|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:55 am: |       |
You are both clutching at straws here. Either Barnett's pipe was intact and gave the police no indication that its owner (or borrower) was connected with Kelly's death, or it got smashed and Barnett himself gave the police no reason to worry that this article may have been anything but a useless one in their hunt for the killer.
Leanne, do you know the extent of police enquiries with regard to the McKenzie murder in general and the pipe in particular? I don't.
The crucial difference between the two pipes is that the owner of the one found with McKenzie was not apparently established according to the surviving record. The owner of the one found in Kelly's room was not only established but also released after questioning, not, don't forget, because they couldn't pin anything on him, but because they were satisfied with his account, pipe or no pipe.
Could I ask you something, Leanne? Are you 100% convinced that Barnett murdered Kelly? Or do you at least accept that he could have been an innocent victim of horrible circumstances, and rightly cleared by Abberline and co?
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 274
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 1:48 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Why on earth should a man who must have been in a state of shock, have demanded to see his own pipe in order to try to see whether Jack the Ripper had smoked it (before carefully putting it back where he'd found it)?
Robert |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 5:50 pm: | |
Leanne,
Here's Anderson's statement:
"Something of the same kind happened in the Ripper crimes. In two cases of that terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin.
In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had had taken it up, thrown it into the fire-place and smashed it beyond recognition.
In another case there was writing in chalk on the wall - a most valuable clue; handwriting that might have been at once recognized as belonging to a certain individual. But before we could secure a copy, or get it protected, it had been entirely obliterated."
Notice how Anderson uses "before we" in both the pipe and the writing espisode. Anderson was out of the country at the time of Eddowes murder (Sudgen, pg 300). He's not using "we" as a reference to himself personally, but either to the police in general, or at least to Senior Police Officials.
I just can't accept the scenerio where a Doctor at a crime scene picks up a piece of evidence and throws it causing it to be smashed beyond all recognition, into a fireplace or anywhere else. To me, no matter how you slice it, that scenerio is just so preposterous that I think it's in fact not entirely true. But, if you wish to believe that's what happened then ok.
Coupled with the fact that the only crime location that had a fireplace was Mary Kelly's, and the fact that there is nothing at all documenting this rather unorthodox event at the time of the murder, I suspect something is amiss. Don't you?
Now, the proof that the mortuary attendant broke the pipe by throwing it onto the floor is included in Dr. Phillips post-mortum report which is found in the Ulitmate Source Book. His report was written at the time of the Alice McKenzie murder.
Since Anderson doesn't mention what crime the pipe comes from, we have to look for independent evidence that cooberates his statement. Whichever "pipe" has the most in common with Anderson's statement is the one he's talking about.
The pipe found with Alice McKenzie fits the following aspects of Anderson's statement:
1) it's owner was never verified (as far as we know anyway)
2) it was broken while under the Doctor's responsibility (Dr. Phillips report)
3) it may have been owned by Alice's murderer
4) Alice was initially thought to be a Ripper victim (Dr. Bond's report).
5) it was a clay pipe (Dr. Phillips report).
1,3,&4 combined, lead to the possibility that when it got broken it was considered a lost clue pertaining to the Ripper
Barnett's pipe:
1) the owner was determined (Barnett claimed it)
2) there was a fireplace at the crime scene (various reports)
3) but there is no record of this pipe being broken
4) the police did not consider it a clue leading to the Ripper's identity (they knew who owned it and they let him go).
5) it was a clay pipe (inquest report)
I just don't see how anyone could look at the evidence about the two pipes and then draw the conclusion that it's the Kelly pipe and not the McKenzie pipe that Anderson is talking about.
I guess what I'm looking for is sources for statements like "Barnett's pipe was broken", "it was found on the mantel of the fireplace", that a Doctor smashed something in the fireplace at the Kelly crime scene, basically, I would like some independent source reference for such events. I can't find them.
For example, is there really a reference that actually says that Barnett's pipe was on the mantel? I can't say I've even seen a description of Kelly's room that includes a mantel, only a fireplace. Are we just assuming that all fireplaces have a mantel or is there really a document source for this information? This is an honest question, because I can't find any such reference.
Finally, would you please explain to me how you resolve the paradox of Anderson also claiming the pipe was lost clue to the identity of the Ripper, when the identity of the owner of the pipe was never in doubt (Barnett)? And if this was such an important clue, why wasn't Barnett's confession enough to hold him longer? Basically, if Anderson was talking about Barnett's pipe, why is it so hard to make his statement fit the events and details we have about Barnett's pipe but so easy to make his statement fit events and details concerning the McKenzie pipe.
