Archive through December 22, 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 December 22, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The fire in Kelly's room.: Archive through December 22, 2000

Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 02:53 pm
As a side note, it should be mentioned that William Beadle, in his excellent "JTR: Anatomy of A Myth," postulates a 10.00am death for Kelly, thus making the Lewis and Maxwell sightings of her correct. His argument is basically a simplified version of Bond misreading the time of death and not taking into account the chill air, removed window for photography, the splayed condition of the body, &c.
Author: Guy Hatton Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 04:05 am
Hi Simon - Actually, it's not so much that Phillips was "right" about Kelly, and "wrong" about Chapman, but that his T.O.D. estimate in each case, although maybe not spot on, was not wildly inaccurate either! Regarding the Chapman inquest - you could be right about the reasons for his revised viewpoint, but I'm tempted to suggest that, had Phillips really been completely confident of his estimate, he would have stood by it despite the apparently conflicting witness evidence - but who's to say? All the Best Guy
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 04:40 am
G'day Simon, If the 'murderers' did wait for Elizabeth Prater 'to go out in the morning, before striking', then he or they must have known that she was due to leave her room at 5am, to go to the 'Ten Bells'. He (or they), must have been a one time resident of Millers Court and known this was a 'habit' of hers. On the other hand, Maybe Kelly's ceiling was made of glass! Maybe that's why they had to cover her face with a sheet (to hide what they were doing)! Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 05:01 am
G'day again Si! What notes are you reading from, re Mary's inquest? I remember reading a comment of yours about Kelly not drinking for two weeks, prior to her death. My notes say: 'Mary Anne Cox: '..."I last saw her alive on Thursday night, at a quarter to twelve, VERY MUCH INTOXICATED". JILL: Cox also said: "At a quarter past six, I heard a man going down the court". Coroner: "Did you hear the door bang after him?" "No". Jill, are you willing to believe that Kelly's door just needed to be pulled to, in order to lock? Or maybe you'd rather believe Simon's wayout theory that a skeleton key was used! In 1888, when they were still hand carving keys! Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 06:02 am
G'day, How's this: Barnett leaves Kelly at 8p.m. after telling her that he had no money to give her. "I'll see if I can win some tonight, me friends and I are meeting to play a game of whist. I'll see if I can win some and return at about 2am". Excited, Kelly goes outside at 2 and tries to bludge money for a drink, to have while waiting. Hutchinson sees Kelly approach a man, (or did he approach her), who says something to make her laugh. "It's only me dear, in this disguise. I was guarding you." or "I wanted to surprise you. Lets go to our room, and I'll show you what I won." "ALL RIGHT!" "YOU'LL BE ALRIGHT FOR WHAT I'VE TOLD YOU!" The man puts his hand on her shoulder and they immediately walk back to Kelly's room. Barnett was 5ft7 and Hutchinson's man was 5ft6 or 7. Sarah Lewis: "When I went into the court (2:30am), opposite the lodging house, I saw a man with a wideawake. He was a stout looking man and not very tall...This man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for someone". Waiting for Kelly to come out and meet him. Leanne
Author: Jill De Schrijver Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 06:16 am
Hi Simon, Leanne, Leanne- Actually, I have no real opinion about it for the moment, since I have not fully thought through this matter. But to try and satisfy your question... I don't need to 'bang' my door in order to let it spring in its lock, just pull it close, it merely 'clicks'(How silently it could close, while my parents were sleeping, in the age of cerfews and I got in too late ). But ... then that's a modern lock, and I have not done any material investigation of how locks of the previous century worked, looked like and made noise. Although as industrial designer and with intrest in this case, I better should. Anyway, thanks for the information: if the door could be closed by just pulling it in its lock, it certainly should have been a lock that wasn't in need of a bang. Simon- I was merely pointing out that there are alternatives to the skeleton key notion in a very long discussion about the missing key and what possible locks were on the door and how easy it would have been for Mary to unlock the door through the window. I did not participate in it, for reasons mentioned above -> I'm no lock expertise. Just thought you would have a nice read. Cheers, Jill
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 07:13 am
