Archive through 28 January 2003

** 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 28 January 2003

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through 28 January 2003

Author: Monty Friday, 24 January 2003 - 11:59 am
Peeps, Sorry to butt in.....would exertion have any effect upon the digestion of food ?? If so, faster or slower ? If this a stupid question then I apologise. Monty
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 24 January 2003 - 12:25 pm
If the killer murdered Mary Kelly in the day time, why would he light a fire? Rich
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 24 January 2003 - 01:49 pm
"If the killer murdered Mary Kelly in the day time, why would he light a fire?" We don't know that he was the one who lit the fire, MJK could have, but to answer the question: to stay warm (it's November, remember), or to cook food. Not that I think she was killed in the daytime, but you can't just assume the only reason a fire would be lit would be by the killer to be able to see his mutilations better. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: Richard P. Dewar Friday, 24 January 2003 - 02:19 pm
Hmmmmmmmm. MJK decided to burn her own petticoat and hat in order to have something to eat (having just supposedly vomitted) or. . . the killer, in the middle of the day, decided, "Heck, it is kind of cold in here, let me light a fire to chase away the chill so that I may butcher this human being in comfort." I suppose both scenarios are equally plausible.
Author: April Cooper Friday, 24 January 2003 - 02:33 pm
Hi. I'm puzzled about Mary Kelly's murder. Why would Jack the Ripper kill her in the daylight? You think he'd worry that someone would knock on her door and he'd get caught. That seems like a pretty gruesome murder to have been commited when the sun had already come up... all the other women killed by the Ripper were commited during the night. Was it that he was becoming careless or something else? This just puzzles me...and any input would be appreciated! Also... in the opinion of all the Ripper experts on here how many women ( or people for that matter) do you think that Jack the Ripper is actually guilty of killing? April
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 24 January 2003 - 03:10 pm
"MJK decided to burn her own petticoat and hat in order to have something to eat (having just supposedly vomitted) " We don't know that she vomitted. The person who claimed that also got a lot of other details wrong. And why do you think it was her own petticoat and hat that got burned? She didn't wear hats, remember? Most people are saying it was Maria Harvey's clothes that got burned. Again, too many unsupported assumptions. "the killer, in the middle of the day, decided, "Heck, it is kind of cold in here, let me light a fire to chase away the chill so that I may butcher this human being in comfort." Even under the radical suggestions that the killing was much later than normally thought, it wouldn't be "middle of the day" it would have been morning. And in November it would still be cold, especially after a miserably rainy night. Some theories have him stripping down naked so his clothes would not be splattered with blood. Naked in a shoddy room in November is cold, regardless of whether it was night or morning. MJK could have lit the fire, and it may have been lit earlier and still be burning slowly throughout the day. There are so many different details we just don't have. We can't assume Jack lit the fire for light, especially since he didn't need much light to do a similar hack job on Eddowes outside in the dark. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 24 January 2003 - 03:28 pm
April- You asked, "Why would Jack the Ripper kill her in the daylight?" The short answer is he probably wouldn't have. Most people put the time of death around 4 am. I am interested in more about what Scott's theory that it happened much later, but so far it doesn't sound convincing for any number of reason mentioned several times in this thread and the archives above. And the question on the number of victims has been covered in the accept/reject/maybe thread and here and here, among other places. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: David O'Flaherty Friday, 24 January 2003 - 03:38 pm
Hi, April Some believe the jury's out on whether or not Mary Kelly was actually a victim of Jack the Ripper. Some think the difference in the Kelly mutilations and the fact that this murder occured indoors while the others were done outside indicate a different hand at work. There's also a significant age difference between Kelly and the other victims. Also, the time of death, which you can see by many of the posts above, is questioned by some. The Ripper was a late night killer, while they believe Mary Kelly was killed well after sunrise. Others believe (also reasonably) that Mary's more extensive mutilations happened because the Ripper had more time to work, and that the chance to work indoors was a happy coincidence. Some of them question the likelihood of two monstrous killers working in the same area at the same time, but those who question Kelly's status as a Ripper victim point out that Whitechapel was an extremely violent neighborhood, with throat slashings, etc occuring often. Others see merit in both arguments and prefer to keep an open mind. There's some good discussion in the archives about this, if you can avoid stepping in the invective surrounding some of the posts. Good luck, Dave
Author: Terry "Dont call me Hulk" Hogan Friday, 24 January 2003 - 07:33 pm
Stupid question, but here goes: Did c.1888 Fish and Chip shops have carry-out? Like, buy it the nite before and eat it in the AM?
