|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
EVIDENCE WORTH DISCUSSION ?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
EVIDENCE WORTH DISCUSSION ?
Author: richard nunweek
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 01:32 pm |        | the biggest mystery and most talked about concerning mary kelly death ,is what time this took place i estimate about 60/40 in favour of after 9am nov 9th, lets see if we can increase that amount
two intresting points to make are firstly hutchinsons statement regarding the hankerchief. he sais mjk said; oh i have lost my hankerchief, and she was handed one by the astracan man. question. why does one normally require the use of a hanky i would say the most common use was to blow ones nose . then along comes mrs maxwell the following morning stating [these are from two seperate sources leonard matters ,and donald macormack] ;her eyes looked queer, like she was suffering from a heavy cold. and all muffed up like a cold. my point being if hutchinson at 230am witnessed kelly obtaining a hanky, and she was killed before 815am is it not a conformation that she was very much alive at a later date. when two witnesses have similar statements surely one should take heed.
the second point which i feel is significant, is the blood stained sink which major smith describes in dorset street not far from the street . he maintains he arrived there in time to see the bloodstained water . that could not have been untill after 11am ,one assumes this would have been a public sink ,therefore would imply that the killer had only recently left her room if he had left hours before fresh blood would not have been evident also surely lots of the locals would have used that sink during the morning yet nobody reported such a sight. i think that these two points are worthy of discussion if kelly was suffering with a cold it would explain her not feeling well her lighting of the fire in a attempt to keep warm further more if the police knew that this murder was different then the others ie; killed at a later date was this the reason why the police assumed that this murder makes it more likely that he may have had another person or persons assisting him due to his visable appearence on returning to his shelter. hope these points can be understood by all . joseph barnetts alibi for instance would not be that good.regards richard |
Author: anthony pearson
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:18 pm | | Richard, hello
Biggest mystery is who killed her.
Hutchinson? What a fraud ! . . . Says he spent the day out of town . . . has no money . . . (allegedly) meets MJK as he's inexplicably walking away from his lodgings. Decides for some bizarre reason to follow MJK with 'foreigner' and stand in the pouring rain for 3 minutes, close enough to hear their conversation (and still not get spotted!) . . . and then to wait (for no reason again) outside 13 Millers Court for another eternity. Do me a favour !! The guy is a sad lonely attention seeker.
Kelly wasn't out on the streets that night, it was tossing it down . . . she was in the pub with the rest of the rough trade. (the Britannia wouldn't shut till about 3 am. anyway !)
Kelly didn't light a fire on the morning. She would have had to borrow (for a small pledge) a bucket from McCarthy or Bowyer (the deputy) to get the coal from McCarthy's shop or the coal merchant in Dorset Street.
Richard, she was dead! The fire that was lit to dry her clothes out on the night (after getting back from the pub) together with every garment that Harvey had left, would have burned to cinders by about 6 or 7 am. The hearth, ashes and fireback would have remained warm for a half a day beyond that . . . trust me, I still use solid fuel fires in this Victorian slum dwelling that I live in.
The policeman and his trough, well I think that has been covered in an earlier thread on the message boards.
Regards . . . T.P. |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 06:47 am | | HI ANTHONY.
I guess you are a disbeliever in hutchinsons statement. and that you are rejecting the witnesses that claimed to have seen kelly the following morning . why people still ignore these important sightings amazes me . the ripper murders were well documented in the media at the time and as all the other murders occured during the night or early hours why should 3 people go against the grain in saying they saw the victim during the morning?. the fact that hutchinson heard the conversations of kelly and astracan gent was that he simply did not care if he appeared to be nosey he even said he bent down to look at the mans features. mayby he was a hard nut.as for the coal issue we do not know that coal was the substance used and if it was she may have had some already in her room.
as for hutchinson being a attention seeker ,what has been said about him since is that he always believed he saw kellys killer and helped the police in every way he could even going out on night patrols to try and spot the man he saw .it has been quoted that for all his assistance he received the sum of five pounds from the police fund . not a bad sum in 1888 for just a ATTENTION SEEKER. regards richard. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 09:52 am | | Hi Richard,
Actually, no one is really ignoring the sightings. We just happen to disbelieve them because of mistakes in testimony, in light of other evidence, as well as other things that make these testimonials seem a bit unreliable.
