|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 13 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Archive through 13 January 2003
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:48 pm |        | Rick,
We can't really say, but we can predict. It's kinda the point of de Becker's book. Check it out, it's interesting.
B |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 02:01 pm | | Brian, I,m with you all the way there, I thought thats what we all were doing, if thats what you would call it. 
Caz, what can I say except, thats fair enough,
thank you both.
Rick
I would like to get in touch with GARY,who knows about SHOWBUSINESS, I've got a question Gary. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:30 pm | | Hi, Guys and Gals:
Regarding Hutchinson's statement:
It would seem to me that the reason Coroner Roderick MacDonald shortened the Inquest proceedings was because he had "inside information" about the forthcoming statement of Hutchinson. Perhaps Dr. MacDonald knew Hutchinson or maybe they were related in some way. I'm not suggesting anything sinister, of course:-) Just a longshot theory.
Robert |
Author: chris scott
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:57 pm | | Isn't it possible that there was a much more human motive for MacDonald's conduct of Kelly inquest? Namely a mixture of injured pride and a determination to assert his authority as coroner. The inquest started of in ill tempered fashion with the questioning of the inquest and the legitimacy of its being heard in Shoreditch. All of which prompted Macdonald to say:
Do you think that we do not know what we are doing here? and
If they persist in their objection I shall know how to deal with them.
This sounds to me much more like a man rattled at the questioning of his authority than someone embarking on some clandestine cover up.
MacDonald closed by saying, in essence, that it was the place of the inquest jury to establish cause of death, not to hold some quasi trial to identify or condemn a suspect.
And let us not forget that he did finally leave the question of whether the inquest would be extended up to the jury themselves when he said:
It is for you to say whether you will close the inquiry to-day; if not, we shall adjourn for a week or fortnight, to hear the evidence that you may desire.
Hope this is of interest
Chris S |
Author: Trevor Robert Jones
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 06:18 pm | | It sounds to me as if MacDonald was suggesting that if the Jurors continued to question the legitimacy of the inquest,he would charge them with contempt of Court.
"If they persist with their objection,I shall know how to deal with them".
On the subject of George Hutchinson,I have always wondered why he remained outside the entrance to Millers Court for 30 minutes , after MJK entered with a client - was he stalking her? !
Trevor. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 06:24 pm | | I wasn't at all suggesting a cover-up (I'm a pro-MacDonald sympathizer in the battle :-0) I was referring to his observation: 'There is other evidence which I do not propose to call, for if we at once make public every fact brought forward in connection with this terrible murder, the end of justice might be retarded.' So, it's clear he did have "inside information" of some kind. Perhaps it was Hutchinson. That's all I meant.
Robert
P.S I'm reading two books about R.M's clan right this minute! |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 05:12 am | | It would not matter to the killer if a whole army was in the court,the only danger lay in someone knocking on her door,or looking through the window to see if she was in danger,and we know this did not happen.The killer stayed put and mutilated her,and no one came to enquire.
It is of course speculation as to why she cried out,but the fact that she was killed and mutilated ,surely indicates that the murderer showed an intent to attack,and she saw this,and shouted accordingly.
Perhaps the best person to know her intentions that night was the man who went to her room with her at midnight.It is widely suggested he was a client,but her subsequent behaviour of passing the time singing,seems a curious way of servicing him.
I am more of the opinion it was someone she knew,a person with time on his hands and no commitments.Someone who was willing to share a jug of beer,in return for a chance to size up the possibilities of her as a victim.Someone who knew it was safe to come back better prepared,at a later hour.One who could be sure,before he left,that she would retire to bed well under the influence.
A person whose later conduct and accountability,is questionable in the extreme.George Hutchinson. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 06:49 am | | Harry, there isn't a real description of Hutch,
are you suggesting the man with the carroty mustache was him?, anything is possible in this "do", but don't forget, Carroty was seen, followed, and reported to a policeman who didn't want to know him, --he wasn't the right type.
I think I am right there, if I am wrong I'm sorry for passing duff info
All the Best Rick. |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:48 am | | Warwick,
How goes it.I hope to be in England this year health permitting,and in an adjoining county,so might be able to manage a link up.
It is true the person seen with Kelly at midnight was described as you say,but how much value can be placed on the description.It would have been extremely dark at that end of the passage,the witness if following would have had a rear view and,she would be quickly past as they stopped at the door.The hat would have covered the hair,but the height and stoutness resembles the figure seen at Crossinghams.So unless she concentrated on the moustache,and I see no reason why she should,the man could have been Hutchinson,and it is unfortunate we do not have a good description of him.