Author: Diana Friday, 24 January 2003 - 07:36 pm
I am at odds with myself. I think based on my own view of the evidence that the 4AM time is more logical. However Scott is an experienced homicide detective. Think about your own profession (whatever it may be). What seems perfectly logical and apparent to a layperson is not nearly so cut-and -dried to you. I have been too rushed lately to read all of his arguments in detail, but even though the Maxwell scenario doesn't make a lot of sense to me I have to concede that if Scott sees merit in it well . . . Maybe this weekend I can go over some of his long detailed postings.
Author: Scott E. Medine Friday, 24 January 2003 - 11:50 pm
Monty, Mental, emotional and physical duress can effect digestion both ways. It depends on the person. Peace, Scott
Author: Scott E. Medine Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 12:08 am
Mary's death will be explained in more detail in the book. I don't have the space to air it out here. But I will say, look at the totality of the crime scene. What we know of the blood spatter and its placement, the position of the body, read the witness statements word by word as well as the inquest. This chapter will also include a section on written and oral witness statement analysis. It starts by analyzing the Jeffery McDonald transcript of his account of the murder of his wife and children as well as statements from the OJ Simpson trial and witness statements and subject confessions from crimes I worked. In short that section tells you how to interrorgate and interview people. So, if any of you have any teenagers, you might want to pay close attention to that part of the book. Especially if they say; " Well, like, we only went to the movie and rode around and stuff" or "I swear to God I didn't touch that." Peace, Scott
Author: Diana Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:40 am
Wow Scott -- When is it coming out and what is the name of it? I really think with your background you can contribute greatly!
Author: Chris Hintzen Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 09:27 am
Hi Scott, The thing is I can't see what you are basing your later Time of Death assumption on? So perhaps you can give me the specific medical evidence that points towards this? You say it's not just Rigor, but other forensic factors. Can you elaborate on what these other factors? Hi Richard Nunweek, Let me clarify some things. I do NOT believe Caroline Maxwell was lying. Nor do I believe she was some publicity seeker. I don't even doubt that she believes she saw Mary Kelly on November 9th at 8:30 a.m. However, I think she was mistaken that the person she saw was Mary Kelly. There are a few reasons why I feel this way. 1.) The fact that Mrs. Maxwell had only talked to her twice in four months, and had not seen her for a few weeks. 2.) Mrs. Maxwell erringly stating that Mary never really talked to anyone.(However all evidence by those who knew Mary show her as a VERY social person.) 3.) Mrs. Maxwell's statement about knowing Mary from the Lodging House. It is plausible that Mary visited someone at the Lodging House that Mrs. Maxwell lived/worked at. However, the house had more than a Hundred residents a night.(And not always the same people.) So Mrs. Maxwell may have actually met Mary Kelly one day, yet had gotten her mistaken with another woman named Mary, which is a common name in the district as is the last name Kelly, who either stayed at, or visited someone at the Lodging House. Let me use an analogy here. You work at a bank. There are several people that work at the same branch as you. You've been introduced to several 'Marys' over say a four month period. Now a few of them you've talked to on a regular basis, and the others you may have only talked to once or twice during this four month period. Now would you be sure that you would know exactly each Mary's last name just by looking at their face? That you wouldn't mix up a couple of the Mary's here and there? Hell, I know several Mary's myself and deal with them on a daily basis, however at times I get confused between them. You see this is the crux at what I'm getting at. I believe everything that Mrs. Maxwell stated transpired at 8:30 to 9:00 a.m. that fateful morning. I just feel Mrs. Maxwell was confused between the Marys.(I mean we see people getting confused by all the Julias in the same block as well. And I won't even get into how many people had an 'alias' with the name Mary in it.) As for Maurice Lewis, I again state that Lewis DID NOT see Mary Kelly at 8 a.m. Rather he saw her at 10 a.m. at the Horn of Plenty, which this article makes the mistake of saying it was 'The Ringers'(Britannia). The article you are getting this information from was obviously done rather hastily to get it to press.