|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 12, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Was it really Mary Kelly?:
Archive through May 12, 2000
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 01:48 am |        | G'day Bob,
* Does your brother Andrew live in the same small neighbourhood and drink in the same pubs as you? The 'A-Z' says: 'Daniel's frequent residence at the same addresses as Joseph....'
* Joseph Barnett's inquest statement in the 'Daily Telegraph' goes like this:
"I was a fish-porter and I work as a labourer and fruit-porter". Check it out for yourself! What inquest statement are you reading from?
* The newspaper that Lewis's statement appeared in, was dated the 11th of November and says only: 'described as an orange seller with whom Kelly HAD RECENTLY LIVED'.
* When Barnett visited Kelly on the Thursday night, he told her that he had no money TO GIVE HER. That night he went to play whist and I'd say he allowed for this 'appointment' and perhaps saved a coin or two. The only existing reference to this alibi, is in 'The Daily Telegrapgh' of the 10th of November.
* In the 'Star' on the 10th of November, Barnett himself said that Kelly met with his brother Daniel, later on the evening of the 9th.
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 02:05 am | | G'day Bob,
We are also discussing the Lewis thing on the 'Joseph Barnett' board!
Leanne! |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 03:17 am | | Hi Leanne. Your quotes on Joe's occupation match the Daily Telegraph report which is posted on the main menu of Casebook. Bob's quotes match the original inquest depositions which I got from London. Don't mean to butt in, but this topic opens up an interesting question (for me anyway) ...
STEPHEN: Hi! Have you been re-united with your newspaper collection yet? How many editions a day did the Daily Telegraph and the London Times print a day? If usually only one edition, would they make exceptions and print additional editions on the days shortly after the murders, during the Autumn of Terror?
The London Times reports printed in Fatal Caress deviates greatly on some days from the reports on Casebook. I can't attribute it to editing by Fatal's publishers--because some of their paragraphs are longer than yours. I'd be grateful for any insight you can give.
Ashling |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 04:17 am | | Dear Leanne,
I feel you are still not answering the main question I pose in my post of 2000 May 8th.
The question is very straightforward and not designed to catch you out or trap you it is still this:
'Lewis apparently made a statement about seeing MJK in the Horn of Plenty. What if any of that statement is correct? The answer is nothing - unless you can show otherwise.
Daniel might have met MJK in the Horn of Plenty that night, I'm not disputing that - I simply do not know one way or the other - what I am saying is that if Lewis gets his basic facts about MJK so wrong (as evidenced by the statement) how far should we rely on his testimony? especially testimony about identification.
Ashling is correct I am quoting from the Inquest papers.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 08:40 am | | G'day Bob,
Let's make sure we are reading the same Lewis statement first: 'with some women and also with 'Dan', a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago'.
Lewis got the man's name wrong, but Daniel Barnett might have been there too. the man selling oranges, whom Kelly lived with is obviously Barnett. If it wasn't, then do you believe that someone else was living with Kelly 'a fortnight ago'?
This statement appeared on the 11th of November, the interview probably took place on the 10th. Barnett had left Kelly 10 days before.
If there is no truth in the 'Daily Telegraph' inquest report, why would they invent it?
I DIDN'T PUT IT THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leanne! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 09:22 pm | | Bob, you wrote,
"a. How well did she know Mary? On the 9th she states ' I have known deceased for the last four months....but have not seen her for the last three weeks' Later at the inquest she states ' ...I never spoke to her except twice' So in four months she has spoken to Mary twice, hardly the basis for an intimate knowledge of the woman. How accurate can we say her identification is of a person she only spoke to twice in all the time she knew her? In those four months how many hundreds, if not thousands of people had she met as the wife of a lodging house deputy?"
" she was known as Mary Jane and that since Joe Barnett left her she has obtained her living as an unfortunate..." From the written statement of Caroline maxwell to the police, November 9th. She apparently knew something about Mary Kelly and her circumstances.
If we assume that any information that Maxwell gives is false or from second hand sources and that she just wants to, "be a part of what was going on and wanted to insert herself into the picture.", then why would she do such a poor job of it? Admitting that she barely knew Kelly only adds a ring of truth to her story in my opinion. Claiming some close relationship to the victim would seem more in character with someone trying to "insert them self into the picture". I would use Catherine Picket as an example of this.
