|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 14, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Mary kelly:
Archive through April 14, 2000
Author: The Viper
Monday, 10 April 2000 - 05:21 pm |        | Simon,
Since the only primary source I have here is the Inquest material, you are asking the wrong person here. It does seem that two shallow alcoves were formed by the fireplace being positioned in the middle of the wall farthest from the door (again, see the plan in Sudgen). The following appears in James Tully’s book, though it isn’t sourced. Maybe someone else can tell us where Tully got this from:-
"Facing the door, in the middle of the wall at the far end of the room, was the chimney breast and fireplace with an alcove on each side…. The right-hand alcove housed a cupboard about four feet high, the top of which did service as a wash-stand. It was found to contain a few pieces of pottery, some ginger-beer bottles and a piece of bread on a plate."
It is highly unlikely that the room contained a stove. There is no mention of one and Abberline said at the inquest that:- "I have taken an inventory of what was in the room, there had been a large fire, so large as to melt the spout off the kettle." All of which suggests that some kind of hook, tripod or spit was used to place the kettle over the fire.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jeffrey
Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 06:22 am | | Hi All !
I'm not sure there is any evidence to suggest that Mary Kelly was strangled, the evidence as I see it indicates that she could well have put up a bit of a struggle?
The mass of blood at the top right hand corner of the mattress, suggest to me that this was where Kelly was killed. She probably cowered up into the corner, in a vain attempt at defending herself as best she could by raising her arms up. I understand that she was moved then, to the position the body was found. If this scenario is anywhere near the truth, poor Mary's last moments must have been absolutely terrifying. She does appear to have retired for the evening, the killer then somehow entered the room, startled his victim (Oh murder!), a brief fight for life then ended with the killer lashing out wildly to the victim huddled up in the corner, slashing the throat, from the Kelly's right side (right carotid artery) as opposed to the left side of the prevous victims. All dictated by the position of the body, and the right-handed killers stance. (IMHO)
With this interpretation, it could be assumed that the killer could have wanted Kelly to suffer a violent death more than the previous victims, where the mutilations after death were his priority. The disfiguring and virtual removal of the face could indicate Kelly was familiar to the killer, and he needed to de-personalise his victim. After she was positioned on the bed, he first pulled the sheet over the face, why ? Could he not bare to see Kelly looking back at him ? Surely if she were just another hapless, unknown victim, her face would have meant nothing? The covering of the face first, then the absolute obliteration have to be significant. I have been studying and attempting to interpret the crime scene information a great deal lately, and my opinion at this point in time is that both Eddowes and Kelly were known to the killer in some way.
(MHO) Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Glenn Baron
Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 07:48 am | | One aspect of this that has always made me uneasy is that in such a tiny room, with bed,cupboards and tables crammed in, surely a fire intense enough to melt the spout off the kettle would have at least scorched furniture/bedding etc?
I have never seen this mentioned. Perhaps the kettle was already in that state and the 'fire' is a red-herring?
