Archive through 03 August 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 03 August 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through 03 August 2001

Author: graziano Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 11:47 am
Hello Leanne, the article that you read by Dr Frederick Walker is not the one that I mentioned to you. This latter is titled simply "Joe Barnett" and you find it on Casebook "Dissertations" as the one you read. The one you read do not mention " the pipe on the mantelpiece", the one I indicated you does. Now I totally agree with you that to twist facts to suit one's theory is a shame. But I think you are a bit hard with Dr Walker. We should ask him first. But something curious is happening Leanne with this discussion. Dr Walker believes hard like the iron that Jack could be no one but Barnett as I think you do. I think that believing that Jack was one is starting on the wrong foot and that no serious evidences could be done against Barnett being Jack. Why am I defending Dr Walker against you ? Have I lost my Arianna's wire ? (Do you say that in english, sounds nasty). Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 11:59 am
Hello Rick, Bournemouth ? I've read the discussions on other boards. Sounds dangerous. I would like to have a chance to get to your age. Seriously, since business is so bad this year and to try to live out of it I must travel a lot I cannot planify more than two week previous. But if I can it would be nice. My profile ? I do not know how to put it on the boards. Let us say that when I was born you probably got already an idea of the fine line between love and hate. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 06:37 pm
G'day Graziano, Bob, everyone, I can't find the 'Dissertation' article you mention Graz! I've looked and looked but the only ones by Dr. Frederick Walker that I can see are: 'Odd Omissions: Scott Morro's Plea for Barnett's Innocence', 'The Windsor Street Stakeout', 'The Men Who Suspected Kosminski'. Who is 'Dr. Frederick Walker'? Unfortunately Abberline didn't question Barnett about the pipe enough, nor gave us enough details! In another book, after quoting Abberline's statement about what Joe told him, the words "It was easy"* were added. We debated and debated about the method of opening the door, and some posters said that Abberline obviously tested the method and claimed it was easy. The book: 'The Ultimate JtR Companion' contains Abberline's actual notes, in which he said nothing about it being "easy". That is an example of how things get 'twisted' to suit peoples theories. Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 07:36 pm
G'day, I just discovered that the words "It is quite easy" were added as early as the inquest report in the 'Daily Telegraph' 13 November 1888! I can see that a reporter taking notes, may have have judged from the tone in Abberline's voice, that it was 'easy', but the fact is Abberline did not actually say so! Leanne!
Author: graziano Monday, 30 July 2001 - 05:35 am
Hello Leanne, no, please, not on the press again. I am not a reporter, journalist, editor or so on, but I really find that too many times on the Casebook when something seems strange or difficult to explain it is put on the shoulder of the press (dicrepancies in the articles or "artist imagination" for the drawings). If this incontestably could explain some errors, the people of the press in England at that time were highly professional and since there was a deep concern among them about the ability of the police in the case there is a high likelyhood that they had to keep a high profile in credibility with thus a tendency to be very precise and complete. Much more than the police that for obvious reasons could have chosen not to divulgate everything they knew and thus make things incomplete and by definition less trustworthy at surface than the press. Now, Leanne, for the dissertation it is very strange. In fact you are right you do not find it in a straight way on "Dissertations". So, go first on the article "Odd Omissions....." then go at the bottom of the page and click on the article "Joe Barnett" by Dr F. Walker under the voice: "Dissertations". The only thing I know about Dr. Frederick Walker is that he believes the same as you do on the case (besides that he is a Dr. - what does that mean in UK ? ). Maybe one of the Chrisses could tell us ? Bye. Graziano.
