Archive through March 15, 2001

** 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 March 15, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through March 15, 2001

Author: R Court Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 04:57 pm
Hi all, and the thing under the bed?... I can think of a object that would have been quite useful... Bob :-)
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 05:24 pm
Dear Bob, I did'nt get an Oscar, either. :-) Rosemary
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 05:27 pm
Hi Bob, Indeed much of what you say makes sense. You write, "Even the truth as we may decide to call it would, I submit, not be changed by her evidence, which is almost certainly wrong." Perhaps. Although the various messages with various signatures on this board over the past week or so suggest to me that how we read her evidence, or how we place our readings of it, deliberately in the foreground or in the background, as an aside or as an insistence, as a set of possible stories or as a stubborn refusal, as at least a barely possible truth or as, perhaps too simply, "almost certainly wrong," does indeed regularly change what you describe as "the truth as we may decide to call it." And therefore it changes the history we write and the ways in which those like Caroline, whom we write about, are cast into our collective memory. There is, of course, no account of Mrs. Maxwell being drunk at the time of her encounter with Mary (early Friday morning as she went on a daily errand). Indeed, there is no other account of it at all by anyone else in the official records. Abberline makes no mention of her appearing drunk in his notes from his interview with her later that day. We know nothing about her character, and, as always, it is this lack of knowledge that I think makes so many of our judgments about her problematic to say the least and quite possibly an expression more of our own desires for a consistent history than of anything relating to the Caroline Maxwell who lived and who told her tale three times for the record in November of 1888. There still seems to be a tendency towards judgments made for the convenience of narrative conclusions in our discussions of the texts that remain concerning this woman (since we know nothing about her except the texts that remain). Why are we so quick to desire a diagnosis of the reliability of her tale or of her as a historical figure when it is by now obvious that we certainly do not have the information necessary to allow such a diagnosis to be a responsible one? Speculation is, of course, what we do. But I think we can speculate with some care and some responsibility in the name of the past and the names of those who are already written into this tale through the past and our ever-changing reading of it. And I think sometimes we can admit the undecidable, allow for the contradictory, and perhaps even resist our own desire to reach a consistent conclusion at the cost of the memory of those about whom we know so very little. Now I too am off to indulge my solitary British vice, Newcastle Brown Ale. --John
Author: Scott Nelson Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 12:23 am
Because of the interest in the time of Kelly's death, I'll re-post a news item which could support Maxwell and Lewis' sighting of Kelly. From the Evening News (November 12, 1888): "A Possible Clue" "On Saturday afternoon a gentleman engaged in business in the vicinity of the murder gave what is the only approach to a possible clue that has yet been brought to light. He states that he was walking through Mitre Square at about ten minutes past ten on Friday morning [the 9th of November], when a tall well-dressed man, carrying a parcel under his arm, and rushing along in a very excited manner ran plump into him. The man's face was covered in blood splashes, and his collar and shirt were blood-stained. The gentleman did not at the time know anything of the murder." Note this report should not be confused with the Mitre Square Murder of Eddowes over one month earlier. It refers to the Kelly murder 3 days previous to the news report. If this sighting was of the murderer of Kelly, we should ask what he was doing retreating through Mitre Square, of all places? Maybe headed towards the Great Synagogue? And what was in the parcel?
Author: R Court Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 02:17 am
Hi all, John, As you say... I try to define truth as being that which really existed, really happend, really was. A pretty hopeless matter when the real old truth isn't known. About Maxwell being drunk, I had already accepted that there would be no reference to that in police files, Caroline (ow! my head... one of those last twenty beers must have been bad.) M. was interviewed much later and would hardly have admitted to being boozed up at that time of the morning. We note that indeed her statement that she was under way to a milk-shop at the time was corroberated in all respects. I accept that she wasn't mistaken about the date or time, I accept that she may well have been mistaken about the person. (..or WAS roaring drunk!) NBA..., John, it's 30 years+ since I got that between the teeth. The German booze isn't bad but Geordie-water was always mine. Is the brewery still state-owned? Scott, I havn't read that bit. It sounds like a bit of a red herring, with all respects. Such vital information would, must, have been followed up by Abberline and Co., but we read nothing official about it. I assume that it was checked out at the time and found to be unconnected or false. Rosemary, I believe I am right in assuming that you don't have a mustach either. Best regards, Bob
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 05:58 am
Dear Bob, You have a nice chatline for the ladies, Bob. I am who I am...whatever and whereever, though I must confess to Rick, above, I find it very tricky impersonating a large hairy steelworker.:-) Rosemary
