Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through February 26, 2003 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Witnesses » Maxwell, Caroline » Did she really see Mary Kelly? » Archive through February 26, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 5:01 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi everyone,
Here is an intresting point which could help make up your mind if Mrs Maxwell was telling the truth when she stated she saw Mary Jane Kelly.
If You take the statement of George Hutchinson,when he states Kelly said ; Oh I have lost my hankerchief; and the astracan gent handed her one, it would imply that she required the use of one.
I would say that the logical reason for her request would be to wipe her nose , or blow it.
Of course that does not hundred per cent mean that she may have had symptons of a cold , but it does imply it.
My point is if Kelly was suffering from a cold,and was killed sometime between 2.45am and the time Mrs Maxwell claims to have seen and spoken to her, how would Maxwell been able to refer to kelly looking like she had a cold?.
Donald Mcormack states kellys appearence was all muffled up like a cold; Although some people have said that they havent seen the passage from Leonard Matters book I am sure he says Maxwell told the police or press ; Her eyes looked queer, like she was suffering from a heavy cold; if I am wrong ,then perhaps someone would be kind enough to inform me where this quote came from.
I hope you can see where I am arriving at. There is a indication in Hutchinsons statement , which would give Maxwells statement some proof of her telling the truth.
I mentioned this to Colin Wilson some twenty eight years ago, he felt it was an intresting observation, but felt more proof may be needed.
But I have always thought it was at least some more ammo for Maxwells defence.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Police Constable
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 8:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dear Richard,

I have never believed Mrs Maxwell saw Mary Kelly on Friday morning, because I believe Mary Kelly was dead by this time. So does this mean Mrs Maxwell was lying? Not necessarily. She could just have been wrong.

Consider this. If Mrs Maxwell is correct then MJK was walking and talking on Friday morning. She also visited the Britannia that morning and had some ale. she then walked down Dorset Street back to the vicinity of her lodgings and stood around there talking to Mrs Maxwell.

Can anyone tell me how it was possible for her to do all of this without anyone else seeing her? Who served her in the pub? Who stood next to her as she drank her beer? Who passed her in the street? Who saw her talking to Mrs Maxwell? Apparently no one. That just does not compute.

I believe that Mrs Maxwell spoke to someone who she believed was MJK but who in fact was not. Don't forget she did not know MJK and had very rarely met with her previously.

How is this possible? Very easily. If I say to you 'Do you know Bill Smith who lives next door to Mrs Williams?' you might conjure up a picture of a man living next door to Mrs Williams but whose name you did not know. Now however I have given you a name to go with your recollection and in your mind the two are linked.

But what if I am referring to the man who lives the other side of Mrs Williams, unless I show you a phototgraph of the person I am referring to how are you to know.

The next day Mrs Williams neighbour is run over in the street. You may look at the body and say 'Oh yes that's Bill Smith' In your own mind you are right but in fact you could be wrong.

Bob Hinton
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 9:02 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Bob.
A couple of points to make.
It is of course possible that Maxwell was mistaken .I dont agree that she did not know kelly,she said she had met her several times, after all she lived right across the street.
She even knew it was unusual for her to be up so early, and kelly addressed her by name , so they clearly knew each other , and judging by the width of dorset street, she was hardly unlikely to be mistaken .
Regarding the ale, all Kelly said was she had had some and brought it up pointing to the vomit in the street, she could have had the remains of the beer the carroty man brought into millers court the night previous.
Also she was seen by more then one person , Maurice Lewis saw her at 8.am leave her room, and return with some milk shortly afterwards, he also claimed to have seen her in the pub at 10.am
A woman tailoress named Mrs Goode also saw her at 8.30 standing in Dorset Steet[ some people dispute the name].
I understand what you are suggesting , but I think we can safely assume that Mrs Maxwell knew Kelly by sight, and was on occasional speaking terms, and she was seen by other people as I have
mentioned.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christopher George Phillips
Police Constable
Username: Cgp100

Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 11:06 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Regarding the ale, all Kelly said was she had had some and brought it up pointing to the vomit in the street, she could have had the remains of the beer the carroty man brought into millers court the night previous."

Actually, what Maxwell said was this:
I said why dont you go to Mrs Ringers (meaning the Public House at the corner of Dorset Street called the Britannia) and have 1/2 a pint of beer. She said I have been there and had it, but I have brought it all up again at the same time she pointed to some vomit in the roadway.
[Evans and Skinner, p. 365 (my emphasis)]

Chris Phillips
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 12:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Chris.
You are spot on that is exactly what was reported.there are two explanations.
1] she was just saying that to Mrs Maxwell ,purely for conversation.
2] she had infact been there and nobody had paid attention ,after all she was a regular patron.
The Beer issue is not all that important, the main point being did Maxwell see Kelly that morning or was she mistaken or lying?.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 12:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

(Maxwell)
"Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time".