Author: Stepan Poberowski Monday, 30 July 2001 - 11:17 am
G'day, all As we know, the cause of Barnett's quarrel with Kelly was residing of homeless prostitutes at the room #13. But what was causes of their occurrence in Kelly's dwelling? Can an answer consist in next lines from The Daily Telegraph, 10 November 1888? It [Kelly's house - SP] has seven rooms, the first-floor front, facing Dorset-street, being over a shed or warehouse used for the storage of costers' barrows. ... Curiously enough, the warehouse at No. 26, now closed by large doors, was until a few weeks ago the nightly resort of poor homeless creatures, who went there for shelter. Prostitutes (among them, probably, there was Julia Van Turney etc.), living in the warehouse, were expelled, and passage to it was closed by doors. All best, Stepan
Author: graziano Monday, 30 July 2001 - 01:16 pm
Hello Stepan, from recollection the cause you state is the one adduced by Barnett at the inquest. For Bruce Paley in "The Simple Truth" is not so. He says that the real reason is to be found in Mary Kelly not willing anymore to share her daily life with a man she was not fond of, who she began even to hate and who was not able anymore to offer her a "decent" life because of his losing of his job as fish porter (on this latter point I advise you to read the dissertation of the Viper on the Casebook). She was so disgusted by him that she even preferred to bring home mates not to stay alone with him at night. Of course the event you are relating could have given her the opportunity to do that but (following Paley) it was certainly not the cause. Just a possible way to get to the aim more rapidly. Having read Paley's book I think he has touched one very sensible (or sensitive ?) point in the relation of Joe and Mary in a very original and intelligent way and I really think he got it right. I nevertheless absolutely do not share his opinion on the possibility that Joe was Jack or that he was a copycat killer in this murder. My refusal is based on the fact that there are at most only circumstantial evidences against him (and really not a lot) but primarily because, as for the others victims (except maybe for the late Frances Coles), I do not think (too long to speak about that here) it was possible for only one man to do what he did without being caught or even never noticed or heard. The thesis following which accomplices would have sooner or later betrayed him is a non starter. We are probably not speaking about common burglars but of men who had some kind of "holy goal" (do not misunderstand me, I am not speaking about Royal Conspiracy or Black Magic) and who felt not fully integrated in the kind of social order they were moving and leaving in. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 30 July 2001 - 01:29 pm
Hi, Graziano: I also do not think Joe Barnett was Jack. As I have said before, to think that either Joe Barnett or George Hutchinson was Jack you have to question why either of the men would have done the other murders if their real focus was on MJK. And the idea that the prior murders were done by Barnett to scare Kelly off the streets I think is a weak and less than reasonable motive. In regard to the women that Mary allowed to share her room, I would suggest there could be a couple of other reasons besides companionship: 1) they were also using the room for prostitution, and 2) they paid her for use of the room, which would have helped MJK to raise money to pay off the large back rent she owed. Best regards Chris George
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 30 July 2001 - 01:34 pm
Hi, Graziano: To answer one of your other questions, I don't know Dr. Frederick Walker who wrote the article on "Joe Barnett" located among the dissertations on this site. The "doctor" appelation might denote a Ph.D. not a medical degree. I am not sure if Dr. Walker is British or American. Can anyone tell us anything more about him? Best regards Chris George
Author: graziano Monday, 30 July 2001 - 01:36 pm
Hello Chris George, oh,oh, your two points are really a big point. Never thought about that. It makes me wonder... Bye. Graziano.
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 06:53 am
G'day Graziano, Chris, Mary Kelly took in two successive prostitute friends, "Julia" and Mrs. Harvey, to share their tiny room with one bed. Chris, if Mary did this just to raise enough money to help pay the rent, how come she was still owing 6 weeks rent when she died? Trying to understand why he murdered the other women for the sake of keeping Mary Kelly, is asking to understand the mind of a maniac! Joseph Barnett lost his mother when he was a boy, probably to prostitution. He picked up Mary while she was 'working' and forbade her from prostitution, for fear that he would lose her. He left her when she allowed prostitute friends to share their room. Understand? Leanne!
