|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 12:40 am: | 
|
Hi,
Following on from my previous post, I believe there is more support for Mrs Maxwell to be telling the truth about seeing Kelly that morning, Nov. 9th.
Shortly after 8 o'clock that morning Catherine Pickett knocked on Mary Kelly's door. The reason; it was raining , and she was hoping to be able to borrow Kelly's shawl. She got no reply, and therefore left.
Now, shortly after this Maurice Lewis, states he saw Kelly leave her room, then return to it a few moments later.
Following on from this we have Mrs Maxwell statement of talking to Kelly at about 8.15-30 am.
Taking all these statements together we have a chronological scenario of events.
Mrs Pickett getting no reply from her knocking leaves Millers Court.
Kelly, in her room, but feeling a bit under the weather hears the knock, but fails to respond quickly enough to it, in her semi-comatose state. Eventually, she manages to get up and opens the door to her room. There is nobody there, but thinking,(which in her current state was not that bright)she may just catch the person she goes to the entrance of Millers Court and looks up and down the street trying to spot who it may have been. Enter, Maurice Lewis, he witnesses Mary doing this, and also sees her go back to her room.
Now that she is up, Kelly, still feeling sick, looks around her room for some relief and probably spots the pot of beer left by the "carrotty" man. She takes a drink of this, but this makes matters worse, and now feeling claustrophobic, she leaves a room again to get a breath of fresh air. While doing this, she vomits onto the pavement or roadway.
Now, enter Mrs Maxwell. She comes out from the L.H. across the road, and sees the aftermath of Kellys vomitting. Concerned she engages conversation with Kelly, who informs her she has been sick, and points to the vomit. Mrs Maxwell also, in favour of her statement later, notices at this time that Kelly does actually look sick.
She suggests a 'tot' of rum, but Kelly replies she has tried this, pointing towards the Brittania, though Kelly never specifically states that she had been to the Brittania, this is only inferred by Mrs Maxwell. Mrs Maxwell then passes a remark of sympathy and leaves.
The point I am trying to get across with this post, is that regardless of whether we believe Maxwell's statemnt or not, there must be some grain of truth in it, and rather than just dismiss it out of hand, we should look at ways of trying to verify it, ie; see if there is a sequence of events in which Mrs Maxwells statement plays a part. That is what I have tried to do here.
Just because it is in direct conflict with the other evidence, does not, to me, make it false, especially when there is colloberatry evidence from other sources. And more than one other.
Like someone said, maybe we should remove the blinkers of 115 years and start to look at the evidence in a new light. And at the same time take another "unblinkered" look at who Mary Jane Kelly really was, because after 115 years she is still an enigma.
Well, thats me.
Cheers,
Michael
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 3:52 am: |
|
Hi Michael,
You could not have said that better, I have always imagined it to have happened that way..
The point about Kelly leaving her room to see ,if she could find out who knocked her door , is a valid point.
I believe we should except that Maxwell, and co saw her that morning , and we should just try and find out the answer to two questions.
1] what time would the estimated death be?.
2] was she the actual victim?.
As regarding who Mary Kelly really was, I firmly believe we have been on the wrong track, but I feel that their are possibilitys, that we may discover other avenues in the near future , that may lead us to a more acceptable conclusion.
Regards Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Dear Michael,
Interesting post, however I ask you to anylise it. Catherine Pickett did not see MJK. Maurice Lewis as I have already said did not make a statement saying he had seen MJK, or if he did I cannot find it, that leaves us with Mrs Maxwell.
So out of three people we only have the statement of one of them, a person who only knew MJK very, very slightly, saying she saw MJK. against this it could be argued that Catherine Pickett got no answer to her knock because MJK was trying to pull herself together (think about it) in other words she was dead!
However I agree totally that none of us should just dismiss Maxwell out of hand.
Bob
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
G'day,
Can someone please help me with something that has been bugging me? I'm sorry if this has been covered in the past, but I haven't the time to search this morning. My 'Jack the Ripper A-Z' is in 3 pieces and I can't find the piece with 'M' in it.
Carroline Maxwell was the wife of Henry Maxwell who, according to some sourses, was a resident of Miller's Court. At Mary Kelly's inquest she gave her address as "14 Dorset Street". Miller's Court was number 26. She never stated "Room 14 Miller's Court". Didn't she and her husband live together?
She told the Coroner that her husband was the DEPUTY of a hodging house, but didn't state which lodging house. The 'Daily News' 10 November said that she told the reporter that she was the wife of a NIGHT WATCHMAN at 'Commercial chambers', which was a loding house opposite Miller's Court. Which is the correct version? and does anyone know what number was 'Commercial chambers'?