Hutchinson or Barnett.I believe one of us is correct in naming the killer. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:53 am | | Hi All,
Well I have some questions about all of this.
Mary is seen with at least two different men the night of her death. Yet there was no money found at the scene. Sure the first could have payed her in booze, which is MORE than likely, yet she'd surely get money from the second? After all a girl has to live.(Besides she already told others she needed money badly. So I'm sure she wanted to get paid in cash by at least one 'client'.) So how is it no money is found at the crime scene?
Secondly, regards Hutchinson. He doesn't come forward until AFTER someone reveals he was there. I mean there was a HUGE reward for Jack the Ripper, so even if he wasn't a 'friend' of Mary's why wouldn't he come forward sooner to collect on the money? Probably meaning he was hiding something. So why is he standing outside the court looking into it in the middle of the night?
Now I don't believe Hutchinson is Jack the Ripper.(His fleeing through Goulston St. after Eddowes Murder wouldn't make sense, because he lived South of the Murder scene not North.) Nor do I believe Hutchinson killed Mary Kelly.(He has no motive to kill her in such a Brutal Fashion. Plus, where does he hide the heart?) So what is Hutch hiding? And why doesn't Mary have any money in the room? Could there have been a robbery of Kelly, involving Hutchinson, in which she cried 'Oh Murder' when she caught sight of the burglar?
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Trevor Robert Jones
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:05 pm | | Hi Chris,
"What is Hutch hiding"? - exactly
I can't help but feel that it is possible he was her (MJK's) "Pimp" or some such thing which puts him on the borders of criminality,whilst not actually being a Criminal of the Serial Killer class.
I feel that ,not unreasonably , he didn't want to convict himself of any crime , but equally felt a need to dis-associate himself from the offence of Capital Murder.
Thus he made his statement - (3 days late) , giving probably the best eyewitness discription in the history of Criminal Law !!!!!!! - but in so doing being seen by the Authorities/Police to be co-operative .
The problem for we "Ripperologists" 115 years later is , was he discribing what he actually saw ?, or was it just a bluff to get the Police "off his back"????
A significant amount of Objective Research has been undertaken into eyewitness testimony , and as far as I am aware ( I am open to criticism/correction on this point), - eyewitnesses' are notoriously inaccurate in their statments, as a general rule,much to the delight of many a Defence Counsel, I'm sure !
I submit that we are left with a number of hypothosis:-
1. George Hutchinson WAS JTR !
2. George Hutchinson saw JTR !!
3. George Hutchinson was a completely innocent bystander concerned for Mary Kellys' welfare who also happened to be an exeptional eyewitness .
I feel that in some aspects George Hutchinson is as much of an Enigma as JTR himself and undoubtably worthy of some further research,( I appreciate he has already been researched ).
Best wishes ,
Trevor. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 09:36 am | | Hi Trevor,
The only problem with this is if Hutch is Mary's 'Pimp', then again why not come forward with the description before?
Let's think about this, Hutch is a pimp, which is frowned down upon by society, however it is not illegal.(Prostitution wasn't illegal at the time, they just couldn't loiter in certain areas. After all if prostitution was illegal, the police could have arrested many of them to get them off the streets, which was something both Anderson, Warren, and at one point Monro wanted to do but knew they couldn't do.)
Plus Hutch was an eyewitness that could have given such a 'wonderful' discription of the MOST notorious man in London, which would earn him MORE money than a dozen prostitutes could make him in a Year. And add this with the fact that if the Police did try and lock up Hutch, they would look EXTREMELY bad in the public eye(who were already crying for blood) for arresting someone for their dubious yet not illegal occupation, who just came forward to give a description of the killer.
I'm sorry but it just doesn't fit in my mind. Nor exactly does Hutch being the Ripper fit.(Again why is he going North through Goulston St. after killing Eddowes, when his residence lies South of the Murder scene?) If he saw Jack, again why not come forward earlier and either try to bring justice for his 'friend' Mary, or at least collect on the Bountiful reward.
There is a fourth option which I think fits a bit better. It's one used for all the 'Johns' that were with the victims the night of their murders. They didn't come forward because then they could be considered suspects in the murders. But Hutch was spotted looking into the Court, so perhaps he was waiting for Mary to emerge to pay her for her services, or maybe even a friend who was with Mary. So he had to come forward and say something, otherwise the Cops would SERIOUSLY doubt any story they gave him if they caught up with him.
Or...
