|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through May 8, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Was it really Mary Kelly?:
Archive through May 8, 2000
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 07:07 am |        | | Diana , you can determine the size of Kelly's head by comparing the length of her face to the width of the pillow , the head occupies at least 80% of the pillow width IMHO. Another measurement can be deduced from the size/thickness of the mattress which appears quite clearly in the picture: compare the mattress thickness in the photo (mm's) to the thickness of a contemporary single mattress (cm's) and work out a ratio to convert the sizes. Once you have the length of the face you can make a good guess at the measurement of the body down to the pubes , and then measure Kelly's right leg. Alternatively a female is between 7.2 and 7.5 heads high according to artistic rules of proportion so multiply the face length by 7.2 to find the height of the body. Best of luck ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 07:20 am | | Caroline , the most obvious answer to the witnesses statements about Kelly is that they ACTUALLY SAW HER ! I know it seems impossible but , discounting ghosts , it hardly seems logical that it could be a lookalike. If Kelly had seen the atrocity in her room then no wonder she had vomitted on the road , not even a pint would have calmed her nerves. The ' horrors of drink ' story would have been a cover , she would not have wanted to tell Mrs Maxwell the whole truth. I don't have a record in my books of what Maurice Lewis said about Kelly , could you please post it to this board. Thanks ! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 11:29 am | | Hi Simon,
Begg states:
'At 8.00am a tailor named Maurice Lewis who lived in Dorset Street was reported by The Times, 10 November 1888, to have seen Kelly leave her room, then return to it a few moments later.'
'At 10.00am Maurice Lewis said that he was playing pitch and toss in "McCarthy's Court". He and his companions then went to 'the Ringers' [The Britannia]. He was positive that on going in he saw Kelly drinking with some other people. He was not sure whether there was a man among them.' (From Illustrated Police News, 17 November 1888)
The JtR A-Z: Lewis told the press he had known Kelly for about five years.
BTW, Maxwell describes 'Kelly's' clothes that morning: dark skirt, black velvet bodice and maroon shawl. (In the A-Z, the bodice is green.) No mention of a hat (Walter Dew said Kelly never wore a hat), but no mention of an apron either (Dew said she always wore a clean white apron).
Does anyone know exactly what clothes were found folded neatly in Kelly's room when her body was discovered?
I don't believe for one moment that it wasn't Kelly murdered in No.13, the only other possible explanation (if Lewis and Maxwell were spot on) being that Kelly didn't take her killer back home with her until after breakfast (as Wolf suggested a while back). Perhaps a last-ditch effort to get some rent money together for Bowyer's visit, having p***ed the lot up against the wall again the night before....
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 07:57 am | | James Tully , in ' The Secret of Prisoner 1167 ' casts grave doubts on the accuracy of Dr Bond's estimated time of death for MJK. Posting elsewhere ! As for Lewis , it is interesting to note that the clothes he says Mary was wearing are the same as those Mrs Maxwell says Mary was wearing : " She wore a dark skirt , velvet body and maroon shawl and no hat ". No mention of an apron so we can presume Kelly wasn't wearing one. If Kelly had stayed at the Providence Row convent when she arrived in London in 1884 as well , then it would have been possible for Maurice Lewis to have known her for about 5 years. Thus I think Lewis is telling the truth , his description of MJK tallying with Mrs Maxwells surely indicates they saw the same woman. Lewis also ties this woman in with Miller's court. I have always suspected Mary brought up her pint of beer because she had seen the dead body , the drink had failed to calm her nerves. Perhaps she had returned to her house and saw the body at 8.00am , then she had to take another peep to prove her eyes were not decieving her. When she found the horror in the room was a true one she fled to the pub and ordered a drink to calm her nerves , but she couldn't keep it down. Certainly she had not been on a drinking spree for several days as she told Mrs Maxwell. Notice also that Lewis does not say Kelly went around the corner to put her hand through the window to bolt the door , she did not attempt to lock the door behind her before she returned to the room a few moments later. I am going to nail my colours to the mast and say I firmly believe it was NOT Mary Kelly who was killed in 13 Miller's Court. It sounds impossible but it must be true , whether you believe in Conspiracy theories or not. Mrs Maxwell was questioned on the same day as she saw Kelly by Inspector Abberline , who took her statement. She was hardly likely to be mistaken about seeing someone she knew only a few hours later. But the clinching factor is the statement from the Ringers , owners of the ' Britannia '. There is no statement from the Ringers ! It is not in the file and the Ringers did not attend the inquest either. Yet I do not