If the door had a bolt then it would be simple to just reach through the window and draw the bolt to to close the door. If Kelly's door had a Yale lock ( invented early 1880s ) then it would simply be necessary to shut the door to lock it. A skeleton key could have been made to lock the door otherwise. It didn't need someone to have lived in Miller's Court to guess that noise from below could be heard through the ceiling. The killer could watch from the street for Mrs Prater to appear and then move quickly into the court for the kill. To be honest , it wasn't necessary for Prater to be out - the killer bumping around could have been taken for MJK bumping around below. But a killing at 6am explains why she heard nothing.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 08:21 am
William Beadle may have put the killing circa 10am to fit in with the last sighting of Kelly , but that would be stretching the medical evidence very far indeed. Kelly would have had to be chatted up in the Britannia and walked back to her room , say 5 minutes at least and then another few minutes for the killing. Thus lets say the killing is at 10.07am. Indian Harry Bowyer arrives at 10.45am to collect the rent : this only gives the killer 38 minutes to conduct the massive mutilations on Kelly and then escape. Remember he has to place the organs in their positions too. It would take rigor mortis one hour to commence in a very warm room , but Kelly had lost a lot of blood which would have delayed the onset of rigor somewhat. Thus a time of 10am for TOD would be stretching things a great deal I'm afraid. A TOD of 10am doesn't explain the following anomalies either : why was the victim in her nightdress ? Why did the killer light a fire in the grate ? How did the fire manage to burn out in 35 minutes if it was so large and how did it manage to melt the spout from the kettle ?
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 08:39 am
Here is an explanation for who may have been killed in place of Kelly : " A young woman called Kennedy claimed in the newspapers to have gone into Miller's Court to visit her parents at 3.30am. She saw a woman who may have been Kelly standing with either one man or two , and another older woman standing in the background. No other women came forward to say they had been in the Court at the time , making it almost certain that it was Kelly whom Kennedy saw. " ( Fairclough p.235 ). It was thus the older woman whom Kennedy saw who was killed.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 09:56 am
'sobvious Simon. That 'older woman' was none other than JtR, disguised as the local abortionist, come to do Kelly a 'favour'! :-) Love, Caz
Author: lee donovan Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 01:55 am
Caroline If it was the older woman that was killed, what ever happened to Mary Kelly, and why did Joseph Barnett identify the body as MK? Buy Lee
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 04:08 am
Check out the ' Was it really Mary Kelly ? ' board for more information on this fascinating subject Lee ! I think - as do Melvyn Fairclough and Joseph Tully - that there was some sort of a police coverup in this case. Its possible that the police found the real Mary Kelly still alive , but they didn't want the killer to find out so they ran with the story that the dead woman in Miller's Court was Kelly. This explains why the inquest on Kelly was so short , why the police avoided having Baxter as the coroner ( he would ask too many questions ) , why Maurice Lewis and Mrs Maxwell saw Kelly still alive between 8am-10am , why the body was dressed in a nightdress as if she had been asleep , why Kelly's aunt Nora O'Brien got a postcard from Canada from Mary Kelly at Christmas 1888 saying she was alright. Joe Barnett did what he was told or else he couldn't recognise the body due to the terrible mutilations. Naturally those who believe Joe Barnett was the killer( and there are many from Bruce Paley and Paul Harrison downwards ) won't be happy with this , but it is the most logical answer at the end of the day. If there was no police cover up , then ask yourself this : Mary Kelly was seen by several witness at the Ringer's pub on the morning when she was supposed to be dead. Yet from the evidence we have it seems that the police never visited or took a statement from the Ringers to confirm this , and the Ringers did not appear at the amazingly-short inquest. If Wynne-Baxter had been the coroner , he would have asked ' Why not ? '. Yet I refuse to believe the police were so incompetant they failed to follow up this lead , especially when it was Abberline in charge and who took Mrs Maxwell's statement. It must be a cover-up , its the only explanation.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 04:50 am
Sorry Lee, I was having a bit of fun with my post to Simon about the older woman being our saucy Jacky. I believe it WAS MJK who died, and that Barnett could not have failed to recognise the woman he had known and loved. First reaction when confronted with the news of a dead loved-one is often denial. If the body was not MJK's, there is no way Joe would have wanted it to be. Therefore he would have been overcome with relief to be able to say, "No, that's not my gal." Love, Caz
Author: Harry Mann Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 05:42 am