A fifth option which would explain why Mary Kelly had no money in her room.(After all she had been with more than one man in the night, and she had cried that she needed MONEY badly. So sure one of her clients pays for the Liquor to help her loosen up, but the others would have to pay cash.) Hutch may have been part of the Illegal Operation known as Robbery. Now whether it be him trying to break in while she slept to take the money, or even attacking her for it, it would be SERIOUSLY frowned down upon by the authorities, especially now that she's found dead the following morning.
Hi Warwick,
I notice you state that the reason Jack may not have run because of Mary's cry of 'Murder' was because Jack is Barnett and he would know that no one would come to aid the cry. However, you've overlooked something or at least someone. Sarah Lewis.
She's one of the people reporting to have heard the cry, yet she didn't do anything about it. She didn't even think anything of it until the next day when she found out that Mary Kelly was dead. This plus the fact that Sarah Lewis didn't even LIVE in Miller's Court, rather on Pearl Street, would demonstrate that anyone that's ever been in the area of Dorset Street knew it's reputation. And they knew that any cries of 'Murder' wouldn't be heeded.
Plus, if we go back to Tabram's and even Polly Nichol's Inquests, we hear tales from the witnesses called that they would often hear struggles and even screams in the streets on a regular basis, and because of this they never would pay any mind to them.(As someone on the boards has put it, it's a lot like a Modern Day Car Alarm going off, how many people pay it any mind these days?)
So essentially Jack doesn't necessarily have to be Barnett just because he didn't bolt when that cry of 'Murder' was made. All he had to be was someone who knew the reactions of the people in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields(not just Miller's Court but almost the ENTIRE East End.) when it came to these cries. And that could be anyone who ever lived, worked, or even read the area's newspapers.(All of which reported stories about the supposed apathy to crime and 'cries in the night' of the residents.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: anthony pearson
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 09:45 am | | Harry, Chris et al
'Ignorance and want, beware them both' (Dickens- Christmas Carol). You are getting to the very essence of this saga, the one thing that underscores the desperate, sordid background to all the murders . . . the total de-humanisation and chronic hopelessness of all the victims.
Take a brief trip down Dorset Street with any Victorian social reformer like Booth or perhaps get hold of a copy of 'London - A Pilgrimage' (Doré) - worth it for the engravings alone!. 'The Victorian Underworld' (Kellow) is a good primer . . . or perhaps the most chilling horror story that you will ever read -'Ragged London in 1861' (Hollingshead).
Soak yourself in the nightmare world of social deprivation and you then have both feet firmly anchored in reality. The wooly JtR myth that has grown up in recent years will evaporate and you will be left with only one suspect . . . abject poverty!
Yes, you are right to wonder about the absence of any coinage in MJK's room (and the same would go for the other victims . . . not a farthing to be found!). On a cold, rainy miserable night in what was considered the worst street for vice in the Metropolis, Dorset Street was nothing but a series of stinking 'Low Lodging Houses' and brothels filled with 'Prostitutes, bullies, juvenile thieves and ponces (pimps)'. The only individuals that were making any lucre were the doss house owners (like McCarthy and Co.). They had been obliged through the 1851 Lodging House Act to make improvements and remove the nuisance of run down tenements . . . but all that happened was that rents were raised by 25% from that time onwards . . . nothing was done to improve the accomodation, hence the squalid aspect of Millers Court.
If you factor in the economic depression of the mid 1880's, the closing down of 200 East London brothels in 1887 (with the occupants being thrown out on the street), the influx of immigrants, the demolition of unsanitary dwellings . . . and the worst possible summer for cold and rain, you have overcrowded destitution amongst the local drabs in 1888 on an unprecedented scale.
13 Millers Court was typically called a 'Double' (a brothel in effect), let to a 'man and wife' (no marriage cert. required) . . . MJK and Joe B. knowingly rented the room as a brothel from "The notorious Jack McCarthy" (Booth). Joe Barnett's role would have been as omnipresent 'minder' for the property and the occupant (he, loafing around outside or in an ajacent room or pub in case the punter was reluctant to leave!).
It was quite common for a landlord to give (rental) credit to more promising tennants as this gave them a potential longer term leverage (that said, a lot of prostitutes were notorious for 'rent bilking' and any landlord who was careful with his investment would get a 'Rampsman' or 'Footpad' from amongst a sea of vicious thugs to 'tail' the desperate fugitive).
In depressed areas 'Dress-walking' was another form of trade where the landlord would 'loan' a smart outfit to the girl to wear during business hours . . . bullies ensured that the girls never 'did a runner'.