For instance, with Mrs. Maxwell's testimony it is curious to find that NO ONE else saw Mary Kelly at this time, when the streets would literally be filled with people.(8:30 - 9 a.m. people are getting up and either setting up shop, or on the way to set up for the Lord Mayor's Parade.) Especially since Mary is supposed to be standing outside the Britannia, which is a place she was known to frequent(I.E. she was a 'regular' and would have been known by sight), which also happens to be on Commerical Street, a main thoroughfare filled with people. This taken into account that in Maxwell's testimony she states 'I took particular notice of her this EVENING'(my caps), she's talking about the morning yet speaks of it as evening; that she had only spoken to Mary Kelly twice; as well as some reports that even her Husband didn't believe her story; doesn't vote well for Mrs. Maxwell's reliability.(Not to mention this would mean the Killer has to go out in disheaveled and more than likely blood covered state in the middle of broad daylight in streets filled with people, yet NOT be noticed.)
The other tale, albeit not actually brought up at the inquest, was that Mary was spotted in one of the local Public Houses(the Horn of Plenty) around 10 in the morning with Joe Barnett.(Which was impossible to begin with because Barnett was still at his lodgings at this time.) However, if Mary was there, this would give the Killer less than 45 minutes to kill her, mutliate her, and get away before the body is discovered by Bowyer.
As for Hutchison's description, you do have to admit that it's rather odd that Hutchinson can describe a Watch, which was under at least one layer of clothing, the tips of the suspect's shoes, as well as the color of the person's eyelashes within the few seconds that he would have had a good look at all these features.(I.E. MJK and Mr. Astrakhan walking past Hutch while he stood under the lamp.) Not to mention Hutchinson's own admission that he was trying to concentrate on the man's face, by stooping his head down to see under the man's cap.(Meaning his eyes were mainly focused on the suspect's face, not his personage.)
AND, let's not forget that Hutchinson doesn't come forward UNTIL it is reported that someone matching Hutchinson's description was seen standing on Dorset St. staring into the Court. Yet Hutch is supposed to be a 'friend' of MJK's not to mention the HUGE reward he would recieve for giving information that could send someone up for the Jack the Ripper Murders.
I'm sorry but all three of these witnesses are unreliable. The first two there is evidence against, and the third is improbable and 'fishy' to say the least.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 11:17 am | | Hi all.
I am still somewhat inclined to agree with Abberline in the matter of Hutchinson's statement.
It does occur to me, however, that perhaps he either intended to rob Astrakhan man (a well-dressed man in the Do-As-You-Please? asking for it), or hit up Kelly for money after she had concluded business.
I agree that the fine details of the description may have been consciously or unconsciously embellished, though.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 12:41 pm | | HI EVERYONE.
as i have mentioned recently on the boards ,i am not convinced that hutchinsons description of the man seen with kelly is the correct one ,not by hutchinson making it up.but quite conceivably what the police dictated to him [in order to give the murderer a false sence of security] its entirely possible that he discribed a man of normal appearence ,but the police issued the astracan discription in an attempt that the murderer would feel he would not have to change his appearence. also CHRIS. 3 people saw ,[or claimed to have saw] kelly that morning . maurice lewis at 8am leave her room and return to it shortly after . mrs goode saw her about 830am in dorset street and of course mrs maxwell herself . plus other sightings by lewis at 10am [dubious] maxwells statement of returning items that she had borrowed was checked by police and was found to be correct and regardless she mentioned last night or not she swore on oath that she saw and spoke to kelly on the morning of the 9th. its possible that the events of that morning went as followes [taking in account of witnesses statements] catherine pickett knocks on kellys door at 8am to borrow her shawl, no reply so she continues on her way, the banging of the door wakes kelly who is not feeling at all well, she feels sick and leaves her room to get some air , thats when she is seen by lewis ,on entering dorset street she vomits in the roadway,then returns to her room ,again she leaves and returns through the passage into dorset street ,where she is seen by maxwell when kelly nods to her vomit. during the time maxwell goes on her errand ,mrs goode sees her in dorset street . at 845 maxwell returns home and notices kelly talking to a man dressed like a market porter. she may have arranged to meet this man at her place in a short period of time telling him to come to her room the doors unlocked she returns to her room ,adds fuel to the fire[which may have been lit earlier ,takes of her boots places them in front of the fire takes of her clothes leaving only a chemise and waits for her client. the rest is history PURE SPECULATION OF COURSE. i am just introducing a possible scenerio. regards richard. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 04:03 pm | | Hi Richard,
Actually, Lewis reported seeing Mary in the Horn of Plenty at 10 a.m., not at 8 a.m., with a man whom he called Danny, whose description matched that of Barnett(However, Barnett was still at his lodgings in another part of town at this time.), and a woman named Julia. This would have only given the killer less than 45 minutes to have killed and Mutilated Mary and get away before Bowyer could have gotten there. This is HIGHLY improbable due to the extensive damage done to Mary.(Especially since he was slicing strips of flesh off of her until he cleared the bone of her right thigh.)