Rather than just restating that his statement includes a fireplace, could you please explain your reasoning. Or, are you in fact basing your whole argument on the pipe being described as being broken in a fireplace?
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 6:26 am: | |
G'day Caz,
I'm not 100% sure of anything because I wasn't there and not enough information has survived! I am exploring every doubt, especially concerning Mary Kelly's murder because that's where I feel we'll find loose ends to the thread that may unravel this mystery!
I have read that researchers have concluded that Anderson was referring to Alice McKenzies pipe, and am exploring those reasons. By keeping the pipe issue alive, I am trying eliminate all doubt, piece together everyone's thoughts, and I may be able to write an article on the pipe for 'Ripperoo'.
JEFF: I know exactly what Anderson wrote. There was no need to see it again. I know what he meant when he wrote: 'we'
Here are the problems I have with just accepting that he was reffering to McKenzie's pipe:
1) Did a mortuary attendant brake McKenzie's pipe at 'the scene of her murder', before 'we' arrived?
Reading the official papers on the McKenzie murder: she was found by PC Andrews, who was joined by an Inspector and other constables arrived shortly after, so 'we' were there immediately.
There is a report here from the Chief Commissioner of Police James Monro, who wrote he attended the scene as soon as he received a telegram at 3am. Then there's a report from Superintendent Arnold, whom wrote: 'I immediately came upon the scene.'
The body was then taken to the mortuary where it was examined by Dr. Thomas Bond (who wrote a lengthy report). Then there's a report by Dr. Phillips, mentioning a short pipe that was thoughtlessly dropped by an attendant. The doctor picked up the pieces, put them to one side, but they 'have not been recovered by me.' Can someone point me in the right direction of the report that said the pieces were thrown into the fireplace, so I can complete a story on 'The Pipe!'? Maybe it was in a newspaper report?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 424
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 9:44 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
On another board someone pointed out to me that 'The Pall Mall Gazette' on November 12th, said of Mary Kelly's room: 'The only attempts at decoration were a couple of engravings one 'The Fisherman's Widow' stuck over the mantlepiece.'
LEANNE |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 1:22 am: | |
Here's the results of a very quick bit of research.
At Alice McKenzie's inquest, the following statements are recorded (a complete transcript of the inquest can be found here on the site).
On the first day, we get the following testimony:
Elizabeth Ryder: ... I have seen her smoke in the kitchen. She used to borrow pipes, which were short clay ones, like the one produced.
It appears a pipe was shown at the inquest. Elizabeth Ryder was the 2nd witness on the first day. The transcript, however, does not record when this pipe was produced and/or shown however.
On the second day:
Detective-Inspector Edmund Reid:
...
After the body had been examined by the doctor it was placed on the police ambulance, and underneath the body of the deceased was found the short clay pipe produced. The pipe was broken and there was blood on it, and in the bowl was some unburnt tobacco. I also found a bronze farthing underneath the clothes of the deceased. There was also blood on the farthing. ...
In another instance of this kind - the Hanbury-street murder - two similar farthings were found. The tobacco in the pipe had not been smoked. The pipe was a very old one and was what was termed in the lodging-house "a nose warmer."
This is interesting testimony. Apparently the pipe found under the body was not the one that was lost but was the one "produced". This pipe is also broken. According to Elizabeth Ryder, this is the kind of pipe that Alice McKenzie tended to borrow, and smoke. Also, this testimony brings up farthings being found at Annie Chapman's murder scene, but that's another kettle of fish!
On the third day, Dr. Phillips was recalled, and he describes a 2nd pipe (and this is the pipe of interest).
Dr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of H Division, was recalled and deposed,
On the occasion of my making the post-mortem examination, the attendants of the mortuary, on taking off the clothing of the deceased woman removed a short clay pipe, which one of them threw upon the ground, by which means it was broken. I had the broken pieces placed upon a ledge at the end of the post-mortem table; but it has disappeared, and although inquiry has been made about it, up to the present time it has not been forthcoming. The pipe had been used. It came from the woman's clothing. The attendants, whom I have often seen there before, are old workhouse men.
The broken pipe comes up again, and this verifies the fact we are dealing with 2 pipes:
The Foreman. - Do I understand this pipe you speak of was in addition to the one produced on the last occasion?
- Yes. I cannot tell from where it came, but my impression is that it came from the bosom of the dress.
This 2nd pipe is the one that was broken by the attendants, and then the pieces were lost according to this testimony. This pipe was not found under the body but apparently was found in her clothing. The police never saw it (it was in her clothes) so they couldn't ask around about it. The one they did find, and have, they did make inquiries about.