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:22 am
Dear Bob, "The real old truth" lies in a real old photograph in a real old file in a real old registry vault, not a million miles from Soho! Yes, there was another view of Kelly's room, as some of our more intrepid researchers suspected. Via the doorway. Time reveals all = truth is a product of time. :-)) Meryrosa!(hic)
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:28 am
Hi All, Hi Bob, Chuck us over a HW and I'll send you and John a couple of NBAs - yes, I know it's a bit early in the day! :-) Bob, you're doing it again, you naughty boy - you assume that Scotty's tall stranger story (with or without a heart on his sleeve, or in the bag?) was followed up and 'checked out at the time and found to be unconnected or false.' It may well be a fair assumption, but we don't know (or do we?) that anything could have been checked out, if this allegedly blood-stained suspect disappeared into the morning of the Lord Mayor's Show and was never seen again. As John has been remarking, we do seem to have this need to speculate and come up with a conclusion that 'fits', don't we? The Mitre Square witness account mentioned in the press report is just another example of what John has been describing. It goes down in history as a 'red herring' because it hasn't, or cannot, be resolved. It may well have been 'almost certainly' unconnected - but if we don't know for sure, why not be content with that, and leave out the speculation? I realise that history has to be written somehow, and we would never get to any kind of 'truth' if we didn't stick our necks out, and make the best choice we can from the unknown factors, by relating them to what can reasonably be called the known, or proven, facts - a point I believe Martin Fido has often made. But with JtR, we often find ourselves trying to relate one set of unknowns to another, the latter being our own personal perceptions of the truth. If we are wrong about the latter - and there must be countless examples of this as history seems to get rewritten on an almost daily basis - we are on a hiding to nothing trying to assess the former. Like John, I feel it has a lot to do with a desire for tidy conclusions, a need to tie everything up in a neat bow and feel comfortable in a world full of uncertainties and unknowns. There is no doubt in my mind that our natural desire for speculating towards a tidy conclusion can and does let us down and act as a barrier, because there will always be occasions where the truth is actually entirely different from the common perception. I think it's far more subtle than simply putting it in terms of having an open or closed mind, or being credulous or sceptical. And I'm having a lot of trouble articulating what's on my mind here. I hope John can interpret it! It's more to do with keeping all the possibilities, however remote, in the brain's pending-tray, while a mystery remains to be solved - dismissing nothing, however uncomfortable and ill-fitting, but waiting, indefinitely if need be, to see if it might fall into place at some time in the future. I can't expect time to reveal the whole truth to me, if I failed to recognise a tiny piece of it along the way and tossed it in the out-tray. Love, Caz
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 07:31 am
Goodenough Rosemary, Thankyou, from now on I shall refer to you and think of you as a lady poster with perhaps your own kinky way of looking at things J . Rick
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 09:13 am
Hello John, sorry I took so long to acknowledge your post.It's been quite lively on the message boards this last couple of days, it would be quite funny if it wasn't for Jade and Joseph falling out. As far as the Maxwell mystery goes, I just think out the most logical solution, (to me), and I realize that my logic is not necessarily other peoples logic, but whatever, in my view it will remain a mystery, like everything else concerning JtR. It's not a thing to argue about, there being no solution, discussion is good though, it brings out all sorts of theories,--Ghosts! I love ghost stories, don't believe in them, but I love em. I had a friend who got quite hot under the collar because he believed and I didn't. I don't think it's a thing you can argue over, it's not provable, like the Maxwell affair, and anyway I'd never argue with you,-- I looked up your profile!J. Regards Rick You know, you can't beat a nice cold Budweizer on a hot day.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 09:17 am
Dear Rick, I'm "into" verbal abuse with hoods... of the Corleone clan. :-) Rosemary
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 12:22 pm
Hi Rick, I was with you, in a way, right up until the line about Budweiser. Then I turned away in a shudder. But that's just me. I refuse to drink anything that's the same color going in as it is coming out. In any case, I am, at this point, completely unable to tell what the most "logical" account of Mrs. Maxwell's tale might be. But I understand your point. And, of course, you do believe in ghosts -- at least the sort I have been invoking. You are walking with them here on these boards and in the books that you read all the time. Caroline Maxwell is one, but there are many others, including the one (or ones) who haunt(s) the name that brings us all together, "Jack." (As a child, I was always called Jack. Then, when I became old enough to decide such things, for no other reason really than to separate myself from the casual name of my father, I insisted on John. Perhaps my interest here is still another way to break from what one elsewhere has called the "Law of the Father....") And then there are the ghosts of the present that sign electronically and, as we have seen on another board in a discussion that has, it seems to me, taken a somewhat unfortunate turn at times, also come and go in the ether of electrons here. Mostly, though, the