(Especially with the NUMEROUS errors in it.) All other reports on Lewis places the time he saw Kelly on November 9th at 10 a.m., with NO mention of the 8 a.m. sighting. So it was simply an error in reporting.(Wouldn't be the first time this happened with the case.) Hi Michael Thompson, Actually Moore believed that the fire that burned in the room was VERY HOT.(It would have to be if the Heart was melted in the Tea Pot.) Basically that the room was an Inferno, or as Moore would like to say 'Hell Itself'. This is what the stench from the body would be attributed to. However, if the fire was thusly hot, then Prater herself would have noticed the heat from it, not to mention the smell of the burning flesh.(Let's remember the fireplace goes up through her room.) Plus if the stench from the body was as bad as it was put in the Graphic Novel, then not only would Prater have known it, but also this would mean the body is in a state of decomposition.(Which we have no evidence of decomposition occuring even at the time of examination of the corpse.) Regards, Chris H.
Author: Arfa Kidney Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 11:33 am
Hello Chris, Caroline Maxwell claimed she was aqainted with Kelly but she also claimed that she knew Joe Barnett as the man who had recently been living with Kelly. As both Barnett and Maxwell attended and gave evidence at Kelly's inquest,surley this supposed case of mistaken identity would have came to light.But of course it didn't Regards, Mick
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 12:15 pm
Where did Moore get the idea that Kelly's heart was placed in the kettle?. All official reports say her heart was missing,-full stop. They perhaps examined the fire ashes for signs of human flesh, but they didn't find any, and Chris, it stands to reason a body will smell, it will stink, when it's opened,--and we are all the same. The body doesn't need to be in the process of decomposing to smell, when guts, raw flesh and different organs are exposed to air en mass they smell, of course in a situation like the death of Eddowes where the knife slipped, you have an added bonus. Rick
Author: Chris Hintzen Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:16 pm
Hi Mick, Not exactly. Maxwell did know Joe Barnett this is true. However, when we remember people, we remember a 'picture in our head'of that person, a face to a name if you will. However, It is easy to mix up these pictures if you deal with many people a day and have only had passing conversations with someone once or twice over a prolonged period of time. This is a bit confusing to write, but I'll try and make it as least confusing as possible. Say for instance you work with three ladies name Mary. One year at the company's Christmas party you are introduced to Mary #1's husband, Mary #2's husband, and Mary #3's sister. Now you bump into Mary #2's husband a few months later, and begin to have a nice chit chat with him about Mary #1 because you were mistaken and believed that he's married to Mary #1 and not to Mary #2.(Hey you remembered the guy, you just forgot to whom he was married to.) We all do similar things, make similar mistakes. Especially when it comes to people we hardly know. This is what I believe happened to Maxwell. She saw a woman named Mary who was sick, and believed it was Mary Kelly. Maxwell already admitted that the clothing Mary was wearing was different than anything she'd seen Mary in.(Kelly didn't exactly have a lot of money to buy multiple outfits.) So it is quite possible that the woman she saw was someone other than Mary Kelly. Hi Rick, Ok, perhaps I was a bit hasty and unclear with my previous post. Moore's Graphic Novel displayed the stench as being so overbearing that it was making even one of the Doctors ill.(Moore admits in his notes in the back of the Novel that he took some liberties with the scene, to add more of an entertainment value. Which might be where the whole Heart burning came from.) So yes there would have been a smell, yet not necessarily an overpowering stench, at least not so much as Moore was hinting towards. Or should I say, not so overpowering that other potent smells couldn't be discerned. Let me explain. Ever notice how on a cold winters day, walking about your neighborhood how you could smell someone's fire, eventhough it could be a block away? Another thing about fire and heat is that it searches for anyway to escape, to gain more oxygen. So the warmth from the fire, and the smell with it, wouldn't just exit the chimney, but also through the broken panes of glass in the window. So when that curtain was pulled back, the heat, along with the smell, from the fire(if it was still burning, or had just recently been extinguished) would be the first whiff to hit the person by the window in the face. Regards, Chris H. P.S. For all those that haven't checked out Moore's 'From Hell', I suggest that you at least give a glance to the last 6 to 10 pages at the end of the book. Moore and Cambell created a nice little, yet a bit comical, aside about Ripperology affectionately called 'The Gull Catchers'. I guess I'm easily amused but I found myself chuckling quite a few times as I read it.