"b. Now lets have a look at her statements. On the 9th Maxwell describes Miss X as wearing a Green shawl. Mary Cox however states that the previous evening MJK was wearing a Red shawl. However at the inquest after Mary Cox has given her statement saying the shawl was red, Maxwell now changes her description. She too now describes the shawl as red (maroon) Now if Mary Cox can remember what the colour was from the Friday to the Monday it seems a little strange that Maxwell can't, especially as she has now changed the colour to match."
"The deceased wore a dark dress black velvet body, and coloured wrapper round her neck" From the written statement of Caroline maxwell to the police. No mention of the colour green.
"I think a clue to the inventiveness of Maxwell is to be found in the last line of her statement:
"a suspicious man accosted her. He carried a black bag" All that is missing is the twirling of the moustaches and the stropping of a large knife on the sole of his boot!" Perhaps, if Caroline Maxwell had actually said this, which she did not. You will find that it was Sarah Lewis who told the police,
"when in company with another female on Wednesday evening last at Bethnal Green, a suspicious man accosted her, he carried a black bag." From the written statement of Sarah Lewis to the police, November 9th.
Wolf. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 04:20 am | | Hi Bob,
on point a.: You do not need a close acquaintance with people to recognise them. For example as a woman in her mid twenties you can imagine how often I go outdoors until very late dark hours. If you go to a place regularly, you'll bump into many familiar faces whom you never have spoken to. But I still keep recognising them, in the supermarket, on the street, in a pub, in a dark dancing club, at the opposite side of a square.
You could answer to this, that I have an 'exceptional talent in recognising people'. But then I wouldn't be the only one. I could mention someone to friends while neither of us talked personally with this person before, while neither of us talked about such a person before, ... I could say something like "Well you know the one, with his dark long hair, a bit shabby looking, seems shy?" "Oh, you mean the one ..." "Yes, that's the one. I've seen him yesterday in the supermarket, and his grown a moustache now..." and then some other superficial talk about moustaches. Not only I can recognise a person whom I never talked too, but friends can recognise these same persons too, they can even pick the right one out with a very general description of mine without the living specimen standing in the neighbourhood. Are my friends (mixed gender) and I, the exquise club "exceptionally talented recognisers of people"? No we are not. We only live in a neighbourhood (and I live there only 5 months now) where a lot of people come outdoors, go to neighbourhood pubs, buy their food, go watch a movie, and who go dancing. Reminds me of everyday life in Whitechapel alright.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 05:54 am | | Dear Wolf
I'm sorry, you have got me totally confused. Are you saying that Maxwell did not say those things I attributed to her?
Can you explain then why her statement reads:
"....The deceased wore a dark dress black velvet body, and coloured wrapper around her neck green, a suspicious man accosted her. he carried a black bag"
Are you by any chance relying on the Smithkey version which contains many errors? Look at the original statement.
Jill I agree with you totally of course you can recognise people without neccesarily knowing their name, but that's where the problem comes in.
Let us say you meet a person using the same bus stop every day. You may never talk to them or know anything about them but you recognise them. Let us call this person A. Now one day you see him step off the pavement into the path of a car and he is severely injured. When you get to work you tell your friends, and in trying to identify him you describe him. Now your friend uses the same bus stop and there is a man there who fits the description and she says "I know him that's Mr Smith'
Now in your mind the person who has been injured is Mr Smith, but what if your friend has applied your description not to A but to B. The next day she turns up and there is B totally uninjured, how can this be?
Simple the person she thought of as A, who she labelled Mr Smith wasn't.
We've all done it applied an identity to a wrong person, thats why names are so usefull.
My contention is that Moris Lewis recognised a woman who in his own mind was MJK, but in fact wasn't. That's why when he labelled the Horn of Plenty woman MJK and gave details about her ALL THOSE DETAILS DID NOT APPLY TO MJK.
I notice that no one has yet answered my question 'What if any of Lewis's statement applies to MJK?' The answer still turns out to be nothing!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 06:54 am | | Hi Bob,
You got me there with the possibility of mix-up. But then Mrs. Maxwell had time enough before the inquest to find out such an error, since she had spoken with her twice. A lot of gossip went on those days, thus an error would be easily detected.