ghosts of those whose words we read and whose "lives" (as stories) we interpret are always too much with us and -- to go back to the ghost story that started me thinking about this -- for historians who are immersed in these sorts of mysteries among these sorts of fragments without resolution, the time is always out of joint and refuses to be "put right." The ghost figures of writing and speech that I was constructing here among us are the names and words of the past which fascinate us all. And so, you too, are obviously a believer. Caroline, I think that you are doing a fine job of "articulating what's on your mind." Your pending-tray / out-tray metaphor seems to me quite appropriate and even charming. I often think of it as housework. Whenever you think you are finished, it is no doubt time to begin all over again. Or another: Nietzsche thinks of writing and reading and acts of interpretation and re-interpretation as a sort of dancing, suggesting that we ought never to allow ourselves to stay (comfortably) in one place (of mind) for too long and thereby risk becoming fixed, immovable, and consequently losing the beauty and the possibilities of the dance of thought. As we re-read and re-interpret the written histories of this case, our best hope, I think, is to keep dancing. And, yes, I would kill for an NBA from over there, where it is much better and much stronger than the sad import version we are forced to drink here in the US. Finally, it seems to me worth noting, perhaps, that Mrs. Maxwell's tale begins, for us, only when Abberline first hears her story, the first time she tells it, already after Mary's body is discovered and examined. It unfolds only from there forward, through the repeated versions. But anything before that, even and especially the scene which she creates in her story about the immediate past, complete with dialogue, can only take place in the filmed haze of a flashback of a single memory, unique and forever distanced from the present available to the investigators or, through the archive, to us, and unavailable to the narrative of discovery. This deferral in time alone renders her tale perpetually unfixed in time and an undecidable remainder. It is not alone in this respect, as evidenced over on the graffiti board. All we can do is to keep reading, and I think, keep dancing. --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 12:43 pm
Well, John, I did try to do a spot of Morris dancing with Melvin, and talked about it being my last tango with Harris. I do try to keep dancing, and not to change partners too often, but perhaps I've got a deodorant problem. LOL Love, Caz
Author: R Court Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 01:39 pm
Hi all, Blast, damn and curse! I tried to load the new version of AOL (6) today and wiped out half my hard drive. AOL is the same as Microsoft, well nearly, and that means it's one of the most complicated and dangerous viruses you can get. All my drivers are destroyed and I can't find my video driver CD, so am having to use 16 bit colour until I do. That means I just have a tiny AOL-work-space to look upon, so my offerings to the board may well seem a bit erratic. Caz, of course it is only speculation of a sort to say that the blood-stained Gentleman bumping into another Gentleman in Mitre Square on the day that Mary got bumped off etc. must have been checked out by Abberline & Co. It does seem patently unlikely that the police wouldn't have checked up on it, though. They seem to have tried everything else, logical or not, and the pressure to achieve at least something was great. It does not mean that they got the bloody (sic) bloke though. Just that if they did check up, then on the non-blood-covered Gentleman (whom they could have identified via the newspaper source) who saw etc. and from what they learnt from him doesn't seem to have been important enough to be filed (or, of course, the files are missing.) If bloody (sic) bloke was Jack, though, I don't see anything necessarily special in his dodging through Mitre Square. It could have been a direct way to his pad from Mary's and he would certainly have the wish to get home quick, covered in blood as he would have been and with a parcel full of bits of Mary under his arm. Knowing that all hell was going to break lose any minute would only help to speed his steps, I submit. We may also assume that Mitre Square was rather less populated than the main thouroughfares as well, which fact may well have assisted in the choice. All in all, if Abberline didn't have the story checked (his people must have seen or heard of it, if not he himself) then I suppose while it would have been just one of thousands anyway. We remember that the wildest rumours were flying about (Leather Apron was just a small fish, poor sod) and if Abberline & Co. had taken notice and followed up every such report, they'd still be working on it now. Best regards/Love Bob
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 05:44 pm
Ten minutes past ten on Friday morning, Bob? And you don't see anything 'necessarily special', relating to time of death and Carrie M? Shame on you, the AOL sh*t has really got to you. :-) Love, Caz
Author: R Court Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 11:30 pm
