|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1563
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:36 am: | 
|
Hi Bob,
I hope no one gets the impression that I know things that are definate facts it is not my intentions to demand people believe certain beliefs of mine.
I except some of my wording should be more clearer eg, instead of would, could would me more appropiate.
The word tampered, mayby altered.
The grave incident has nothing to do with Barnett you quote.
Bob i am not stating it a fact, i personally have never seen a copy of that letter to Farson, i merely remarked that the phrasing of that letter and the details of the funeral which were recorded would only leave two culprets .
a] The priest.
b] Joseph Barnett.
That is going by the description of the funeral,the people present and the after arrangements.
So I would stand by my accessment even if no one else on these boards accepts that.
Now that is my opinion based on a hearsay event which may or may not have occured.
regards Richard. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 68
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
It is certainly possible that Barnett was naked when he butchered Kelly. However, since he could not be certain that he would not be interrupted in his work, I would think that he would want to be prepared to flee if necessary.
c.d. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Even if the grave spitting incident could be verified, and even if Barnett did the spitting, it wouldn't say much IMHO.
Mary's killer had the opportunity to deliver - and did deliver - the very worst personal and physical insult possible, on November 9th. Spitting on her grave hardly seems in character somehow - like trying to knock the skin off a rice pudding when you've just won the world heavyweight boxing championship.
On the other hand, a grief-stricken Joe may well have been angry with himself for losing his job and not being able to support Mary, but equally angry with Mary for the drinking habit that made her vulnerable to the ripper.
Hi Suzi,
Mary Jane Kelly, as a name, is just so anonymous that it makes me wonder if she picked it for that reason, but soon tired of its plain-Jane image, and gave it a bit of the ooh la la treatment, hence Marie-Jeanette.
Hi Leanne,
Why did Barnett give an Inspector an 'alibi' as soon as he turned up at Miller's court and before peeking through the window at the body, if he wasn't certain it was her on that bed?
You misunderstand me - I'm satisfied that he was certain it was Mary on the bed. But whoever it was in Mary's room, Joe would have needed an alibi in the circumstances.
How do we know the Ripper was smart enough to think the little 'tactic' you thought of? (the one of making him appear innocent by questioning whether the body was Mary Kelly's or not?)
Well, the ripper was smart enough not to get caught, especially smart if he was one of those brought in for questioning. But I take your point that if Joe was Jack, he may not have appreciated, while he was filleting his beloved for having her immoral friends to stay, that it might be better to make out he couldn't positively identify the filleted one when asked.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 16, 2005) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
"But if he was fortunate enough to fall asleep and enjoy a full night sleeping after being rejected by his lover, that would have to go down in history as one of the most remarkable sleeps ever! "
I'm not trying to be funny...but this scenario isn't exactly a rarity in human history. I'd be knee deep in torsos myself if I flipped out every time something like this played out.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3264
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Caz!
Yep exactly!!!!!! I think we're all barking up a tree created by Miss Kelly don't you???? Bloody hell that puts us all in a bit of a Where the F*** are we situation tho doesn't it!!!!!
Love
Suzi x |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2833
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Leanne
It is not often that I find myself in some kind of agreement with your good self, however with reference to your post of the 13th November - post number 1882 - I do believe you have something here.
I've been following this up, and yes 'dress girls' were used to lure drunken gents back to brothels where they were then robbed; and yes they generally had 'watchers' who if the gent could not be lured by the 'dress girl' would rob them immediately, usually by snatching their gold watch while the 'dress girl' distracted them.
I don't think you or I know what the connection is here, yet, but I feel it a very useful road to go down. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.
You might be interested in an example Stephen Ryder has dug out of the 13 Oct. 1888 edition of the Morning Advertiser. This incident happened at 34 Flower and Dean, which I guess must have been across the street from Cooney's.