It should be noted that Dr. Phillips did not believe Alice McKenzie was a Ripper victim as per his following statement:
Coroner: Are the injuries to the abdomen similar to those you have seen in the other cases?
- No, Sir. I may volunteer the statement that the injuries to the throat are not similar to those in the other cases.
But during the summation the Coroner is not so convinced:
...There is great similarity between this and the other class of cases which have happened in this neighbourhood, and if this crime has not been committed by the same person, it is clearly an imitation of the other cases. ...
So, to summarize all of this, the interesting pipe is the one that was broken by the attendants and it was lost before it could be shown to the police. They couldn't ask around to determine if it was owned by Alice McKenzie because they didn't have a description beyond "short clay pipe". The ownership of the one they did have was investigated, and testimony was given that that pipe was of the kind Alice was known to borrow and smoke.
The "lost pipe" was found in her cloths, apparently down her dress, so one might reasonably wonder it was dropped on her by her assailant. Wouldn't it have been nice to be able to produce this pipe and ask if Alice was known to use it as well, and if not, try and track down who did own it? Maybe this person was her killer? Maybe not, but wouldn't it have been frustrating to have this doctor's assistant break this piece of evidence by throwing it on the floor, and then to make matters worse, the pieces get lost before the police can see it. And because this lost pipe might be a link to the murderer who the coroner suggests is the Ripper, wouldn't that be frustrating and memorable? And doesn't this all sound an awful lot like what Anderson is describing?
- Jeff |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 2:56 am: | |
Now, a bit of research into the Kelly case should, I hope end all doubt.
Testimony by Abberline is the only mention of a pipe at the Kelly inquest, which is simply “…a pipe was there and use by him” (Barnett; Evans & Skinner, pg 376). This statement could refer to the drain pipe in reference to how the window was opened. However, the newspaper reports this as “There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it. (Daily Telegraph, Nov. 13th, 1888; found here on the website).
Now, what is more important is the following aspect of Abberline’s testimony. “… I have taken an inventory of what was in the room, there had been a large fire so large as to melt the spout off the kettle I have since gone through the ashes in the grate & found nothing of consequence except that articles of womans clothing had been burnt which I presume was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of candle in the room - …” (Evans & Skinner, pg 375-376).
In otherwords, Abberline did not find any parts of a pipe in the fireplace. If a doctor had thrown the pipe into the fireplace, the parts would have been there. If the pieces had been picked up before his search, he would have mentioned the whole doctor throwing thing. He was there before the door was forced as is clear from his testimony “I was on the scene of the murder by 11:30 on Friday…” and “… we remained until 1:30 when Superintendent Arnold arrived … and he gave directions for the door to be forced”. I can find no mention of Anderson being there in any of this testimony nor do I find any mention of the pipe being found in any particular location (i.e., nothing saying it was on the fireplace mantel), nor do I see any mention of a fireplace mantel at all.
Barenett’s pipe is mentioned in passing; so no apparent importance was put on this. The doctor does not report throwing a pipe (note how this doctor is Dr. Phillips, the same one as in Alice’s case, is reported to be the first to enter the room (Evans & Skinner, pg 375, testimony by Inspector Walter Beck). He does confess in a report and during Alice’s inquest to the breaking and loss of the Alice pipe while under his responsibility, but strangely, no mention of “breaking any pipe here”. Abberline says he heard and confirms the doctor’s testimony, and never “reminds” the doctor that he threw a pipe in the fireplace. And finally the fireplace was searched and nothing was found apart from burnt clothes; so no broken pipe in the fireplace.
Finally, a new bit on the Alice McKenzie pipe. Here’s a quote from the East London Advertiser
Saturday, 17 August 1889. Note the very last sentence.
“…Dr. Phillips was then re-examined. He is of middle height, advanced in years, and has a slight stoop, his white hair and whiskers imparting to his face almost a venerable appearance. It is stated he is liked in the force as an upright, kindly man. Giving his evidence with no uncertain voice, he went through the horrible details, prefacing his remarks by recalling that a short clay pipe fell out of the clothes - not out of the pockets, this he was sure - of the deceased as she lay in the post-mortem room. This pipe he placed on a ledge in the room, and it had since disappeared, although search had been made for it high and low. Mr. Ayton elicited the useful fact that it was not the pipe alluded to at the last inquiry. So it seemed as if a clue to the assassin in the shape of his pipe had been found and lost. …”
So, it looks like at the time of Alice’s murder this pipe was viewed as a lost clue.
I think this pretty much must be considered conclusive. Anderson’s 1908 statement does not refer to the pipe found in Mary Kelly’s room but it does refer to the pipe found/broken/&lost in Alice McKenzie’s clothes.
