Archive through January 15, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through January 15, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Was it really Mary Kelly?: Archive through January 15, 2000

Author: anon Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 03:24 pm
It would be nice to see D. Radka apologise to Christopher-Michael.
Author: D. Radka Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 11:59 pm
There's a lot of envy on these boards, I see. I post an obvious crock of mirthfulness about my friend Christopher-Michael, and immediately there are people who think they've uncovered a flaw in my deductive reasoning. How could anyone actually believe that use of the term "au fait" deduces a connection? Some of these folks, I believe, HOPE that I have a reasoning defect. In the same spirit, let me now pompously point my crooked finger at Stewart P. Evans! Maybe HE is anon, Robert, John, and Alan! SOMEBODY has to be, after all. Mr. E hasn't been around lately--who knows what he's been up to. And if not Mr. Evans, then Mr. Yost! Henry LEE Lucas, LEE Harvey Oswald, David LEE Yost--get the connection? This LEE business tells quite a tale, if you ask me. LEE is related to murder in all these cases, and this web site is about the Whitechapel murders. Mr. Yost is a draftman working for a gas company--a suspicious connection if I've ever heard one. So there you have it. And speaking about Lee Harvey Oswald, who committed an eggregious murder in Texas, what say the mysterious Ms Diana Comer! She lives in Texas! A state full of oddballs if there ever was one. And doubly singular, this recent change of postings she's made. She used to post as "Diana Comer," and now its merely "Diana." Clearly culpable, in my view. And last but not least, that bizarre chap who calls himself The Gross Poet. I'd wager he'd be capable of anything, period. Except, perhaps, being smart enough to know what the deuce "au fait" means. And with that I'll climb into my sleigh and head out on my annual Christmas Eve rounds. It looks like a white Christmas is in the prospect, here in central Connecticut. And wherever you are, and whoever you may be, the best of holiday seasons to you! David
Author: anon Friday, 24 December 1999 - 02:03 am
The space cadet has taken off - owing a few more apologies.
Author: Diana Friday, 24 December 1999 - 07:31 am
Merry Christmas, David. I'm originally from Wisconsin. However, I won't contest that I may be an oddball. The reason jokes sometimes are taken literally is because our medium here, print does not allow us to use the voice inflections which tip someone off that we're just kidding. That's why we have to be just a tad more circumspect when we joke at another's expense. Your last posting made me laugh and laugh. After I get off these boards, I'm going to go bake Christmas cookies for my family, dripping with butter, sugar and spices, designed to send the taste buds into ecstasty and you don't get any!!!
Author: Diana Friday, 24 December 1999 - 07:34 am
Oops, sorry, that last message had absolutely nothing to do with Mary Kelly.
Author: Tricia Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 11:28 am
Hello everyone, I am currently reading 'Jack the Ripper. The inquest of the final victim - Mary Kelly' by John Smithkey lll. I am enjoying the book but even though he reproduces the autopsy report I still cannot find the answer to a question which has been niggling me for a while. Was the height of the body on the bed measured ? All the heights of the previous victims were recorded but I can find nothing for MJK. The majority of witnesses describe MJK as tall, about 5'7", and stout. 5'7" was quite tall for a woman at that time so if the body on the bed measured about this height then it would add more weight to the fact that it was MJK. It doesn't mean that it was her but the chances of there being another women of that height in the area at that time would be small considering the average height for women was 5' to 5'3". If the height of the body on the bed was around average height then a) it might not indeed have been MJK or b) MJK was smaller than witnesses described her. I cannot understand why the height of the body was not recorded but maybe it was and I have missed the report. Can anyone shed some light on this mystery ? Tricia
Author: Bob_C Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 01:50 pm
Hi Tricia, Good point. I haven't heard about her being measured for height either, and it is true that Kelly was alleged to be about 5' 7", which indeed was tall for a woman then. The others were recorded as to height, Kelly evidently not, or can someone throw light on this? Best regards, Bob
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 03:55 am
Dear Everyone, Speaking from memeory, which I agree isn't the best thing to do, I believe only one person described her as tall and that was Morris Lewis. I believe the other descriptions have her at about 5'3". It is my personal belief that the person Morris Lewis believed to be Mary Kelly wasn't. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Wolf Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 04:26 pm
Hello all, back from the dead, actually some horrible affliction called the 'A Sydney virus', and the computer repair shop. Happy New Year. Bob, it was actually Elizabeth Pheonix, Mrs Carthy's sister who claimed that MJK was 5'7" tall. She never saw the body, but believed from the description in the papers that she knew her from her time living at her sisters house. Interestingly, Elizabeth Prater discribed Mary as being "tall and pretty" while Caroline Maxwell said that she was "a pleasant little woman" and Walter Dew recalled that she was, "a short dumpy woman but quite attractive." I guess you can take your pick. Wolf.