Years ago, in a Stockton (UK) pub, just before closing time, I had no option but to talk to some rough trade that had just arrived and had cornered me as I was drinking up. I awkwardly got into a conversation about the old cackling harpie next to her . . . This turned out to be her mother!
However, the story went something along the lines of they having to move from the old part of Middlesbrough in the 1960's after 'Mum', when roughing it, had successfully keep a good part of the takings from her pimp . . . by hiding cash in her f***y! He found out and in a parting act of revenge had pulled out his flick-knife and carved up her face! (It did actually look like a welders bench) Apocryphal or not, years later I couldn't help but think of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
Regards . . . T.P.
Acknowledgement : 'Jack the Ripper as the Threat to Outcast London (Robt. F. Haggard) |
Author: Philip Rayner
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 10:10 am | | A reminder to us all that what we see as an academic puzzle to be chewed over was in fact a tragic waste of life, the victims being as far down the scale of misery as it is possible to be.
These women and others like them were forced to ply this trade by depredation and desperation.
I recall at one time that they were advised during the murders to rob Jack of victims by staying indoors. Many had no homes and those that did would likely starve if they heeded the advice.
Those that made any kind of living by prostitution would go in fear of those that preyed on them (High Rip gang etc.). In short nobody could provide these women with any alternative.
You are quite correct in saying that it was society as much as JTR which condemned these women to death. If Jack hadn't turned up it would only be a matter of time.
Your quote from Dickens is apposite. He was one of the few who knew things had to change. Ironically, in drawing attention to to these unfortunates, JTR also helped bring about social change. |
Author: Trevor Robert Jones
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 02:34 pm | | Hi Chris,
I think I would be inclined toward the 4th option that you propose.
Regards,
Trevor. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 05:06 pm | | Hello Chris, yes I certainly agree with you about whether any help would be given to Kelly. We have to remember that though this happened only 113 years ago, these people were MORE than 113 years different to us. These were very poor times and in the Eastend of London, Whitechapel and Spitalfields were even more noticable for poverty and filth, it was like a Jewish ghetto in Warsaw in 43. People cared only for themselves, I would guess that if some one saw someone being mugged in that area late at night, they would not lift a finger. Who would pay a doctor to set a bone, or repair smashed teeth, or push an eye back into it's socket,---received whilst "helping" somebody.
--------------------------------------------------
I don't know where Anthony (Pearson) got his picture of life in Miller's Court from, but it's a good one and I wouldn't mind betting that's just about how it was. I think we are too much inclined to look at these people from our standards, If we really knew what they were like, our hair would rise.
Though I am a champion of Bruce Paley and his theory, those paragraphs of Anthony's certainly knocks Mary and Joe's romance into a cocked hat.
Rick |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 06:05 pm | | | The possibility of Hutchinson being Mary's pimp is the only viable alternative explanation for his long wait outside her door. If indeed the customer was dressed the way Hutch said he was then he probably felt there was a reasonable chance of some pretty good takings when he got his cut. |
Author: Garry Ross
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:21 pm | | Rick,
Did I see that magic 'Showbiz' word there?
If I can help with your question, I will
take care
Garry |
Author: anthony pearson
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:49 pm | | Warwick and friends
From Charles Booth's 'Survey of life and Labour in London 1886-1903' (available on-line http://booth.lse.ac.uk) let me give you a few 'verbatim' statements about Dorset Street as he walked round in the company of the police.
". . . Into Dorset Street, black on map [colour coded to identify social groups - black being vicious, semi-criminal] the worst street I have seen so far. Thieves, prostitutes, bullies. All commom lodging houses. Some called 'doubles' with double beds for married couples but really another name for brothels. Women, draggled, torn skirts, dirty, unkempt, square jaws, standing about in street or on doorsteps. The majority of the houses are owned by Jack McCarthy, keeper of a general shop on the N side of the street . . . next East is Lr. Dorset Court [Millers Ct.] has been done up [post 1888]. Irish, a negress at a washtub, windows dirty, broken, narrow. 2 st[orey] houses also black".
"At the west end of Dorset Street is Little Paternoster Row. Black on both sides . . . 2 & 3 st[orey] common lodging houses. Ragged women and children, holey, toeless boots, windows dirty, patched with brown paper and broken. Prostitutes, thieves and ponces. Buildings owned by the notorious Jack McCarthy of Dorset Street".