- Jeff
|
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 9:31 pm: | |
Leanne,
I've given you an independent documented reference describing the breaking of Alice McKenzie's pipe. Please provide your source, independent of Anderson's 1908 statement, that documents the breaking of Barnett's pipe.
I would think this must be easy to do, since you seem to believe that a doctor went into the crime scene, picked up a piece of evidence at the crime scene (the pipe), and threw it into the fireplace with such force that it was "smashed beyond all recognition" (i.e., not broken into a couple pieces, but "smashed beyond all recognition").
An event of such an extrodinary character must be well documented. I mean, the disbelief on the faces of the onlooking police must have been a sight to see. I suspect they would have sent all kinds of letters of protest and complaint about the hugely unacceptable actions of this individual. Such letters might even allow us to identify this doctor, who's actions are of the most suspicious nature.
I just bet the doctor also burned Barnett's letter of confession as well. We probably all wish that event hadn't been overlooked by those who recorded the events of the day. ;)
- Jeff |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
Leanne,
Thanks for "the presence of the mantlepiece" reference. I've not seen it before, but I've not read all the newspaper reports either. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually place the pipe there, but at least there is some evidence to suggest there was one.
You say you know what Anderson meant by "we", suggesting you agree with me that he means police in general, or possibly senior police memebers. This was in response to what I posted because of your statement below:
" ...
How about 'Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it ito the fireplace and smashed it beyond recognition.' Where does it say that Anderson was ever at McKenzies murder scene? ...
"
Now, reading your question and comparing it to the provided quote, the combination as you presented it only makes sense if you interpret "WE" as including Anderson personally. So, I thought it important to clarify that issue by posting the entire statement of Anderson, rather than just posting a few choice bits, and showing how his use of "WE" doesn't mean him personally. At least now it appears we (including me personally) agree on something!
You are correct in pointing out that the doctor did not arrive before the police at the Alice McKenzie scene. However, the doctor didn't arrive before the police at Mary Kelly's scene either. So doesn't your arguement against the quote referencing Alice McKenzie work just as well for arguing against Mary Kelly's murder scene?
As for the fireplace, NEITHER of the pipes we're talking about were ever thrown into a fireplace. Barnett's pipe wasn't for if it was then Abberline would have found parts of it when he searched the fireplace and he specifically states nothing of consequence, apart from the burnt clothes, were found in the fireplace.
One cannot substantiate a claim that Alice McKenzie's pipe was thrown into a fireplace because it is not recorded as such, it's only recorded that it was broken and then the pieces lost.
One cannot substantiate the claim that Barnett's pipe was thrown into a fireplace because it is not recorded as such (in fact what Abberline testifies to clearly indicates there's no evidence to support such a claim).
Moreover, one cannot even substantiate the claim that Barnett's pipe was ever broken because it is not recorded as such.
One cannot substatiate the claim that Barnett's pipe was thought of as an important clue because nothing about the police actions indicates they placed any importance on it; it's hardly even mentioned at Mary Kelly's inquest.
On the contrary, the claim that Alice's pipe was broken is substantiated by the fact it IS recorded as being broken. One can substantiate the connection to the doctor because it was recorded as being broken when under the care of the doctor. It was recorded as being broken and lost before the police got a look at it. One can substantiate the claim this pipe was considered important evidence towards her killer because 1) her inquest involves a lot of questions concerning her smoking habits and her pipes and 2) the press include a story stating that a possible clue to her killer was found and lost in the way of his pipe; so the idea that this was a clue was around at the time of Alice McKenzie's murder.
Perhaps I should write up and submit my own article concerning the pipe? I'm assuming you're slant will continue to be on showing how the pipe is Barnett's? A companion article, making a different claim, can make the "issue" more interesting.
- Jeff
P.S. My posts tend to be delayed because I'm unregistered at this time. My application is in the mail though. Anyway, just remember that when my postings show up, they tend to be respondes to posts a few days earlier and not to the most recent ones. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 6:10 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Thank you very much for your interpretation of Alice McKenzies inquest. Here's mine:
Elizabeth Ryder showed a pipe during her testimony to illustrate the type of pipe that Alice borrowed. This was very likely a short clay pipe that was chipped or cracked that she brought just for the purpose of showing, ie that she would borrow any old pipe as long as it was still usable.
Inspector Reid testified on day 2 and explained that a broken, (previously damaged), pipe with blood on it, was found underneath her body, ready to be lit with unburnt tobacco in the bowl. Her killer could have struck just as she was about to light it.
I don't understand your line: 'the pipe found under the body was not the one lost but was the one produced.' Please explain. It sounds like you think there may have been two pipes on the body.