Mary Hawkes, 18, and James Fordham, 21, the latter with several aliases, were charged, on remand, before Mr. Montagu Williams, with having been concerned with others not in custody, in assaulting Carl Edwin Newman and robbing him of a pair of trousers and a sum of 4l.—Mr. Phillips appeared to defend Fordham.—The facts of the case were reported last Tuesday.—The prosecutor, a Scandinavian, who described himself as a student, met a woman with whom he went to Flower and Dean-street, Spitalfields, and was taken by her into a common lodging-house, where he paid 8d. for a “double” bed, and was shown to a room. He found fault with the accommodation, and the woman left him. Almost immediately afterwards he was attacked by four or five men, who burst into the room throwing him on the bed, rifled his pockets, and stole his trousers. It happened, however, that two police-constables had been informed of the fact that the man had been taken to the house by women, and the officers remaining near the spot heard the prosecutor’s cries, and entered the place just as he was thrown down the stairs. The room he had been in was searched, and in an adjoining room the prisoners were found in bed. The trousers and purse were also found there. Fordham denied having taken part in the assault on the prosecutor, but the latter identified him. The prosecutor also said that he paid the 8d. for the bed to a woman (the deputy), and the police said that when they entered the house the deputy was not to be seen. The magistrate had ordered the police to produce her, and desired to have some information as to the supervision of the common lodging-houses of the district.—Margaret Brown, a young woman, now deposed that she acted as “deputy” of the house in question, No. 34, Flower and Dean-street, erroneously stated last time by the witnesses to be 35. The house was owned by a Mr. Coates, who kept a chandler’s shop in Dorset-street, and lived in Whitecross-street.—Replying to the magistrate the witness said there were 19 “double” beds and seven “singles” in the place. She remembered letting in the female prisoner and a man—a foreigner—the latter paying 8d. for a double bed. The witness also knew the prisoner Fordham, whom she let in at a quarter to one o’clock, or about ten minutes after the woman and the foreigner. She could not account for Fordham being afterwards found with the female prisoner in a “double” when he paid for a single bed. She had known him before, as he slept there about once a week for some time past. She did not know the other four men who attacked the prosecutor—there were no other men that she knew of up there. She had heard the prosecutor calling out, and went up, and the prosecutor said the woman had robbed him. That was after the police were in the house. The witness went up with the police. She had sole charge of the place, and was paid 6s.-a-week.—Police-constable Dennis, 57 H, recalled, said that when he entered the place the deputy was not to be seen. After going in a second time she came from the kitchen. The witness explained that the “single” beds were undivided and stood in rows in a large room, the “double” beds being in small rooms or compartments, the partitions dividing which did not touch the floor or the ceiling, a space of about 18in. being left top and bottom. A person might pass from one of the so-called rooms to the other by a good squeeze.—Previous convictions were then proved against both prisoners. The man had been several times sentenced for felony, and the woman twice for cutting and wounding, her latest sentence being 12 months.—Police-sergeant 32 H said he had been with an inspector to inspect the registered lodging-houses in the district. There were 127 common lodging-houses accommodating about 6,000 persons. They were all visited once a week on an average. The house 34, Flower and Dean-street, had hitherto been a well-conducted house. Of course it was frequented by thieves and unfortunates. He doubted if a single registered lodging-house would be found without thieves and unfortunates among its lodgers.—The magistrate having stated that he should send the case for trial, Mr. Phillips said Fordham would reserve his defence.—The prosecutor was not in attendance, and it was said that he was about to sail for America.—Mr. Williams said that he should chance the prosecutor being in attendance at the trial. If he was not the judge would probably deal with the matter. He directed that the proceedings at the lodging-house in question be reported at Scotland-yard.—The prisoners were then committed to the sessions.
Cheers,
Dave |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
That sort of ploy has been used throughout, the oldest scam in the world.
A prostitute would pick up a likely client take the poor soul back to her room being followed by a heavy, after a short while in her abode the door would open and in walked the heavy claiming to be her husband or partner, the mans wallet would be taken the poor guy would quickly leave a delicate situation,the prostitute not having to endure sex and an easy way of income.
As old as adam, but i will not dispute the same type of activity may have been active in the nineteenth century.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3265
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Caz-
Bloody hell typed all this and have forgotten what I typed now!!!!!.....
Right
Mary Jane....easy ,easy name to call yourself!!! ......and as to the Welsh thing Davis/Davies and to a point Kelly EASY!!!!! ..ISN'T it!!!!