. . . "For vice it would be difficult to find a worse street than Dorset Street, Paternoster Row and Whites Row. No sign of improvement nor prospect of it. Juvenile thieves a feature of the neighbourhood. Taught in the kitchens of the common lodging houses".
. . . "there have been 3 knifings and 1 murder in this street within the last 3 months"
The survey goes on in pretty much the same vein " . . . Brick Lane end on the South side is one of McCarthy's lodging houses 'filled with thieves'"
I've got to ask . . . can you see anyone with even the remotest gentility walking through this area on a dark night? Maybrick, Druitt, Prince Albert and all the rest . . . even Tumblety? . . . not a chance. I would reckon there are only a small number of contenders for the Kelly episode and they all live down Dorset Street way!
The myth of JtR was the result of decades of ingrained collective prejudices against foreign immigrants, Jews, the police and upper class society. The East end was virtually at a flashpoint in 1887 with the trade riots in Trafalgar Square. That the affluent West End of London viewed the East End with its filth and vice with disdain and almost total indifference is no surprise. When the Whitechapel murders took place the most respected officials were adamant that "the murders were not typically British" (as no Briton was capable of such an atrocity). Both the press and the police were confident that the murderer was either a foreigner or a Jew. With this sort of prejudice it is no surprise that Abberline wasted his vast resources and succeeded only in locking up every one of the mentally deranged in Whitechapel as well as pulling in hundreds of immigrants, butchers and slaughterhouse workers.
It seems the later concept of the Ripper was the fantasy of the eccentric Dr L.S. Winslow who postulated that it was the work of "a homicidal maniac with religious views" . . . of the upper class (cloak & Bag) . . . extirpating vice and sin . . . (but I guess you'll already know all this ?)
Regards . . . T.P. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 09:53 pm | | Hiya Garry, yep me again, I wasn't sure which Garry I needed to address, I've made a note for future inquiries now .
Garry, can you tell me, is Brian Wild who played Foggy in Last of the Summer Wine, still alive?.I know the prog is not the same since Compo died but Foggy was just as important.
Thanking you in anticipation, Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 09:59 pm | | Harry, I have someone who wants to talk to you, he used to be a poster. He has tried your Email address, and so have I,--to help him, but your address does not work. Can you Email me?
Rick |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 12:46 am | | Hi all,
I have always had my doubts about Mary Kelly being a victim of Jack the Ripper.
How about this for a melodramatic scenario:
Joseph Barnett murders Mary Kelly - George Hutchinson is the look out.
Barnett is suspected by the police.
Sarah Lewis comes forward and says she saw a man waiting outside Kelly's room.
Hutchinson comes forward with his well-dressed man story in order to clear Barnett from murder and and give himself and excuse for being outside her room.
Now I just need to come up with a motive for Hutchinson to help Barnett. . .
Oh, well. . .I guess the truth is Kelly was probably killed by Jack the Ripper.
Rich |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 03:39 am | | Anthony,
I would better believe Booth,London and others,had they lived with and among those people on a daily basis for some considerable time.
Let us take a description that is commonly put forward."dirty ragged urchins,seemingly half starved,playing among the filth and litter,while the adults stood in groups outside the dirty run down houses"and so on and so on,but you get the idea.
Now firstly,as regards the children.As most descriptions tend to allude to evening,sure they wouldn't be in their sunday best to play,or their school clothes,and taking into account the number of horses that would have travelled those streets leaving their deposits behind,and the residue from the carts they pulled,how could the children be expected to keep clean.Were those same children observed going to bed,entering school,or attending church at weekends,to attest to their cleanliness and tidy clothing.You bet your life they weren't.
We hear of the dens of Dorset St,the muggers the prostitutes,and the various other so called low life,and maybe some of that is true,but is it the norm for Whitechapel.
Most migrants of any era,were people who were desperate to start a new life in a new country,and on the whole were law abiding citizens with little resources and a willingness to work.The number of children enrolled at schools in the district,attest to the fact that there must also have been a large number of family groups in the area.That they had low class accomodation and very poor wages,was not of their making,but related to the power of employers,and the grasping landlords,who did their best to profit from the unfortunate many.
I could go on,but what are my observations against the likes of London.I can only say that my experiencies of the 30's,in the same gas lit streets,the pubs and tenemet houses of the poor,at least give me a real life perspective of what life might have been in Whitechapel ,in 1888. |
Author: Garry Ross
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 09:10 am | | Rick,
I'm pleased to report that Brian Wilde is still with us and an interview from last year can be found here:-
foggyinterview
Although some sad news this morning with the passing of Maurice Gibb after his heart attack last week.
