Lichfield
No occupation
Daughter of Philip Fisher
ELIZABETH FISHER
There were 107 entries so I had to filter these. If any elements of the Kelly story are true, we can search on those.
Those living in Wales in 1881:
2 Entries
1) Rosemoderis Cottage, Trevethin, Monmouth
Born 1861 in Pontypridd
Housemaid
Employed by Abraham Verity
2) 30 High Street, Newport, Monmouth
Born 1864 in Newport
Charwoman
Daughter of Mary Fisher
Those born in Ireland:
1 Entry
1) Brookhouse Hall farm, Caton, Lancashire
Born 1861 in Ireland
Farm servant (Indoor)
Employed by George Phizacklea
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 165
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 8:24 pm: | |
Here is a fuller version than some I have seen of Dr. Gabe's version of the scene of the Kelly murder. It is from a Canadian paper called the Qu'Appelle Progress, issue dated 16 November 1888
  |
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 5:59 pm: | |
Wow! Even more gruesome than the previous accounts I've read. Only half hour's work though? One reference I came across said at least two hours? Exaggeration??????
I'm getting more and more confused now! |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 644
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 5:50 pm: | |
I have recently found two lengthy reports in a New zealand paper (the Te Aroha Times) that I thought might be worth posting.
Te Aroha News (New Zealand)
12 December 1888
ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MURDER
The Brutal Butchery of a Woman
Another shocking murder of the well known Whitechapel type was perpetrated on November 9th within 300 yards of the spot where the woman Chapman was killed last September. The details of this tragedy are even more revolting than those of the six which preceded it. The accurate circumstances of the affair are difficult to discover, the police, as usual, placing every obstacle in the way of investigation by the reporters; but all reports show that the murder far surpasses in fiendish atrocity all the terrible crimes with which the East End of London has been familiarised within the past six months. The woman, 26 years old, named Mary Jane Kelly, had lived for four months in a front room on the second floor of a house upon an alley known as Cartin's Court. This poor woman was in service a short time ago, but since she came to reside in this court she has been recognised by the neighbours as a person who, like so many unfortunate members of her sex in the eastern end of the town, manage to live a wretched existence by the practice of immorality under the most degarding conditions. The court faces a small square with a narrow entrance, and is surrounded by squalid lodging houses, with rooms let off to the unfortunate class.
Kelly is described as a tall woman, not bad looking, of dark complexion, and she generally wore an old black velvet jacket. She was wearing this jacket in the morning when, about 8.15 o'clock, she went down the court, jug in hand, and returned shortly afterwards with milk for breakfast. She was next seen about 10 o'clock, when she went to a neighbouring beerhouse and stayed drinking for half an hour. This was the last that was seen of her alive. The woman was behind in rent and had been told by the landlord that she would be put out of she did not pay up today. She went on the streets last night to earn money to pay the rent, and it seems to be clearly established that she returned to her room with aman who passed the might with her. No one has been found who saw the man go in, but some of the neoghbours heard him talking to the woman kelly in her rooms and heard her singing as though drunk.
At 11 o'clock on the morning of November 9th a man named Bowyer, agent of the landlord, went to Kelly's room to collect the rent. When he knocked at the door he received no answer. Removing a curtain drawn across the window of the room and looking though a broken pane, Bowyer saw the woman lying on the bed on her back, stark naked, while marks of blood were all over the place. He tried the handle of the door and found it locked, while the key had been removed from the lock. Without going into the room Bowyer celled the police, who promptly proceeded to conceal all the facts in the case.
In less than two hours the doctors had the body in the morgue and were probing it, precisely as they did the Mitre square victim. They refused to give any details of the examination. One physician present admitted that he had passed much of his life in dissecting rooms, but never saw such a horrific spectacle as the murdered woman. The man who was called in to identify the body gives the following description, which seems to be reliable:
The head was nearly severed from the shoulders, and the face was lacerated almost beyond recognition. The breasts were both cut off and placed on a table. The heart and liver were between the woman's legs. The uterus was missing. There seemed to be at least forty cuts on the body, and big pieces of flesh were literally stripped off and strewed on the floor. It is simply too hideous to describe. There were no indications in this case of a hand skilled in the use of a knife. The body was literally hacked to pieces, but there is no doubt that it is all the work of the person who has been known throughout the world as the Whitechapel murderer.