Dr. Phillips testified and explained how an ATTENDANT threw a pipe which landed on the ground and shattered, while he was undressing the deceased. Dr. Phillips picked up the pieces and put them on the ledge. They then disappeared. Phillips made inquiries but no one owned up. No one said they threw the pieces into the fireplace.
The pipe that was found underneath the body, was picked up when the body was lifted to be placed onto the ambulence, and the pipe was placed into the bossum [SIC] of her dress.
Conclusion: There was only 1 pipe found underneath the body when discovered. The pipe shown at her inquest was another one shown to display the type of pipe she often borrowed. The Coroner was convinced that Alice McKenzie's murderer was imitating the Ripper.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 432
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 6:30 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Now the other pipe:
Abberline was describing his inventory of what he found in Mary Kelly's room when he mentioned the pipe and the candle, so I doubt he was referring to the drain pipe outside.
Now looking at the official Home Office notes in 'The Ultimate JtR Companion'. - Home Office file cover page dated 9 November 1888' states: '.....The matter has been placed in Mr. Anderson's hands - Pressing.'
Then there's a letter as follows: 'Dear Mr. Wortley,....Anderson says through the telephone that the murder was committed at Spitalfields....The Police Surgeon was there when Anderson spoke still examining the body."
Then there's a newspaper report that includes: '....Mr Anderson, the recently appointed Assistant Commissioner had driven up in a cab at ten minutes to two o'clock, and remained there for some time...'
At Kelly's inquest, Abberline mentioned a candle and a pipe he found, but neither was shown to the Coroner. He merely added 8 words, as if to quickly dispose of any importance attached to it.
No I'm not suggesting that a doctor went into Mary Kelly's room, picked up a pipe and threw it into the fireplace!!!!
Abberline MENTIONED a pipe being found, but didn't produce it.
Anderson was there when it was found, and could have realised it's importance!
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 9:13 am: | |
Leanne,
I don't think your interpertation of the McKenzie inquest holds up. Check the following excerpts:
Reid: "After the body had been examined by the doctor it was placed on the police ambulance, and underneath the body of the deceased was found the short clay pipe produced. The pipe was broken and there was blood on it, and in the bowl was some unburnt tobacco."
He is specifically stating that the pipe produced at the inquest was the one found under the body.
Foreman: "Do I understand this pipe you speak of was in addition to the one produced on the last occasion?"
Phillips: "I cannot tell from where it came, but my impression is that it came from the bosom of the dress."
Phillips is clearly being asked if the pipe that was broken was a different one than the one produced earlier (The one found under the body), and he testifies that it was.
So in this case we have 2 pipes, one of which was broken, one was not.
Regards,
John |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 5:58 pm: | |
G'day,
I took Reid's referrence to the pipe being produced, as meaning that the pipe was produced to Detective-Inspector Reid by the examining doctor.
On day 3 when the foreman asked Dr. Phillips: 'Do I understand this pipe you speak of was in addition to the one produced on the last occasion?' Dr. Phillips replied: 'Yes. I cannot tell from where....' Note the: 'YES'!
LEANNE
|
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 7:10 pm: | |
Leanne,
Here is an excerpt from the Alderly and Wilmslow Advertiser, Friday 19 July 1889.
"This morning, at the Working Lads’ Institute, Whitechapel, Mr Wynne Baxter, coroner for South-East London [sic], resumed the inquiry into the death of Alice Mackenzie, who was found murdered in Castle Alley, yesterday morning. - The first witness called was detective-Inspector Reid. He said: I received a call about five minutes past one o’clock and went to Castle Alley at once. I found the alley was guarded by policemen at the Wentworth-street end. I saw the body of the deceased lying on the pavement, I saw the cut in the left side of the throat and a quantity of blood had run into the gutter towards Wentworth-street. Her clothes were up and she was lying on her back. I felt her face and legs and found they were warm. Dr Phillips then arrived. Search was made in the neighbourhood. Underneath the body of the deceased was found this clay pipe, which I now produce. It was covered with blood, and had some unburnt tobacco in it. I also found a bronze farthing, which I also produce. There was blood on it."
The pipe underneath her body was produced in court by Reid. There was another pipe which fell from her clothing ("I cannot tell from where") at the mortuary and was broken by an attendant. That pipe was in addition to the one produced by Reid. "YES"!
Regards,
John
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 7:27 pm: | |
G'day John,
Ok I've printed out the report you mention, and I'll have a look at it today when I go bowling with my friends.
LEANNE |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
Leanne,
I suggest you read the testimony completely. Presenting quotes out of context can greatly change the apparent meaning.