Hope that helps.
take care
Garry |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 09:17 am | | Hi Anthony,
Acutally I've read several books on the conditions of Whitechapel.(Including the Victorian Underworld that you suggested above.) And find the Irony of how our Society has supposed Advanced SO Much, yet we can still hear similar stories in this Modern Age.
I don't like to dispute Mr. Booth, although many of his observations of the area are VERY MUCH correct, however Miller's Court WAS NOT owned by Jack McCarthy. Actually they were owned by his Mother.(If you feel like doing a little digging in the Newspaper section on the Casebook site, or even into doing a little research on McCarthy's Background, you will find this out.) However, Jack McCarthy was responsible for the day to day upkeep, rent collection, and MORE than likely the clientelle who resided in the court.
But as for McCarthy only renting out the place to Prostitutes, this is incorrect. Yes there were MANY prostitutes who resided in the court and in the surrounding area of Dorset St. However, there were also several Hard Working FAMILIES, not just Common Law Wife and Husband, but Children as well, who lived in the Court.
Now in Mary's case obviously McCarthy felt that she was GOOD for the money. Otherwise, why would he let her go so far in debt to him. The fact of how much money she was in debt to him has always been a question on my mind though. I mean if he is setting her up with a place to do her trade, then why would he let her go on for 6 weeks, especially since she even has at least two other Prostitutes staying with her at one point, without collecting the funds?(Especially since I'm sure 'Mother' wants her take of that money too.) Perhaps Mary payed him with 'other favors'? Or perhaps the amount was lied about? I guess we'll never know.
I do thoroughly agree with your observations of 'not getting involved' when one witnesses a crime. Actually I've seen it first hand. I've worked several years in an Inner City Housing Project. I've seen a Gang-Land Shoot-Out in broad daylight in the center of area with more than a 100 Witnesses who just happened 'not to see or hear anything'. Almost comical when one of these 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' witnesses happened to get hit by a stray bullet from one of the shooters who was no more than 10 feet away. I've even seen hundreds of drug transactions that occur 10 feet from a Police Substation, in which no one, even those 'boys in blue' just so happen to 'conviently' not see anything.
One thing I find MOST interesting is that many people haven't caught on to the idea that Police would avoid the area around Dorset St. like the PLAGUE because of how BAD the area was. It was reported in the papers and I know that these stories are true, simply because I see even in this day and age how the Police won't go into an area unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.(I've had Cops ask me why would I go into Neighborhoods that even they won't go into, and even heard one On-Duty Officer, after hearing a Domestic Disturbance call, involving Children no less, that was taking place no more than 10 blocks away come over his Radio and he say that 'I'll let 'em fight it out. If they don't kill one another, then why should I go into that neighborhood?')
Yet we're supposed to believe that people like Gull, Prince Eddy, Druitt, Tumbelty, and several others who were rather 'well-to-do' go into these areas often. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy it.
Anyways, I digressed a bit. Mainly what I'm saying here is that I know FULL well how harsh the areas are. Not only have I studied them but I've worked in their Modern Day Counterparts.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: anthony pearson
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 09:37 am | | Harry
I'd best plough a middle course here ! I've tried at all times to stay focused on the MJK topic or thread, hence the disertation on Dorset Street, its inhabitants and McCarthy. The survey by Booth was completed in broad daylight with the police in attendance, so my guess is that 'what you see is what you get'. If children are on the street in their filthy rags they are certainly not there to improve their 'formal' education. Just a word on education by the way. The 1870 Education Reform Act only required children between the ages of 5 and 12 to attend school. The only schools of any note that you had (in Whitechapel) were 'Board' (fee usually required), 'Ragged' or 'Workhouse'. The former were very reluctant to take in ragged children because of the financial problem and disruptive effect. The latter should have provided 3 hours basic education for children, but . . .
1) ratepayers objected to shelling out more tax to provide teaching for those people that were already being supported by the Poor Law.
2) The Workhouse was there to relieve the destitute and homeless, however one entered its portals on a voluntary basis. Harry, ask yourself if any child wouldn't prefer being taken in by a 'Kidsman, given food, having good cheerful company to the unthinkable alternative of the Workhouse treadmill, breaking rocks and being flogged on a regular basis.
Personally, even if the inhabitants of Dorset Street had a 'Sunday Best' I think I'd prefer to give a 'summing up' based on what I saw Monday to Saturday.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about other areas in the East End being very respectable, I never questioned or doubted that for one moment.