If Kelly was in the Britannia at 10a.m.,and she was the victim at Millers Court,we have the same problem as Hanbury st,but more so.How did the murderer pass through the streets in a blood stained condition without drawing attention to himself.Druit especially had quite a way to go,but so too did other suspects,and this time there could be no question as to how light it was.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 05:58 am
Harry , 10am is much too late as a time of death as I have pointed out earlier : it seems to have been put forward by William Beadle as an explanation to how Kelly was seen in the Britannia , without taking into account much of the medical evidence. Jean Overton Fuller states " The mutilations performed on the body of Mary Kelly would have required considerable physical strength and , it has been estimated , must have occupied at least two hours " ( ' Sickert and the Ripper Crimes ' , p.58 ). Even if we assume that this is an overestimate , the killer did not even have half this time. He had about 40 minutes before Indian Harry Bowyer arrived to collect the rent at 10.45am. It is my assertion then that a time of death around 5am to 6am is more likely , giving the killer an hour and a half say to complete the mutilations.
Author: lee donovan Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 07:38 am
Simon If it was a cover up as you suggest, then would it not be fair to say that the police perhaps did not want to catch JtR. I don't believe this to be true, but maybe they could have used MJK to bring JTR out into the open and cath him/her once and for all. Cheers Lee
Author: lee donovan Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 07:41 am
Caz If it was MJK's body, what are your thoughts on the police conspiracy to cover up the fact that MJK was still alive and were protecting her from the Ripper. Let us know Lee
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 08:04 am
Let's be careful about estimating the length of time required for the mutilations. Pathologist Dr. Iain West is on record as saying that the Eddowes mutilations could have been achieved in 2-3 minutes. Although a much more extensive job was done on Kelly, it probably still doesn't account for anything like 2 hours by West's yardstick. All the best Guy
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 09:42 am
Hi Lee, I'm afraid I don't believe there were any police conspiracies or cover ups as such. I think an unknown serial killer murdered Kelly in her room, after having killed at least three other women out on the streets. That's about it really. Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 10:01 am
G'day Simon, Jill, Guy, Harry, everyone, Landlord MaCarthy couldn't afford to have a spare key, to open the door and save it from distruction, the morning Kellys body was found. How then, could he afford to have the latest design Yale lock installed? This would have been a luxury in Spitalfields! During that long debate we had about the key, I remember someone performing an experiment and concluding that for a person of Kellys height, this wouldn't have been 'simple to reach', especially with the window holding all that broken glass! I agree that the recorded and accepted TOD is a worry. Her inquest only went for one day! JILL: as an Industrial Designer, what are the chances of you looking into the locks of the end of the last centrury? Keep in mind that this was in Spitalfields, where people were lucky if they scored a bed for the night! SIMON: The woman called Kenedy, may have just wanted to get her name in the newspaper. I could say: "I MAY have seen Elvis Presley, in George Street Sydney, yesterday!" The 'other woman', probably never came forward to own up, because the whole of London was scared. Why didn't any of the men, seen by eyewitnesses in the other cases, come forward to claim their innocense? Kelly may have lied to Barnett, about being pregnant, to another man, to get rid of him, so he gave her one, (in his style.) Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 10:14 am
G'day again, About the possibility of Kelly really being pregnant: In William Stewarts 1939 book: 'Jack the Ripper', he mentions that he saw a report by Dr. Bagster Phillips, revieling that Kelly 'was in the early stages of pregnancy'. 20 years later, Colin Wilson mentions seeing such a document too, but there is no longer any trace of it. Looking at my inquest notes: George Bagster Phillips gave a discription of what he saw, when he entered Kelly's room. The jury had no questions to ask and understood that more detailed evidence, would be given at a future hearing. Then they took an adournment. Julia Vanturney was heard next. Hey, if Kelly's murder did happen at 10am, then 'Jack' must have known that Harry Bowyer was due to try and collect the rent! Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 06:14 pm
G'day Everyone, I'm going away for the weekend, so after this afternoon, I wont be able to join you in this discussion. First thing on Monday, (Sunday night for you), I'll be back! So behave wont you?!!!! Leanne!