And yes, you are implying that a doctor picked up the pipe, threw it into the fireplace, in Mary Kelly's room. You've argued that the only place with a fireplace is the only place where the events could happen as described. And if they happened as described, you are arguing for a doctor picking up the pipe and hurling it into the fireplace because that is was Anderson describes. If this happened at Mary Kelly's, it happened in full view of everyone.
- Jeff
|
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 8:14 pm: | |
Leanne,
This testimony by Detective-Inspector Edmund Reid at the McKenzie inquest clearly indicates that the "pipe produced" was the one found underneath her:
"After the body had been examined by the doctor it was placed on the police ambulance, and underneath the body of the deceased was found the short clay pipe produced."
This cannot be interpreted as a pipe brought along by some other witness as he specifically tells us that the pipe produced was found underneath her.
Furthermore, Dr. Phillips clearly indicates that he's talking about an additional pipe to the one produced, or a second pipe. This second one was broken by the attendant, and then the pieces were lost. This is all very clear from the testimony. There's no ambiguity at all.
In otherwords, there were 2 pipes found. The one that was in the most suspicious location (it was in her clothes, possibly the bosom of her dress, but not in her pockets) was broken and then worse, lost, while under the care of the doctor. The other one was already broken when it was found underneath her. Whether her being on top of it is what broke it, or it was a broken pipe that she continued to use, isn't specified. Take your pick, you've got a 50/50 chance of being right if you don't factor in the probability that a clay pipe with a body on top gets broken.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 8:29 am: | |
G'day Jeff, John,
I am not trying to avoid this subject..honestly!
I read that newspaper report between bowls and wrote notes. Now I just have to find them!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 4:33 am: | |
G'day,
One newspaper chose to publish three extra words that no other reporter heard: 'WHICH I NOW produce'. There is nothing in the Home Office files about Alice McKenzie's TWO pipes. Let me check 'The A-Z'....No nothing here.
Reading the inquest:
Reading Dr. Phillips testimony, he is explaining why the actual pipe is not present..it was smashed. "it has disappeared,.....up to the present time it has not been forthcoming..', so Alice McKenzie's pipe wasn't found to be thrown in any fireplace!
The Foreman asked him: 'Do I understand this pipe you speak of was in addition to the one produced on the last occasion?' - 'Yes' The foreman wasn't asking if two pipes were found on the deceased, he was confirming that the one shown wasn't the actual pipe.
There was no mystery surrounding the single pipe that was found on Alice McKenzie - it was hers!
If you still believe there was 2 pipes, tell the authors of 'The Jack the Ripper A-Z' to include it in their next edition, and while you're at it communicate with the 'Ds' at the 1888 Home Office because no one ever told them!!!!
My interpretation of the inquest of Alice McKenzie's is still what I believe went on!
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 1:20 pm: | |
Leanne,
There are only a couple of places in the HO files that mentions of a pipe at all RE: Alice Mackenzie. You're right. There is no inquest report on file.
The inquest transcription on the Casebook came from the Times, and it's just as possible that words were dropped from that one. But let's assume that you're right regarding that and see where that would leave us...
You're assuming that there was only one pipe, which was destroyed and that for some reason a facisimile pipe was shown at the inquest. Am I correct so far? (Let me know if I am offbase here.)
There's a whole lot of suppositions that need to be made for that to work.
1) The pipe wasn't found until the body was moved. There is no concievable reason that it would then be placed in the bodies clothes. That's not something that the coroner would have need to have seen. And I doubt any policeman who has found such a lovely clue as a blood stained pipe is going to stuff it into the bosom of the victim's clothing.
2) Both Reid and Phillips described the pipes they found. The one Reid found was blood stained, the one Phillips found was not. (Personally, I think this kills the "single pipe" theory right there.)
3) *If* a facisimile pipe was used for some unknown reason, then it would have have been necessary for the witnesses to confirm that it was indeed the same type. And yet this did not happen.
Your assertation that the forman's question was to establish the pipe authenticity is thin IMO. If another pipe was introduced earlier as a facisimile the foreman should have known that.
If he was really trying to confirm that it was the actual pipe there are MUCH better ways to phrase the question. ("Am I to understand that the pipe shown earlier was a replica of the one that was broken?")
4) And to bring us back to the silliness that started this whole discussion. If Andersen's comment referred to a pipe at the MJK murder scene (I don't believe that for a moment), then we have to assume that the doctors/medical assistants were pretty much idiots to have broken not one, but TWO pipes in a short period of time. Remember there is absolutely NO record indicating a broken pipe at the MJK scene, and no hint of "What? Again?" with the pipe broken at the Mackenzie examination. Given the beating the police took over their mistakes I can't imagine that 2 broken pipes would have failed to make the papers.