Regards,
Glenn |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 07:53 am | | Thanks for the information on Kelly's room Viper , interesting stuff. It seems clear that Kelly's cupboard was therefore a freestanding one and not the wallcupboard which appears in the casebook-productions virtual pictures of MJK's room. Otherwise how could it serve as a washstand ? Tully's information suggests that the fireplace protruded into the room , thus leaving alcove space on either side of it - possibly about 2' deep. The point Scott makes about the window is a good one ; if the killer had left via the window and it did open , then the broken glass may have fallen out. It does not neccessarily mean that the killer knew MJK but , for some reason , the killer knew Kelly's door could not be locked , rather you had to reach through the window and unbolt the door to gain entry. A very mysterious factor in the case which needs to be explained. Since Kelly had no stove , how did she cook the meat that Barnett gave her : the obvious answer is that she went across the road to the Commercial Lodging house and cooked it in the kitchen there. Mrs Maxwell stated she knew Kelly and Kelly knew her "...by being about in the lodging house" ( Tully , p.255 ) - her husband Henry was deputy of the Commercial lodging house ' which was almost opposite the entrance to Miller's Court ' ( Tully p.254 ). This is further support for Mrs Maxwell knowing Kelly , and vica versa. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 08:19 am | | | I think the solution to the window problem is that Kelly's windows did open. Looking at the photograph of the outside of her room , it would seem that the bottom part of each window could be pushed upwards behind the top part. If the killer had tried the window and it opened , then he need not have known that the door could be opened via the catch and was not locked. This is an important point , can anyone confirm if the windows opened or not ? Nothing in Sugden about it. The question is , was the key lost before the window was broken : if so , the window would have had to be lifted to undo the door catch. |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 11:31 pm | | | Dear Mr. Radka, The reason I have not responded to your post until now is that it was report card time again and I have been running in circles. I want to apologise to you for calling you by your last name. You are correct. It was disrespectful and I'm sorry. I feel it would express undue familiarity to address you as David, so I will call you Mr. Radka. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 12:13 am | | Diana,
Tax time for me (as a CPA.) Clients getting mad at the IRS through me. The IRS isn't here for them to pick on, so they pick on me. I had a client call me today and demand that I drive to her home immediately to explain to her in person how to mail her tax returns I prepared. Despite that I had included detailed instructions and organized everything for her. She wasn't at home when I had called Sunday morning. "I would have thought you'd be gracious enough to come whenever I call you--we live in the same town."
Goes to show there are some people you just can't ever please. Same is true for all of us. Let's be friends. Now back to work.
David
PS Thanks, Scott! Will e-mail later. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 05:29 am | | G'day People,
Simon: Barnett and Kellys hand-thru-window method of entry, was only possible after the window panes were broken, during their heated row on the 30th of October. Objects were hurled and blows may have been struck.
If the key was already missing, how would Kelly have gotten in? "She opened the window!" I hear you think!
Barnett told Inspector Abberline that "since it has been lost, we have put our hands THROUGH THE BROKEN WINDOW and moved back the catch". This means that the key vanished at the time the window was broken! (See Inspector Abberlines statement at her inquest).
Before Barnett moved out after the fight, he told Kelly that "he'd come back, if Mrs Harvey would go and live somewhere else". If he was in possession of the key at the time, he may have took it with him, (unknowingly). When he emptied his pokets, he may have thought "She'll begg me to come back soon, bugger it! I'll keep it!"
Leanne! |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 05:52 am | | Simon wrote:
"Since Kelly had no stove, how did she cook the meat that Barnett gave her: the obvious answer is that she went across the road to the Commercial Lodging house and cooked it in the kitchen there."
Excerpts from What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew - the Facts of Daily Life in 19th Century England by Daniel Pool:
"The poor man lived on bread ... He ate cheese rather than butter, fish rather than meat--because they were cheaper ... 'Poverty and oysters always seem to go together,' Sam Weller observes in Pickwick, '... the poorer a place is, the greater call there seems to be for oysters,' he remarks of Whitechapel, a fact reflected in the virtual depletion of natural oyster beds by the 1850s. In 1864 a student of the matter found the average farm laborer had one hot meal a week; fuel was often expensive, and those who cooked had to do so over an open fire, since few of the poor had ovens. On Sunday and Christmas, the poor therefore generally took their geese or other meals to the local bakehouse or baker's to get them cooked.
I'm not so sure the Commercial Lodging House landlord would have wanted to buy enough coal for all and sundry neighbors to do their cooking at his/her expense. IMHO, it's more likely that IF Mary received meat from Joe B. or elsewhere, she would have stewed it in a pot hung in her fireplace.
VIPER: Thanks for the Tully quote on the fireplace alcove.
Ashling |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 08:31 am | | | Er...Examining the above message reveals two things Ashling. One , you are talking about 1864 not 1888. And two , you are talking about farm labourers not the urban poor of late Victorian London. There is a difference I'm afraid. There is also the fact that no cooking pot was found in Kelly's room and , as far as we know , no eating utensils either : its not unreasonable that since there was a big kitchen and eating room just across the street , she'd pop over there to do her dinner. With so many people in and out of the lodging house at any given time the landlord probably wouldn't bother checking who was in the kitchen - it would be too much trouble. Or Kelly may have paid a small fee to use the facilities. |
Author: Glenn Baron
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 09:50 am | | Leane,you state ..