Hmm that does put us all in a 'problem ' tho ! Oh
well!!!!
Richard-
If and when we can put the 'spitter' as being Barnett then we can move forwards...........until then NO ( and how that can be done defeats me!)
Bob -
' Tampering '............... as you say is different to an 'Alteration!' We can only assume that GH made that change... Ooops wrong pub!! seems logical to me,....Not as if there were a shortage of 'watering holes' in the area eh?!
Suzi x |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
If George Hutchinson was not the father of Reg, who the heck is George.
The Brains of Britain have been on this one but has any one including Bob been able to seek this elusive mans identity.?
Unless of course no such person existed rather like the main player that night the victim.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3266
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Where do we start here with the name I ask myself??????
OK the letters (allegedgly) were delivered to Mr McCarthy at No 26.. so who were they addressed to?.........IF he delivered them he must have known who to, and to what name!!!!
Hmmmmmm Mary Mc Carthy?............Good Irish name!!!! (naive I know ...but a thought!)
Suz |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3267
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Richard-
At the end of the day George Hutchinson (he of the statement ) will always be something of an anathema!
Someone who called himself George Hutchinson (and who I can't see any reason why they changed their name!) made a statemnent on that Monday and unless there is a Mr X who decided to call himself Mr H for some apparent reason I think we have OUR GEORGE!.
Suz |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1897
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
G'day Rich,
I think this is similar to what Suzi just said:
I'm not dissmissing the 'grave spitting' claim altogether. Barnett may have spat on Mary Kelly's grave but it can't be proven, and does that give us the right to read his mind and determine why he did it?
That is why I don't think we should try to add it to the case against him! It can only turn people right off suspecting Barnett as being a killer!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
Clearly Mary[ if thats her real name] went under that name whilst in London and had clearly contacted her parents to inform them of her address which unless her letters were written by someone else proves she was not illiterate, otherwise how would they know how to contact her.?
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3268
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Wolf
- There's a name for this isn't there a double trick which was probaly quite successful at the time...........doubt it'd work today though!
Gold watches eh??????? Must have been noticable!with or without a chain!!!
Caz-
Bloody hell !!!Am convinced that the 'Marie Jeanette' was an "Ooh La La !" Come on we've worked ourselves silly in Wales etc with the old expolding Mr Davies/Davis etc etc ....there aint one!!!!! Well there are some but they dont fit comfortably do they?
Blimey I dunno ...but maybe as to the letters(!) delivered to Mary (allegedly) they were addresed to Mary Mc Carthy or c/o Mc Carthy or maybe Mrs 'Unknown' (Ooh god ) just picked em up from Mc Carthy with no family connection...............A lot to think about here Miss/Mrs/Ms Davies/Davis/Kelly/???? is something of a worry eh!
Richard!-
'Tampering' isn't the same as 'altering' a written statement!...at least we have both written remarks and I imagine Hutch changed that Pub name!
Oddly the earlier message came back oh well!!!!!!
Nothing changes was trying to make a good few poits here!!!!! sorry about the ass abt face bit!!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3269
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Caz
Sorry about that!!! thought I'd lost it and then the brute reappeared!!!!! Hope it makes some sort of sense!!!! Got wound up there and am off to bed I think to have a long hard think about this!!!
Suzi x |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne.
If the spitting event occured it does not as you rightly say point to a murderer, but it does point to a sudden change of behaviour.
One minute he is kneeling on the clay, the next minute he possibly .. spat down on her coffin after as the witnesses stated' Believing himself to be alone'.
Of course it could be the action of remorse , or it serves you right attitude a emotional response, but how it can turn people against Barnett as a possible suspect i fail to understand, because the possible explanations i have just explained mayby did not exist , just a cunning pure hatred of the person laying six feet below him.
Richard. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 7:23 pm: |
|
AP
These dress girls as you call them are still operating today, although now they are prostitutes luring Johns, aided by their pimps, and it is called "ROLLING".