The mystery in this case is as deep as in the cases of the preceding crimes. The fiend got away without leaving the slightest clue. He chose his time well, and the moment the murdered woman's body was discovered was that at which the gorgeous spectacle known by the name of the Lord Mayor's show was blocking the traffic near the Mansion House, scarcely a mile away. Three million people were packed in the streets between the Mansion House and the "World" office in Trafalgar square, with nearly every policeman in the city braced as a barricade along the curb to keep them in order. The rigid police patrol maintained in Whitechapel since the last horrible murder in October was relaxed for one day, and in that day the assassin struck down another victim.
It is scarcely necessary to say much about Kelly. She was a married woman, who fell into dissolute ways and was deserted by her husband. She had a boy 11 years old, who was begging in the streets while the mother was murdered. The woman had a paramour, a man who sells oranges on the streets, and on whom, as he could not be found, suspicion at once reverted, but he turned up all right tonight, and fainted when he was shown the woman's body.
Like the sands that slowly filter through an hourglass when reversed, the great thrond in the streets which had been cheering the new Lord Mayor found their way into Whitechapel. When the news of the murder spread about every heart was filled with horror, and everybody asked: "When is this going to end?" "How long is this fiend in human form going to carve people up under the noses of the police and mock their feeble efforts to catch him?" The London police are not allowed to beat a crowd into submission, as the New York police are, unless there is an absolute riot, but the indignation and excitement were so great at Whitechapel today that it was necessary to use harsh measures.
Profiting from previous blunders, the police called a photographer to take a picture of the room before the body was removed from it. This gave rise to the report that there was handwriting on the wall, though the three or four people who were allowed into the room say they did not observe it, but possible they were too excited to note details.
A young woman who knew the murdered woman well says that about 10 o'clock at night she met her, and that she said she had no money, could not get any, and that she would do away with herself. Soon after that they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman, and offered her money. The man then accompanied the woman home to her lodgings. The little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbour's house. The little boy has been found and corroborates this, but says he cannot remember the man's face. Another curious circumstance worth mentioning is that the murder was not made public until 12 o'clock.
Mrs. Paumier, who seems to be a credible person, sells walnuts in Sanders Road, near the scene of the murder. She states that at eleven o'clock a respectable man, carrying a black bag, came up to her and began talking about the murder. He appeared to know everything about it. He did not buy any walnuts, and after standing a few minutes went away. Mrs. paumier described him as a man about 30 years old and five feet six inches in height. He wore speckled trousers and a black coat. Several girls in the neighbourhood say that the same man has accosted them and they chaffed him. When they asked him what he had in the black bag, he said "Something that ladies don't like." This is all that is known. If the police have further information they carefully conceal it, but there is no reason to believe that they have.
Here is the order of the previous murders committed by the same man: August 7th, Martha Turner, Commercial street; August 31st, Annie Nichols, Buck's Road (sic); September 8th, Annie Chapman, Hamburg (sic) street; September 30th, Elizabeth Stride, Berner street; and Kate Eddows, Mitre square.
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
Every details of the seven murders is of the same type, and goes to show that the murderer has no accomplices. His latest escapade goes to show that a shrewd man is not above changing his tactics. Knowing the streets are guarded, he lures his victims to their rooms. So long as he follows this plan there is no limit to his operations and he will probably not be caught unless by some blunder of his own.
An important fact is pointed out today which starts a new and quite probable theory of the murders. It appears that the cattle boats bringing live freight to London usually come into the Thames on Thursdays or Fridays and leave again for the Continent on Sundays or Mondays. It has already been noticed that revolting crimes have been committed at the end of the week, and an opinion has been formed among some detectives that the murderer is a drover or butcher, employed on these boats, of which there are many, and that he appears and disappears with one of the steamers.