I have to inform you, you are mixing up two witnesses at the moment. I posted on Mrs. Maxwell, not Moris Lewis, and I believe Wolf did so too. That's why I did not answer your question about the importance of his statement. But I'll think about it.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 08:31 am | | BOB: As I've stated on these boards before, I do not believe Mrs. Maxwell or Maurice Lewis' statements. However, Wolf is correct in saying that Mrs. Maxwell did not say Mary's shawl was green.
I've been going crazy trying to figure out where you read your version ... but mystery solved at last. I have the original handwritten version from the Greater London Record Office, as I believe you do. However, you are missing, or have misplaced an entire page. (Perhaps in your move.)
The oddness of sentence structure you gave, and the fact that the Police Clerk who transcribed these statements took the last word on every page and repeated it at the top of the next page helped me solve the case of the purloined page. ;-)
The last two sentences on the second page of Mrs. Maxwell's statement read:
"black velvet body, and colored
wrapper round her neck"
That is the end of Maxwell's statement.
The next page is the beginning of Sarah Lewis' statement. The last paragraph on that page reads:
"Sarah Lewis further
said that when in company
with another female on
Wednesday evening last at Bethnel
Green"
The next page reads:
"Green, a suspicious man
accosted her he carried
a black bag."
Bob, if you can't find the missing page, e-mail me your snail mail address & I'll mail it to you. I have a scanner, but still haven't figured out how to use it.
Hope this helps end the confusion.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 09:05 am | | G'day Bob,
Aren't you reading my posts? I thought I answered your question about Lewis's statement!
Read it again, but this time put an 'and' where the comma is: 'With some women and also with Dan and a man selling oranges....'
Barnett sold oranges!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 09:16 am | | G'day again,
Barnett told the 'Star' on the 10th of November:
"............except that my brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her."
We all know his brothers name!
Leanne! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 03:00 pm | | Bob, yes that's exactly what I'm saying that Maxwell did not say those things you attributed to her. No I am not using the Smithkey version (that's kinda insulting Bob) but the official version from the Greater London Record Office.
Janice, impressive detective work!!!!! I doff my Saskatchewan Roughriders cap to you, you are absolutely right. Bob, you are either missing page 29 or you have transposed page 30/29. I hope your article in the Ripperologist wasn't partially based on this error.
Wolf. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 05:53 am | | Dear Everyone,
Another slice of humble pie!
I'm afraid that what has happened is even more confusing.
I don't have any missing pages but what seems to have happened is the clerk who photocopied the transcripts for me has for some reason put the last two and a half lines of Sarah Lewis's statement on the bottom of Caroline Maxwells statement so the copies I have read:
Page 33 Maxwells statement
"................round her neck green, a suspicious man accosted her. he carried a black bag.
Unfortunately because the same person wrote this and Sarah Lewis's statment the handwriting is the same and the join practically perfect.
I shall have to get another copy of these statements.
My apologies to everyone especially Wolf and my thanks to Janice for clearing up the mystery.
Leanne,
On your posting of the 9th you said "Lets make sure we are reading the same statement first '...with some women and also with Dan, a man selling oranges'
Now you change this to read"..........with Dan AND a man selling oranges ..........." which completely changes the meaning of the sentence. The first sentence means she was with one man, the second means she was with two men? Which is the correct version.
You again assert Barnett sold oranges and yet fail to show where this is verified. You apparently rely on a version printed in the Telegraph and far be it for me to say they are wrong, but when we have Barnetts own words in the inquest record, I think that prudence dictates we rely on the official version, after all how many different occupations were given in the papers to other players.
To answer your direct question, Yes I am reading your posts and nowhere do I read an answer to my question. What replies you are giving are matters of pure speculation. Yes he might have mixed up Joe and Daniel Barnett, but that doesn't make his error go away. Yes Joe might have won some money playing whist, he could also have found a purse of gold in the street or been handed it by a little green man from Mars.
Step back a bit, look at the statement from a purely neutral viewpoint and ask yourself what parts of the statement AS IT STANDS fit in with what we know or have very good reason to suspect is correct, about MJK. And whatever way you look at it nothing does.