Not only do they "ROLL" the poor dude but they get him drunk, get him in an embarassing perdictiment, take pictures, and leave him high and dry with nothing.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Richard Nunweek,
I am not under any circumstances dismissing Barnett as one of my top three suspects, and I do certainly question his spitting on Mary's grave if that indeed happened, however if he did indeed spit on her grave maybe there is another reason for him doing so.
Anger with her (comes to mind)but is it not possible that he was a person who spit regularily, regardless of where it is?
I know people who do this now, which certainly makes me want to heave, but there are people whose habits they do not consider as gross or otherwise, as the rest of us would.
Either he spit on her grave due to his hurt and angered feelings for her, or he was just a guy who had no cooth.
regards
Julie
|
BH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
Hey Richard,
"George Hutchinson...informs his son that he was giving a hundred shillings in assisting the police, and the person he saw was a toff[ or at least dressed like one]."
Not true, I'm afraid. There is no evidence to suggest that GH reported his sighting to his son at any time. Let us scrutinise the germane extract from Fairclough's book; "It had more to do with the royal family than ordinary people" says Hutch, and later "It was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill."
Sounds suspiciously like pub-talk and heresay, as opposed to a personally recorded sighting. Why didn't GWTH say to his son: "I saw a really scary man with Mary Jane Kelly, and I followed them out of suspicion."...?
GWTH didn't tell his son very much at all.
Hi Caz,
I take your point, but consider that MJK had been lulled into an alcohol-induced stupour which doubtless affected her vocal ability.
Best Regards,
Ben Holme |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Hello Richard
I was just proposing possible reasons for the killer delaying the attack on Mary. Anyway, this would only apply if Hutchinson's statement was genuine. If Hutch's statement was a total fabrication, then the time he states for seeing Kelly and the well-dressed man doesn't even apply anymore.
In that case, the killer may only have entered Kelly's room a couple of minutes before the screams of "murder" were heard.
But I'll say yet again, that Dr.Bond was the ONLY man qualified to give a reasonably accurate time of death, so for anyone to suggest that the killer left the room not long before the body was found, is frankly ridiculous. I'd also like you to tell me where you read that Lewis saw Kelly again AFTER the cry of "murder". Mrs.Maxwell's statement is in total conflict with all others, and the medical evidence.
You asked, what would have happened if a dozen policeman had arrived only twenty minutes after the well-dressed man had entered Kelly's room, but had delayed his attack on account of Hutchinson ?? The answer is NOTHING. As several knowledgeable scribes have already said here, the killer would literally have had to be caught in the act of murder. The man would simply have had to say that he was a client, and that he carried a knife for personal protection in such a rough and dangerous area. The police couldn't have done a thing about it.
Richard, I think that you are grasping at straws with the "nightmare" idea. What are the odds against a real murder being committed close by, at the same time that someone else was having a nightmare, and shouting "murder" ??
Regards
ROD |
Stephen Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Rodney Peters,
Hi Rod. I had been impressed by a post by you made here earlier where you defended the opinions of Dr. Bond who estimated the time of death of Mary Kelly. He was a professional man who knew what he was doing. All he needed was a thermometer. I am constantly amazed by people on this site who assume that people in the past were stupid or negligent just because they didn't have the technology that we have now. The police were quite able to eliminate people from their enquiries (like Barnett and Kidney) by simply checking out their alibis which I'm sure they did. And I'm sure they checked out Hutchinson's movements to Romford and back. But in a later post you refer to Cutbush as a no-hoper as a Jack the Ripper suspect without saying why. Why do you think Cutbush is a no-hoper, Rod? |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Hello Bob
Thank you for saving me any more trouble.
I've been trying to get Richard to stop side-stepping the facts, and substituting them with unsupported stories that fit in with his own pet theories.
The only difference is that you've put it far better than I seem to have done.
Regards
ROD |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hi Rod,
The Majority of people involved with this case have a theory, As I have stated many times I am not wearing blinkers and am willing to sway in any direction common sense prevails.
so what you say , if a dozen policeman desended on the court and found Astracan with a long blade on his person 'I am innnocent Guv, its purely for protection...
Side stepping the facts.
Bond gave his opinion,he did not know the victim , Maxwell did if only enough to reconize her, so did Maurice lewis.