Dorset Street was full of lodging houses and the one directly opposite Miller's Court was named 'Crossingham's', which was number 35 Dorset Street.
'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper' tells me that her husband was the DEPUTY at the lodging house at 14 Dorset Street, where Caroline Maxwell lived! Now I'm really confused because she stated that she went to collect the plates that her husband had to take care of from the lodging house OPPOSITE!
She also testified that she then went to Bishopsgate to get her husband's breakfast, but never told what she did with the dirty washing-up! Did she take it all with her to Bishopsgate?
LEANNE |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 540
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
In Caroline Maxwell's Police Statement, she gives her address as 14 Dorset Street, which was on the South side of Dorset Street almost opposite Millers Court. Next door at number 15 was one of Crossinghams Lodging Houses which was exactly opposite Millers Court and I think this is the one she was referring to. My reading of her statement is that I believe she means opposite Millers Court.
The Crossinghams at 35 Dorset Street was on the North side on the corner with Little Paternoster Row.
All the best
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
G'day Rob,
'Crossingham's Lodging House' that was directly opposite Miller's Court was at 35 Dorset Street. 'Miller's Court' was number 26. Number 15 was not directly opposite Miller's Court! Where did you read that?
The information above indicates that even numbers and odd numbers were on opposite sides, so how could number 14 be almost opposite number 26?
Caroline Maxwell also testified at the inquest that she lived at 14 Dorset street, which I believe was about six doors down the road.
LEANNE |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 541
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 3:33 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I took my info from a 'Goads Fire Insurance' plan. The South Side was numbered from 1 to about 20 going from West to East. And the North side continued the numbering from West to East.
I know 35 is on the corner with Little Patternoster Row, as that was where Mary Ann Austin was murdered in 1901 and I have an illustration of the building which I posted in the 'Whitechapel' thread, under 'pictures of the East End'.
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 5:10 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
Is this right?:
The lodging house directly opposite Miller's Court was no.17 and the 'Crossingham's Lodging House' that Annie Chapman had lodged at was no.35.
LEANNE |
Robert J. McLaughlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Rob is quite right.
Dorset Street's properties were numbered consecutively along the south side from west to east (1-20) and back along the north side from east to west (21-39).
Three alleyways ran out of the northern side of Dorset St. Paternoster Row, which lay between numbers 35 and 36 ran all the way into Brushfield Street, exiting alongside the Oxford Arms pub. It contained several common-lodging houses. The others were New Court and Miller's Court, both of which contained low-grade housing. New Court was almost mid-street, its narrow entry located between numbers 33 and 34.
The properties opposite Millers Court were:
No. 14: Furnished rooms owned by Lewis White and leased to William Crossingham.
No. 15: Common Lodging House for 27 lodgers owned by Lewis White of Middlesex Street and leased to William Crossingham.
Nos. 16 - 19: Commercial Street Chambers. Owned by Robert Kersey of Lee and leased by William Crossingham as a Common Lodging House.
(source Fiona Rule & Adrian Phypers: see Dissertations: The Whitechapel Dossier: Dorset Street and Miller's Court)
Cheers,
Robert |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
You do realise that there were TWO Crossinhams lodging houses do you?
One on the same side of the street as Millers court,but further down towards Crispin street and the other directly opposite Millers court.
Kane
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
G'day,
Thanks for all this! I am working on an additional chapter for my book titled: "OH CARRY I FEEL SO BAD!", dealing soley with what Maxwell said. I am looking at her testimony and statement in detail, comparing them, looking at the theories her claims support, the reasons why they were ignored etc. All sources will be mentioned!
I am looking at the post-mortem finding that the body had partially digested fish and potatoe in the remains of her stomach and intestines, and Maxwells claim that the woman she saw vomited in the gutter.
LEANNE |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 543
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Hope this helps.
All the best
Rob
P.S Glad you are carrying on with the book. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2319
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Hi all
Leanne -Glad you are carrying on too -think the new chapter is a great idea! The fish and potatoes as a last consumed meal seems to be fairly well documented by Bond etc,may have been helped on 'it's way up' tho in the morning by the visit to Ringers though!
Rob- the map is great and shows.......... ok a bit further down the road ........(albeit a short road) that all this took place in a very small area....house fronts notwithstanding
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 5:04 am: |
|
G'day Suzi,
"on'it's way up'"??? Do you think that it may have been in the process of undigesting itself? I'll read up about the digestive system tomorrow.