This theory is held to be of much importance by those engaged in the investigation, who believe that the murderer does not reside with in Whitechapel or even in the country at all. He may be employed upon one of these boats, or one who is allowed to travel by them, and inquiries have for some time been directed to following up this theory.
St the inquest of the previous victims the cornoers expressed the opinion that the knowledge of anatomy possessed by a butcher would be sufficiient to enable him to find and cut out the parts abstracted in the several cases. There is a similar theory that the man is a Malay cook on one of the steamers running to the Mediterranean. There are not all there is. There are few facts excpet that the women have been murdered and the murderer is still free. A man's oilskin coat has been found in the murdered woman's room, but whether it belonged to one of her paramours or to the murderer has not been ascertained. By some it is looke upon as strogn cooroboration of the sailors theory.
The doctors who made the post mprtem examination are authority for the statemtn that no portion of the last body was taken away by the murderer. One phgysician gives "The World" the following description of the condition of the body when found: "The woman lay on her back on the bed entirely naked. Her throat was cut from ear to ear, right down to the spinal column. The ears and nose had been clean cut off. The breasts also had been entirely cut off and placed on the table by the side of the bed. The stomach and abdomen had been ripped open, while the dace was slashed about so that the features were beyond all recognition. The kidneys and heart had been removed from the body and placed on the table by the side of the breasts. The liver had been taken out and laid on the right thigh. The clothes, soaked with blood, were on the floor beside the bed. There was no appearance of a struggle. A more sickening sight could not be imagined."
Almost everbody in the neighbourhood of the murder had some story to tell today, but that of Mrs. Maxwell, wife of the lodging house keeper of Dorset street, opposite the house where Mary Kelly lived, seems reliable, and goes to show that the murder was committed after 9 a.m. Here it is: "I assist my husband in watching the lodging house. We divide the time, staying up all night. Friday morning, as I was going home carrying a lantern with me, I saw the woman Kelly standing at the entrance of the court. It was then about 8.30 o'clock, and it was unusual for her to be seen about at that hour. I said to her :"Hello, what are you doing up so early?" She said, "Oh, I'm very bad this morning. I have been drinking so much lately." I said, "Here, why don't you go and have half a pint of beer? It will set you right." She replied: "I just had one, but I'm so bad I couldn't keep it down." I didn't know then that she had separated from the man she had been living with. I then went out to do some errands. On my return, I saw Kelly standing outside the public house talking with a man. That was the last I saw of her. It must have been 9 o'clock."
The body was disovered about one hour afterward. Soon after the discovery of the murder the authorities of Scotland Yard telegraphed that bloodhounds would be sent and all pedestrians were forbidden to approach anywhere nearthe house in which the body was lying. These precautions were maintained until a second telegram from headquarters was received stating that the dogs would not be sent. The failure of the appearance of the bloodhounds was today accounted for by the fact that during recent trials the animals ran away and have not been recovered.
The excitement in the neighbourhood is not so great as immediately following the previous murders. The people are becoming accustomed to the horrors. Tonight, as usual, the streets are full of loose women plying their trade uninterrupted by the Kelly woman's fate. No one was permitted to see the body today. It will be buried on Monday morning after the inquest.
At midnight the detectives in the case were holding a conference about their future line of action, but no one is under arrest.
Te Aroha News (New Zealand)
5 January 1889
THE SEVENTH WHITECHAPEL MURDER
FEARFUL MUTILATIONS
The following are the full particulars of the seventh murder in Whitechapel:-
SCENE OF THE MURDER - HOW THE POOR LIVE
The scene of the last crime is at No. 26,Dorset street, Spitalfields, which is about two hundred yards distant from35 (sic) Hanbury street, where the unfortunate woman, Mary Ann Nicholls, was so foully murdered. Although the victim, whose name is Mary Jane Kelly, resides at the above number, the entrance to the room she occupied is up a narrow court, in which are some half a dozen houses, and which is known as Miller's Court; it is entirely separated from the other portion of the house, and has an entrance leading into the court. The room is known by the title of No. 13. The house is rented by John McCarthy, who keeps a small general shop at No. 27, Dorset street, and the whole of the rooms are let out to tenants of a very poor class. As an instance of the poverty of the neighbourhood, it may be mentioned that nearly the whole of the houses in this street are common lodging houses, and the one opposite where the murder was enacted has accommodation for some 300 men, and is fully occupied every night.