Author: Neal Glass Friday, 31 March 2000 - 01:34 am
Hello folks, I did a keyword search and was taken to a remark by Caroline referring to the Ripper in drag as an "abortionist". I guess she was replying to Simon. My key word was "abortion", and I'm just trying to get current here on how respectable the old story of Mary Kelly being pregnant is anymore. There's nothing about it on this site anywhere that I can find. And even though I am not done reading Sugden, he doesn't seem to have anything to say about it. What happened to this side of the tale?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 31 March 2000 - 02:52 am
Oh Gawd, Neal, another of my poor taste jokes come back to haunt me. :-) When Simon mentioned the two men with Kelly and an 'older woman' hanging around in the background, it reminded me of another murder victim (can't remember who, but it was not one of the canonnynonnycals, and it's somewhere in the casebook victims info, not the message boards), where a witness talks about seeing a woman with a red shawl lurking in the vicinity. The pregnancy issue crops up from time to time, but like you, I could not find a subject heading about it. I don't think there was any medical evidence to point to Kelly being pregnant. But for those of you conspiracy theorists out there who think she was preggers but did not die in No.13, remember Mrs.M pitying the 'condition' of the Kelly look-alike, throwing up IN THE MORNING!! ;-) Love, Caz
Author: Jeffrey Friday, 31 March 2000 - 03:45 am
Hello Everyone ! There are a few postings here that mention the apparent haste in which they felt the Kelly inquest was carried out, and using this point to indicate further cover-ups, conspiracies or whatever. I would think that the other inquests into the Ripper victims were further away from the norm than the Kelly one. Inquests are held to determine the cause of death only. They are not trials, and they are not held to try and identify the killer. As with the other inquests, a verdict of "wilful murder against some person or persons unknown" (or some such wording) is brought in. It is the circus atmosphere created by those such as Wynne Baxter that I would question. Why would an inquest go on for days and days, and say, as in the case of Polly Nichols for example, why would the inquest be adjourned for two weeks ? I think this is a much better question. Would they believe that they might come up with a different verdict at the end of the day ? The police investigation needed to be conducted as quickly as possible. I am sure any investigator would tell you the longer time a trail is given to go cold, the more difficult it is to follow up any lead. The discovery of Nichols' body was treated quite matter-of-factly by both PC Neil and Dr. Llewellyn, the true extent of the mutilations were only doscovered the following day. Yet the inquest was a major media event. I find this aspect a little confusing. I have no trouble with the Kelly inquest. As it is, the other inquests revealed too much information to the public, and I believe contributed to the difficulty in the police continuing their investigations proper. The police, because of the publicity given, and the actions of Coroner Baxter were placed directly into the media spotlight, and were under a public microscope throughout the entire period. This couldn't have helped the investigations at all. There are still many good questions surrounding the Kelly murder, why was she allowed to accumulate such rent arrears (a massive amount in 1888), when taken in comparison, poor women such as Nichols and Chapman were placed directly into harms way for the sake of four-pence, or lack thereof. Anyway, I think the Kelly inquest was one of the only ones that was held properly. Enough evidence was presented to determine the cause of death, the police then were allowed to continue their investigations. I was looking again at the Kelly picture in Pam Ball's book. You can see quite clearly the fracture in the thigh-bone. This looks as though the bone goes one way, then is split and bent back on itself. This would have taken considerable force, and I believe it was Nick Warren (?) who indicated that it would have taken something like an axe to perform this injury. Certainly a great deal of force was used, and an axe was found I believe, near the door ? That is one thing I believe should have been cleared up at the Kelly inquest, yet is not mentioned. Many Regards Jeff D
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 31 March 2000 - 03:48 am
Was the victim pregnant ? The idea comes from William Stewart's book ' Jack the Ripper : A New Theory ' published in 1939 , Stewart suggested it was a midwife who was doing the killing. He took the idea from several contemporary newspapers that Mary Kelly was pregnant , but he also had a document signed by Bagster-Phillips which stated Kelly was three months pregnant. Colin Wilson also saw this document 20 years later but its present whereabouts are unknown. Nevertheless , Dr Bonds autopsy notes would surely have referred to the fact had it been true thus we can assume Mary was not pregnant when she was killed.