"Barnett told Inspector Abberline that "since it has been lost, we have put our hands THROUGH THE BROKEN WINDOW and moved back the catch". This means that the key vanished at the time the window was broken! "
Nope... it means they started *using* the hole when the key went missing. The hole may have been made at that time, or it may have been there for years. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 02:33 pm | | Hi, Simon:
Ashling makes a good point when she said "I'm not so sure the Commercial Lodging House landlord would have wanted to buy enough coal for all and sundry neighbors to do their cooking at his/her expense." In his interesting presentation at the Park Ridge convention on Saturday, Andy Aliffe showed an etching illustrating people bedded down in an establishment owned by John McCarthy. One of the the blankets had a stamp on it "Carthy Stolen" [Andy thinks McCarthy was known locally as "Carthy"]. These people were not in the business of giving out free lodgings or free anything. If a blanket "walked" the proprietor would want people to know it had been stolen, and thus the wording to prevent such property being taken.
Chris George |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 07:44 pm | | G'day Glenn,
Do you think that Kelly may have been opening the window, to reach the latch, before the window was broken?
I checked out the photograph of the broken window, here on the 'Victims, Mary Jane Kelly' page, and can't see the knob thing she would have used to open the window from the outside!
You'd think anything, to clear Joseph Barnett on this one!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 10:31 pm | | G'day Glenn,
If you think that the window was broken before they had the fight, Read 'The London Times', Saturday November 10, 1888:
'Bowyer, knowing that when the man Kelly (Barnett) and the dead woman had their quarrel, a pane of glass in one of the windows was broken....'
Leanne! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 01:25 am | | Glenn, from the inquest into the death of Mary Kelly, Monday 12th November, 1888.
Testimony of John McCarthy:
"deceased has lived in the room with Joe for 10 months both together - they lived comfortably together...once broke the two windows ."
From the written statement of Julia Venturney taken by Inspector Abberline, Friday, 9th November 1888:
"she used to get tipsy occasionally. She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk..."
Wolf. |
Author: Glenn Baron
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 04:06 am | | Leane,Wolf
When I said 'years' I thought it was clearly figuratively.
The point I was trying to make is that the loss of the key does not have to correspond with the breaking of the window, as in:
"This means that the key vanished at the time the window was broken!" (Leane ,Apr 12)
If the window pane was broken 2 weeks (say) before the key went missing, they would have continued to use the key up to the point where they *had* the reach through the broken pane.
I'm also at a slight loss to understand how 2 people living in this room (as they did for some time) would manage with only one key. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 04:18 am | | | Not to change the subject, but in the newer Mary Kelly photograph (the one in Evans & Gainey's book) what is the object on the left end of the table? Some sort of pillow? |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 10:13 am | | G'day Folks,
From the 'Daily Telegraph' Inquest report, the Coroner asked: "How long had the deceased lived in the room?"
John McCarthy replied: "Ten months. She lived with Barnett. I did not know whether they were maried or not; they lived comfortably together, but they had a row when the window was broken..."
Wolf: it sounds as though whoever wrote the notes you are reading from, made them in shorthand.
The newspaper reporters were there, and interviewed the 'witnesses'. Some reporters got Barnetts name wrong and reported 'Kelly' as his name. Unfortunately the tape-recorder wasn't invented yet!
The date of the big argument was the 30th of October, Venturney made her statement on the 9th of November. 10 days is pretty close to two weeks!
Maybe Julia Venturney never went to school and couldn't count!!!!!!
Leanne!
Leanne |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 10:16 am | | | SORRY FOR SIGNING MY NAME TWICE! I DID THAT SO YOU WOULDN'T FORGET! |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 14 April 2000 - 04:07 am | | CHRIS G.: Hi! Thanks for the Carthy/McCarthy blanket story. Is the etching signed with the name of the artist?
Thanks,
Ashling |
|
|
|
|