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 08:11 am
Leanne, I agree with you,-(as you know)- how can anyone say about a person like Barnett, who some of us think, "could" have been a little touched in the head,-- No-No!! you can't murder four of Kelly's friends, or aquaintances,-- not to make her too terrified to walk the streets at night,-- THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!! But in Barnetts twisted state of mind, it could have made a lot of sense, and he had certainly had treatment from Kelly that could have turned his mind over the edge and consider murder,--to get his way!! Best Regards Rick P.S. But of course Leanne the anti- Barnettites will say, Proof!! you have none, but I'm wondering now, can "anything" at all be provable about this series of murders
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 08:50 am
G'day Rick, What 'hard-evidence' do we have against anyone? A 'Diary'??? Joseph Barnett used to read the newspaper stories of the murders to Mary, which obviously scared her to pieces! (excuse the expression!)Until they obviously stopped working! Leanne!
Author: David Radka Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 12:28 am
What do y'all think concerning the notion that the Ripper made an appointment with MJ? She had her own apartment, you know. Maybe she didn't meet him on the street--maybe she knew him, maybe not personally, but knew him, and he made an appointment for her place at a certain time. What say? David
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 01:48 am
G'day David, I haven't thought of that much! I was just thinking about how Catharine Eddowes said she knew who the Ripper was, and some believe that she could have been keeping an appointment with him! Leanne!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 04:15 am
Hi David, Yes, I think it's got to be a possibility. The killer had been lying low for over a month, perhaps because the streets had got too hot for him. Mary went back to picking up clients when Joe had to sling his hook. Maybe she never really stopped for Joe, but I imagine she would have been wary about who she picked up, immediately after the double event. Then later, when Joe had gone, and the rent had been piling up since he lost his job, maybe she began to let her guard down a bit more. But having more choice than her tragic sisters, being younger and more spirited, she may have been able to stick with regular clients, or at least men she knew by sight. Something struck me about the golden opportunity Mary had, once Joe was gone, of enhancing her income and clearing her back rent, by letting her room be used by other prostitutes, who otherwise had to make do with the streets. Charging more because there was a bed, and taking her cut, Mary could have got back on her feet (!) in more ways than one, and stayed safe from maniacs abroad, in her new role as small-time madame. Or at least by sticking to regular clients she thought she could trust. But time was running out, and if she had any such plans to clear her debts, it would have been a gradual process over the weeks and months ahead - sadly, she never had that luxury. But there was something reckless about Mary that suggests she wasn't interested in catching the nearest way to clear her debts and stay safe - at least on the last night of her life. Was she just a hopeless drunk, unable to make the effort needed to save herself either from eviction or Jack? Or did she have an 'understanding' with McCarthy, or other reasons for thinking she was safe from being thrown out? (But the fact he sent Bowyer round to collect shows there was no rent-free arrangement.) Or was there something else - did she have a reason to believe better times were ahead? Had she met someone who was promising to take her away from all this? Was she expecting something good to happen to her on the day of the Lord Mayor's Show? I don't know, but it wouldn't really surprise me. Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 06:26 am
G'day Caz, David, everyone, I think it's safe to assume that Mary Kelly at least knew the Ripper by sight. She could have felt safe enough to invite him into her room. If Mary was letting her room to help pay her back rent, (that she owed for six weeks), she didn't even attempt to pay a little of it, because she still owed six weeks at the time of her death! "Julia" stayed at Room 13 on or around 27th October. Mrs. Harvey stayed on the 30th October. If her rent was usually collected on Friday mornings, the week before would have been the 2nd of November. If Kelly charged the ladies to stay, she would have had their money, yet she made no attempt to pay any! Leanne!
Author: Harry Mann Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 06:41 am
If Kelly made an arrangement for someone to visit her room,why would she be on the street at 2A.M looking for a client,and asking Hutchinson for sixpence.She must also have made an appointment for after 2.45 as Hutchinson states he was there untill that hour,and she was inside with a male person.It doesn't appear,from what Hutchinson says, that the meeting he supposedly witnessed was an arranged meeting. It is good though David to see someone suggesting a means of entry for the killer,in that except for Hutchinson and Barnett,very little has been said on the means of gaining access. Each suspect had to enter the room by some means,but authors have been a little coy on explaining how.Did she take the killer there,or did he go alone.Was Hutchinson telling the truth,and if so was his description that of the killer.How many suspects match the description given.For a theory to be sound,surely some of those questions need to be answered. H.Mann.