On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room. Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning.
(Times, Nov 12, 1888)

Strange that Maxwell's story is confirmed by police, confirmed by the story of "another woman" and somewhat supported by Maurice Lewis.

I notice that Caroline Maxwell also describes Mary Kelly (or who she thought to be Kelly) as, "Mary Jane (I only know her by that name) was a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale."
(I.P.N., Nov 17, 1888)

I tend to agree that it is a little hard to believe that Maxwell, who "lived next door" and ran the lodginghouse "opposite" Millers Court would not be able to identify Mary Kelly.

The whole episode is perplexing.

Regards, Jon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Police Constable
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 6:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm sorry Mr Nunweek I cannot accept that "the beer issue is not all that important" Its very important in establishing whether or not the woman Maxwell spoke to was MJK.

I say again if MJK went to the Britannia for her beer how come no one in the Britannia saw her there, especially as she was a regulaR.

I also do not accept that Maxwell knew MJK well. For a start the population of lodging houses and cheap lodgings was very transient, people were coming and going all the time.

Do not forget Maxwell herself does not claim to know MJK well, she says:
" I knew deceased for about 4 months as Mary Jane.....I never spoke to her except twice

Speaking to someone twice in four months is hardly a close relationship.As for seeing her later on this is open to question. Maxwell returned to her lodging house at about 0845 when the street was fairly busy with people. She says that she thought she saw MJK over 80 yards away talking to a strange man.

The interesting thing is the description of this man varies and because of the distance Maxwell says she could not identify him.

On the 9th November the man is described as : about 30, about 5' 5", stout, and dressed as a market porter. However at the inquest she says: "I could not describe the man" and then goes on to say he " was not a tall man. He had on dark clothes and a sort of plaid coat" No mention of age, height, occupation or any other details. Certainly a plaid coat is not the sort of garment you would expect a Market Porter to be wearing. In other words did she see anyone at all?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 2:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard.
Regarding your quote from Matters in your first poste.
Can't find it.

Chapter 13 is entitled "The Murder in Millers Court", and it is in this chapter that the witness statements are provided.
I have looked elsewhere but cannot find any quote to do with Maxwell by Matters in any other chapter.
On page 87 (chapter 13) the only reference to Maxwell, or her statement, is this.....

"More than one witness actually swore that she was seen alive hours after the time when, according to the medical testimony, she must have been dead."

Thats it Richard.
I cant suggest where your 'Matters' quote came from, sorry.
Regards, Jon

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 7:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob,
When I said the beer statement was not important, that was rash, infact the whole statement is important.
When I said Kelly may have said that just in conversation, I was useing it in context as if Kelly was not feeling well, and when approached by the woman Maxwell who made remarks such as ; what brings you up so early etc..and suggested she had the hair of the dog, said I have had some, which she may well have done left overs or actually at Ringers. The fact that she was not seen is not unusual, when I in my younger days frequented my local I was such a well known face nobody would have known when I was there or when I was not.
The main points why I believe Maxwells statement holds firm is the discription of her clothing , which she was wearing ,the same garments were later found in Kellys room , also you have quite rightly stated that she actually only spoke to Kelly on a couple of occasions , but she , and Kelly clearly knew of each other she addressed Maxwell as Carrie..and she used to see her about the lodging house.
I feel Bob, the argument that Mrs Maxwell was lying or mistaken , or got the days mixed up does not make sense.
Question. Why should she lie , if she was at first for some kind of reconition, when it became apparent that the police and medical people believed she had been killed in the early hours of the 9th , she could have just said obviously I must have been mistaken, But she maintained her statement under oath even when the coroner warned her.
Question. Is It likely that she got the days mixed up ?. Answer it would appear not as Maxwells statement was checked on the 9th, and confirmed.
Also Bob dont forget the statement by Maurice Lewis, again if he was lying at first, he could simply say it appears I did not see her as i imagined.
I feel strongly and I am not alone on this , that Maxwell saw Kelly that morning and was one hundred per cent truthful , what that implies is another mystery.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 7:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jon
Many thanks for your post, and for checking Matters book for me , I have not read it for nearly 30 years, borrowed from a library.
I am frustrated that I was wrong in believing that quotation came from his book.
However I can say with absolute conviction that the quote; Her eyes looked queer , as if she was suffering from a heavy cold; is a actual quote from some work, I remember reading it extremely well I can recall I was reading it on a train whilst on a trip to Brighton and Hove greyhound track around the mid seventies [ I proberly should have read the form of the greyhounds instead]
I feel sure someone in our circle will have come across that quote, and we can confirm its existance.
once again thanks.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Police Constable
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 8:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dear Richard,

Sorry I keep calling you Mr Nunweek which is a bit formal. I think the nice thing about these boards is that we can all be right!