I'd be a little circumspect about comparing the 1930's East End with the rookeries of the mid-late Victorian era. A lot of these sinks had been swept away in early 1900's redevelopment.
Nice to talk with you Harry . . . T.P. |
Author: Timsta
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 01:07 pm | | Chris:
As regards 'not getting involved' one only has to examine the shooting of George Cornell by Ron Kray in the Blind Beggar in 1966. About a dozen witnesses, all of whom seemed to be in the bathroom at the time.
As for modern counterparts of the 'Do-as-you-please', for a long time there was a policy that Tottenham police were not under any cirumstances to enter the Broadwater Farm Estate without having an Armed Response Unit present. I believe the same was true of the North Peckham Estate and the Chalkhill Estate in Harlesden, amongst others. Rookeries indeed.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: anthony pearson
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 02:07 pm | | Chris H
Very interesting statement concerning Millers court landlord (landlady) . . . I wasn't aware of that. The earlier reference I'd made to Millers Court however only concerned No.13 (with it being a 'double') and suitable for use as a more profitable brothel (I think it worked out at 4/6 per week as opposed to 4 or 5 pence a night for the usual doss). . . but no matter, good point taken.
I guess it may have been someone else that should get the credit for suggesting the very distinct wisdom of 'not getting involved'. I can only imagine that upsetting the McCarthy's or Geringers would at best leave you homeless, at worst have you cut up by some Bill Sykes type 'Deputy'.
Regards .T.P. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 02:08 pm | | Hiya Garry,
I thank you for that, Brian seemed to blossom from his "Porridge" days, it must have been the mustache and the blazer badge, he's like Compo, irreplacable. You and my sister are very handy people to have around,--but she was stumped by this one,--thank you again.
Rick. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 02:23 pm | | I forgot to mention Garry, it is sad about Maurice Gibbs passing. Those three brothers have made some wonderful music in their time.
I especially liked the LP "Woman in Love" they made with Barbara Streisand, music like that isn't written any more.
Best Regards, Rick. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 03:09 pm | | Anthony, I think you have brought some interesting facts to the surface concerning Dorset St, Miller's Court and Booth's observations
I think everyone knows at the bottom of their hearts what Dorset St was really like, we just need a kick now and again to remind us. Like Harry I played in the streets of a mining village in the thirties, the street I lived in was quite respectable, but the streets some of my playmates lived in were slum,--- and I would say even those streets were la de da compared to some of Whitechapels streets, I am prepared to believe all that Booth noted. One more thing, I've metioned before, I think the rent of No13 was very High!! It seems to me, only a Billingsgate fish porter,------ or a GOOD prostitute could afford accommodation with a price tag like that, and that in 1888. In 1939 my mother and dad rented a farm cottage for 4/6d per week, and spent ten happy years therein.
Rick
Ps, I see you are a Barnett for Ripper theorist, me also |
Author: anthony pearson
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 04:21 pm | | Warwick
. . . I think somebody who could get close to or someone capable of manipulating MJK was at the root of this murder. I'm uneasy about the mutilation to the body. My limited interpretation of the photo seems to suggest that only those parts of the body that had been in contact with a partner during sexual congress have been cut away. This in a frightening way seemed to indicate a jealousy and revenge motive . . . and that's without taking into account the missing heart. IF Joe is MJK's ponce in November he is likely to be the last to see her on the fateful night as she shuts up 'shop'.
I'm still working on a theory that McCarthy is the one player with the greatest amount to loose given the events over the previous year which must have caused him great concern. By 1887 reform activists and legislation were starting to have a serious effect on the proliferation of the sort of properties Jack was running. I wonder if he was under the cosh . . . and becoming a particularly uncompromising racketeer in terms of extortion and bullying. I wonder also if there are modern parallels.
regards T.P. |
Author: Garry Ross
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 06:34 pm | | Rick,
No problem, only too pleased to help when I can, there were whispers that Brian and Bill Owen didn't get on with each other to the point of hate, and due to Compo being the more popular character Brian was asked to leave.
take care,
Garry |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 02:51 am | | Anthony,
In general I agree with all you say,and perhaps the middle to later half ot the 19TH century saw conditions at their worst,and certainly parts of Whitechapel would be unique in its overcrowding and squallor.
However I believe had such murders taken place in some other large city,then the same descriptions would be attributed to those locations.
It would be interesting to know the crime statistics for Whitechapel for 1888.As the murders were committed in several locations,Dorset St being one,it might well be that the only significance to that street was Mary Kelly,and the murder there because of her occupation of a room in Millers Court.