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:00 am
Hello everyone, I'm sure someone has speculated about this before, and it's probably even been determined and set aside, but it has always struck me that one possibility worth considering is that Mary Kelly was not actually subletting part of her room for money on occasion nor just being kind to friends, but that she had female lovers. Lovers, not clients. Isn't it at least possible that Mary was privately bi (not unheard of in the world of prostitutes, even the 19th century, after all) and that this was also one of the sources of the fights with Joe (who might not have admitted such a thing in a public inquest or perhaps even to the police if he thought it made him look like he lost Mary to another woman or because of the times and his own reputation). In the contemporary reports, when they are talking about the couple�s arguments, you see the sort of vague language that can sometimes be code for stuff. We all know what the least publicly talked about subject of the age was -- sex -- and I'm not sure it isn't at least possible that Mary's private sexual life didn't sometimes include a girlfriend. Or perhaps I simply watch too many American talk shows in the summer. --John PS: Once, when the Prime Minister delicately approached Victoria concerning a bill to further ban certain aspects of homosexual life, he asked her for her opinion concerning the regulation of lesbian practices. Reportedly, she asked him what he meant and he told her he was talking about two women. She thought about it for a long moment and looked at him quizzically and asked, "but... what would they do?" This may be an apocryphal story, but I love it nonetheless.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:31 am
I bet you could have told Vicky a thing or three, John. Love, Caz PS Perhaps Mary said to her last client: "Wanna watch?"
Author: Jesse Flowers Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:49 am
David- Certainly the "possibilities" as to how Jack got into Mary's room are virtually limitless. But hey, that's why God invented the law of probability. To wit- 1) The person who killed Kelly was the same person that killed Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes. 2)In all cases, the victim and her killer arrived at the scene in the same way. The victim, a prostitute, conducted her killer to a secluded spot for the purpose of having sex. Then he killed her. Or is that too simple? Leanne- The fact that Kelly didn't pay the rent doesn't mean she didn't have any money. To be blunt, she was a drunken prostitute who was likely to spend whatever money she did have on booze. And although she may have known the Ripper by sight, I don't think it's "safe to assume" any such thing. With an estimated 1200 prostitutes plying their trade in Whitechapel and Spitalfields, discrimination was a luxury that such people could ill afford. According to Mary Ann Cox, Kelly was so drunk that night she could barely speak. In such a state she probably would have gone with anyone who had the price of admission. AAA88
Author: graziano Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 11:07 am
Hello Jesse, yes, is way too simple. Mary could speak, she also sang for more than one hour. She sang because she was happy. She met a good and nice client, well and richly dressed (see Hutchinson description) who she very likely already knew (see Hutchinson description of her meeting with that man). Bye. Graziano. P.S.: all that is only my opinion.