Hi Caz, Yeah, the bloody AOL-c*ckup above all, I'll be whispering a word or two in their ears today, I promise. Thank God I kept a fairly recent backup of my data files... Now, if bloody (sic) bloke was in Mitre Square at ca. 10.10 a.m., complete with Kelly bits or not, we must assume he would have crept out of Millers Court at the latest at 10. a.m. Mary was allegedly seen by Caroline M. at ca. 9.00 a.m. in the street, which means she would, say, at least not have been in her room until ca. 9.15 a.m. After ca. 9.15 a.m. then, she would have undressed, got into bed and, we assume, gone to sleep. Let's say 9.25 a.m. Jack trotts in unseen, complete with knife and whathaveyou- Hack-Chop-Mince-etc... and that in silence, the area was pretty well populated at that time. (If Jack was already there, I don't believe Mary'd go to sleep at once (!), and if Jack had come in together with Mary, then either Caroline would have seen Jack with Mary, or they'd have met later, making the 9.15 a.m. time point even more unlikely.) Let's say Jack is finished with the disassembly at 9.55 a.m. He cleans himself up, packs up Mary's heart, creeps unseen out of Millers Court at 10.00 a.m. and bumps into our friend in Mitre Square ca. 10 minutes later. I must say here that that is an unlikely scenario, even allowing for Jack's astonishing invisable exit from Millers Court compared to his clumsy bump into the witness in Mitre Square. I still don't see anything special relating to Caroline's statements because of the above, while accepting again that there may well be another, more likely expanation. ..Groan, tomorrow is still not week-end but it's time you came over for a German HW or twenty... Love, Bob XXX
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 10:27 am
Hi Bob, I've missed your Hack-Chop-Mince approach for way too long. Great to have you back, but please take out all your hacking, chopping and mincing here on my daft posts, if it stops you doing it to AOL - they're probably not worth it. :-) You are right about the unlikeliness of the scenario you describe, but you do it so well, it seems a pity somehow. :-) Lots of love, but I don't think I could manage twenty HWs, wherever they come from. Caz
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 07:57 pm
R. Court writes, "Now comes the difficult bit. If Mary was first killed at or after 9.15 a.m., rigour mortis could have set in at the very earliest at 3.15 p.m. and not already have set in at the latest at 2.00 p.m. as testified by Dr. Phillips." I couldn't understand where this was coming from Bob, until I figured that you are using Dr Bond's wildly inaccurate estimate that "the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in." this is untrue, (as is his estimate for digestion of food). A time of death of between 8:00 and 10:00 is highly possible taking into account the circumstances surrounding the murder and given Dr Bond's observation that, at 2:00 p.m., "Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination.". This is one of the reasons that Caroline Maxwell's testimony is so interesting in that it ties in with modern forensic pathologies estimate for TOD. Did Caroline Maxwell see and talk to Mary Kelly between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m.? We can't say for sure. Could Caroline Maxwell have seen and talked to Mary Kelly between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m.? Modern forensic pathology says yes, she could have. It is relatively easy for us to see the problems associated with Caroline Maxwell's testimony and it is just as easy to find explanations that can provide answers for those problems. She was lying; she was drunk; she was confused on the date; she misidentified the victim; she was genuinely mistaken but then doggedly refused to admit her mistake, etc. All in all these are merely attempts to dismiss her evidence. Perhaps her evidence should be dismissed, I, personally, don't happen to think so, but, as Caz has pointed out, Caroline Maxwell's testimony sticks out like a sore thumb and as such it is hard to accept. It is made that much harder by what some think is the �official time of death' which if it is correct, obviously overrides Maxwell, Maurice Lewis and the unnamed woman quoted in the Times, if it is correct. In fact there seems to be no �official time of death' for the Kelly murder beyond Dr Bond's estimate of "one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder", which he states in his report to Anderson on the 10th of November. Coroner McDonald never fixed the time of death at the inquest and, although we don't know what Dr Phillips's thoughts were on the matter exactly, there is an indication that he did not agree with Bond's estimated TOD, but that he felt that the murder took place earlier in the morning, 4:00 to 5:00 a.m.. This last estimate comes from a report in the Times published on 12 November in which the statements of Caroline Maxwell and the unnamed woman are compared with Dr Phillips's opinion that "...when he was called to the deceased (at a quarter to 11) (sic) she had been dead some five or six hours." If we consider the fact that Phillips's only contact with the body before 1:30 p.m. was to peer at it from the broken window, how could he have given any estimate, five, six or sixty hours? Would a doctor of Phillips's experience make any such statement based solely on observation alone, especially since his only means of determining TOD was by touching the body to estimate amount of heat loss and moving various limbs to see the state of rigor? The statement in the Times is, therefore, suspect in it's accuracy. It is very possible that what Dr Phillips actually said was that Mary Kelly had been dead some five to six hours from when he examined the body. This would mean a TOD between 6:30 and 7:30 a.m.. Wolf.
Author: Diana Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 08:21 pm
Could Maxwell have been correct about everything but the time? Poor people didn't have watches then. She probably would have guessed at the time based on the amount of light. Alternatively, she might have heard a large outdoor clock on a place of business chiming. I'm not suggesting a huge discrepancy. Possibly an hour at the outside maximum.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 09:15 pm
Dear Wolf, I think 6 0'clockish is the more precise TOD...that is allowing for the new clothing to be put in position - without contamination from blood drips/splashes- and prepare his/her retreat after destroying the outer garments and cleaning himself then dressing in Mary's usual garments. A Mr Y Eros?