5) And finally, if the pipe at the MJK scene was broken (Into the fireplace, whose contents were detailed and didn't seem to contain any pipe scraps) that wouldn't be much of a clue. Joe admitted he owned it. No clue there.
However we know that Alice was in the habit of borrowing pipes. So for her to turn up with TWO pipes on her person then we have a good clue as one of them is likely to have been borrowed and COULD have come from the killer.
My opinion:
Andersen was confusing his cases.
There was one pipe at the MJK scene, and it belonged to Joe.
There were two pipes found with Alice Mackenzie. One by Reid under the body, which was blood stained and produced in court. One found by Phillips and broken by an attendant.
Regards,
John |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 5:40 am: | |
G'day John,
Yes that's right! I am assuming there was only one pipe as I can't find any reference to a second pipe anywhere, except in your interpretation.
The words of the first witness Elizabeth Ryder were: 'She used to borrow pipes, which were short clay ones, LIKE the one produced.' The report next says: 'It appears a pipe was shown at the inquest.' A pipe, A pipe, not THE pipe.
What's so difficult in believing that when the body was lifted to pop on the ambulance/stretcher, a pipe was found underneath, so it was thought wise to pick it up and place it on the body that was put on the stretcher? - as crime scene evidence?
INSPECTOR Reid described the pipe that was found: 'The pipe was broken and there was blood on it, and in the bowl was some unburnt tobacco.'
DOCTOR Phillips said: 'The pipe had been used.' He couldn't describe it any further than that BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN BROKEN!
It doen't matter what a foreman understands! He has to make sure the jury understands!
The mortuary attendants were 'old workhouse men'. Why couldn't they have been clumsy? One was clumsy enough to throw and brake the ONE pipe found in the McKenzie case!
Abberline didn't say much about the crime scene evidence of Barnett's pipe, did he? "A pipe was there..." And the police were under pressure from the public at the time, to find the killer. Abberline described the contents of the ashes in the grate just before he mentioned the pipe. If the pipe went into the fireplace as he was examining the ashes, surely he would have known not to include it in his description of the contents!
Andersen wasn't confusing his cases and there was only ONE pipe found on Alice McKenzie, which was used by HER and it wasn't a mystery!!!!
LEANNE
|
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 5:46 pm: | |
Leanne,
You say another newspaper included the words "which I now produce", but again you've not included the whole quote. But, I take it you mean this extends Insp. Reids testimony to be:
"After the body had been examined by the doctor it was placed on the police ambulance, and underneath the body of the deceased was found the short clay pipe WHICH I NOW produce."
Ok, cool Leanne. That doesn't change anything. Ried specifically says the pipe under the body is the one he now produces. If one actually reads what his whole statement is, this is clear. He has produced THE pipe found underneath Alice McKenzie, not a replica, not an example pipe, not his own pipe because he thinks it's a nifty one, but THE PIPE FOUND UNDERNEATH her. Notice Leanne, he says THE PIPE, not a pipe that looks like THE PIPE, but actually THE PIPE. Why is this so hard to understand?
Now, THE pipe broken by Dr. Phillips's assistant was LOST before the inquiry and he even tells us that the pieces were, at the time of his testimony, still not located.
In otherwords, THE pipe that Dr. Phillips is talking about is not THE pipe that Insp. Reid produced. Dr. Phillips, who testifies AFTER Ried has produced the pipe found under Alice, wouldn't have said the pieces were still not found if Ried had just shown them. Also, he specifically states he's talking about a different pipe.
We have the pipe found underneath Alice and we also have a "different pipe"; this so clearly makes two that arguments to the contrary are attempts to force the evidence into theory rather than interpret the evidence.
- Jeff
|
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 2:04 pm: | |
Leanne,
"The words of the first witness Elizabeth Ryder were: 'She used to borrow pipes, which were short clay ones, LIKE the one produced.' The report next says: 'It appears a pipe was shown at the inquest.' A pipe, A pipe, not THE pipe."
This isn't even vaguely relevant. Elizabeth Ryder wasn't in a position to identify the pipe found as she wasn't there when the body was discovered. And as Jeff noted you're avoiding Reid's testimony. It doesn't matter if you prefer the Times version, or the one in the Alderly and Wilmslow Advertiser.
Times: "After the body had been examined by the doctor it was placed on the police ambulance, and underneath the body of the deceased was found the short clay pipe produced. The pipe was broken and there was blood on it, and in the bowl was some unburnt tobacco."