believe Abberline would not have followed this lead up. To quote James Tully again : " Either the police had an incredible faith in their doctors , and were even more incompetant than usual , or else they did investigate Mrs Maxwell's claims and found evidence which they thought it best to conceal. Were the latter the case , they may have well have decided to have Mrs Maxwell's evidence derided publicly at the inquest so the murderer should not be alarmed ". ( Tully , p.268 ) It is even possible that the murder was committed between 8am and 9am , thus maybe Mary came back and caught the Ripper red-handed , thus forcing her to flee for her life. It seems an earlier time is more likely however , what was the chance that MJK would have gone to the police , the killer would have abandoned his work immediately. Instead it seems he had time to mutilate and dissect the corpse at leisure. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 06:29 am | | URGENT MESSAGE FOR BOB HINTON !: Hello Bob , nice to see you back on the Boards. But please , please , please, we all need to know some information from you : those quotes on page 118 of ' From Hell ' - where did they come from ? Who said Mary was ' a short , dumpy woman but quite attractive ' ? Was it Maurice Lewis who said ' I have known her for about five years , she had long dark hair ' ? Where did Walter Dew say that Kelly was ' a short dumpy little woman ' , according to Stewart Evans this quote does not come from ' I Caught Crippen '. Please take the time to answer these questions as they are important , thanks Bob. I really liked your book although I thought your choice of Hutchinson as the killer was a bit far-fetched. yours , Simon Owen. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 30 April 2000 - 05:06 pm | | | TO BOB HINTON : Are you on-line again Bob ? Please read the above message. Thanks ! |
Author: Kaye Englmeier
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 05:23 pm | | In reference to Mary Jane Kelly being short and stout, this account was printed in The Illustrated Police News, dated 17 November:
Maurice Lewis, a tailor, living in Dorset-street, stated that he had known the deceased woman for the last five years. Her name was Mary Jane Kelly. She was short, stout, and dark; and stood about five feet three inches. He saw her on the previous (Thursday) night, betwen ten and eleven, at the Horn of Plenty in Dorset-street. She was drinking with some woman and also with "Dan," a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago. He knew her as a woman of the town. One of the woman whom he saw with her was known as Julia. To his knowledge she went home overnight with a man. He seemed to be respectably dressed. Whether or no the man remained all night he could not say. Soon after ten o'clock in the morning he was playing with others at pitch and toss in M'Carthy's-cour, when he heard a lad call out "Copper," and he and his companions rushed away and entered a beer-house at the corner of Dorset- street, known as Ringer's. He was positive than on going in he saw Mary Jane Kelly drinking with some other people, but is not certain whether there was a man amongst them. He went home to Dorset-street on leaving the house, and about half an hour afterwards heard that Kelly had been found in her room murdered. It would then be close upon eleven o'clock.
Not only does he give her height as 5' #" but claims to have seen her around 10 o'clock on Friday Morning. Is this an example of bad reporting, mistaken date and time, or proof that the woman murdered wasn't Mary Jane Kelly? |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 05:11 am | | | The woman on the bed was 5'7" tall , so it wasn't Mary Kelly. A mystery is solved. Maurice Lewis also told this story to the Times , but strangely he didn't appear at the inquest. Yet his discription of Kelly's apparel tallys with that of Mrs Maxwell. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 09:56 am | | G'day Simon and Kaye,
Elizabeth Prater, a neighbour, told the 'Star' on the 10th of November: 'She was tall and pretty and fair as a lily'.
Elizabeth Phoenix, who was a former acquaintance of Kelly's, told the "star', 'The Daily News' and other papers on the 12th of november that Kelly was about 5ft 7ins tall, and stout, with blue eyes and a 'fine head of hair which reached nearly to her waist'. A mystery is soved!!!!
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 05 May 2000 - 05:47 pm | | | Oh , a mystery is ' soved ' is it ? Well , answer me this then ! Maurice Lewis saw the person HE knew to be Kelly leaving No 13 Miller's Court at 8am on the morning of November 9th and he saw the same woman at 10am in the pub. And because his description of MJK's clothes is the same as Mrs Maxwells , we can infer that they are talking about the same woman. So Lewis and Mrs Maxwell put this woman at Miller's Court on the day of the murder , if Kelly was 5'7" you have to explain who the person Maxwell and Lewis saw was. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 06:06 am | | G'day there,
'The Simple Truth' says:
Maurice Lewis told Lloyd's Newspaper on the 11th of November that he saw Kelly, between 10 & 11, in the Horn of Plenty, where she was drinking with some companions, amoung them her friend Julia and a man identified as 'Dan', an orange seller with whom Kelly had recently been living.