Author: graziano Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 11:56 am
Hello Jesse, sorry but I think I have not been very clear in expressing my thoughts in the previous message. What I meant was this: when Mary Ann Cox meets Mary Jane Kelly she is drunk but not so as not to be able to speak. Not only she answers to the same Mary Cox but then she sings for a long time. I assume she was happy. I doubt that the shabbily dressed Mr "Blotchy face/Carroty mustache" or his ginger beer bottles were the cause of all this joy. Some hours previous to that Mary Jane Kelly told to one of her friend that she would get away with her life. She had big money problems. Why all of a sudden did she turn out to be so rejoiced (is that english ?). She could have met (between 8.00 p.m. and 11.30 p.m.) a well dressed and rich looking man - who maybe she could have already known - who just told her " Do not worry, with me your problems will go away, let us meet later, at two o'clock a.m., in Commercial Street at the corner with Thrawl Street" ( if I remember what Hutchinson said about the place where Mary Jane and the "Astrachan jewish looking man" met). Since you do not include Stride in your list above, may I underline that Liz Stride had also problems, not the least with her violent companion, but the night of her murder she was also very happy. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 06:50 pm
G'day Good People, Harry: Getting back to the descriptions, lets take another look: Joseph Lawende saw a man with Annie Chapman: "Aged about 30, height 5ft 7-8ins, fair complexion, fair moustache". Constable William Smith saw Elizabeth Stride with a man: "Aged about 28, height 5ft 7ins, Dark deerstalker hat". Israel Schwartz described first man who threw down Stride: "Aged about 30, height about 5ft 5ins, complexion fair, hair brown, brown moustache". James Brown saw Stride talking to a man: "Height 5ft 7ins", but didn't see his face. Joseph Lawende saw Catharine Eddowes standing with a man: "Sailor-looking, about 30, height 5ft 7-8ins, fair complexion,fair moustache". George Hutchinson saw man go with Kelly Up the Court", he didn't see them actually enter Room 13: "Jewish appearance, age was 34 or 35, height 5ft 6ins, complexion dark, moustache dark. Hutchinsons description doesn't match the others and he didn't actually see them go into her room! Leanne!
Author: Jesse Flowers Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 07:47 pm
Hello graziano- Perhaps it is true that I tend to apply Occam's razor a bit too freely, but like Aristotle I have always believed that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Regarding Mary Kelly's state of intoxication, allow me to quote directly from Mrs. Cox's statement to the police... "She was very drunk and could scarcely answer me..." Perhaps you can interpret that to mean something other than what it plainly says, but I don't see how. I see no reason to assume that Kelly was happy just because she was singing. Julia Venturney testified at the inquest that "deceased often sung Irish songs", which leads one to believe that it was habitual behavior on her part and not necessarily indicative of any particular emotional state. Furthermore the song she was heard to sing, "a violet I plucked from my mother's grave when a boy", sounds less like a happy tune than one of those melancholy songs of which the Irish are so fond (being from an Irish-American family, hopefully I can say this without offending anyone). Finally, if Mary is moments away from meeting a sugar daddy who is going to make all of her money problems go away, why does she try to borrow sixpence from Hutchinson? As soon as he says he has no money she's off. "Good morning I must go and find some money." This hardly sounds like a woman who is about to keep an appointment with a rich savior. AAA88
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:50 pm
Jesse, just a comment, that song Kelly was singing, "Only a violet", I don't know if the words are as melancholy as the title implies, but the melody sounds quite light hearted and cheerful Rick
Author: Jesse Flowers Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 01:24 am
Thanks Rick, that's interesting. I've never actually heard the melody but I assure you that the lyrics are quite melancholy, consisting mainly of nostalgic references to a dead family. They strike a particularly plaintive note when you imagine them sung by a penniless young woman, alone in the world and within hours of meeting the monster who would take her life. AAA88
Author: graziano Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 03:57 am
Hello Jesse, Don't you think that Aristotle has been painful enough for humanity ? Concerning the state of intoxication of Mary Jane Kelly, Mary Ann Cox, who went up the court just behind Mary Kelly and Mr "Blotchy face", said at the inquest that she got aware of her being drunk only when Mary Kelly answered her. Thus I can imagine that Mary Kelly walked up the court quite normally. Had she been heavily drunk (as you suggest) I think not only she could not have sung for more than one hour but Mary Cox could have seen her walking in a way very characteristical for persons who are the worst for drink. As for the sadness of the song and its melancholy, you are undoubtedly more expert than me. As is Rick, and I am quite happy with what he says about that. As for the asking of the sixpence to Hutchinson, that is what he stated. I could very well imagine ( as I think Bob Hinton suggested in his book that I ordered more than 6 months ago and am still waiting ) that this is not true ( aware, I am not saying that Hutchinson is the killer). I can very well imagine that he tried to go with Mary Kelly with whom he could have been fond. She refused because she was on the way to meet her rich and well dressed client or friend. Quite angry, a bit humiliated and some kind of jealous and overall being probably in need for sex he follows them and wait hoping that Mary would be soon available for him. But the night is cold and he goes, clearing the way. And that's the end for Mary. Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 04:42 am