HOW THE VICTIM LIVED
About twelve months ago Kelly, who was about twenty four years of age, and whowas considered a good looking young woman, of fair and fresh coloured complexion, came to see McCarthy with a man named Joseph Kelly, who she stated was her husband, and who was a porter employed at the Spitalfields market. They rented a room on the ground floor, the same in which the poor woman was murdered, at the rental of 4s a week. It had been noticed that the deceased woman was somewhat addicted to drink but Mr. McCarthy denied having any knowledge that she had been leading a loose or immoral life. That this is so, however, there can be no doubt; for about a fortnight ago she had a quarrel with Kelly, and, after blows had been exchanged, the man left the house, or rather room, and did not return. It has since been ascertained that he went to live at Buller's common lodging house in Bishopsgate street. Since then the woman has supported herself as best she sould, and the police have ascertained that she had been walking the streets.
WHEN LAST SEEN - "SWEET VIOLETS" IN THE COURT
Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herselfm as she could not bear to see her boy starving. There are conflucting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half past ten o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset street, who said to her that she had no money, and if she could not get any would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly, and offered her money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings. which are on the second floor, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbour's house. At any rate, none of those living in the court or a 26 Dorset street, saw anything of the unfortunate creature after about eight o'clock on Thursday evening, but a person living in the court opposite heard her singing, it is said, the song "Sweet Violets", but this person is unable to say whether anyone else was with her at that time. Nothing more was seen or heard of her until her dead body was found.
THE DISCOVERY OF THE CRIME
At a quarter to eleven yesterday morning, as the woman was 30s in arrears with her rent, Mccarthy said to a man employed by him in his shop, John Bowyer, "Go to No. 13 (meaning the room occupied by Kelly) and try to get some rent." Bowyer went, and on knocking at the door was unable to obtain an answer. On looking through the keyhole he found the key was missing. The left hand side of the room faced the court, and in it were two large windows. Bowyer, knowing that when the man Kelly and the dead woman had their quarrel a pane of glass in one of the windows was broken, went round to the side in question. He put his hand through the aperture and pulled aside the muslin curtain which covered it. On looking into the room a shocking sight presented itself. He could see the woman lying on the bed, entirely naked, caovered with blood and apparently dead. Without waiting to make a closer examination, he ran to his employer and told him he believed the woman Kelly had been murdered. McCarthy at once went and looked through the broken window, and, satisfying himself that something was wrong, despatched Bowyer to the Commercial street police station, at the same time enjoining him not to tell any of the neighbours what he had discovered. Inspector Back (sic), H Division, who was in charge of the station at the time, accompanied Bowyer back, and on finding that a murder had been committed at once sent for assistance. Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, and Superintendent Arnold were also sent for. On the arrival of the latter he caused a telegram to be sent direct to Sir Charles Warren, informing him what had happened, and Inspector Abberline, who had already arrived, despatched a message to Sir Charles Warren to bring the bloodhounds.
A SICKENING AND UNPARALLELED SCENE
Mr. Arnold, having satisfied himelf that the woman wad dead, ordered one of the windows to be removed. A horrible and sickening sight then presented itself. The woman lay on her back on the bed, entirely naked. Her throat was cut from ear to ear, right down to the spinal column. The ears and nose had been cut clean off. The breasts had also been cleanly cut off and placed on a table which was by the side of the bed. The stomach and abdomen had been ripped open, while the face was slashed about, so that the features of the poor creature were beyond all recognition. the kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body and placed on the table by the side of the breasts. The liver had liewise been removed, and laid on the right thigh. No portion of the body, however, had been taken away by the murderer. The thighs had been cut. A more horrible or sickening sight could not be imagined. The clothes of the woman were lying by the side of the bed, as though they had been taken off and laid down in the ordinary manner. While this examination was being made a photographer, who, in the meantime, had been sent for, arrived and took photographs of the body, the organs, the room and its contents. Superintendent Arnold then had the door of the room forced. It was a very poorly furnished apartment, about 12 feet square, there being only an old bedstead, two old tables and a chair in it. The bedclothes had been turned down, and this was probably done by the murderer after he had cut his victim's throat. There was no appearance of a struffle having taken place, and, although a careful search of the room was made, no knife or instrument of any kind was found.