Author: Jeffrey Friday, 31 March 2000 - 06:15 am
Good point Simon ! Mary Kelly was not pregnant ! We should only consider our theories on the few facts that we do have. Jeff D
Author: Neal Glass Friday, 31 March 2000 - 01:44 pm
Simon and Jeffery, I am fine with Mary Kelly not being pregnant, so long as she wasn't. And I am familiar with the Jill the Ripper scenario. But Rumbelow talks very matter-of-fact about Barnett saying Mary was pregnant. So what happened to that over the years? As far as the autopsy being the last word, it would not mean mean much if the woman had had an abortion that night. And considering the bloody mess the body was in, then who could say if she had been pregnant or not? There is also the issue of whether Mary actually was seen after she was supposed to have been murdered, which still gets mentioned. What I'm trying to hunt down is why this side of Rumbelow, the pregnancy issue, has gone by the wayside. Thanks, Neal
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Friday, 31 March 2000 - 02:04 pm
I wonder if Mary Kelly's alleged pregnancy - and the fact that she owed all those weeks of back rent - may be related. It would certainly go a long way in explaining why her landlord was so lenient. However, I prefer to think the landlord's leniency was a result of the promise of some future (or perhaps current) "payments" made by Mary Jane. Both solutions are admittedly speculative, but not altogether uncommon. Personally, I do not believe she was "up the pole" at the time of her death.
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 01 April 2000 - 04:55 am
A lot is made of the fact that Kelly was behind with the rent.It should read Barnet and Kelly as they had both occupied the room as a couple for 8 months.On Barnet leaving Kelly may have come to some agreement with McCarthy on retaining the room. While 30 shillings was a fair sum,it is reasonable to expect an ultimatum to be given if eviction was considered.There is no evidence of that. Over the 8 months the bigger part of the rent had been paid,so perhaps McCarthy would have felt that the arears would be fortcoming given time. Walter Dew remarks on her clean white apron,and that,combined with the neatly folded clotheson the chair in her room,suggests a clean and tidy person.
Author: Neal Glass Saturday, 01 April 2000 - 11:28 am
To anyone curious about the pregnancy question. I got a good answer on the other Mary Kelly board from someone named eastender. He says the idea came from a "William Stewart, who apparently concocted the story to support his notorious "Jill the Ripper" theory. Stewart, not above inventing witnesses and testimony out of thin air, purports to quote Dr. George Bagster Phillips that Mary was "in the early stages of pregnancy." The 1987 discovery of the Mary Kelly post-mortem notes have put paid to this idea."