Author: Arfa Kidney Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 08:47 pm
Hello Chris, As far as I am aware,Caroline Maxwell's description of what the woman she saw was wearing,matched closely,a description given by a witness who saw Kelly in the early hours of that same morning.I don't remember reading anywhere Maxwell saying "What Mary was wearing was different than anything she'd seen Mary in". Also aren't there too many coinsidences in that: The woman Maxwell saw and spoke to,just so happened to be emerging from Millers court.She responded to,and didn't correct Maxwell when she called her Mary. Like Kelly, this mystery woman didn't wear a hat,which was unusual in 1888. Why do we have not one,but 3 witnesses claming to have seen Kelly after the estimated T.O.D. Even if we neglect the details of each of their statements,why would three people come forward independently and claim what is esentially the same thing? A futher point I would like to make is that if Maxwell had mistakenly spotted someone other than Kelly on that morning,it is almost inevitable that she would have encountered that same woman sometime after the inquest and would have been responsible enough to inform the police of her mistake. Surely her conscience would have overiden her embarrassment in such an important matter. Regards, Mick
Author: Diana Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 09:06 am
Maxwell's Mary says she's sick to her stomach. Maxwell suggests a drink and Mary says she already tried that and brought it all up. Then a couple of hours later she's found dead and mutilated. If Mary was that nauseated, rent or no rent, would she be willing/able to service a customer?
Author: Chris Hintzen Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 09:08 am
Hi Mick, Actually the only item of clothing that matched what Hutchinson saw Mary wearing the night before was the Velvet Bodice. You could count 'a dark skirt' but it is autumn and most women were wearing dark skirts at the time.(I believe just about all the victims, both Canonical and Non-Canonical, wore dark skirts on the night of their deaths.) The Maroon shawl, that Maxwell saw Mary wearing was not seen on Mary's person when spotted by any of the other witnesses the night before, nor was it found in the room with her other clothing on the chair. Maxwell's discussion of seeing Mary in clothing other than normal was in several Press Reports. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look them up. But go over the articles covering the inquest. I'm pretty sure it's in there. The woman Maxwell saw was NOT exiting the court when Maxwell came upon the scene, she was standing outside the court, which is two different things. The woman could have been walking along the street from just about anywhere on her way to Britania before suddenly becoming ill and vomitting in the street. The reason why the woman wouldn't pay any mind to Mrs. Maxwell calling her Mary, could simply be solved that the woman's name probably WAS Mary. Which also gives another example on how Mrs. Maxwell could have confused the woman as Mary Kelly. Mary was a VERY popular name in the East End at the time. We know this by many people using the name 'Mary', such as Eddowes, when IDing themselves to Police. As well as we know of at least 4 other Mary's living on the same block.(Probably MANY more.) I know of only one other eyewitness that supposedly saw Kelly after the T.O.D. which was Maurice Lewis at 10 a.m. in the Horn of Plenty. However, this doesn't gives the killer any time to get Kelly back to her room, Carefully undress her, Perform the extensive mutilations to Kelly, without her screaming at all, burn the clothes, clean up, and escape.(Evidence of the crime displays more that Kelly's throat was slit while her heart was still beating, so she probably wasn't strangled at all.) You speak of coincidences as proof. Well how's about the various coincidences that can be used to disproof the eyewitness testimonies? 