|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Police Constable
Username: Birgittesc
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 9:21 am: |       |
"Then later, when she heard that a woman named Mary Jane Kelly had been murdered, she mistakenly thought that it was the person she knew. She had only spoken to her twice before, and only knew her by sight because she had been around the lodging-house, even though there is no record of Mary ever having lived at that lodging-house. Plainly the person that Mrs Maxwell met did not live in the lodging-house any more, so it may have been many weeks before she encountered that person again, by which time it would be too late to change her story."
That is very well possible. However, I'm wondering if this was the case, wouldn't she have gone to the police to report her error and retract her statement?
Did she know her statement wasn't taken seriously by the police? If she did she probably wouldn't feel the need to report she was wrong after all. Otherwise it would seem logical to me she would report it.
Birgitte |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 419
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Sarah,
I'm not doubting you, but what is the source for Lewis' Friday morning sighting of Mary?
Andy S. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 472
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Andrew
The Times, 10th November 1888
A tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about eight o'clock this morning and go back.
Manchester Guardian, 10th November 1888
Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was in the court at nine o'clock this morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house and return with some milk.
Illustrated Police News, 17th November 1888
Maurice Lewis, a tailor, living in Dorset-street, stated that he had known the deceased woman for the last five years. Her name was Mary Jane Kelly. She was short, stout, and dark; and stood about five feet three inches. He saw her on the previous (Thursday) night, betwen ten and eleven, at the Horn of Plenty in Dorset-street. She was drinking with some woman and also with "Dan," a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago. He knew her as a woman of the town. One of the woman whom he saw with her was known as Julia. To his knowledge she went home overnight with a man. He seemed to be respectably dressed. Whether or no the man remained all night he could not say. Soon after ten o'clock in the morning he was playing with others at pitch and toss in M'Carthy's-cour, when he heard a lad call out "Copper," and he and his companions rushed away and entered a beer-house at the corner of Dorset-street, known as Ringer's. He was positive than on going in he saw Mary Jane Kelly drinking with some other people, but is not certain whether there was a man amongst them. He went home to Dorset-street on leaving the house, and about half an hour afterwards heard that Kelly had been found in her room murdered. It would then be close upon eleven o'clock.
This is the biggest problem with Maurice Lewis, he seems to have given two totally conflicting stories as to what he saw that morning. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 422
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hello Alan,
With regard to the first two articles you cite above, it is clear if you read them in their entirety that they are being cautious about Mr. Lewis' statement and not reporting it as fact. It is also clear that they took much of their information from a common source (Central News Agency?). While there is a lot of information in the articles, much of it is incorrect. For example, they report as fact that a small boy was living with Mary. Also, the article says that one whole window was removed to allow the photographer visual access. This seems not to have been the case since a photo shows the widows still present, complete with broken pane. I suppose the photo could have been taken before the window was removed, but if a whole window was removed it would obviously not have been necessary to break open the door with McCarthy's axe! The point is that the only source of Mr. Lewis' Friday morning sighting is newspaper articles containing other erroneous information.
Lewis may not have given conflicting statements at all. It may be that the press just confused his statement.
The fact that only Maxwell testified at the inquest to having seen Mary alive on Friday morning suggests that we are to treat other such statements with skepticism.
BTW -- I still haven't found the source of Ms. Goode's statement. A search on this site only finds her name in various threads. It apparently does not appear in press reports or documents transcribed here.
Andy S. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 712
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Hi,
The biggest factor , that keeps entering my mind , is the contents of the victims stomach, ie, fish and potatoes.
What exactly would that mean, when was the actual meal of fish and chips,sold in the east end, was it as we know it today, or would it just simply be fish and potatoes.
When it became evident, that the victim had eaten a meal of such content, surely the police, would have searched her room, for possible remains of a recently eaten meal, a plate a knife/ fork, and if none were present , have made inquiries, to local sellers, if they had sold fish and potatoes to the woman known as mary jane, and asked people that saw her that evening, if there was any people who were aware, that she was intending such a meal.
If the body on the bed was Mary Jane, one is led to believe that she ate the food around three hours before she was killed,
It therefore, would seem likely that she ate the meal betwen 11pm -midnight, for she was not seen to have beeen carrying any parcel back to her room when seen by Mrs cox, and I could hardly imagine her cooking such items at midnight , whilst singing, incidently which would have required heat, and a period of time.