LEA
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Hi,
The facts are Catherine Pickert knocked on Kellys door at around 8am on the morning of the 9th, she received no answer, she wished to borrow her shawl obviously she was aware that she had one, and as the morning was damp and drizzling that would have been a apt garment to borrow.
Shortly after this episode Mrs Maxwell sighting occured which included a marroon crossover[ shawl]
This seems at least to me to give extra credence to Maxwells claim as not only did she claim to have seen her, but in relation to Catherine Pickert statement 'I knocked her door' puts the sighting shortly after Kelly if alive was awoken.
Add that to the checking by the police details that Maxwell mentioned ie obtaining milk, and returning of plates [ which was assertained] she surely could not have been mistaken.
Going by all the reports and taking common sense on board the fact Is it is a proberable scenerio that she was killed after the last sighting that is after 845am that morning.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2322
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Leanne
May be a good plan .!!!
I always think its
ODD that the description of the stomach contents were FISH and POTATOES....
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Have looked up where this could have come from and such delicacies here being sold at the time in various forms....not as the rather amusing image of fish and chips but just a bit of fish and a few potatoes whether boiled or baked maybe fried who knows.........
Bring on the C19th Spud expert!
...Whatever it probably was OK at first but by A.M. wasn't sitting so comfortably !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Best
Suzix
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 6:41 pm: |
|
G'day Suzi,
An expert who has been trained to perform an autopsy would probably know what fish and potatoe becomes after it has been exposed to the chemicles within a stomach, but alcohol is not absorbed by the stomach, so I reckon he would have been able to detect that pretty quickly if it was there!
OK, she was supposed to have spewed it up, but surely it would have been detectable in her gullet!
RICH: Who is this Catherine Pickert, and where can I read her statement?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on April 14, 2005)
(Message edited by Leanne on April 14, 2005) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I have not a lot of time this morning to give you a precise answer, however Pickert was the lady married to Dave who was going to complain about kellys karoke at 1am, but hubby said 'leave the woman be'
Around 730am on the morning of the 9th she awoke[pickert] and left her house in the court around 8am noticing the cold and drizzle she decided to give kelly a knock to borrow her shawl [ she was on her way to the market] receiving no answer she continued on.
I Believe she also attended kellys funeral.
It just seems to me that it is a coincedence that soon after her knock Kelly is reported to have been seen at the court entrance.
I know from experience that after a heavy night to suddenly be awoken and get out of bed leaves the body feeling rather fragile.
Richard.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
G'day Rich,
I've read the name Catherine Pickett, (not Pickert), in a few books including the 'A-Z'. These books call her a 'witness', (a 'witness' to what?)
The'A-Z' says that she knocked on Kelly's door at 7:30 a.m. I agree with Bob Hinton. Mary Kelly couldn't answer her door because Mary Kelly was dead!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on April 15, 2005) |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Leanne,
(Following on from the discussion "Will the real Mary Kelly" elsewhere on the boards)
Firstly, in answer to your tripple plea,the two other witnesses I was refering to were of course Morris Lewis and "Mrs.Goode" (or whatever her real name was).
The point I was trying to make was,that if we disregard the actual details of these witnesses statements,we still have the fact that three people came forward independently and claimed they saw Kelly that morning.This fact alone strengthens Maxwell's credibility as a reliable witness in my opinion.
Also,concerning your "Corner of Millers court" isssue,here is a quote from Elizabeth Prater's inquest deposition: "I stood at the CORNER by McCarthy's shop"
Now,this business of the plates.
I don't actually see the point you are trying to make other than generally endeavoring to paint Maxwell as some sort of "Dolly Daydream".
At the inquest Maxwell said:"...I know the time by taking the plates back my husband had to take care of....."
I think in all probability,what Maxwell meant was she had already returned the plates by the time she encountered Kelly.Therefore she would have had no reason to mention them again.
As far as timings quoted by witnesses are concerned,they are all only approximate.
Maxwell claimed she first saw Kelly at between 8.00 and 8.30 and Lewis said he saw Kelly comming out of her room at about 8.00,so how can you possibly try and demonstrate any discrepencies between their timings?
Also,the time of Maxwell's second sighting was an estimate bassed purely on the length of time she thought she had taken to make her errand.
In an earlier post I discussed the possibility that Morris Lewis' statement had been somewhat garbled by the press.
I also offered a possible explanation as to why this happened,and specifically,how Joseph Barnett became "Dan Barnett".