1.) Maxwell sees Mary, a well known and liked girl, standing on Dorset Street for at least a half hour, yet no one else sees her? 2.) Maxwell sees Mary outside the Britannia, a place where she goes often, yet no one else sees her? 3.) Maxwell states that Mary had gone to 'The Ringers', a.k.a. the Britannia, to get a drink to help out her illness, however no one remembers her coming in to buy anything? 4.) Maurice Lewis states as to seeing her in the Horn of Plenty, yet another establishment where Kelly is known, at 10 a.m. yet no one else spots her? 5.) Prater and Lewis hearing the cry of 'Murder' at 4 a.m., which much of the Forensic Evidence supports to be around the Time of Death.(I'm still hoping to hear from Scott to explain what Forensic evidence points to a later T.O.D.) As for your question on 'why would people come forward to say they saw the same thing when they really hadn't', well basically because they were mistaken. They thought they had seen her on the morning in question. We've all had times where people we know would come up to us and say, 'Hey didn't we see you over here at such and such a time', when you weren't anywhere near where they thought they saw you. Mistaken identity happens often.(I mean look at Mary Malcolm being SO SURE that Stride was Elizabeth Watts, her OWN sister nonetheless, yet we find out that Malcolm was sorely mistaken!) And it's not necessarily true that Maxwell would bump into the person she bumped into on that morning. I've had an elderly couple that lived next door to me for 2 years who I may have seen twice in that time, and who suddenly moved out and I didn't notice a thing till I saw the For Sale sign. The East End was a VERY crowded place at the time. People moved about often, which we can see by just following the Victims whereabouts during there last few months alive. And even if Maxwell did see the woman again, and realized she made the mistake, do you think she'd run to reporters and the police and state how foolish she was in being so sure that she saw Kelly that morning, when actually it was someone else?(I mean look at how bashing of Mary Malcolm the papers were with her mistaken identity.) Besides, a lot of people didn't put too much faith in Maxwell's testimony in the first place. So she might have believed it wouldn't cause any harm anyways. Regards, Chris H.
Author: Arfa Kidney Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 11:07 am
Hello, Diana,I was not suggesting that Mary was killed when she took a client back to No.13 that morning. I think it is quite possible that she went back to her room alone to sleep off "The horrors of drink".The killer then got in and attacked her whilst she slept. Chris,we are going to have agree to dissagree on this one. Many people have rejected Maxwells evidence because it goes against the medical evidence,but I suggest that the doctors got it wrong. I don't think Philips or Bond had seen anything like the kind of butchery they witnessed in Millers court. Kelly was virtually skeletonized and her carcase emptied of it's vicera. One of the Doctors even commented that he had never seen the like. Not in any of the dissection rooms he had been in. This was a unique situation and the acurracy of the estimated time of death must have suffered as a result. Regards, Mick
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 12:55 pm
Hello Chris, I'd go along with you on this time of death. I have to confess that my assumption is due to, gut feeling,-logic? --anyway anyone can prove me wrong, but they really have to prove it. 04:00 is a more logical time for that killing than 09:30-10:00am. Kelly could have already had a pile or firewood, (and coal) by the fireplace, she may have lit a fire for the Jewish gent,--"come along dear, you will be comfortable",--but not without a fire on a cold Nov night!!. Then when he left at 02:45 Kelly turned in for the night. When the Ripper arrived, whoever he was, he finished the fuel after he had killed Kelly, (perhaps it WAS to see better what he was doing!! To see was essential to the thrill, I suppose. I think,---- these people of the Eastend Gettho had been steeped in the utmost poverty, the utmost criminality, so hardened to pain, lack of sympathy,-- that they would do anything for a tanner, (6d), and if what they said was shown to be wrong,--(Mrs Maxwell)-- they didn't care, it was worth a try. Rick
Author: Diana Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 03:01 pm
I think I may have answered my own question. I have had instances of being nauseated and when I ate something it caused my stomach to settle. Suppose Mary went to some public place after seeing Maxwell and met Jack there. He buys her a meal of fish and potatoes which meal settles her stomach. Then, mindful of her rent she offers to service him.