Author: Ashling Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 09:58 pm
Hi all! WOLF: Can you give chapter and verse on the source of your Dew quote, please? The descriptions of Mary below are from Sugden (some of which I�ve also read in the inquest records) ... and I�d be most appreciative of any additional info on Mary�s appearance. Walter Dew: �Usually in the company of two or three of her kind, fairly neatly dressed and invariably wearing a clean white apron, but no hat.� Mrs. Phoenix: about 5�7� in height, of rather stout build, blue eyes, a very fine head of hair, which reached nearly to her waist Elizabeth Prater: tall and pretty, fair as a lily, a very pleasant girl - �seemed to be on good terms with everybody.� Caroline Maxwell: a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale ... �She spoke with a kind of impediment.� By the way, it is Caroline Maxwell�s description of Mary�s speech which clinches my belief that Mrs. Maxwell had Mary confused with one of the other residents or frequent visitors to Miller's Court. The mind boggles at the possibility of the neighbors listening to Mary and Joe stuttering at each other, struggling to hurl insults during their drunken fights ... yet the neighbors leave this detail out when relating the saga of the broken windows to the police. However, I am content to agree to disagree on the time of Mary�s death. ;-) Thanks, Janice
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 06:50 am
Hi all, Just a bit about Barnett and drunken fights. Where is Barnett stated as being a drunkard? The only description I've heard about Barnett was that he was respectable. I'm not suggesting he was a monk, but what evidence suggests that he was a violent, drunken quarreler? Kelly herself was described as being noisey and troublesome when drunk, but otherwise a quite, pleasant girl. Is the same sort of description to apply to Barnett? Where do we hear that he was quarrelsome, or always or even regularly drunk? Even that which has been often stated, that Kelly's window was broken during a quarrel, is probably not true. It was only stated that Kelly broke the window 'when drunk'. They did get chucked out of an earlier accomadation 'because of drunkenness and other troubles' Who was drunk? Both, only Barnett, only Kelly? The bit about Kelly being short (Maxwell) does seem to be questionable, as does the reported sighting of Kelly by this witness on the morning of the 9th. As far as can be judged, Maxwell, who's testimony was different to all others (as remarked by MacD)may well have been mistaken. Barnett didn't stutter. It was reported that he had echolalia, because he is supposed to have repeated the last words of a question directed at him, but that was evident only at the inquest and anyone who is nervous, as Barnett would have been, could do that. Even then there is no real evidence that it occurred. Newpaper gossip is unreliable at the best of times. I have sometimes read newspaper accounts where I myself were present at the occaision, and find that the reporter must have been at the wrong do. Best regards Bob Best regards Bob
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 06:50 am
Hi all, Just a bit about Barnett and drunken fights. Where is Barnett stated as being a drunkard? The only description I've heard about Barnett was that he was respectable. I'm not suggesting he was a monk, but what evidence suggests that he was a violent, drunken quarreler? Kelly herself was described as being noisey and troublesome when drunk, but otherwise a quite, pleasant girl. Is the same sort of description to apply to Barnett? Where do we hear that he was quarrelsome, or always or even regularly drunk? Even that which has been often stated, that Kelly's window was broken during a quarrel, is probably not true. It was only stated that Kelly broke the window 'when drunk'. They did get chucked out of an earlier accomadation 'because of drunkenness and other troubles' Who was drunk? Both, only Barnett, only Kelly? The bit about Kelly being short (Maxwell) does seem to be questionable, as does the reported sighting of Kelly by this witness on the morning of the 9th. As far as can be judged, Maxwell, who's testimony was different to all others (as remarked by MacD)may well have been mistaken. Barnett didn't stutter. It was reported that he had echolalia, because he is supposed to have repeated the last words of a question directed at him, but that was evident only at the inquest and anyone who is nervous, as Barnett would have been, could do that. Even then there is no real evidence that it occurred. Newpaper gossip is unreliable at the best of times. I have sometimes read newspaper accounts where I myself were present at the occaision, and find that the reporter must have been at the wrong do. Best regards Bob