CAPS WERE DOFFED AND TEARS WERE SHED
After a careful examination of the remains by several doctors, the body was placed in a shell, which was put into a cart and conveyed to the mortuary. It was at ten minutes to four o'clcok that a one horse carrier's cart, with the ordinary tarpaulin cover, was driven into Dorset street, and halted opposite Miller's Court. From the cart was taken a long shell or coffin, dirty and scratched from constant use. This was taken into the death chamber, and there the remains were temporarily confined. The news that the body was about to be removed caused a great rush of people from the courts running out of Dorset street, and there was a determined effort to break the police cordon at the Commercial street end. The crowd, which pressed round the van, was of the humblest class, but the demeanour of the poor people was all that could be desired. Ragged caps were doffed and slatternly looking women shed tears as the shell, covered with a ragged looking cloth, was placed in the van, The remains were taken to the Shoreditch mortuary, where they will remain until they have been viewed by the coroner's jury. Dr. McDonald, coroner, in whose district the murder has happened, has fixed Monday morning for the opening of the inquest at Shoreditch Town Hall.
WHERE WERE THE BLOODHOUNDS?
From inquiries made among the persons living in the houses adjoining the court, and also those residing in rooms in No. 26, it appears clear that no noise of any kind was heard. Up to the present time, the occurrence is enveloped in as much mystery as were the previous murders. The man Kelly was quickly found, and his statement ascertained to be correct. After the examination the windows were boarded up and the door padlocked, by direction of the police. It was reported that bloodhounds would be laid on to endeavour to trace the murderer, but for some reason the project was not carried out, and, of course, after the streets became thronged with people that would have had no practical result. The street being principally composed of common lodging houses, persons are walking along it all hours of the night, so that little notice is taken of any ordinarily attired man. The murderer, therefore, had a good chance of GEtting away unobserved.
THE COOL DARING OF THE MURDERER
A correspondent who last night saw the room in which the murder was committed says it was a tenement by itself, having formerly been the back parlour of No. 26. Dorset street. A partition had been erected, cutting it off from the house, and the entrance door opened into Miller's Court. The two windows also faced the court, and, as the body could be seen from the court yesterday morning, it is evident that, unless the murderer perpetrated his crime with the light turned out, any person passing could have witnessed the deed. The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer apparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found. The more the facts are investogated, the more apparent becomes the cool daring of the murderer. There are six houses in the court besides the tenement occupied by the deceased.
THE MAN WITH WHOM DECEASED HAD LIVED
A younf woman named Harvey, who had slept with deceased on several recent occasions, has made a statement to the effect that she had been on good terms with the deceased, whose education was much superior to that of most persons in her position of life. Harvey, however, took a room in New Court, off the same street, but remained friendly with the unfortunate woman, who visited her in New Court on Thursday night. After drinking together, they parted at half past seven o'clock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman street, which she was in the habit of frequenting. She was poerfectly sober at the time. Joseph Barnett (called in other reports Kelly), an Irishman, at present residing in a common lodging house in New Street, Bishopsgate, informed a reporter last evening that he had occupied his present lodgings since Tuesday week. Previously to that, he had lived in Miller's Court, Dorset street, for eight or nine months with the murdered woman Mary Jane Kelly. They were very comfortable together until another women came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights he called his wife and left her. The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half past seven and eight and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her.