We simply can not ignore peoples sightings especially a respectable level headed woman as Mrs Maxwell without considerable proof of her mistake.
Sorry Rod and others who believe that yours truely has a tendency to wear rose coloured glasses over any opposition to his [ mine] thoughts, it is as always stated on these boards proof is so hard to obtain.
Therefore opinion reigns, and my opinions are well stated on the casebook.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1900
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
G'day,
I found that Maria Harvey quote: "Well, Mary Jane, I shall not see you this evening again."
She said it at Kelly's inquest and it was mentioned in the inquest report of 'The Daily Telegraph' November 13 which is available here on this Website.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1901
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 11:02 pm: |
|
G'day,
Someone may be interested in this so I'll pass on the information before I toss this bit of paper out:
Prostitutes who worked from brothels were called 'dress girls' or 'dress lodgers' because they rented a fancy dress from their landlords to attract a higher class of clientele.
It was just another excuse to take more of the woman's wages from her, and leave her dependent on the brothel.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 17, 2005) |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Hi,
I notice Mrs Maxwell keeps coming up. I find this a fascinating point but in the end I dismiss her testimony as being wrong, mainly because of the other witnesses who saw Mary Kelly that morning.
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:40 am: |
|
Bob.
I agree the other witnesses such as Maurice lewis, and a woman apparently named as Goode gave statements that are vague, but my question is 'Was Lewis interviewed by the police?'
He claims to have seen Kelly leave her room shortly after Catherine pickerts knock, he claims that she returned to her room carrying milk, he also claims that he saw her in Ringers at 1Oam talking with a person who is a modern day suspect.
The milk intrests me as some verification would have been possible by evidence remaining in kellys room.
also like Maxwell some verification of clothing that kelly was allegedly wearing on his sightings of her could have been significant.
But the reality is the police did not take some witnesses of importance, the one that springs to mine is the sighting in Orange place [ Mitre square of a man asking 'Have you seen a man and woman pass this way' witnessed by James Bleinkensop.
He was not even called to the inquest, strange as the sighting was at the same time as Eddowes and client? were standing in church passage.
The police had there hands full during the murders , but i feel that many important accounts by witnesses were not taken down.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3277
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Hi Bob-
Mrs M is an eternal mystery!!!!! I KNOW I always bang on about her being right as to her memories of plates and milk etc....BUT ... in al the 'kerfuffle' things may I suppose got 'confused'..
..it is odd though isn't it...
Richard-
Sadly there were a LOT of people not called to the inquest....
Maurice Lewis is a curiosity too,..'known her for five years'?? In what capacity?..
The line re. seeing her drinking with 'Danny' and 'Julia' in the 'Horn of Plenty ' has some sort of dark credence, but the 10.00 am 'sighting' does stretch credibility!
I know that 'Mrs M 'is more than likely mistaken,I really do ...BUT there's something about that statement that I can't dismiss.call me romantic ...but.........there's something there that works!
Its the thing re. returning plates...where from and to whom.... that tantalises me!!
Blenkinsop..Richard was a 'witness' interviewed by 'The Star' 1st Oct 1888 re. the EDDOWES murder and, yes was not called to Kate's inquest .
Suzi |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Leanne
Very interesting tidbit indeed. It seems to give credence to the lodging masters being pimps under certain circumstances.
regards
Julie
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3284
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Hi all
Theres a lot to be said here re Mrs Maxwell I think,...thinking about her today and there are a few things that worry me...
a)She stated that she had not known Mary that long
b) In her statement she says that Mary said,'Oh Carrie I do feel bad etc etc'
Now 'Carrie' is a diminutive of Catherine and suggests familiarity,..something that owing to the relatively short time that they had allegedly known eachother comes over to me as a 'problem' and IMHO suggests that that phrase came from Catherine herself in her statement and not from the allegedly poorly Mary a.m. with her 'Horrors of drink' etc etc!,but more than likely from 'Carrie' (!) endearing herself to the press/police, by making it seem as if she was more familiar with Mary than was actually the day to day case
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3285
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Julie
Theres a HUGE cross over going on here on the Hutchinson thread!!
Suzi |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page