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 06:52 am
Oops! I wasn't shouting Bob
Author: Leanne Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 06:37 pm
G'day Bob, Barnett himself, stated to 'Lloyds Newspaper' on November the 11th, that he and Kelly were 'evicted from their room at Paternoster Row for 'going on a drunk' instead of paying their rent. Paley was of the impression that Kelly would often go out drinking with her friends, but without Barnett, because he had to be up at 4am for work at Billingsgate. Barnett explained at Kelly's inquest: 'One minute rowing, and then for days & weeks always friendly. Often I bought her gifts.' Barnett lost his job at Billingsgate, just before Nicholls was murdered. According to the market bylaws, the prime causes of dismissal were theft, drunkeness and abusive language or behaviour. The newspaper reports that noted Barnetts 'stammering', during his testomony include: 'The Illustrated Police News', 'The Daily Chronicle' and the 'Cardiff Times & South Wales Weekly News'. LEANNE!
Author: Ashling Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 09:03 pm
LEANNE: Well said! I knew you had all the info to answer Bob C's points. BOB C: To clarify my statements - I said nothing about Joe Barnett being physically violent - my "hurling insults" implied argumentativeness, which I based on such quotes as Leanne gives above. The windows could have been broken intentionally or by accident as they stumbled about, engrossed in a heated "discussion." Mary & Joe's landlord at Miller's Court, John McCarthy, said "they" broke the two windows. In his inquest testimony, Joe describes the night he met Mary & the beginning of their relationship: "I picked up with her in Commercial Street Spitalfields the first night we had a drink together* and I arranged to see her the next day and then on the Saturday we agreed to remain together ..."* Many folks nowadays understand heavy drinking is a symptom of the disease of addiction, but such enlightened thinking was less wide-spread in the 19th century. Reading the Stride inquest & seeing how the court & police riduculed the drunken Michael Kidney - gives some insight into why many East Enders tried to downplay the extent of their drinking. With one breath a neighbor describes a JtR vic as being of "sober habits" & then turns around & describes how they acted when drunk. This type of testimony runs through all the cases. I don't think we would go far wrong by taking whatever anyone said of Mary & Joe's drinking & multiplying that by 10! Best regards, Janice
Author: Bob_C Friday, 14 January 2000 - 06:59 am
Hi all, .. and so the wheel is simply turned again. I ask once again, where is my "Just a bit about Barnett and drunken fights. Where is Barnett stated as being a drunkard? The only description I've heard about Barnett was that he was respectable. I'm not suggesting he was a monk, but what evidence suggests that he was a violent, drunken quarreler?" answered? I stated myself that they had been evicted for i.e.drunkeness before. Barnett had to get up at 4.00 a.m. for work, however. Do you think he could afford to booze all night? He had no 8 hour day. 12 hours per day were not unusual, and that included Saturdays. I said that Barnett 'did not stutter', I did not say he 'did not stammer'. There is a big difference. He may well have stammered at the inquest. I could have done so too under such circumstances, as for many of the rest of us. The window was reported by a purported witness as being broken 'some weeks back by Kelly when she was drunk' MacCarthy didn't claim to be a witness and is therefore only quoted as saying 'they'. Did he say 'Barnett and Kelly broke it?. I do not hold Barnett as some sort of hero, he had his faults like any other, but I do try to stemm some of the completely unsubstantiated and supposition-based attacks on his character 'as indicated by the evidence available'. I also try to do it for others. Best regards Bob
Author: PT Friday, 14 January 2000 - 09:41 pm