COINCIDENCES AS TO DATES
A somewhat important fact has been pointed out, which puts a fresh complexion on the theory of the murders. It appears that the cattle boats bringing life (sic) freight to London are in the habit of coming into the Thames on Thursdays or Fridays and leave again for the Continent on Sundays or Mondays. It has already been a matter of comment that the recent revolting crimes have been committed at the week's end, and an opinion has been formed among some of the detectives that the murderer is a drover or butcher employed on one of these boats - of which there are many - and that he periodically appears and disappears with one of the steamers. This theory is held to be of much importance by those engaged in this investigation. There is also, it is to be noted, a striking similarity in the period of the month in which the crime has been committed, for while two of the most atrocious of the other murders were committed on the 7th of the months of September and August, this was commenced or committed on 8th - approximately the same period in the month. This would seem to indicate that the murderer was absent from the scene of these horrors for fixed periods, and that his return was alwys about the same time.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 555
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 9:19 pm: | |
Wow, Chris!
Incredibly detailed paper articles (compared to today), correct or not. Intriguing indeed. You baffle me everytime you manage to come up with this fantastc stuff.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:13 am: | |
G'day,
Thanks Chris, fantastic find!
LEANNE
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 646
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 9:28 am: | |
Hi all
Glad the articles were of interest. this passage in the first article intrigued me:
"In less than two hours the doctors had the body in the morgue and were probing it, precisely as they did the Mitre square victim. They refused to give any details of the examination. One physician present admitted that he had passed much of his life in dissecting rooms, but never saw such a horrific spectacle as the murdered woman. The man who was called in to identify the body gives the following description, which seems to be reliable"
I was wondering who this "man who was called in to identify the body" could have been. I think it unlikely to have been Barnett for two reasons. One, the article says later that Barnett could not initially be traced and secondly, whatever our feelings about Barnett, I think it unlikely he would have given the press a detailed description in clinical detail of the state of Kelly's body.
There are other strong possibilities - McCarthy and Bowyer for starters but it would be interesting to know for usre. And the phrase that he was "called in" to identify the body even suggests the police sent for someone they were confident knew Kelly well enough to identify her even in this condition.
Any thoughts as to who this unnamed man might be?
CS |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 798
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 6:21 am: | |
G'day Chris,
That was Dr. Bond who performed the post mortem. The reporter must have assumed he was there to identify the body.
His official report wasn't recovered by Scotland Yard until 1987. Notice how this man claimed to the newspaper: 'The heart and liver were between the woman's legs.' And in the official report the heart was absent. They wanted to keep that knowledge out of the papers.
LEANNE
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Mary Jane....? Knew her killer,the window pane had been broken in an argument but had served as a way to unlatch the door as the key had been missing for several weeks. When the police arrived at 13 Miller's court they had to batter down the door as the door had been locked properly. On the night of her murder she had been seen going in through the door at 13 with a carroty moustached man with a blotchy face, who was carrying a can of beer, after this man/customer, Mary was seen by George Hutchinson and she had asked him if he could spare a sixpence, George Hutchinson then saw Mary talking to a darkhaired gentleman, they had a good laugh at something the man had whispered to Mary, the man then obscured his face as George Hutchinson was watching, this man did not want to be seen. It is only later accounts that witnesses had said that they had seen Mary Jane around 9-10am on the same morning she was found dead, these witnesses could have mistaken nov 9th for nov 8th, the day before the murder. Catherine Eddowes had mentioned before that she knew who the murderer was and that she was going to claim the reward money, apparentley she said this on the day she returned from hop picking, the same day that she was found later murdered. Two witnesses saw a woman of Catherine eddowes description, (they had identified her by her clothing) with a man who was fair haired with a red handkerchief around his neck (no i do not think that this is Dr Francis Tumblety), these men had left the jewish working men's club, they were Lawende, Levy & Harris (2 of them happened to be jewish!), i haven't found out which two yet that recieved 24 hour police protection, also it was said that one of the witnesses that was being interviewed for a statement one policeman thought he Knew more than he was telling, he thought he had something to fear, not to mention that the famous chalked message was found just above a piece of Eddowes apron, i think this message was left by the killer, because he had been seen by someone he knew who hw also knew to be jewish. The description of the killer that he gave as a fair haired man was more than likely a description given of the opposite details of the real killer. Also a couple of years ago i came across a letter in the public records office (i would love to know who it was addressed to), it said something along the lines of: I know that you saw me, if you go to the police i will cut your wife's ears off and send them to the police, i know where you live. I don't know why but this letter has stuck vaugely in my memory for a couple of years and i would like to trace the letter again. I don't pay much attention to the news papers of the day in 1888, i read books and have traced records of the case. A lot of media attention was focused on the murders purely to make money, they also had to keep the news at it's peak, and the ripper murders were a perfect breeding ground in this continum.