Hello Harry, in a previous above message you say that the meeting witnessed by Hutchinson seemed not to be an arranged one. Well, I think that as for the conclusion we came to concerning the possibility for Diemschutz in Dutfield's yard of having disturbed (as you think) or not (as I do) Jack(s), we are again confronted with a question of interpretation. Relating the statement of Hutchinson, the Times of 14.11.1888 writes: " The man, who was standing at the corner of Thrawl street ...." (my interpretation: it was 2.00 a.m. of a cold night of November in a rough neighborood, why should you standing there if not for waiting someone to come ?) "....then came towards her...." (Mary Kelly was going towards Thrawl street in Commercial street, he was standing there but he moves towards her as soon as he sees her, sounds me like they have got an appointement and he arrived first) "....and put his hand on her shoulder and said something to her, and they both burst out laughing...." (I really think I would not do that to get the favours of a prostitute, but I would to a friend, even if she was a prostitute) So, this is my interpretation. For the sixpences I stated already what I think in the message I posted to Jesse. Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 04:58 am
Hello Leanne, it is true that never it is reported on the press that Hutchinson sees Mary Kelly and Mr "Astrachan jewish-looking" enter the room n. 13 in Miller's court. But he sees them going up the court after standing three minutes at the entrance of the court (sorry not to give precises references but from recollection it was stated in quite every newspaper) and he follows them up the court where he stay for two minutes (presumably just in front of number 13). In two minutes he surely has the time to see that nobody is in the court. So if nobody is in the court and he saw them going up this same court very likely they are inside. I must say that the fact that he does not see any light "in the house" or do not hear any noise ( the Times 14.11.1888) disturbs me a bit. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Harry Mann Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 06:06 am
Graziano, Hutchinson's statement says,'she went away towards Thrawl street.A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly---'.I would suggest the word 'coming'denotes he was on the move.This is from the statement signed by Hutchinson at the police station.It makes no mention of a man standing at the corner of Thrawl street.Sure the statement is open to interpretation,and what the press reported may have been what he said to them. If you believe this person to have entered the room with Kelly,then surely you believe him to be the chief suspect. On the other hand,if Hutchinson is not telling the truth,and his statement taken as a whole seems to infer this,what was the real reason Hutchinson was standing outside Crossinghams,on a damp cold November night. Leanne, Good point about Hutchinson's description not matching those you pointed out.But Hutchinson does match a description of a person seen at three of the sites other than Dorset Street i.e. about 5'7ins of stout build. As to the oft repeated report of a man throwing Stride to the ground,all he was seen to do was place a hand on a shoulder. Regards, H.Mann.
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 06:19 am
G'day Graziano, I just read Hutchinson's statement again in 'The Times' 14:11:88, and his statement to the police in 'The JtR A-Z' and this is was I think he said: In the police statement he tells of Mary asking for sixpence, him saying no and Mary walking toward Thrawl Street. Then it says: 'a man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly, tapped her on the shoulder....placed his right hand around her shoulders...' If they had arranged to meet, at the corner of Thrawl Street, he didn't have to head towards her. He could have just stayed where he was and let her do all the walking! 'I stood against the lamp of the 'Queens Head Public House' and watched him.....They both went up the Court together. I then went to the Court....I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out....' It sounds to me as if he stayed at the entrance to the Court for three quarters of an hour. When no one came out, he assumed they went inside the room, but they could have gone right through the other side. An innocent Jewish-looking man who just had a 'Knee-trembler' thingy, would have been too frightened to own-up to police. In the press report he added something about the lights being out and no noise being heard in her room. I'd say that there was probably no one in there at that time! Leanne!