Hi Everyone! Hope you all had a good Christmas and New Year! Having read all the postings since I was last here, can I just say one thing. I have been tracing my family history and, believe me, the Victorians got things wrong, BIG TIME! Lots of you have said that Barnett could have been misheard, that is possible, in fact, coupled with the fact that nobody was very good at writing down anything properly, it is possible that he was misquoted or that a spelling mistake occurred. In searching for my Great Grandfather, born 1873, Jesse Hopcroft, I have come across at least 5 ways of spelling his name, from Jessie, instead of Jesse (and that was 1940!) to Hopcraft instead of Hopcroft and so on and so forth. Mary Kelly was often referred to as Marie, quite a few of the witnesses were permanently drunk, I'm not surprised there was confusion! Mind you, can't be as confused as the film I've just watched called "The Ripper", according to them Annie Chapman was the first victim, then the double event occurred and when they showed the witness to the double event, photographs of the bodies, Mary Kelly's crime scene photograph was already amongst them! On top of all this, the witness' friend was murdered and the murderer was none other than...Prince Albert, his psychopathic madness brought on by syphillus! There were loads of other things that were wrong, but I won't go into that now. There are an awful lot of things that we do not know about the case. One of them is exactly what Mary Kelly looked like. Does anyone know of a photograph of her as she was when she was alive? That would be useful for comparison.
Author: Ashling Friday, 14 January 2000 - 09:46 pm
BOB C: You wrote - "The only description I've heard about Barnett was that he was respectable." --- Primary source, please. Thanks. "Do you think he could afford to booze all night? He had no 8 hour day. 12 hours per day were not unusual, and that included Saturdays." --- Gee, you think maybe that's why his boss fired him? ;-) See Leanne's post above, as to the 3 main reasons Market employees got fired. {"Did he say 'Barnett and Kelly broke it?"} --- No, actually John McCarthy said "the deceased and Joe." {"I said that Barnett 'did not stutter', I did not say he 'did not stammer'."} --- The Illustrated Police News, Nov. 17, 1888, The Inquest - viewable on Main Menu of Casebook: "Joseph Barnett then deposed - 'I was originally a fish porter ...' The witness spoke with a stutter, and evidently laboured under great emotion." Bob, I believe Leanne & I have cited evidence from 1888 sources of Barnett being argumentative & a drunk. (Sources independent of any conclusions or suppositions made by any modern day writers.) Speaking only for myself, I never said Joe was violent. As skimpy as the facts currently knowable on this case are - there's still a mountain of tiny details to wade through. Folks with access to original newspapers may be able to offer us additional help on Barnett. Best regards, Janice
Author: Wolf Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 01:44 am
Ashling, I believe that the quote comes from Dew's book, I Caught Crippen, this is from our friend Bob Hinton's book, From Hell, but since there are no footnotes (ahrrrrg, curse you Hinton!) it is hard to say with certainty. My own copy disappeared some time ago but I will attempt to check this fact. One other thing, Caroline Maxwell said, in both her written statement to Abberline and in her inquest testimony, that she knew Kelly and Barnett and that Mary had been forced to go on the street when Barnett had left her. It is doubtful that she therefore had confused Kelly with someone else. Bob C., if the reports of Barnett repeating the last words spoken to him at the inquest are true, and there are several newspaper examples of this, then Barnett, without a doubt, suffered from echolalia. it is true that it may not be apparent at all times but it can appear at times of stress or excitement or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. You are right about the broken window, Julia Venturney told Abberline that it was Kelly who had broken the window while drunk. Wolf.
Author: Verbatim Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 02:41 am
Mrs Maxwell, "I knew the deceased for about four months. I believe she was an unfortunate. On two occasions I spoke to her." The Coroner, "And you say you had only spoken to her twice previously; you knew her name and she knew yours?": Mrs Maxwell, "Oh, yes, by being about in the lodging house."