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 09:50 pm
Hi Diana, Caroline told her story three times for the record. There is a progression. In her initial interview she tells Abberline that she saw Mary on "Friday morning 9th*" At this point on the page an asterisk appears, and Abberline has written in the margins, "about half-past 8 o'clock." We do not know exactly when this was written, if Caroline was this specific, or what exactly she said. When she gives her deposition, she says she "took a deal of notice of deceased this evening seeing her standing at the corner of the Court on Friday from 8 to half-past I know the time by taking the plates my husband had to take care of from the house opposite." Apparently, given her testimony at the Inquest, this was what she did when her husband finished work. It seems possible to read the "from" here as "between." She uses the words interchangeably later in her testimony and she clearly is not suggesting she spoke to Mary for half an hour. Also, it has only recently occurred to me that the words "deceased this evening" may have been a phrase she was using, in its entirety, simply to mean Mary -- her attempt, possibly, to sound "formal" and "legal" for the event of the deposition, i.e. "the deceased we are speaking of this evening." The lack of punctuation in the sentence in the deposition makes it a bit awkward. Finally, at the Inquest, the following exchange takes place: "The Coroner: You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other people's. You say you saw her standing at the corner of the entry to the court ? - Yes, on Friday morning, from eight to half-past eight. I fix the time by my husband's finishing work." When she returns from her breakfast errand, it is about half an hour later: "I was absent about half-an-hour. It was about a quarter to nine." For what it is worth, these are the statements she makes regarding the time of day. --John
Author: R Court Friday, 09 March 2001 - 05:39 am
Hi all, Wolf, no, that is not correct. I did not use Bond's estimate of 6-12 hours, or even Philipps's of about 6 hours. If Maxwell was correct, she saw Mary at between 8.30-9.00 a.m. Mary claimed to be sick, and thus we could well accept that she would thus return home, undress and go to bed. Let's say, then, that she did this, getting home at about 9.15. Now, either Jack was there waiting (she knew him/had left him there to wait), or she let him in later or he crept in as she slept. In all these cases a TOD earlier than ca. 9.30 would be extremely unlikely. Now, we know that Bowyer found Mary dead shortly after 10.45 a.m. Beck and Dew were there 'at or shortly after 11.00 a.m.' and had to be fetched at that. Phillips was there at about 11.30 but that tells us little. We also know that Jack was a fast worker but he must have needed at least some 30 minutes to kill, butcher, clean up and escape. We can assume that he was almost certainly not there as Bowyer came (where could he have hidden in this small room?) so he would have to had finished the job some time before, let's say 10.30. So, while Mary could have been killed at ca. 10. a.m. latest, she could have been at the earliest ca. 9.30. a.m. This time scale is incredibly short for rigour mortis already having set in at 2.00 p.m. as stated by Bond. The ripped-up body, the draining of blood, the nakedness, the cold weather all played a part in deviling any sort of reliable estimate, but this-time span is very short if Bond was fairly accurate about the state of RM at 2.00 p.m. A further point is that Bond testified to having found partly digested food in the stomach and scattered about the body. He estimated the food to have been taken about 4 hours before death, which led him to estimate TOD as about 2.00 a.m. Now, Bond may not always have been very accurate, but he was no fool. he was a police surgeon of very long standing and great expierience, which does not allow us to pooh-pooh his judgement too quickly. If Mary was vomiting at 8.00-8.30 a.m. after 'having the horrors of drink' upon her for several days, I do not accept that she would go around in this condition at 4.00-5.30 in the morning whilst gobbling fish and chips. (I can testify to this from my own expieriences). Now, it may seem that I intend to prove Maxwell a liar, cost what it may, but that is not so. The only bit of her evidence that makes difficulty is that she claims to have seen Mary. Every other bits of her statements were coroberated or were otherwise quite believable. If, as she herself admitted, she only knew the girl at sight (only having spoken to her a couple of times at all) there is every possibility that she simply mistook the woman's identity. Best regards Bob
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 04:33 am
For those interested,especially persons living in the U.K.,they may be able to access the reportings of a murder case which occured near the town of Lydney,Gloucestershire.This murder happened,to the best of memory,in the early 1960's.My father,then retired,attended each day,s hearing at the Assize's,and I remember discussing the case with him. A key defence witness claimed to have seen the deceased in the week following the day the prosecution claimed he was killed.This evidence was given on oath.It closely mirrors the information given by Maxwell. My father nor the jury were swayed by this evidence,and the accused was found guilty.I believe he later confessed. Perhaps it was only a gut feeling,but my father was convinced from the first day that the accused was guilty and that the witness was wrong.The difference I suppose,was that he was able to study the people involved,while we can only read of Maxwell. The details of the murder and trial,were widely reported in the local paper,The Gloucester Citizen.
Author: E Carter Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 07:48 am
I will get out of your way after posting this, but very briefly consider what we can learn from the picture and the testimony. If you were the man in the Astrakan coat and planning to murder Mary would you do it with her friend Hutchinson waiting outside, probably not! And he would have been well aware that Hutchison was following them. Therefore he made an excuse and left the room, returning accompanied just before the neigbours heard Mary scream! He knocked, Mary answered the door, as he entered the room his accomplice rushed in and they grabbed and chloroformed Mary before throwing her on the top far corner of the bed. Here they slashed her throat and then pulled her down the bed mutilating and removing the organs here. During this process and whilst cutting into the lower legs he took a slipper from her foot and tossed it onto the table where he had previously thrown the guts. Now they moved her up the bed where she would easily be seen from the window. But before leaving they decided to rid themselves of the incriminating chloroform, so the killers gathered dry clothing and fired the rest of this volatile chemical in the hearth. This was a major mistake! As there was no water in the kettle the metal joint heated and then cooled down extremly quickly, therefore the joint expanded fast and then cracked as it contracted too quickly. There is also a small hatchet on the table, it has a pointed head. The slipper is to the back of the table, the heel up the toe pointing down, the hatchet just in front. By the way, thank's Harry, that's interesting.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 08:13 am
Dear Ed, So how did they lock the door?