Obviously this is a description of Joseph Barnett. Joseph's brother was called Daniel and Bruce Paley points out that Joseph turned to his brother for support and asked him to plead with Mary to take him back. He may have been there also. According to Lewis, Kelly then went off with a respectably dressed man, presumably a client.
At 11:45, Kelly was seen entering her room by Mary Ann Cox, with a 'shabily dressed man'. Barnett returned to Buller's Lodging House to play whist, before "retiring". He probably worked himself into a desperate emotional state and felt that he had to speak with Kelly again. He left Buller's unseen!
Both Joseph Barnett and landlord John McCarthy, identified the body as Kelly's!!!
Are you going to trust a Dorset Street tailor, who wasn't even asked to identify the body, or are you going to trust her boyfriend and her landlord?
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 05:46 pm | | TO BOB HINTON : Bob , you keep coming on line and I keep missing you. Please read my post of 25th April on this board ! TO ALL : If Bob shows up again , please point him to this board. Thanks ! |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 06:34 pm | | Hi Simon:
Some folks don't read the posts from the web page. Having posts sent to their e-mail box from the specific topics they're most interested in is one option, but there are several ways to read these boards.
In the past, when I've had trouble communicating with someone who visits the boards on an irregular basis--I post to the board they were last seen on. Bob Hinton posted on the Hutchinson board today ... you might try reaching him there.
Hope y'all connect soon, as I'm quite interested in the topic of descriptions of victims myself. Bob has always been quite helpful in the past, and may just be busy trolling through his files or off doing new research.
Janice |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 07 May 2000 - 09:45 am | | Dear Everyone,
The reason for my extended absence was that I was closing down my office in Llanelli and moving everything to my home in Kidwelly. Unfortunately the computer equipment threw a fit during the move and hasn'nt worked properly since.
I believe I now have it under control 209kmsmeo . laoskjloo ll4876465 l;;; oh bu****er!
Simon I am so sorry to have neglected you, it was unintentional, but I understand how irritating it can be. Please send me an email, and I'll try and help you as much as I can.
QUESTIONS
Where does the information that the body on the bed was 5' 7" come from ?
POINTS TO PONDER.
I personally do not place too much credance on the testimony of Morris Lewis and Caroline Maxwell, but for different reasons.
Morris Lewis.
I believe this gentleman was mistaken in that the person he thought was Mary Kelly - wasn't.
There are various reasons for saying this. First of all he said he had known her for about five years, which seemingly contradicts Barnett who says that Kelly wasn't even in London at this time.
Secondly he says that he saw this woman ( who I shall refer to as X) in the Horn of Plenty at about 2200 on the 8th (the night before Kelly's death)with " a man called Dan who sold oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields market, with whom she lived with up to as recently as a fortnight ago".
Things we do know about Mary Kelly:
1. She lived with a man called Joe not Dan.
2. Joe did not sell oranges he was an out of work fish porter ( Barnetts statement 9th Nov "I am a porter in Billingsgate market but have been out of employment for the lst 3 or 4 months" Barnetts statement at the inquest " I am a labourer. I have been a fish porter")
3. He was living with her as recently as a week.
4. As recently as 2000 the same evening neither Joe or Mary had any money (Barnetts statement of the 9th Nov) so where in two hours did they get enough money to go drinking in the Horn of Plenty?
In not one single detail does Lewis's description of Miss X coincide with what we know of Mary Kelly, why therefore do we insist that Miss X and Mary Kelly are the same person? Why doesn't the person Julia who was with Miss X corroborate his story. Simply because the person Julia and Dan were with was not Mary Kelly.
My case against Caroline Maxwell is slightly more involved but if anyone is interested I will explain later.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 07 May 2000 - 02:35 pm | | Hi Bob ! Thanks for the reply , all I wanted to ask was could you tell me the sources for the quotes on page 118 of ' From Hell ' , especially the Dew quote. It doesn't seem to be in ' I Caught Crippen ' so I was wondering where it came from. The 5'7" measurement was made by me , I intend to post again soon to clarify how I came by this. As for Maurice Lewis , his description of Kelly having dark hair ties in with the description of her by Florence Pash : " She was quite good looking. Good hair , dark , bushy " ( J.O. Fuller , ' Sickert and the Ripper crimes ' , page 15 , Mandrake 1990 ). |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 07 May 2000 - 10:40 pm | | Bob,
I am suspicious that the Ripper may have made an appointment with Mary Jane Kelly for the morning of the murder, and thus would much like to hear your reasoning concerning Maxwell. Thank you.