Author: Chris Hintzen Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 05:39 pm
Hi Mick, Yes, I'm guessing we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'm hoping Scott might give us some of the forensic evidence he sees that might give to his reasoning as to the later time frame.(Maybe he might change my mind about the later T.O.D.) I'm not exactly going along with Bond or the others. I think the T.O.D. they are giving us, 2 a.m., was too early. There are other factors that we know from their reports, mixed with more modern reasoning, that leans me to a couple hours later, at about 4 a.m. and maybe even up to 6 a.m. But I can't go along with the 9 to 10 a.m. theory of death, at least without some medical evidence to point me to it. Hi Rick, I don't trust Hutchinson's story, not even in the least bit. Simply because of his not coming forward until Ms. Lewis states that she spotted someone with his description looking into the court on the night of the murder. It just seems more like he's got something to hide. After all he would have known Mary was killed within a day of her murder. So if he's a 'friend of Mary's', or even if he'd like to prosper from the HUGE reward for information about Jack the Ripper, then why not come forward before hand?(Not that I think Hutch is the killer, or even involved in the murder, but he has something to hide about that night.) So since I discount Hutch, that means that his testimony about Mary stating 'Come dear you'll be comfortable' goes out the window with me too. Rather I feel things worked like this: We know from Mary Ann Cox it was a cold and wet night. Cox herself kept coming in from the cold to warm herself up by the fire. I believe Mary came in after a night's trade a bit wet and cold from that dreary evening. So as not to catch cold, she started a fire, be it with coal, wood, paper, or the clothes left by Maria Harvey(since she might not have anything else to fuel the fire with) is anybody's guess. Anyways, Mary doesn't want to lie in bed with Wet Clothes, because then the bed would get cold as well. So Mary strips out of her wet clothing, leaves it on the chair next to the fire to dry, then crawls into bed wearing that chemise only. Snuggling up under the covers as the warmth from the fire fills the room. This I think helps explain where the fire comes from, as well as why Mary is wearing such light clothing on such a cold night. Now whether or not Jack kept the fire rolling by dumping the clothes in it for light, warmth, to hide his scent, to clean up after the murder, or even if he had anything to do with the clothes being burned, well like I said before, that's anybody's guess. Regards, Chris H.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 09:00 pm
Dear Chris, That chemise a present from Jack?
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 27 January 2003 - 10:12 am
Hi Rosey, No I think Mary already owned the chemise.(Now unless Barnett, Flemming, or one of Mary's other suitors were Jack the Ripper and happened to purchase it for her long before her death, then the answer to your question just might be yes.) Hi All, I'm just curious, can anyone point me towards any information on Abberline's inventory list of the Miller's Court Crime Scene? I can't seem to find mine. Thanks, Chris H.