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 02:58 pm
Ed - You had me racing to the pix to see whether your small hatchet could be confirmed, with its implicit support for Nick Warren's argument that the femur has been split, and the mysterious claim by journalist Michael Ewing (in a so-called 'serialisation' of my 'Murder Guide to London' which introduced huge changes and gave me a lot of problems)that he had 'researched' the Ripper case and knew they were axe murders! (Something I edited out of his piece in the Evening Standard). The largest and clearest version I have of what I guess we should call MJK mk 2 is a full postcard size print taken by Stewart Evans, but comparing it with the repro opposite p.341 of Evans and Skinner, it still seems to me that you should be able to make out there that what you identify as a hatchet is actually some sort of discoloration (possibly caused by the flow/pooling of blood) on the table. Notice the two bright white notch-like marks extending from its ends over the bevel of the table top, and compare the similar but much narrower 'notching' coming down from the quasi breast-shaped humps of flesh to its right. All the best, Martin F
Author: Simon Owen Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 03:56 pm
It could be some sort of icepick or something but it doesn't look like a hatchet or an adze. Again , are we seeing things that aren't there like the writing on the wall ?
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 05:53 pm
Hi, Martin and Edward: Martin, I am glad you have pointed us to the "other" MJK crime scene photograph in Skinner and Evans's admirable The Ultimate which shows that photograph at a bigger size than it appears on Harrison's book. Here we can see that what appears to be an axe or cleaver is in fact some markings on the table, possibly as you say blood staining the table, or maybe a trick of the light streaming in through the crack in the door visible in the background. There is yet another possibility, suggested by your observation that we should "Notice the two bright white notch-like marks extending from its ends over the bevel of the table top, and compare the similar but much narrower 'notching' coming down from the quasi breast-shaped humps of flesh to its right." I take these light-colored highlights extending over the bevel of the table top to perhaps indicate that there is some type of material on the table, i.e., a table cloth, and that the pattern on the cloth, possibly light-colored stripes, is extending over the edge of the table. Chris George
Author: David M. Radka Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 08:38 pm
Trick of the light, trick of the light! If only you knew how truly you speak this evening, Chris! He's still hiding, and laughing, right in the light. David
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 01:03 am
Hello all. R Court, I have noticed in the past that certain posters will try to supply an early morning time frame for the murder of Mary Kelly but I'm not sure of the usefulness of this endeavour. If you'll allow me, however, I'll also play along. Somehow you come up with a time of 9:15 a.m. for Mary to get home. Why 9:15? Caroline Maxwell stated that when she returned to Dorset street, she saw Kelly standing talking to a man outside of the Britannia, the time was around 8:45 a.m.. If this was Kelly and her murderer one could easily say that she arrived home at 8:50 a.m. accompanied by her killer. If this was the case then she could certainly have been dead by 9:00 a.m. and your observation, that "a TOD earlier than ca. 9.30 would be extremely unlikely.", goes out the window. I agree with your observation that the Ripper was fast and might have needed only 30 to 45 minutes to butcher her so this leaves us with a time of 9:30 to 9:45, or an hour before Bowyer found the body. Now here is the point where you lose me. You say that "So, while Mary could have been killed at ca. 10. a.m. latest, she could have been at the earliest ca. 9.30. a.m. This time scale is incredibly short for rigour mortis already having set in at 2.00 p.m. as stated by Bond. The ripped-up body, the draining of blood, the nakedness, the cold weather all played a part in deviling any sort of reliable estimate, but this-time span is very short if Bond was fairly accurate about the state of RM at 2.00 p.m." Bob, Are you really saying that 4 to 5 hours is too short for the start of rigor in this case? Because if you are, you are incorrect. As I have been told by forensic pathologists, it is perfectly reasonable to consider a time of death from 2 to 6 hours before she was examined at 2:00 p.m. As you can see, this time frame allows for Kelly's murder at anytime between 8:00 a.m. and noon. You really started me scratching my head, Bob, when you brought up Dr Bonds incorrect estimation for the digestion of a light meal of fish and chips at between 3 and 4 hours. Somehow, Bond is able to use this nonsense to make claims that make little sense. This is what Bond said in his report to Anderson,: "It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder." From this we are to gather that Mary Kelly ate her last meal between 9:00 and 11:00 p.m. but unless Bond knew when Mary Kelly actually did eat her last meal, this is useless. A light meal of fish and chips would take anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours to reach the stage of digestion mentioned by Bond but once again, if we don't know when she ate her last meal this doesn't help pinpoint TOD. One thing that can be said is that the digestion doesn't rule out a TOD of 9:00 to 10:00 a.m.. Wolf.