This scenerio is again baffling , if she was seen alive at 815am by Maxwell, for if she was killed around 9am, she would have to consumed the meal around 6am, which is most unlikely.
If kelly was killed by hutchinsons man, then we have a major problem, that the victim was seen alive about 4 hours later.
I used to believe thirty years ago, that kelly was not the victim of millers court, that the real victim was inticed to kellys room, by kelly, the man seen with two women in dorset street, one respectably dressed , the other not so, who seemed to be attempting to make the better dressed female go with the man, I thought may have had some significance.
I Also thought, that the pantomime performance by kelly , drawing attention to herself, and the talking in Dorset street, was done with purpose, as to suggest to any passers, that she had business with a man of suspicious attire.
And while this was going on , the poor victim was being slaughtered in her room, but having drawn attention to herself, it would be believed that it was she who was the murdered woman.
Pure fantasy, and full of loopholes, but the fact remains, because of what was described as a recently eaten meal, we are left with with a huge cloud of mystery,When was this food eaten?.
For in the case of Mary jane, it just doesnt fit, but if it was not her that was killed who knows...
Richard.
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 189
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
Richard,
Regarding the fish and chips; I am reading a book right now on Sweeney Todd, and there is much mention of the original story he appeared in called "A String of Pearls" . . . it was published in the early 1800s, not sure of the exact year but it was pre-1850 . . . anyway in the story Sweeney sends his assistant out to get "friend fish and chips", so it was around in some form then.
-K |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 423
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
Richard,
Thank you for bringing the stomach contents to our attention (seriously!). I must admit that I had not given this much attention. Since Mary was 30s-35s behind in her rent, it's pretty safe to assume that she could not afford such an extravagant meal herself. I think she must have been treated to this meal by someone else. Where? Most likely a pub. Was Mary in a pub at around 11PM Thursday? Yup! Enter the statement of Mr. Lewis. She was seen in the Horn of Plenty with "Dan" and some woman between 10 and 11 PM. This would have been just the right time to have consumed the meal if Mary were killed in the early hours of the morning. It is likely that "Dan" bought her the meal. [I believe the press simply goofed up Mr. Lewis' statement and made it appear conflicting].
You keep assuming as fact that Mary was seen Friday morning. We have exactly one person who gave such sworn testimony. We have a lot of evidence to the contrary. In my opinion, Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken as to the day or the identity of the woman she saw -- probably as to the day.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on February 25, 2004) |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 187
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Hi Birgitte,
You were wondering: "Did she know her statement wasn't taken seriously by the police? If she did she probably wouldn't feel the need to report she was wrong after all."
At the inquest the Coroner warned Caroline Maxwell at the beginning of her testimony: "You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other people's." And towards the end of her testimony the Coroner reminds her she's sworn before he poses another question.
The way the Coroner handled Caroline Maxwell's testimony leads me to believe that she must have been aware that here statement was regarded with caution at least and perhaps wasn't even taken very seriously by both the police and the Coroner.
All the best,
Frank |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:09 pm: | |
Andrew wrote:
"Since Mary was 30s-35s behind in her rent, it's pretty safe to assume that she could not afford such an extravagant meal herself."
I don't think fish and potatoes is necessarily extravagant. I would think it's a slight step above bread and water. In a dock area fish and potatoes is probably a lot more common than beef and vegetables.
I also don't know that they would have had to have been purchased recently. Dried fish and a few potatoes could last a while in her room, and she might have cooked them in that spout-melted pot.
But then I don't consider it a huge issue either way.
"She was seen in the Horn of Plenty with "Dan" and some woman between 10 and 11 PM. This would have been just the right time to have consumed the meal if Mary were killed in the early hours of the morning. "
True, if that account is accurate. It also seems likely that the blotchy-faced sailor could have gotten her the food before getting his pail o' beer and following her to the room. And since we don't have step-by-step accounts of her whereabouts that night there any number of other times and ways she could have gotten some fish and taters in her. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 4:41 am: | |
Hi All,
I believe fast food (and hot drinks like coffee) from barrows, stalls, shops and markets was cheap and plentiful then, and available at most hours of the day – ie whenever there were potential customers about.
The poor around Dorset Street would have had few cooking facilities, and probably ate on the hoof. A hot potato from one stall, a piece of fried fish or some oysters from another, none of it would have cost much, and MJK would not have been above standing by a stall and begging a bite from a passing stranger or acquaintance.