Alderly and Wilmslow Advertiser: "Underneath the body of the deceased was found this clay pipe, which I now produce. It was covered with blood, and had some unburnt tobacco in it."
No matter how you look at it Reid is identifying the pipe produced in court as the one that was found under her body. There is no room for any other interpertation.
"What's so difficult in believing that when the body was lifted to pop on the ambulance/stretcher, a pipe was found underneath, so it was thought wise to pick it up and place it on the body that was put on the stretcher? - as crime scene evidence?"
Because it's silly. That's why. But if you want specifics, read Phillips's post mortem notes carefully. It wasn't on the stretcher, it was found during a search of her clothing. (Phillips believed it came from the bosom of her dress.) I don't believe that policemen in 1888 were in the habit of stuffing crime scene evidence into the clothes of deceased women. Outside of the question of proper preservation of evidence, that would have been a serious violation of the standards of victorian behavior IMO.
"DOCTOR Phillips said: 'The pipe had been used.' He couldn't describe it any further than that BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN BROKEN!"
Actually he described it as "well used" in his post mortem notes so it appears a good look was obtained prior to it's breakage. In any case, a broken bloodstained pipe will yield bloodstained pieces. It seems odd that Reid and Hawkes would have described the pipe as bloodstained and the coroner and his attendant would have missed such a thing. When collecting the pieces surely SOME notice would have been made of the stains if they existed on the broken pipe.
"The mortuary attendants were 'old workhouse men'. Why couldn't they have been clumsy? One was clumsy enough to throw and brake the ONE pipe found in the McKenzie case!"
It wasn't a question of clumsieness IMO. Phillip's described the pipe as being "thoughtlessly thrown to the ground". A mistake, error of judgement, whichever. But if a critical piece of evidence had been destroyed in the case of MJK (Of course there wasn't) then there would certainly been a hue and cry over the fact that not one, but TWO pipes had been detroyed in less than a years time.
It's simple. 2 pipes with Alice, one broken by a mortuary attendant, one bloodstained and produced in court. One pipe at the MJK scene, unbroken, identified by Joe as his.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 471
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 5:06 pm: | |
G'day Jeff and John,
I've printed out the account of the McKenzie inquest, that appears here as the 'Official' version. This includes the coroners questions.
I meant to have a slow read of it last night to try and understand, but fell asleep. I'll try again today.
A quick glance of it, shows that 'John M'Cormack' was the first witness, followed by 'Elizabeth Ryder'.
'John M'Cormack' was asked by the coroner: "Was it a clay pipe or a wooden pipe?", so no pipe must have been produced, before 'Elizabeth Ryder' testified.
I'll get back to you when I finish reading!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 7:11 am: | |
G'day Jeff & John,
OK Here's my new interpretation:
DAY 1 The first witness called was John McCormack, Alice McKenzie's 'husband'. The only mention of a pipe was the coroner's question which appears above. His reply was that "It was always a clay pipe." If there was a pipe produced at that stage, the coroner was verifying that it was was hers.
Next to testify was Elizabeth Ryder who said: "She used to borrow clay pipes. Like the one produced." So a pipe was visable, and it was hers.
DAY 2.
Inspector Reid: "Underneath the body of the deceased was found the short clay pipe produced." So if he was talking of the pipe that was produced on DAY 1, he wouldn't have said: "Which I now..." That was likely a reporters error.
Further on in his testimony, he said: "I searched the body at the mortuary and FOUND NOTHING." That's the confusing part!
DAY 3
Dr. Phillips testified for the 2nd time, giving his story of the pipe being broken by an attendant. The foreman asks: "Do I understand that the pipe you speak of was in addition to the one produced on the last occasion?" "Yes" BINGO! Now I understand what you were trying to tell me! It makes such a big difference when you can read the Coroner's questions first!
So another pipe was found tucked away in her boo-, I mean bossem. Therefore it wasn't being smoked at the time that she died. So, 'Claypipe Alice' bludged 2 pipes that day. BIG MYSTERY!
BACK TO DAY 2:
During Dr. Phillips' 1st testimony, he described the mortuary as a "Shed." He goes on say: "a most inconvenient and altogether illappointed place for such a purpose." Would anyone have built a fireplace there?
Saying that Anderson was confusing his cases, is the easy way out!
NOW LET"S RELATE THESE PIPES TO ANDERSON'S COMMENT:
Of course there would have been a 'hue and cry' in the papers if it was discovered that crime scene evidence at Millers court was destroyed. That's why it was kept out of the newspapers! They tried to keep the fact that Kelly's heart was missing out, this fact was almost leaked, and Abberline didn't elaborate about the pipe found in Kelly's case!
LEANNE
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