I'm going to look into this a bit deeper when I get a silly five minutes.

yours aye
Bob
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

jfripper
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 7:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi All,

The discussion of Mrs Maxwell testimony of seeing Mary Kelly at/between 8.15 - 8.45am on the 9th of November is very entertaining, but you have to remember this:
1) Her testimony never changed from the first report she made to the police to her Inquest testimony.
2) The police tried to discredit her statement with intense questioning, but could not break her strong belief as to what happened.
3) She was cautioned at the Inquest about her evidence, but again she could not be swayed and stuck rigid in her belief.
4) She produced evidence of her own movements to back up her statement of seeing Mary Kelly that morning. (These were checked by the police and were found to be true and correct).
5) The issue about the beer and visiting the Brittania is a moot point. This is what Kelly told Maxwell. It does not mean that Kelly was telling the whole truth.
6) In favour of Maxwell's statement being true is that fact that she had only known Kelly for about four months, during which time they had only spoken twice before. This makes her statement more believable by the fact that having another conversation with Kelly would stand out in Mrs Maxwell's mind, and therefore there is very little chance of her mistaking which day it was she had the conversation.
7) As to why nobody else saw her in the street at this time, the answer is simple: They did. But because she was a stranger to these others they never registered her. (If you walk down a street during the day and see someome talking to another person do you take a profound interest or do you just walk on by?
Now, say that one of these persons was murdered that day, could you honestly say that you would be able to report what you had seen to the police.
I think not.

Cheers,

Michael
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott Evans Medine
Police Constable
Username: Sem

Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 9:12 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do any of you know all or some of the murder victims in your city, county, parish or district? Chances are that some of you have probably seen them on occasion.

Peace,
Scott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 12:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi J fripper,
By the way , I like the Username...
They say great minds think alike.I agree entirely on your summary.
The evidence points conclusively to Mrs maxwell telling the truth on seeing Kelly that morning.
I live in a road about twice the length of Dorset Street, if I was to stand mid way up my road, talking to somebody , nobody would know who I was and I have lived in that road for 26 years, they might have seen me several times but took no notice for all they knew I could have arrived in the street from anywhere.
If you understand what I am saying, people seem to think that everbody knew Mary Kelly that were in the street that morning when the truth is she would have been one of many going about their daily business, anyway lets not forget she was seen by at least 3 people .
Thanks for your post.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 12:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Welcome Back Scott.
I know this point has been touched on before, but it has never been reported if there was any money found in Kellys room, it seems strange that she told Maxwell she had had some beer at the Ringers, also Maurice Lewis, claimed to have seen Kelly return to her room carrying some milk , both these items cost money , therefore unless she had just the exact amount for these items , there must have been some trace of coinage in her room, unless of course any surpuss was taken by the killer?.
If the above is true then in my mind the killer was one of the lower classes, surely one of a higher class would not have bothered with poultry sums.
Also most importantly of all, would a killer down on whores ,who found their lifestyle so degrading steal money which he would have considered money from the devil.
I would say whoever the killer was , he would have been an opportunist and found prostitutes easy prey, and killed them for that purpose rather then some moralistic attitude.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott Medine
Police Constable
Username: Sem

Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 1:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard,

As far as i know no money was found on any of the victims. This leads me to believe that the killer helped himself to whatever money may have been on them, to include any money he paid them to have sex with them.

An important to also remember is that pretty much all prostitutes, then and now, are addicts. So anything earned would first go to feeding their addiction.

Peace,
Scott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Police Constable
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 6:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Its always difficult when trying to interpret witness statements to get at the actual fact. Thats not to say that all witnesses lie when making a statement its just that it does take several attempts to get it right.

In normal circumstances this is achieved by interviewing and re-interviewing the witness until a clear picture is formed. However when this is not possible, as in this case - all the witnesses being dead, you have to adopt a different approach. The statement must stand or fall on its own accuracy.

For example if we examine the statement of a witness and find a number of factual errors then that statement, if there is nothing else to corroborate the points raised, must be dismissed. That is not to say that the whole of the statement is incorrect - its just impossible to sort out which bits are correct.