Don't forget I have already stated that MJK might have met Daniel in the pub, I don't know if she did, that is irrelevant. What we are trying to establish here is how accurate Morris Lewis is in his recollections - and on present form not very good.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 07:31 am | | WOLF: Didn't realize you lived in Canada ... which puts you close enough to see me waving a mimosa tree frond back at ya from Alabama.
Another poster e-mailed me with a similar deduction shortly after I posted, so I only got to revel in feeling brilliant for a New York Minute. And this is as good a time as any to say thanks(!) to a regular poster here ... without their kind help, I wouldn't have original inquest testimony records to consult.
BOB: Maybe the clerk is a Mason and it's all a diabolical plot? ;-)
Regards,
Janice |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 10:18 am | | G'day Bob,
Do you think that the 'Daily Telegraph' made it up? Why would they? 'The Daily News' also made the same 'mistake': 'Barnett worked as a dover or hawker of ORANGES in the street.'
I don't understand your statement: 'Afterall how many different occupations were given in the papers to other players'. Are you saying that although Barnett was the first witness called, the newspaper notetakers got him mixed up with someone else, who wasn't even there?
The official shorthand taker, obviously missed this detail, and Barnett's stammering probably didn't help.
I only SUGGESTED that the word 'AND', could have fitted into his meaning.
Your sentence about 'little green men from Mars', I think was quite immature!
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 02:40 pm | | Never mind Bob , you should see the abuse I've been getting ! My head is now firmly below the parapet. I don't want to seem pushy , but would it be possible for you to find me those sources I requested , for the quotes on p.118 of ' From Hell ' ? With all the whizz-bangs going off around here its possible you may have forgotten all about me ! Captain S.J. Owen , 4th K.S.L.I. , on the Somme 1916. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 04:28 pm | | Hi, Leanne:
You have said several times in terms of the information in the contemporary newspapers, "Do you think that the 'Daily Telegraph' made it up? Why would they?"
Stewart Evans addressed the subject of the accuracy of contemporary newspaper reports in the interview I did with him in Ripper Notes (Vol. 1, No. 3, November 1999). I think his words of caution should be borne in mind by anyone looking for information in the newspapers and in assessing how accurate that information might be:
"As for using contemporary newspapers with caution, any researcher has to proceed with caution at all stages and with all sources. However, the official records should always be accepted as the best source in an area where they exist. Any relevant or important newspaper account being used, or developed in relation to a theory, should be checked out as thoroughly as possible against known facts, or factual sources, such as checking out the identity of people supplying stories against the census returns or directories. Where a story is shown to contain obvious factual errors, then other parts of the story which cannot be checked out should be avoided if possible."
I hope this helps. You are quite correct, Leanne, that the newspaper reporters are probably not purposefully making things up, but whether they are reporting the information correctly is a question that needs to be decided. It cannot be taken as a given that what they are reporting is accurate. The wild information about the mutilations reported in the press, e.g., Mary Jane Kelly's head severed from her body and so on, show that the newspapers could be, and often were, inaccurate in their reporting.
Chris George |
Author: alex chisholm
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 09:50 pm | | Hi Chris
Heaven forbid that I should differ on appropriate methodology from the sagacious Stewart, but, while I would be the first to caution against blind faith in the accuracy of newspaper reports, I would also advocate equal caution with regards to official records. The type of sensationally inaccurate story you cite certainly confirms that newspapers frequently printed any old nonsense in the first few days after a murder, but the coverage of inquests clearly cannot be compared with this type of reporting.
We have no option but to rely on press coverage of inquests where no official records are available. Indeed, even when all these records were still readily available, the Times and Telegraph coverage of inquests were deemed sufficiently suitable for inclusion in the Home Office files on the Whitechapel murders. But, where no official records now survive, as many different newspaper versions as possible should be compared, in order to determine if certain reports contain a little more probably reliable detail than others. This is the only way to even approach a fuller understanding of events. To my mind the same is true even when official records survive. The official inquest papers on Eddowes and Kelly are, after all, simply another set of notes. They do not provide full or fully accurate transcripts of every word spoken. Comparison between these official records and inquest coverage in the likes of the Telegraph and Times indicate that in general these sources broadly correspond well. Sometimes the official record gives a little additional detail, sometimes the press provide more information. As I see it neither type of source should be afforded a priori privileged status over the other. They need to be viewed in conjunction, then interpreted and assessed, in order to put together the fullest possible picture of events. Only when there is irreconcilable incompatibility or contradiction should absolute choices be made, in which case, all other things being equal, I would then suggest placing more reliance on official sources.