Author: richard nunweek Monday, 27 January 2003 - 12:20 pm
Hi everyone. regarding mrs maxwell statement ,which is well debated. maxwell was clearly confident in her own mind that she saw kelly on the morning of the 9th .she never retracted her statement ,swore on oath that she was telling the truth. The most obvious act the police would have carried out was to show mrs maxwell kellys clothing and asked if she could identify them, also although it had been raining that morning they surely would have asked maxwell to point out where kelly had vomited , remains of sickness would surely have been in evidence. Regarding the three witnesses maxwell, lewis, and a unnamed laundress [ named as a mrs goode] surely three people saying she was alive after medical reports stated otherwise must have had the police at least cautious at assuming the time of death was accurate. One final point regarding maurice lewis. as i have stated in my posts,the november 10th times states he saw her leave her room and return soon after. it is true that this was never repeated in later editions,but he must surely have said something along these lines for it to have been printed. incidently have any of you got any original times editions of the period ,if not i can recommend BYGONE NEWS.these are authentic papers actually printed on the day not a copy they are quite expensive but to the ripper fanatic ther make great reading. regards richard.
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 27 January 2003 - 12:41 pm
Richard, "maxwell was clearly confident in her own mind that she saw kelly on the morning of the 9th" And what does this have to do with whether she was right or not? Modern studies of witness testimony show that confidence of the witness is often not related to the overall value of the statement. "she never retracted her statement ,swore on oath that she was telling the truth." Lots of people do this when they only think they knew the truth. And a significant number of people do this even when they know they are lying. "The most obvious act the police would have carried out" The police didn't do a lot of things that are "obvious" to us now. Unless you know something happened, you can't assume that it did. "also although it had been raining that morning they surely would have asked maxwell to point out where kelly had vomited , remains of sickness would surely have been in evidence." Vomit, in a busy ovecrowded area, in the rain...? I'm sorry, but there wouldn't be anything left. Beyond that, it wouldn't prove it was Mary Kelly even if it were there. "it is true that this was never repeated in later editions,but he must surely have said something along these lines for it to have been printed. " There were lots and lots of things printed in the press that were complete fabrications or major failures of communication. Have you read through the newspaper reports of the time (heck, even of today) comparing them to known facts about the Ripper case? The accuracy rate is atrocious. The problem here is you have a lot of "surelys" with which you try to argue your beliefs instead of evidence, and a lot of your assumptions don't even sound plausible. In my not so humble opinion anyway. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: richard nunweek Monday, 27 January 2003 - 01:07 pm
Hi dan. I dont mean to use the word surely. mrs maxwells statement is evidence. i agree that dorset street was a very busy place ,and that along with the wet conditions would have made it unlikely any remains of vomit would have been visable [but possible] On reading the papers at the time one can get the feel of the period,actually it is not that far removed from modern times ,adverts .local gossip, well reported news . the police force had been in its form for over half a century and although methods of detection were not a patch on todays standards they were no fools. The clothing that remained in kellys room would have been [not surely] shown to witnesses claiming to have seen kelly that morning if only to give them a chance to retract their claim and realize they were mistaken. I disagree that my assumptions do not seem plausible / i believe all statements made by witnesses at the time in all of these murders should be taken seriously ,after all they were present at the time of these events and im afraid we were not. regards richard.
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 27 January 2003 - 06:12 pm
Hi Richard, Just because something is logical to us doesn't mean that the Police did it. Some other things that happened during the Ripper Case, which would seem illogical to us are: 1.) Nichols clothing is cut off of her by the attendents of the Mortuary, without the Doctor present. Normally you wouldn't do this because it makes it harder to figure out what exactly happened to the victim. 2.) Chapman's body is stripped and cleaned without the Doctor's permission. 3.) John Pizer was never brought before those who supposedly knew 'Leather Apron' by sight, rather his Identification was solely left up to Sgt. Thicke. 4.) The Graffiti is wiped off the wall in Goulston Street before it can be photographed.(Not to mention before Police could agree on what exactly it stated before putting it into their logs.) 5.) People were allowed to see the crime scene who didn't need to see it in Miller's Court.(Prater admits to reporters that she took a glimpse at the scene, while Police had already cordoned off the scene.) Also, let's notice that Maxwell never confirmed seeing the clothing in any of her statements.(Nor is there any record of these items being shown to her.) In all the other Inquests all witnesses that were called to identify the victims' bodies or at least items of clothing worn by the victims all confirmed that they had been shown said articles/bodies and where sure that these were the victims.(Even Maria Harvey and Joe Barnett confirmed seeing the articles from Mary Kelly's room.) So it's not necessarily true that Maxwell was ever shown these items. Possible, however possibly not. Regards, Chris H.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 27 January 2003 - 08:23 pm
Dieppe and dieppe! Rosey :-)
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 05:06 am
Regarding Caroline Maxwell. Maxwell's statement's should not be brushed aside too quickly or treated too lightly. The width of Dorset Street at the time was less than 20ft. So she wasn't exactly miles away when she claimed to recognise Kelly. Living in so close proximity to each other, everyone down that street must have all been acquainted. It was the police who said it was the most dangerous street in Whitechapel. And as for Abberline saying Maxwell got the day's mixed up, that borders on the ridiculous. A.