I fail to see how anybody can just reject Lewis'statement completely.
After all,he knew Kelly,he knew she had been living with Barnett and he also knew that Barnett had left Kelly a couple of weeks earlier.
Kane
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 12:13 am: |
|
Hi all,
"Indeed, If the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, Because of the terriable mutilations, To say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning" Inspector Dew. The detectives who worked the case thought that Maxwell was mistaken. Abberline and Dew both thought that she was a woman of good charactor but faced with the expert medical opinions they dismissed her claim. Dr.Bond thought that Kelly may have been dead for 12 hours. They also thought that the mutilation that was done to Kelly would have taken more time then the other killings. This fact is important because the later the time of death is pushed back the less time the killer would have with the victim.
Your friend,Brad |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1740
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
G'day,
Maxwell said she saw Mary Jane Kelly and a man standing outside the Ringer's at about a quarter to nine. 8:45
Mauris Lewis told the 'Police News' that he entered the Ringer's "soon after ten o'clock" and saw Mary Jane Kelly drinking there. approximately 10:15. Half an hour later he learned of her murder.
Mary's body was discovered by Bowyer at 'about half-past ten' or 'a quarter to eleven'. That's between 15 and 30 minutes after Morris saw her in the Ringer's. 10:30...10:45
If we were to accept their claims as fact Kelly's killer would have taken roughly half an hour to:
1) Walk Mary Kelly back to her room,
2) Watch her undress, fold her clothes and hop into bed,
3) Slice her throat,
4) Cut her to pieces,
5) Arrange one breast under her head,
6) Remove her heart and wrap it in whatever to carry it away,
7) Clean himself up,
8) Throw whatever he wiped himself with into the fire,
9) Put on a clean shirt as he watched his bloody one burn to ashes in the grate,
10) Quickly watch to see that no one was outside and silently escape into the crowded streets.
Silly isn't it?
LEANNE |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 363
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
...if we disregard the actual details of these witnesses statements,we still have the fact that three people came forward independently and claimed they saw Kelly that morning.This fact alone strengthens Maxwell's credibility as a reliable witness in my opinion.
I am not so sure Kane, for two reasons:
a) we have a record of local people standing around in Bucks Row after the murder of Nichols, discussing the crime, tut-tutting etc. It is not impossible that this happened in Dorset St after MJK's murder. Thus a single story could have been adopted by more than one individual, or the memories of several were infected/influenced by what others said;
b) we know from Chapman's death and Kelly's that the press could get the names of witnesses and those interviewed wrong. Thus we apparently have corroborative evidence from two people about a suspect on the morning of Chapman's murder, but this turns out, on examination, to be a single person (Long/Darrell - even the police were confused!) and in the MJK case itself Kennedy/Lewis.
Can we be absolutely sure that we have uncontaminated evidence here and from three individuals?
I am not saying that we should dismiss what Mrs Maxwell and others said they saw, but I would argue that it should be judiciously parked until we have checked this out thoroughly (and I am not sure it yet has been); or other evidence emerges which makes it relevant and gives it substance.
At present, I doubt any serious historian or court of law would accept Mrs M's and the other's statements as evidence of anything.
Phil
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 578
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Hi Kane,
"I fail to see how anybody can just reject Lewis' statement completely."
It's not that I completely reject his statement, I do however put little faith in it.
If we are to believe his newspaper statements, according to the Times of 10 November and the Manchester Guardian of the same date he saw Kelly leave her room and come back, yet there’s no mention of this in his statement in the Illustrated Police News of 17 November.
Furthermore,
- he claimed to have known her for five years, while, according to Barnett's inquest testimony, she had told him she had come to London only about 4 years before and had lived in Miller's Court only since the beginning of 1888.
- Lewis described her as short (about 5 ft 3) whereas she seems to have been rather tall for a woman (about 5 ft 7).
- like Leanne said, he claimed to have seen her shortly after 10 am, drinking at the Ringer's, whereas her dead and mutilated body was found only 30 to 40 minutes later.
- he isn't to be found anywhere in the police files.
- he certainly didn't appear at the inquest.
Because of the last 2 points we're only left with a couple of newspaper appearances by Lewis, in which I wouldn't want to put too much faith. But these 2 points also tell us that the police apparently didn't think Lewis was a reliable witness.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1741
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
G'day,
WHERE CAN I READ THE STATEMENT OF MRS GOODE??????????
Leanne |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I agree with you 100% It just does not seem likely.
Your friend, Brad |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