MJK had too many easy ways of getting her grub at any time to pin down her last meal any further. I doubt she would have done more in her little room than to take food back there on occasions and make a hot drink when she had fuel for a fire.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 750
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:13 am: | |
The whole thing about Maxwell confusing the day, I think, is just not realistic.
Think about this for a second. You hear that someone you know was murdered in her room. You would certainly remember if you had seen her a couple of hours previous unless you were completely senile. I could understand if she had found out a few days later and then had to think back a day or so, then yes it's quite possible to confuse days but not when you find out the same day of the murder.
It's odd how we just presume that she had no money just because she was in arrears, but what if she had money and was saving it to get away from there and the opportunity came sooner than she expected. I'm not saying that's how she planned to get away but she may have wanted to go in the night a couple of months down the line.
I also find it odd why McCarthy let Mary spend all those weeks in that room when she owed him money. Maybe he was in on it....who knows. Doubtful.
Sarah |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 425
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Again, I think a meal of fish and potatoes would be extravagant for a person who can't pay her rent. Potatoes, I can see. Many Irish lived on almost nothing but potatoes -- they are cheap and surprisingly nutritious -- that's why the potato blight was so devastating. But fish -- meat -- would be an unnecessary expense. This is not to say she couldn't have bought it herself, but I think it unlikely.
I have no evidence that "Dan" bought her the meal. I don't know for certain that Lewis' account of seeing her in the pub is accurate. However, when you start to put things together, they fit: The body in the room probably died around 3-4 AM (from the progress of rigor) and had eaten a meal some 3 or 4 hours earlier. Mary was seen in a pub somewhere around 11PM. It all fits until you come to Maxwell. Then the question becomes whether it is more likely that Maxwell is mistaken (or lying) or that the body on the bed wasn't Mary's. I suppose either is possible, but I think it more likely that Maxwell is mistaken.
Andy S. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 8:36 pm: | |
Andrew wrote:
"Again, I think a meal of fish and potatoes would be extravagant for a person who can't pay her rent."
What, and you think she was the type to deny herself even cheap meat because she owed money to someone else? I'm not seeing that that's a good conclusion.
What Caz says about stalls and markets makes a lot more sense to me than the idea that fish was out of her price range.
The idea that fish was pricey reminds me of the theory that grapes were too expensive for anyone in the area, except even less likely.
"The body in the room probably died around 3-4 AM (from the progress of rigor) and had eaten a meal some 3 or 4 hours earlier."
I'm not sure either estimate can be trusted. Even today there's a lot of room to be off on those kinds of guesses.
"I suppose either is possible, but I think it more likely that Maxwell is mistaken."
Maxwell's testimony sounds incredibly unreliable, so I don't put much faith in any theory that takes her seriously. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 771
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
Dan,
the theory that grapes were too expensive
That wasn't a theory, it was a fact. Grapes were expensive fruit, I'm not getting into this again as I've looked it up in the past and already know it was. People probably still bought small amounts of grapes but on the whole they were a luxury items.
Andy,
I still find it hard to see how Maxwell can be mistaken about the day. If she was mistaken about anything then I'd say it was whom she spoke to to.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
Hi All,
The fact remains that there was a market for grapes and fish in Whitechapel, whether the prostitutes could afford them from time to time, or whether they got a better-off friend or customer to treat them.
You’d think a jolly new bonnet would be a foolish luxury too, but if Polly could get one for herself, I don’t doubt the other women would have managed to get a bit of whatever they fancied to eat.
Anyway, I have little doubt that it was MJK who ate some fish shortly before she was murdered, and that JB would have had as little doubt over the identity of the body.
I have no fixed views about her TOD though.
Love,
Caz
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 198
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
Caz,
I've read that women of the period would rent hats, the more flamboyant the better. I believe I read it in an article about East End sideshows. The article said that women of the East End were very competitive with their hats, and it would not be uncommon for a women with no teeth and close in almost rags to be sporting an extravagant hat with large plumes off the top. It also said when these women would get into fights with each other they would almost always come away with their hats in almost perfect condition.
So, Polly could have been renting the bonnet, which wouldn't have been overly expensive I assume, or it could have been a gift. Possibly from the Ripper.
-K
p.s. - This hat story might also explain the extravagant hat we see on Mary Kelly on the famous illustration of her by the door to 13 Miller's Court. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 776
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
Kris,
Yes but apparently Mary never wore a hat so why would there be a picture of her in a hat anyway?
