|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 11:42 am: |       |
I have today been reading the St. James's Gazette version of the Eddowes inquest and noticed something I had not picked up on before.
In the preliminaries to the inquest report, it lists which officials were there and in what capacity. This list includes this statement:
Mr. Crawford, the City solicitor, said he appeared for the police authorities, and if it was necessary he hoped the coroner would allow him to put questions during the inquiry. The coroner assented.
As far as I am aware, this is the only inquest in the series in which such a step was taken. Perhaps because it was the only one in which the City authorities were directly involved.
However, after John Kelly, the man with whom Eddowes had been living in Flower and Dean street, had given his evidence, a plan of the square was produced. Subsequent to this Crawford made the following comments:
Frederick William Foster, 26 Old Jewry, produced a plan of the square. In examination by Mr. Crawford, the witness said that the direct route from Mitre square to Flower and Dean street would be through Goulstone street. Mr. Crawford said that evidence would be given to the effect that a portion of the woman's apron was afterwards found in Gouldstone street, and the jury would at once see the importance of the evidence just given.
The only interpretation I can see which can be drawn from this is that Crawford was pointing a very large finger of suspeicion at John Kelly. I can see no other reason for stressing the route from Mitre Square to Flower and Dean street unless Crawford was saying that was the destination to which the killer was heading.
Any comments welcome
Chris |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 644
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 12:03 pm: | |
Hi Chris,again valuable information and thanks.
I suppose they did see John Kelly as her possible assailant but after all the other evidence about them emerged as being happy together for 7 years or so and probably an alibi from Lodging house for Kelly they decided against him being a suspect.But it makes me think that the ripper resided or had a relative in or near this very spot ie Middlesex Street/Goulston Street[if not Flower and Dean Street.
Best Natalie |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 12:05 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
Thanks for pointing this out--I'd missed the connection between Flower and Dean and Goulston Street. I do believe that, early on, authorities would have considered Kelly a suspect, but must have dismissed him by the time of the inquest. With the deputy of Cooney's--Wilkinson--present at Eddowes' identification, the police would have had an alibi for Kelly as early as 2 October.
It's interesting to note that the next witness after Foster was Wilkinson, apparently recalled to confirm Kelly's alibi, but to also testify to the prescence of six strangers at Cooney's that night (although he didn't remember anybody coming and going around 2 a.m.).
Perhaps Crawford was trying to make a connection to a stranger staying at Cooney's at 55 Flower and Dean?
Dave |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 645
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Surely this has to be significant in this case.The ripper too may well have known how to slip unnoticed into a lodging house.He might even have been laying clues to his whereabouts with the apron and writing.Maybe this accounts for the delay between the apron and writing being found.He may have been watching them!May have had to "slip out" again to dispose of the piece of apron-as well as the kidney.
Natalie |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 273
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
Wow,
I had never picked up on this before. If, as I believe, the ripper knew his victims, could he not have been trying to put suspicion onto Kelly? I know I am in the minority in my views, but does anyone agree that this could at least be a possibility??
Mikey |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
Let me amend my earlier post: I'm not sure Crawford was specifically referring to Cooney's, since he doesn't specify No. 55. I think I've read that there were several lodging houses on Flower & Dean (one other was No. 32, I think). So he seems to be suggesting that the murderer may have fled Goulston Street to one of these lodging houses.
Cheers,
Dave |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
I wonder if Jack dipped straight into the public bath house in Goulston Street after leaving Eddowes, got himself cleaned up and then thought at leisure about leaving the apron piece and the chalked message before heading back to his lodgings all squeaky clean with just knife, womb and kidney.
But is there any possibility of the baths being open at such hours of the night?
Just catching up.
Love,
Caz
X |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