By the way i am a criminology student taking my MASC (Ad Crim), i'm not just a ripperologist fan. |
Shelley Wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Mary Jane....? Knew her killer,the window pane had been broken in an argument but had served as a way to unlatch the door as the key had been missing for several weeks. When the police arrived at 13 Miller's court they had to batter down the door as the door had been locked properly. On the night of her murder she had been seen going in through the door at 13 with a carroty moustached man with a blotchy face, who was carrying a can of beer, after this man/customer, Mary was seen by George Hutchinson and she had asked him if he could spare a sixpence, George Hutchinson then saw Mary talking to a darkhaired gentleman, they had a good laugh at something the man had whispered to Mary, the man then obscured his face as George Hutchinson was watching, this man did not want to be seen. It is only later accounts that witnesses had said that they had seen Mary Jane around 9-10am on the same morning she was found dead, these witnesses could have mistaken nov 9th for nov 8th, the day before the murder. Catherine Eddowes had mentioned before that she knew who the murderer was and that she was going to claim the reward money, apparentley she said this on the day she returned from hop picking, the same day that she was found later murdered. Two witnesses saw a woman of Catherine eddowes description, (they had identified her by her clothing) with a man who was fair haired with a red handkerchief around his neck (no i do not think that this is Dr Francis Tumblety), these men had left the jewish working men's club, they were Lawende, Levy & Harris (2 of them happened to be jewish!), i haven't found out which two yet that recieved 24 hour police protection, also it was said that one of the witnesses that was being interviewed for a statement one policeman thought he Knew more than he was telling, he thought he had something to fear, not to mention that the famous chalked message was found just above a piece of Eddowes apron, i think this message was left by the killer, because he had been seen by someone he knew who hw also knew to be jewish. The description of the killer that he gave as a fair haired man was more than likely a description given of the opposite details of the real killer. Also a couple of years ago i came across a letter in the public records office (i would love to know who it was addressed to), it said something along the lines of: I know that you saw me, if you go to the police i will cut your wife's ears off and send them to the police, i know where you live. I don't know why but this letter has stuck vaugely in my memory for a couple of years and i would like to trace the letter again. I don't pay much attention to the news papers of the day in 1888, i read books and have traced records of the case. A lot of media attention was focused on the murders purely to make money, they also had to keep the news at it's peak, and the ripper murders were a perfect breeding ground in this continum.
By the way i am a criminology student taking my MASC (Ad Crim), i'm not just a ripperologist fan. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Does anyone recall that seemingly obscure reference to Kelly's folded clothes being laid on a chair in her room, or a similar story that these clothes were 'wet'?.
Try as I might I have either lost them or simply not stumbled across these statements yet.
I'm intrigued as to whether these reports are witness statements or just press stories without references.
Assuming that these stories have some basis in fact then I am intrigued as to why her clothes would have been wet (especially by 01:30 pm??).
We know from Cox that it was raining around 01:00 am, but Kelly was singing in her room about that time.
Also, the Hutchinson story does not appear to have taken place while it was raining, there is no hint of that being the case. Though, according to Cox, by 03:00 am, or soon after, it "was raining hard", and Kelly's room was quiet and in darkness.
If we could verify this suggestion of her clothes being found folded on a chair and 'wet', then it might clear Hutchinson's 'Toff' of being Jack the Ripper, she must have gone out again later.
How else would her clothes have been wet?, or does the story have no basis?.
Have I missed anything?
Thanks, Jon
(my Ripper stuff is still largely filed away) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2821
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Hi Jon
Martin Fido says there is a drawing in "Reynold's Newspaper" from 18 November, showing Kelly's clothes on a broken-backed chair. I think this sketch is on the Mary Kelly/Fisherman's Widow thread.