For me, however, the Telegraph report of Barnett’s testimony on occupation is not in any way incompatible with that in the official notes, it just contains additional detail. Detail which I seriously doubt the reporter covering events for that paper would have simply invented. The fact that it would appear to be such an insignificant detail, particularly at the time, perhaps explains why the official recorder, and some other newspaper reporters, deemed the unelaborated ‘labourer’ sufficient description of Barnett’s most recent employment.
So, while I wouldn’t place any great reliance in the accuracy of Maurice Lewis’ tale, I have to say, “You stick with the ‘fruit-porter,’ Leanne.” It seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me.
All the Best
alex |
Author: Bob Hinton
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 04:53 am | | Dear Everyone,
Ashling
I sent you an email to which I believe you replied but for some reason your message failed to reach me. Could you re-send please?
Simon
No I haven't forgotton you, could you please email me with your questions?
Leanne,
Thanks for your reply. I see you are continuing to miss my point, perhaps I am explaining it badly.
Lewis apparently made a statement. This statement AS IT STANDS is incorrect. This is a matter of fact. MJK did not live with a man called Dan, she lived with a man called Joe, the fact Joe had a brother called Dan or a great uncle with the same name is immaterial. Joe's occupation, using his own words in official records is a fish porter.
Now to make Lewis's statement correct you have to alter it. One way is to change the mans name to Joe and alter his occupation. That is the way you have chosen and you refuse to accept any other version.
The other way is to change the identity of the girl, in other words it is not MJK it is Miss X who could for all we know have been living with a orange seller called Dan.
Which is correct? WE DONT KNOW. But each is equally valid, and if we proceed along that path we will progress, but if we close our minds and insist that only our version is correct we will founder. That is what you are doing - you are refusing to accept any other version other than the one you have chosen. This is highlighted by your last posting. You wrote:
"The official shorthand taker OBVIOUSLY MISSED THIS DETAIL."
Why is it so obvious that an official shorthand taker is so open to error and yet a reporter is not?
Lewis called the man Dan he should have said Joe OBVIOUSLY HE MADE A MISTAKE.
Lewis said the man was an orange seller Joe states he was a fish porter, a reporter states he was an orange seller OBVIOUSLY JOES VERSION IS WRONG.
And so on. The only version you are willing to accept is your own. You also make assumptions with no basis in fact and plough on regarding them as gospel
eg. Some time back you posted about there being a bolt on MJKs door. Where did this information come from?
Morris Lewis was a tailor living in Dorset St
from this you state quite catergorically 'he was MJKs tailor'
The sentence about Dan a man selling oranges is incorrect, so to make it fit your theory you say stick an 'and' in there. When I ask you where this came from you say ' Oh well I made that up- but it might have been! Obviously the reporter missed this vital word.
Let me recap. Did MJK meet Joe Barnett in the pub that night? Did she meet Dan his brother? Was it in fact a completely different woman? Did Joe in fact sell oranges at some time? I have no idea but neither does anyone else. ALL versions are possible - but they are all immaterial.
What we are talking about here is Lewis's reliability as a witness. If he said what he is reported to have said then his accuracy is called into question as his statement DOES NOT FIT THE FACTS.
I hope that has now cleared up the situation. If not I think it would be best if you email me privately as I am sure this getting rather tedious to other posters.
To Alex and Chris George,
I wouldn't disagree with anything you say about the relevant accuracy of official records versus newspapers. In this instance though a seemingly unimportant piece of information about a mans occupation takes on a significance it wouldn't normally have as it helps establish the identity of the person being indicated.
If you look at how many different occupations are given to Hutchinson for instance you can get some idea of the problem.
all the very best
Bob Hinton |
|
|
|
|