David |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 08:38 am | | G'day Bob,
Things I know about Kelly:
* She lived with a Joe, who's 'father-figure-brother' was named DANiel Barnett.
*Barnett lost his fish-porter job, just before the murder of Nichols. He occasionally sold oranges. Barnett described himself at her inquest as a fruit porter and labourer. The 'Daily News' of the 10th of November, said that Barnett worked as a drover or hawker of oranges in the street.
*Barnett was living with Kelly, until the fight on the 30th of October, ten days before her murder.
*Barnett told Kelly that he had no money for her, when he visited on the 8th, and then left to play whist, with his mates. He could have won some money there!
Leanne! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 10:49 am | | Dear Leanne,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my posting. Let me answer your points.
1. Joe had a brother called Dan. So what. I have a brother named Andrew but my wife lives with me not him. Morris Lewis said he saw Miss X with a man called Dan whom she had lived with. That description does not fit Mary Kelly whatever way you look at it.
2. I am not sure where you got your information that Barnett described himself at her inquest as a fruit porter and labourer. I have written out what he said in my posting above. I will write it out again "I am a laborer and have been a fish porter" I cannot make those words read 'I am a fruit porter' if you can perhaps you will tell me how.
3. Its a nit picking point I'm making here but the time between 30th October and the 8th November is closer to a week than a fortnight.
4. He could also have lost some money, assuming they were playing for money which since he did'nt have any at 2000 seems most unlikely.
I repeat Morris Lewis made a statement (apparently) the details of which DO NOT in way fit Mary Kelly, if you think they do then please explain.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 11:23 am | | For David Radka,
I was half hoping no one would ask me for my reasons as they are somewhat lengthy. Anyway perhaps I can give a shortened version. The first thing to do is to ask ourselves why Maxwell is believed and then test those reasons.
Many people believe Maxwell for the following reasons:
1. She describes Miss X as wearing the same clothes as Mary Kelly was the night before thus lending weight to her identification.
2. Her statement made on the 9th Nov did not change from that given on the 12th at the inquest.
3. She knew Mary quite well and would not have confused her with anyone else.
4. She had no reason to lie.
Leaving aside No 4 for the moment lets look at them in reverse order.
a. How well did she know Mary? On the 9th she states ' I have known deceased for the last four months....but have not seen her for the last three weeks' Later at the inquest she states ' ...I never spoke to her except twice' So in four months she has spoken to Mary twice, hardly the basis for an intimate knowledge of the woman. How accurate can we say her identification is of a person she only spoke to twice in all the time she knew her? In those four months how many hundreds, if not thousands of people had she met as the wife of a lodging house deputy?
b. Now lets have a look at her statements. On the 9th Maxwell describes Miss X as wearing a Green shawl. Mary Cox however states that the previous evening MJK was wearing a Red shawl. However at the inquest after Mary Cox has given her statement saying the shawl was red, Maxwell now changes her description. She too now describes the shawl as red (maroon) Now if Mary Cox can remember what the colour was from the Friday to the Monday it seems a little strange that Maxwell can't, especially as she has now changed the colour to match. Also if you look at the two staements other changes become obvious. The form of the conversation has now changed.
Mary calls Maxwell ' Carry' presumably a nickname, strange for someone you have only spoken to twice in your life. Miss X no longer mention the Ringers pub anymore, merely gestures with her head. There are other differences which only become obvious when you compare the two statements side by side.
c. So why did she lie? Well strictly speaking I don't think she did. I believe she just wanted to be a part of what was going on and wanted to insert herself into the picture. Dont forget when she told her original story she had no idea when MJK was supposed to have been murdered, a tale about meeting her at 0830 would have seemed quite possible, it was only later when the estimated time of death was given that she realised she had made an error.
I think a clue to the inventiveness of Maxwell is to be found in the last line of her statement:
"a suspicious man accosted her. He carried a black bag" All that is missing is the twirling of the moustaches and the stropping of a large knife on the sole of his boot!
I have covered this in much greater detail in Ripperologist no 22 April 1999, but one thing that always stands out against Maxwell is the fact that if she is right how come no one else saw her? MJK would have been well known at the Ringers and yet there is not one corroborating witness to back her up.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 01:52 pm | | Bob,
Thanks for your influential reasoning and post.
David |
|
|
|
|