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 02:39 pm
Leanne, please put me wise. You said in your post to Graziano, "Hutchinson could have assumed they went inside the room, but they could have gone right through the other side". That court was a cul-de-sac wasn't it? they couldn't do that, that would also have given the Ripper another exit, which I didn't think he had. If Kelly and the Jewish gent weren't in the court, then they had to be in the room. Graziano,-- I didn't know Hutchinson went up the entry to the court and stood outside Kelly's door for a while, if he did and it was quiet and dark in the room, then that does sound a bit ominous toward the Jewish gent. But if the gent really existed, would he,-- could he, have killed Kelly in the way it was done, dressed up like a dandy. If he had taken it all off, it would have taken un-planned for time to put it back on!! Rick
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 06:26 pm
G'day Rick, Have a look at the plan of Millers Court in 'The Simple Truth'. They could have gone around the corner at the back of McCarthy's shop or the corner near the watertap. Hutchinson said he went to the Court, and stood for three quarters of an hour to see if anyone came out. He didn't say that he actually stood in front of Room13, which I think he would have. I reckon he just stood at the enterance to the court, then when no one came out, he went closer to her room but there was no light or sound. Leanne!
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 08:39 pm
Hi Jesse, if you know those words well to "Only a violet", would you do me a big favour and E.mail them to me?. You have me interested now!!. Judging by what you say, I think we both have the same feelings and sentiments about these murders,--more a sad story than a horror story. Address is on profile,-- if you can, thanks, Rick
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 08:58 pm
Hi Rick, You can actually hear the song sung or played, and see the sheet music and the lyrics typed out, all right over on the Casebook. If you go to the Mary Kelly page among the Victims and scroll about two thirds of the way down,you'll see a small indented paragraph with two links in it, one to the fulll version as a downloadable file and one to this web page: http://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.violets.html This page will give you the sheet music, an instrumental midi-file, and the lyrics. Check 'em both out when you get a chance. All the best, --John
Author: David Radka Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 09:24 pm
I have just read Mr. Wolf Vanderlinen's excellent article in "Ripper Notes" on the Maxwell sighting, and would like to compliment him on it. A pretty kettle of fish, to be sure. David
Author: Jesse Flowers Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 10:09 pm
Hello graziano- I hope you'll forgive me for again quoting Mrs. Cox directly-this from her inquest testimony- "...I last saw her alive about midnight on Thursday very much intoxicated, in Dorset Street she went up the Court a few steps in front of me..." Clearly Mary's inebriated condition was evident to Mrs. Cox as she walked behind her towards Miller's Court. This suggests strongly that her walk and manner were indeed that of a drunken person. As far as your interpretation of Hutchinson's statement is concerned, I must confess my frank admiration. This is as bold a piece of casuistry as one is likely to encounter-I salute you. It does, however, have the effect of making the witness upon which your theory largely depends into a liar. If (as you say) Hutchinson would falsify this relatively trivial detail, how much else of his story is to be believed? And by the way, what did Aristotle ever do to you? AAA88
Author: graziano Friday, 03 August 2001 - 11:36 am
Hello Jesse, first of all things sorry to you and my apologizes to Aristotle, one should never write being drunk (it's not true but I am looking for a decent excuse). Of course not only Aristotle did nothing to me but his work has been absolutely fantastic. So, please, would you kindly reread my sentence from: " Don't you think that Aristotle has been painful enough for humanity ?" to: " Don't you think that Aristotle has been misused enough for the pain of humanity ?", and of course I am referring to the misuses of his ideas and writings by the Christian Church and this forever shameful institution that was the Inquisition. Bye and sorry again. Graziano.
Author: graziano Friday, 03 August 2001 - 11:47 am
Hello Jesse, now for the statement of Mary Ann Cox from the Daily Telegraph 13.11.1888: As you cited: " I last saw her alive on Thursday night, at a quarter to twelve, very much intoxicated...In Dorset street. She went up the court, a few steps in front of me." As you forgot to cite (twenty Coroner's questions later): Coroner: " You say she was drunk ?" Witness: " I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night" And we know that Mary Kelly answered "good night" entering the room n. 13 after having walked up the court. Bye. Graziano.