Author: Ashling Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 05:39 am
NEAL: I can't find the page where Rumblelow says Joe Barnett said Mary Kelly was pregnant. I have the 1888 hardback ... If you have a dif edition, can you please tell me what chapter this statement is in? Here's a few old posts from the archives--giving clues to the possible origin of the Mary Kelly pregnacy myth: Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:20:14 +0200 From: Adam Wood "Us [sic] there any source which describes the clothes found folded on a chair in kelly's room? Are they the same as those she was last seen wearing (ie linsey frock with red shawl)? According to Mrs. Maxwell's sighting of Kelly the next morning, she was wearing a dark skirt, velvet bodice and a maroon-coloured shawl. If these items were found in her room with the body, how can Kelly have been wearing them the next day? Also, I've been re-reading Wilson and Odell's "Summing up and Verdict". it contains a quote from Dr Bagster Phillips' post-mortem finding that Kelly was 'in the early stages of pregnancy and that she was healthy and suffering from no other disease except alcoholism'. I know you've previously said kelly was not pregnant, but has this been proven?" By Christopher-Michael on Friday, April 30, 1999 - 08:33 pm: Leanne - Savant has already answered this, of course, but I thought I might as well add my own voice to his (or hers. . .we ought to have some sort of gender identity here). While I don't generally discourage people from reading Ripper books, I should point out that you will not get anything useful from "Ripper and the Royals." While Melvyn Fairclough presents what - at first sight - appears to be a detailed circumstantial case, we must remember that all the details you have been intrigued with - Prince Albert Victor, Winifred May Collis, a pregnant Mary Jane Kelly - spring from the diaries of Inspector Abberline. The diaries, unfortunately, are almost certain forgeries. Joseph Sickert, who owns them, claims he made them available to Stephen Knight for use in his "Final Solution." No-one has ever stepped forward to corroborate this story. No-one has reported seeing them before 1988. And most importantly, there are certain turns of phrase and minor errors in the diaries that are identical to the words and errors in a 1989 (!) Ripper article by the researcher Neal Shelden. There is also no evidence that Winifred Collis ever existed outside the pages of the diaries. As for Kelly's pregnancy, this appears to have derived from confused press reports soon after her murder that confused Kelly with another tenant of Miller's Court who had a small boy. It is often said that Kelly was "known" or "rumoured" to be pregnant, but no-one has yet provided any contemporary evidence for this assertion. And, as a final filip, Mr Fairclough himself no longer believes in the Abberline diaries. It's a rattling good story, Leanne, and I don't fault you for being fascinated with it. It is, however, a beautiful palace built on a soggy foundation of sand. Don't waste your time. As ever, Christopher-Michael" Ashling
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 06:26 am
G'day Everyone, About this 'Kelly was pregnant' thing: Has anyone considered the possibility of this being a little lie, from Kelly, in an attempt to get rid of Barnett? She told her best friend that she was fond of Joseph Flemming. Could William Stewart have interviewed Joseph Barnett, I wonder. Barnett died in December 1926 and Stewart's book wasn't published until 1939, but how long did he spend researching, writing and looking for a publisher? We can only guess! Neil Glass said that: 'Rumbelow talks very matter-of-factly about Barnett saying that Mary was pregnant'. Maybe Barnett just thought and mentioned this once, and after finding it not true, thought it better to 'drop' the idea. I also read a post here once, where someone suggested that MaCarthy may have exagerated Kellys "arears", thinking that someone, (the Yard or police), may have given money to him. Would this be possible? Leanne!
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 12:18 pm
Leanne, Neal and all - I am interested in Simon's note that Colin Wilson says he once saw the same Bagster Phillips report that mentioned a Kelly pregnancy. I have never come across this reference, and would be interested to know exactly what Wilson said. Does he say that HE saw the report, or that he spoke to someone ELSE who saw the report? The question is not as irrelevant as it may seem. While - in my opinion - Mr Wilson does tend to put his weight behind a lot of dubious theories and spread himself rather thin in his self-appointed role as "clearinghouse" for Ripper theories, I have never yet seen the charge that he makes things up thrown at him. IF Wilson really did see such a document with an undisputed provenance, I would be willing to grant the MJK pregnancy a little more chance of being true; as I say, I think Mr Wilson a bit too eager to jump at new theories, but I DO NOT believe he has ever been guilty of simply pulling things from the air. I would appreciate any clarification of Simon's reference. Until such time, though, I discount the story. I have often seen it asserted on these boards that Kelly was pregnant, but the "proof" has always tended to be from Stewart, Fairclough or press cuttings. I have never seen contemporary medical documentation for her childbearing state. CMD
Author: Christopher T. George Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 12:51 pm
Hi, all: Just so there is no confusion in regard to the "Stewart" mentioned in CMD's preceding post, with which I agree about the lack of any evidence that MJK was pregnant, CMD is NOT talking about the present-day eminent researcher Stewart P. Evans whose opinions and work are well represented on these boards. He is, I believe, referring to the lesser known William Stewart, who proposed a theory that a midwife may have done the murders, following on an earlier suggestion by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that a man dressed as a midwife may have committed the crimes. The theory is in William Stewart, "Jack the Ripper: A New Theory" published by Quality Press in London in 1939. This is a now rare book, which according to Ross Strachan in his recent bibliography "is without doubt the most sought after Ripper book which is now very scarce." It contains fourteen illustrations including portraits of the victims painted by the author from contemporary sketches. A "take" on the quality of Stewart's research, however, may be gained by this remark from Philip Sugden's recent "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" (p. 105): "William Stewart, undeterred by anything as vulgar as fact. . . ." :-O Chris George
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 10:44 am
CMD , I can't remember where I read that Colin Wilson saw the Bagster-Philips document but I'll probably find the reference again one day. How he saw it is clear though : it was in the possession of Donald McCormick. McCormick had got the document from William Stewart and quoted from it in his 1959 book ' The Identity of Jack the Ripper '. This does not mean it was a genuine document. Given the fact that Dr Bond's notes do not mention a pregnancy , unless this document turns up then we should conclude it is a forgery and was probably made up to prove a certain theory. Until further evidence proves otherwise. Confirmation of these facts can be found in Sugden , p.11.