Regards,Harry. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 11:21 am | | Hi Anthony,
Actually the rent for 13 Miller's Court was rather Cheap. Let's remember monetary sums didn't work the same in 1888 as they do in Present Day. Back then there were 12 Pence to a Shilling, while if I'm not mistaken it's 100 Pence to a Shilling these days.(This explains why 6 Weeks Back Rent owed to McCarthy was 29 Shillings.) So the rent for 13 Miller's Court was 4/6d(or 54d) a week. Which if paid nightly would have been under 8d a night.(54d / 7 Days = 7.71d.)
While a Double Bed, JUST the bed in a room that was shared with several others, in Crossingham's Lodging House was 8d a night.(We know this because this is what Annie Chapman paid a night for her bed, which was a double.)
So for the same price, Mary and Joe NOT ONLY got a Bed, but also other Furniture, a Fireplace, and MOST importantly their own Privacy.
So actually the price for a room in Miller's Court was rather cheap. Of course a person would have to live in a notorious neighborhood to get by so cheaply for rent, but hey, that really hasn't changed much to this day.
Unfortunately, this makes Rick's assumption that ONLY a WELL-PAID Billingsgate Porter or WELL-PAID Prostitute could afford the room in Miller's Court into a bit of a herring. Because to be honest, just about anyone with a regular job could have afforded the place.(Which is proven by the several other people who lived there who didn't sell their bodies to the night.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 02:09 pm | | | Sorry to change the subject a bit, but I was wondering if anybody has any theories about why Kelly's murderer built and/or stoked that fire in the fireplace? It seems to me that if you are in the process of mutilating somebody at night the last thing you would want to do is get a roaring fire going in the fireplace that could attract the attention of anybody passing by/potential customers! I can see one of Mary's friends or clients wanting to get out of the cold, seeing the flames from a blazing fire from her room, knocking on the door without getting an answer, then looking through the broken window and catching the murderer going about his business. From the descriptions I have read, it sounds like it must have been a very hot blaze (melting part of the tea kettle). |
Author: Diana
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 08:44 pm | | | A lot of SK's who mutilate also are arsonists. (Don't know why but the connection is there.) I have wondered for years if the fire's only purpose was to add to Jack's excitement. |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 08:57 pm | | I don't know if the kettle melted that night or it it happened previously, so we don't know for sure how intense it was. Many people has said the evidence shows that it was a slow burning fire.
One theory is that Jack cooked and ate Mary's heart. Cannibalism is fairly frequent in serial killings of this nature, especially when organs are taken.
Another theory is it was lit so the killer could see what he was doing.
The most mundane idea is that the fire was set by Kelly to keep warm.
I wonder if some people who think Jack was a Satanist would believe that Satan himself appeared in a burst of roaring flame to drag Jack to hell. It'd explain so much. ;-)
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 09:30 pm | | Mr. Norder,
Your imagination is too small.
David |
Author: Jon
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 09:31 pm | | Jeff
Considering what we are led to believe by the stated times given in evidence at the other inquests of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, I find it extremely interesting that the killer changed his MO so considerably.
Formerly, the killer appears to have spent arguably something less than 15 minutes with each victim, this 'blitz' type attack has been identified by all researchers.
Why then does he now pick-up Kelly in the streets, presumably allow himself to be seen escorting her back to her dwelling. He was not to know how things would turn out, that no-one would remember seeing her in the streets with a man.
Spend time with her in her room, entertaining small-talk, she apparently undressed herself not under duress, she put on a chemise (on a cold night in November?), apparently in expectation of something more than 'turning a trick' and having her killer possibly join her on the bed (she was murdered while lying close to the wall).
Is not the killer spending a considerable time with this victim?, obviously well over the usual maximum of 15 minutes (an hour?) and not, apparently, running the risk of intrusion. Quite an amazing departure from his typical MO.
What does this suggest?
Something more than the usual "well, he was inside this time".
That suggestion has satisfied most researchers for decades, but, is it not also suggestive of a different motive.
Not a different killer, there are too many similarities for it to be a different killer. I have never argued against a different killer but we know it is an unpopular suggestion. I always preferred to acknowledged the differences, and in this case the differences might just tell a story.
The same killer with a different motive.
The sparse evidence at the murder scene is highly suggestive that the victim was at ease with her last customer, almost, dare we say, to a point of familiarity.
Unfortunately, we have no knowledge of how she usually conducted her business. If this was how she entertained all her male clients then we have no mystery, but if not, then we have paid too little attention to an obvious clue.
Best regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