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 06:30 pm
Hello again everyone, Please allow me one more minute of reading concerning Mrs. Maxwell and her testimony (she is beginning to feel like an old friend). I was browsing through Phillip Sugden's rather comprehensive Complete History the other day and saw, once again, another of those mysterious paragraphs that begin with unsolvable problems and end up with certainties. These seem to be quite common in Ripper books. I have seen several just this week in Beadle and, of course, throughout Feldman -- all though there the conclusions are often implied with the flourish of a set of rhetorical questions. In this case, however, Mrs. Maxwell's fate once again is dismissed in a textual instant, without any apparent difficulty. I find this particularly ironic, since at the end of his first chapter, Sugden writes boldly, "If you prefer facts to journalism, if you want to know the truth about Jack the Ripper and are tired of being humbugged, read on!" This tone of announced revelation of truths also seems to permeate a good deal of the writing on this subject that I have read. It seems disturbing, since the topic is one which for a number of important reasons, manifestly resists either final, fixed truth or genuine revelation (as the authors all readily agree, usually in moments of caution and humility that immediately preceed yet another piece of conjecture claimed as fact, often accompanied by words like "must" and "certainly"). Here then, is the movement of the Sugden narrative, wherein, again, a conclusion is offered without actually ever completely making an argument. After detailing Mrs. Maxwell's testimony -- and describing how it conflicts with the claims of other witnesses hearing cries of "Oh murder!" -- Sugden then offers two sets of conflicting medical accounts, Drs. Bond's and Phillip's. The usual discussion of the rates of bodies stiffening and the effect of the cold is included and the cautions about the inexactitude of 19th century coroner's conclusions. Then there is this paragraph, complete with slippage from problem to solution: "The testimony of Mrs. Maxwell is an unanswered riddle. Was she lying, drunk, or simply mistaken" [Already, these are the only three possibilities.] "On the first occasion she supposedly saw Mary, at 8:30, they conversed across the street. On the second mary was standing about twenty-five yards away. At either distance Mrs. Maxwell should have been able to recognize Mary and it seems more likely that she confused the date than the person. Whatever, the answer, al we can say for certain is that her testimony was wrong." The discussion of this issue ends there. "All we can say for certain..." But such certainty is never in any way established. It is merely postulated and then allowed to stand as fact. This is not the form of a valid argument nor even is it the form of a thoroughly established opinion. It is certainly not a form of conclusion that seems appropriate for this rhetoric of certainty or to merit the language of final conclusion after examining what the texts puts forward, without evidence or detailed thought, as the only possible alternatives. Once gain, Mrs. Maxwell disappears into the language of "certainly mistaken." Once again it is allowed to happen in the movement of no more than a single paragraph, really. I thought I would note this, without arguing for or against the truth of her testimony, as another example of the the writing of this woman and her story into history in a way that seems to have practical and unfortunate effects for her memory. --John
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 07:18 pm
Dear John, You have an uncanny ability to throw a spotlight on a hitherto seemingly insignificant figure in what is, undoubtably, a great midden of fact, fancy, and conjecture, John. But really John...she MUST have been mistaken. Sanity demands this one small concession, surely? Rosemary.