In the case of Maurice Lewis I believe we have to dismiss his statement in its entirety. I can't find where he made his original statement and am relying on some research notes. If I get it wrong I apologise. Anyway here is his statement:

Lewis starts of be recalling he had seen MJK in the Hoirn of Plenty the Previous night. He says: She was there with a man called

"Dan, a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields market, with whom she lived with up to as recently as a fortnight ago."

Now however you look at it this statement is wrong. MJK did not live with a Dan she lived with a Joe. Joe had worked in the markets but had lost his job several months previously, so he certainly wasn't selling oranges. He also says she was drinking with a woman called Julia (Venturney) who lived in Millers Court. Julia Venturney does not make any mention of drinking with MJK in the Horn of Plenty the Previous night.

Now its quite possible that Lewis didn't mean Dan he meant Joe, or he meant that MJK was drinking with Joes brother Dan or that....... and so on. Unfortunately we cannot clear this up and so must reject Lewis as an unreliable witness.

Bob Hinton
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SirRobertAnderson
Police Constable
Username: Sirrobert

Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey Richard -

"If the above is true then in my mind the killer was one of the lower
classes, surely one of a higher class would not have bothered with
poultry sums. "

One word: trophies.

Sir Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Whitaker
Police Constable
Username: Kingjohn39

Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Bob,

I was reading the Casebook earlier and found a statement that might explain Lewis's confusion.

In the dissertation Is Truth Stranger Than Fiction, Dave Yost wrote, "Barnett had "been out of employment for the past 3 or 4 months;" hence, no means to "support them." In consequence, he changed jobs from fish-porter to laborer and fruit-porter,...."

Now I don't know if there is a difference between a fruit porter and someone selling oranges, but it does show a connection between Joe Barnett and fruit. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in Lewis's statements after all.

John

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 5:01 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Bob,
I can not agree with Lewis being an unreliable witness, nor Mrs Maxwell, they both state that they saw Kelly on the morning of the 9th.
All witness statements have to be taken as truth, unless they retract their statement , or are proven to be lying or mistaken..
The above is not the case.
I believe that people[ unless proven otherwise] should accept either.
1] Kelly was killed at a later date .
2] some other person was killed in her place.
Another point for Maxwells defence is she states she only knew the woman as Mary Jane, that is confimed by other people in Millers court.
Infact she was known more as Mary Jane M;carthy according to John M;carthy although he knew she sometimes used the name Kelly..
The possibility that she may have been related to John M;carthy may not be a long shot after all..
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 5:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Sir Robert,
Trophies..
Yes you are right the Ripper did take parts of the victims away , The Uterus would be a Trophie.but that does not mean he would take away the few pennys if they had any money on them, the theft of their body parts would I feel be his motive and would be sufficant..
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Whitaker
Police Constable
Username: Kingjohn39

Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 10:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Richard,

I believe what Sir Robert is refering to is the way that many serial killers take some small seemingly insignificant item from the victim or the scene. The killer will then use these items to help relive or replay his fantasy in his mind. Some of the items police have found in the possession of serial killers are drivers licences, stick pins, pieces of jewlery, hair accessories diaries, photos, make-up cases, etc... I don't think that organs would work as this kind of trophy because of decay. A few spare coins taken from a victim might have alot more value to a wealthy Jack than the money they represent.

John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi John,
I agree that serial killers take various possessions from their victims,
Even so, I would have thought it more likely that an item of clothing would have been more likely then small change.
I was just trying to determine what class of person are killer may have belonged , and If he had a hatred of prostitutes on moral grounds, and if the latter applied ; Would he handle money that was earned in sinful ways?.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Police Constable
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 1:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard,

I'm sorry I cannot possibly accept that all witnesses statements must be taken as truth - nothing could be further from reality. Ask any police officer and he/she will tell you that nothing is quite so unreliable as a witnesses statement.

Try and get hold of a book 'Analysing Witness Testimony' edited by Anthony Heaton-Armstrong. It reveals just how inaccurate witnesses are.

I think the problem you are having is believing that witnesses either tell the absolute truth or are lying. Nothing could be further from the fact. The vast majority of witnesses tell the truth as they see it which is not quite the same thing.

I remember one case I sat on where a witness gave a most detailed description of a man accused of burglary. When asked by the prosecution how he could see so clearly at two in the morning in a back street he said he had plenty of light from the street lamp. Unfortunately here I had to stop the case as I knew through local knowledge that the lamp referred to had been struck by a lorry and completely destroyed the day before the incident.

Had the witness lied? No his subconcious merely filled in the details his concious mind couldn't possibly have assimilated.

If you have a witness who makes a statement that contains factual errors, there is no other corroboration, and it is not possible to re-interview that witness (he's dead for instance) then the whole statement must be rejected even though certain portions of it might be correct Why? Simple because how can you tell which are the right bits!