Author: Harry Mann Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 04:45 am
Except for a passing reference by Caz,wed,June 9,1999,no mention has been made of the smell of burning rag,and I would have considered this to have had quite significance in the early hours following the discovery of the body. Now from experience I know that burning or smouldering rag leaves quite a strong smell,hours and sometimes days afterwards,even in outside locations.In the small confines of Kelly's room,I think it would be very noticeable,and there were indications of more than one item having been burnt,yet no one at the scene mentions such a smell.Also because of the broken window,the smell would have escaped to the outside court,and it most certainly would have entered Praters room via the chimney. I mention it as a possible indicator of when Kelly was killed.I doubt Kelly herslf would have burnt the items,so presumably Jack did,and a smell of burning cloth in the early hours,had it been noticed,might have given a more accurate time of death. Perhaps the police did ask questions along those lines,but it is surprising that Aberline,though remarking on the items burnt,did not,as far as I can gather,mention any smell. H.Mann.
Author: Diana Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 08:44 am
I believe that overall air pollution in Victorian London was pretty bad. They might have ignored it because they were so used to all kinds of noxious smells. For those who entered the room I fear there were other, more overpowering odors which may well have masked the scent of burning rags.
Author: Jon Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 06:42 pm
They also use to pick up dried horse droppings from the street to burn as fuel. Considering personal hygene was low on there list of priorities and overcrowded tennements were the norm, coupled with the constant refuse in the streets I would guess the East end had an aroma all of its own. Jon (whadaya mean, the good ol' days?)
Author: Michael Lyden Friday, 22 December 2000 - 03:22 pm
Hello all, I think that there are enough mysteries surrounding the Kelly murder and that we do'nt need to create any unnecessary ones. For instance the fire in MJK's room(which is after all what this discusion is all about.No mystery here.The killer,being the cheeky fellow he was, simply burned whatever was to hand simply to keep warm on that chilly November morning.As for the unusual ferocity of the fire that was said to have melted the spout off the kettle,nothing unusual here either.Somebody (I forget who it was)wrote that "kettles are designed to withstand great tempratures". However they are not designed to be left to boil dry by a fleeing murderer! The "mystery"of the missing key is also as simple. As we know the key went missing about a week or so prior to the murder.It is often stated that the killer must have obtained a key at some point and that he locked the door behind him when he left, giving the police no option but to order McCarthy force the door open with a pickaxe. I believe that Jack simply new about the "arm through the broken window" option(I'm sure at least two Josephs were privy to this). I think that Kelly was having a 10 am. doze(thats thrown the cat among the pigeons)when Jack slipped his hand through the broken pane,pulled back the catch and entered. The door of course automaticaly locked itself each time it was closed.Also I think that there was far too much going on after the discovery of the body and the arrival of the police,the photographer etc.. for anyone to work out the alternative method of entry.Those present who were aware of this little trick probably kept it to themselves for obvious reasons. Alluding to an earlier comment,I believe that Caroline Maxwells statement is certainly true and is to often dismissed to fit a particular theory. I am also certain that it was Kelly that was murdered in No.13 and that of course the estimated TOD is way out. regards, Mick Lyden