It's strange that picture of her in her doorway just doesn't seem as I would imagine her. She seems very stout and masculine looking in that drawing and yet looking at her body (even if it ripped apart) she doesn't look that stout.
Sarah |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 199
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Sarah,
It was just the one account which said she never wore a hat wasn't it? I find it hard to believe any woman of that time had no hat at all, considering how big a statement they were.
I know what you mean about her being stout. A lot of the descriptions of her remark that she was stout, but you can see her arm in the picture is very very thin.
-K |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
Hi,
We should all remember, that in that period, women, at least the vast majority of them were dainty, i would suggest 6-7 stone was an average womans weight, so if kelly was 8 stone even , she may have been called stout , compared with the gentle sex nowadays, who would love to be eight stone.
Richard. |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 201
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
Which, I would assume, had a lot to do with malnutrition? Or, were all women of the period this dainty?
I can imagine there must have been times when people like Polly or Annie went for at least a day without eating anything at all.
Although, Annie didn't look overly emaciated in her morgue photo.
But, I've always wondered if her face swelled after death. Anyone ever had the misfortune of seeing Marilyn Monroe's morgue photo? You wouldn't even recognize her, after death her face completely ballooned out. I wonder if this could be the case with Annie? it seems unlikely she would have had the money to feed herself so well.
-K |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 196
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
Hi all,
So far, in trying to determine if Mary was still alive on Friday morning we’ve mainly been focusing on the witnesses who allegedly saw her then.
But what would we see if we would, for the moment, only focus on the person found in her bed? Based on what we know, what reason do we have to believe it was someone else on that bed?
According to the information still available to us, it was out of compassion that Mary took in 2 prostitute friends, first a ‘Julia’ and then, perhaps after Julia found another room, Maria Harvey, who moved to new lodgings on 7 November. These are the only 2 women ‘known’ to have slept over at Kelly’s. And as far as I know, these women did nothing more than sleep in Mary’s room.
Mary Ann Cox’s statement suggests that Mary was using her room herself for the purpose of servicing a client on the night of 8/9 November, and if we are to believe George Hutchinson, so does his statement.
Considering it was a cold November night, the fact that the woman was found almost naked implies that she had just done business or was just about to when the Ripper attacked and killed her.
Besides, at least to my knowledge, none of Mary’s friends or acquaintances seems to have gone missing on that night and both Barnett and McCarthy deposed at the inquest they were certain as to the identity of the deceased.
So, when looking at the whole thing from this angle, it would seem unlikely for the body found in 13 Miller’s Court to have been someone other than Mary Jane Kelly.
All the best,
Frank
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 204
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
Hello all,
Here is the photo of Marilyn I was mentioning. you can see that she looks nothing like we remember.
-K
 marilyn's morgue photo
images (10.5 k) |
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 340
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
Hi All,while I agree with most of what Richard is saying I know the other famous sketch of Mary shows her as "stout" in very much the same way as we would think of "stout" today.It also carries the caption"from descriptions given by her intimate friends".The Complete JtR by D Rumbelow.
However,I have now "rebuilt" her face in four drawings-all start from the outline of her hair on her forhead and work down to her jawline which though a bit knocked sideways can still be "reconstructed" and the mouth set and nose and cheek area the same.Astonishingly always the same image appears from these reconstructions.Now i have spent many many hours drawing from life and know more or less what happens when the jaw is in this position and thenose that etc so I can only conclude that she must have looked more or less like the image that keeps appearing.Now this particular image looks like someone of 25 with a
face shape a bit like Grace Kelly-the jaw is on the square side and the face slightly longer than round-it could have been more fleshy[for obvious reasons]but the recurring image is of the "restructuring" is not fleshy.
The mouth has been stubbornly appearing as rather prominent in the sense of covering rather prominent upper teeth[though not buck teeth].As soon as I can I will post it on here but at this moment I dont know how unfortunately.I suppose you would say the image is of a reasonably attractive woman.I am hoping to talk to Suzi soon to see what she has done re drawings of her and how she did them so as to compare.It really should be possible even with the "information" we have and damaged as it is to get a reasonably close likeness.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 341
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Kris,I tried to access the site above and the windows wouldnt open-what to do?
Natalie |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 205
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
That's weird, I thought I read the instructions right. Oh well. Go to www.google.com, and go the "images" section, and type in "marilyn monroe" . . . it should be about the third image in, you won't be able to miss it.
-K |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