And all the information I have on Maxwell, including her actual testimony, states that she saw Mary closer to 9 a.m. outside the Britania, and further inquiries by the Police turned up no witnesses that stated seeing Mary at the Britannia that morning. Plus some of her testimony describing Kelly was inaccurate.(I.E. That Kelly 'never associated with anyone', however we have testimony from those who knew her that she often 'paraded around with two or three friends'.) And Mrs. Maxwell's comments of 'not seeing her(Kelly) in those clothes before', helps lend creedance that possibly Maxwell saw someone else and believed it to be Mary.(After all Maxwell was completely unaware of Mary's associations, and she had only talked to the girl twice in 4 Months.)
I've never heard of a Mrs. Goode before. Nor can I find anything about her on any of my searches, perhaps you can tell me where that information comes from.(Actually thinking about it, is this the same person that stated to the papers that Mary talked about committing suicide, and left a 7 year old child wandering the streets of Whitechapel?)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: richard nunweek
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 06:55 am | | HI CHRIS,
i have in front of me an authentic copy of the times nov 10th 88, on page 7 top right it states i quote; a tailor named lewis says he saw kelly come out about 8am yesterday morning and go back.. it goes on to say ; another statement is to the effect that kelly was seen in a public house known as the ringers at the corner of dorset street and commercial street about 10am yesterday morning and that she met her lover barnett and had a glass of beer with him. this statement is also not substantiated. so i am only making a suggestion which has been recorded in print. regarding mrs goode i am desperately searching my records to find where that reference came from i shall post when i find the source regards richard. |
Author: richard nunweek
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:34 pm | | HI CHRIS.
with reference to mrs goode . i have found a reference on page 242 of JOHN BROOKS BARRYS 1975 book THE MICHAELMAS GIRLS. quote; apparently mrs goode had been conducted to the leman street police station by a constable, and there reported that at 8am on the morning after the millers court murder she had seen mary kelly standing alone in dorset street ,but mrs goode who had given the police an address in leadenhall street , has apparently left the premises and could not be located. i know that there is at least one more reference to her which i have yet to find. there is also references to a unnamed woman who saw kelly that morning which was proberly the woman goode. regards richard |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 08:55 am | | Hi Richard,
The problem is to the article you are referring to with Maurice Lewis is that it is FILLED with errors.
List of Errors in the same Article:
1.) It's stated that one of the murders occurred at #35 Hanbury Street.(Actually it was #29.)
2.) They state the Hanbury Street victim was Mary Ann Nichols.(Actually it was Annie Chapman.)
3.) They state that Mary Kelly was 35s arears in rent. Later this changes to 30s in the same article.(It was 29s.)
4.) They state Mary and Joe Barnett had been living there for a year.(They had only been there for 10 months.)
5.) They state the window was removed from #13 Miller's Court to gain access to the room.(The door was busted in instead.)
6.) The placing of the organs and organs missing from the victim was HIGHLY incorrect.(Liver on the thighs, Uterus missing, Heart, Kidneys and Breasts on the table, etc. These were all incorrect placings.)
7.) They state that Joe Barnett was a Spitalfields Market Porter.(Actually he worked in Billingsgate.)
8.) They call Joe Barnett 'the man Kelly'. As in his last name was Kelly, which we know is not true.
9.) They state there is a 'Street Door' to the Court from Dorset Street.(There was none.)
10.) They state that Kelly has a 6 or 7 year old child living with her.(She had no known children, especially any living with her.)
11.) There was a murder on the 7th of September and the 7th of August.(Actually Tabram was killed on the 7th of August, while Chapman was killed on the 8th of September.)
These combined with the Maurice Lewis story, which reported in several papers later all stating he last saw Mary at 10 a.m. and no mention of the 8 a.m. sighting, helps display the inaccuracy of the quote. I feel what probably happened is that the paper was in a rush to print to beat out all the competition to the story that they failed to check the stories/rumors they were hearing till later. In later articles these stories are corrected, again with no mention fo the 8 a.m. sighting.
You have to understand, that each newspaper source should be taken with a grain of salt. Only through a combination of the Official Police Documents, and with reference to several other papers all printed at later dates can one fully discern fact and myth.
Oh, as for the 'The Michaelmas Girls' reference to Goode, well I hate to say it but the book is a piece of FICTION. So it is possible that Mrs. Goode didn't actually exist.(I still haven't found any reference to the woman in any of my Sources, be in Newspapers, Official Documents, or even Sourcebooks such as Evan's, Skinner's, Begg's, Fido's, Rumbalow's, and Sugden's many exhaustively researched works.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
|
|
|
|