Witness A sees a bank robbery. The robber is black, male, early twenties and carrying a revolver. He makes his getaway in a green Ford. The bank CCTV however shows a middle aged white man carrying a shotgun. A's testimony must be discarded. However witness B then pops up and says although he didn't see the robber well enough to describe the getaway car was a Green Ford. Here is corroboration of part of witness A's testimony and this part may be taken as correct. Without that the whole lot has got to be junked even if witness A was right about the car

Bob
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SirRobertAnderson
Police Constable
Username: Sirrobert

Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 5:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"A few spare coins taken from a victim might have alot more value to a wealthy Jack than the money they represent."

Exactly, John. Think what a thrill they'd give Jack jingling in his pocket.

Sir Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65

Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 7:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sir Bob, et. al.

Guys, even if Jack was a working laborer, he wouldn't have ignored money on the victims, particularly if he just gave it to them.

It wouldn't be a question of trophies. It'd be a question of actual money. Considering that what is the modern equivalent of less than one US dollar was the HIGH-END weekly wage of a fully employed laborer, Jack would not have ignored any money they had. Uteri are a much better trophy - you can't exchange them for food or a bed.

The fact that no money was found on the victims merely goes to elucidate (I just impressed myself with my vocabulary) the motives behind their prostitution: they were broke and unemployed. They were out there to get the few pennies (usually 3 or less, if I read my history correctly) they could get for a trick.

Scott was right - most of these women were alcoholics, and the first money they got went for ale, and the rest went for their bed.

And Bob Hinton is absolutely correct - witnesses are about as reliable as a Yugo. Even the best witness is only about as reliable as a Pinto - it runs pretty good, but watch out if you're hit from behind.

B
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Diana
Police Constable
Username: Diana

Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 9:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Getting back to the issue of a cold. I had pneumonia a few years ago and while I was in the hospital became extremely nauseated. They told me it was because I had swallowed a lot of the gunk ( pardon the grossification) from my respiratory system. Kelly probably wouldn't know the difference (I didn't either) between a bad cold and pneumonia. She thought beer would help but she brought it up. Then she tried milk to settle her stomach. Then she put on her chemise and went back to bed. If Kelly was that sick, then having a high fever at TOD would throw off calculations as to cooling. Ah -- I just thought of something. If she was having chills she might have lit that fire.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SirRobertAnderson
Police Constable
Username: Sirrobert

Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 11:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Guys, even if Jack was a working laborer, he wouldn't have ignored
money on the victims, particularly if he just gave it to them.

It wouldn't be a question of trophies. It'd be a question of actual
money."

That's hard to say, IMHO. We don't know where Jack lay in the economic food chain. My personal suspicion is that the money could well have been taken for trophies. I'd certainly wouldn't exclude that possibility that Jack took the money just for jollies.

Wouldn't you ?

Sir Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott Medine
Police Constable
Username: Sem

Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 8:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Any money Kelly would have had would have went, first and foremost, to feeding her addiction followed by food, clothing and shelter - - the latter three would not necessarily be in that order.

No money means present means two things, 1) she spent it or 2) it was taken. We know she didn’t use it to pay her rent as she was found that morning in an attempt to collect on the rent. So, if she spent it, she spent it on alcohol, food or clothing. We don’t know if she bought any new clothes as they were burned in the fire. We do know that food was found in her abdomen. We also have the statement from Maxwell stating that Kelly tasted her beer twice. We know that she was seen going into Miller’s court with a guy carrying a pale of ale. We have another statement stating that Kelly quite possibly bought milk. This could explain the money.

The only other choice is the killer took it, for what ever reason. In all my years of experience, I have never known a criminal to pass up money. Robbery may not be the motive for the killing, but if money is in plain view then its usually gone.

Peace,
Scott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 12:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Bob, Brian, Scott.
I can not entirely disagree, that witnesses can be unreliable, yet we have got to try and prove or disprove[ if possible?] the various statements that the witnesses in this baffling case made at the time, If we doubt all the statements made by all the witnesses we have no clues on which to advance, and that surely is the aim of everbody who posts to these boards..
Regarding the point about theft of money, I must say once again what I was intending to clarify.
I would assume if the killer was a member of the higher classes, he would not bother himself with taking a few pennies from his victim, but if he was of working class, he would take anything of value.
Scott.
You said In all my years of experience, I have never known a criminal to pass up money in plain view.. But surely Jack The Ripper was a insane sadistic killer, and especially after the carnage in Millers court would his mental state send him rummaging through Kellys belongings to find money?.
Regards Richard.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.