Robert |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 6:10 am: | |
Thankyou Robert.
Those sketches are interesting, I didn't know they were there. Taking you're hint a step further I looked through Martin's, "Crimes, Detection and Death..." and found a supporting statement on pg 92..
"The clothes of the woman were lying by the side of the bed, as though they had been taken off and laid down in the usual manner"
then again..
"A drawing in 'Reynold's Newspaper' for 18 November shows that Kelly's clothes were on the broken-backed chair.." (p.93)
and..
"..as her clothes were placed neatly on a chair.." (p. 97)
But still no mention of them being wet, thats the next crucial piece of info I'm looking for.
Thanks again Robert.
Regards, Jon
|
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 57
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Good thinking John about the wet clothes idea. I also had the idea that Mary may have gone out again after Hutch's man. My "Theory" was that hutch's man paid well, Mary was on a winning run, thought that she would give it another go and bang- straight into JRT.
The clothes being wet or dry could indeed prove to be a crucial clue as to who the killer might have been and the possible time scales. However, there is the other issue that is the fire- was this burning rapidly enough to possibly have dried the clothes assuming it was on whilst she was being murdered? How far away from the fire was the chair?
The other side of my thinking is if the fire was put on by Mary in the morning- ie the early morning fire, the clothes would still be quite wet as it was raining on the morning of the 9th of Nov. Therefore those who are certain that it was a morning killing may possibly get their proof.
Busy Beaver  |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 5:43 pm: | |
Hi B.B.
I suspect the suggestion that her clothes were wet is an assumption based on the fact they were not the items thrown on the fire.
We might expect only dry clothes to burn so if he left her's intact then could it have been because, "they must have been wet"?.
However, there is a slightly different account of the placement of her clothes in The Daily Telegraph.
"That the woman had had no struggle with her betrayer was shown by her position and the way in which her garments, including a velvet bodice, were arranged by the fireplace."
Nov. 10, 1888.
So here they appear to have been 'arranged' by the fireplace, ...as if to dry out maybe?
Alas, so many hints, so few facts.
Regards, Jon
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 51
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
Hi everybody,
You all have some very interesting ideas as toward some clues, if there was indeed some clothes folded and they were wet, Mary must have gone out again as you are all saying, but how wet were they ?(if there was clothes folded) The fire i personally believe was lit so hot as to obscure the time of death, to a point, if the toff that Hutchinson saw with Kelly wasn't the murderer (therefore tossing out my theory of the killer grooming his victims), i wonder if the real killer had been watching and waiting? ( and i don't believe for one moment that Hutchinson was the killer, either!). Very interesting folks, i shall bear in mind what has been said on this thread...Good work all of you.
All The Best ( keep it up you lot!)
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:02 am: | |
Surely the evidence points to only one direction, that the victim (I'll leave open for this purpose whether it was MJK or not) had invited her killer in, undressed, had sex and fallen asleep (thesheets had been cut as if they covered her). She wawoke from sleep to find herself the subject of an attack and sought to defend herself with her hands before succumbing to her wounds.
The risks of this being anyone other than Kelly are low. I suggest that even with the mutilations the body suffered you could still tell the difference between a person you knew and one you didn't, or between two people (unless deliberately similar in apperarance).
Much of the confusion in the press appears to come from the same evidence being attributed to different people; or people repeating as their own story information they had heard said by another.
Finally, the sightings of kelly when she was probably dead in her room, are most likely to be mistakes rather than genuine.
It is, in my view, JUST possible that one of Kelly's friends had used the room and been murdered there in MJK's absence. She returned and decided to use the situation to disappear - but frankly the reactions of the person identified as MJK (if factual) do not ring true as the sort of reaction one would expect. Secondly, if MJK had vanished and the victim mwas another - barnett's reaction do not seem appropriate.
The simplest explanation is that MJK died in the room at the hands of a "client".
Any confusion is simply due to the lapse of time and the unrelaiable nature of press coverage, which in this case is mostly what we have to go on.
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