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 07:30 pm
John, Yes. Again you post valid warnings to all of us who have worked on this for a long time that we are always in danger of allowing our own conclusions, or a concensus 'solution' to a historical crux to stand as fact. While Bill Beadle may slip into conclusions that rest on weak foundations at times, he also put forward some challenges that I found illuminating when I read him: notably, he made me really aware that Mrs Maxwell's testimony had not been 'disproved' by the medical evidence, as I had been rather shallowly assuming for some time. It's a difficult habit of mind to avoid. I have found the arguments for Shakespeare's hand in the 'ill Mayday' scenes of 'The Boke of Sir Thomas More' plausible for so long that I have caught myself basing conjectures about Shakespeare's way of introducing character in crowd scenes on it... oops! In Ripper writing, of course, most of us are under pressure from publishers to come up with a definite 'answer'. I was very impressed by the way Shirley Harrison stood up to intense pressure to say more than she believed and refused to utter certainties where she saw no more than varying degrees of possibility/probability: a principled stance that forced her publisher to write his own afterword and make the declamatory assertions she was not willing to concede. There was an immensely long and tedious discussion on another board about a year ago - (I have only ever skimmed a few entries in it) - as to whether one of the best and best-known Ripper writers had advised a friend that he only included any tentative 'conclusion' in his book because his publishers demanded it, or whether he had told a reader who wrote to him that the conclusion was all his own and not the result of any pressure. This sort of influence can even be alleged in ways that seem defamatory. I was once informed by a stranger that another well-known Ripper writer had told her at a lunch party that the theory he firmly espoused was obvious nonsense, and he only wrote it because his publishers would not produce the general survey with no named 'Ripper' he proposed. When I immediately told him of this story, he denied it categorically, searched his memory, and concluded that my informant must be a lady who was annoyed that he had turned down a pass she made at him, and chose this underhand way of taking her revenge. Finally, all of us who think we have pursued a logical line of enquiry to a justified end are likely to sound unduly triumphalist when we first produce our results. Several readers have noticed the increase in pace and energy in Paul Begg's writing when he discusses Martin Kosminsky, and wonder about its leading nowhere. But, of course, Paul had the honesty to dismiss the false trail as soon as he persuaded himself of its falsity. My own ringing conclusion 'Jack the Ripper has been found' was what I delightedly felt in 1987. Having listened to the objections of others, I would be much more tentative now, even though I have no doubt that no more plausible suspect has ever been named, and am always delighted when others agree. I was enormously impressed when Stewart Evans addressed the Cloak and Dagger Club and gave a much more measured assessment of the likelihood of Tumblety's being the Ripper than appears in his and Paul Gaineys 'The Lodger'. So, as long as we listen seriously to your queries, and take them into account in our final assessments, I would ask on behalf of all Ripper writers, that you 'forgive us our trespasses'! Martin F
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 10:22 pm
Hi Rosemary, I would not be surprised at all. But my comments were more about the sort of writing that often stands in for reading in books on the subject, and not about either whether or not Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken or about my own sanity (the topic for a much longer and more worrisome post). --John
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 10:31 pm
Martin, Thanks for the very interesting and, I think, useful response. I find many of the things you say about publisher's expectations and the expectations of other authors and readers on the subject and the need to claim revelations fascinating. But my reactions, brief as they may prove to be, must wait until tomorrow morning. I have quietly crept into my office to read this although I currently have guests, and now I must return to be "host." --John
Author: E Carter Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 06:14 am
Rosemary,sorry I have been up to my neck in work and it's been impossible to get even five mins to myself. Forget how the door was locked, the hole in the window is more important, this caused the up draft of oxygen up the chimney and this made the chloroform soaked clothing burn so fiercely and then burn out so quickly. After the fire had died this same draft then quickly cooled the kettle down and the joint contracted and broke. ED Next time you are by an open fire watch it when someone opens the door!
Author: E Carter Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 06:23 am
Martin Fido. I examined the picture over a six month period, I also examined the picture from the other side of the bed. I have no doubt that this is a small Hatchet! You will require several pictures because some are of vert poor quality. Look at the area where the shaft meets the head. If some one would like to put the photo up I will point the Hatchet out, and I have no doubt this is a hatchet.Best wishes ED Ps i cant do this for technical reasons.
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 07:30 am
G'day Guys, I have two books in front of me right now. One is 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion' and the other is the original English publication of Shirley Harison's 'Diary', (that I was lucky enough to find in a second hand book shop here in Sydney Aust). Both are opened to the photographs of Kelly on the bed. The two in the original 'Diary' are the clearest I've ever seen, they are the original photos, stuck on black board and labelled: 'Mary Jannette Kelly / Millers Court / 9.11.88.' (the thingy under the table looks like something holding it up). I'm trying to find a hatchet, but I can't! Oh Yuk! You know that thick white line thing, going from her pelvis to her farthest knee?????.... I think that could be a bone!! Who else has this book? LEANNE!
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 07:49 am
Leanne - You're looking at the wrong picture. The one which shows the 'thing' under the bed (i.e. is taken more or less from the side of the bed) won't show you the hatchet. You need the one that was returned to Scotland Yard in 1987 which is taken more or less from the bottom of the bed, looking up into poor MJK's gutted abdomen with the table to the right. In that there is a quite definite shape like the outline of a hatchet, light against the rather darker table background. Comparing several published copies, and, most importantly, the excellent photograph taken by Stewart Evans at full postcard size which he kindly sent me some time ago, I still have to disagree, Ed, and feel that unquestionably hatchet-like as the shape is, it is some sort of discoloration and not a hatchet. But this will surely be one for others to make up their own minds about, and with any luck somebody skilled in the manipulation of the fiendishly difficult combination of scanners and computers and browsers and servers will get something up, while I disintegrate into antiquated mutterings about how much easier things were in the days of simple quill pen and ink, with somebody like Hans Holbein to go and take a portrait if we wanted to know what something looked like, and the freedom to create one's own divorce if we didn't like what we'd taken on approval from a Holbein draft.... Martin F
Author: E Carter Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 07:52 am
Leanne, this is the right shaft of femur, under the calf sits the right breast and below that the liver. The shaft of the hatchet is the only straight object on the table.Ed, back later, time to go to work again!