Author: richard nunweek Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 07:21 am
HI everyone. Can anybody try to explain what the following all means. A pardon was offered on the 10th nov 88 to any accomplice,not being a person who contrived or actually committed the murder who gave imformation leading to the murderers apprehension and conviction.[this was expressly confined to the murder of mary jane kelly] Also the explanation to the commons on the 23rd nov 88 by home secretary Henry Matthews stating/ In the case of kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons, who at any rate after the crime had assisted the murderer. The question must therefore be . What imformation did the police have to warrant the suggestion that he must have had some assistance in this case?. In my opinion they took the statements of maxwell and lewis seriously / also that of the mysterious laundress which has been mentioned . Therefore if they believed that kelly was killed at a later time ie; between 9am-10am they would have assumed unless he had private lodgings, somebody would have noticed his appearence and mental state . thus this pardon being issued. Any thoughts?. Regards richard.
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 07:29 am
Hi Richard, On going over Maxwell's testimony I feel that it's more than likely that Maxwell was not shown Mary's clothing. In Maxwell's statements she describes the clothing that she saw Mary, or the woman she believes to be Mary, as wearing. However, why is she doing this if she is shown the articles? Why wouldn't she say, that the clothes shown to her by police were those she saw Kelly wearing that morning? As to your earlier question as to where the Paper's got Maurice Lewis' 8 a.m. sighting of Mary, well probably through the same mix-up that they attribute Joe Barnett as saying Kelly had a 7 year old living with her in Whitechapel.(More than likely they are hearing stories through Third Parties. They don't have time to get full corroboration to beat the presses.(After all most of the details wouldn't be released until after people were allowed to leave Miller's Court, which was around 3:30 to 4 p.m. Deadlines for press I believe where around 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. So this doesn't give them much time to get together a story for the November 10th issue.) Hi Andy and Sue, Actually I believe the reasons why they weren't so willing to accept Maxwell's testimony is from several factors. The estimated Time of Death by Doctors, that she didn't know Mary very well, that her own husband didn't fully believe that Maxwell 'saw what she saw', the fact that NO ONE else saw Mary at this time(You put it yourself the street is small and many people living in the area would know one another.(I.E. They would know Kelly.) So if Kelly is standing outside Miller's Court for a half hour or more, how is it no one else noticed her?), and there may have possibly been a couple of other things about her that made them a bit untrusting of her evidence. But then again, Abberline did believe Hutchinson's story. Although many people discredit Hutch's tale as well. Hi All, I'm curious as to if a plate and eating utensils were found at the Crime Scene. We all know about the Ginger Beer Bottles, the 'Fisherman's Widow' painting above the fireplace, and the barely burnt Candle, but what about any plates and cutlery?(I seriously doubt a knife was found on the premises, including a table knife, otherwise the reporters would have harped that Jack the Ripper's weapon had been found, when of course it hadn't.) I ask this, because if neither of these items were found at the crime scene, then Mary Kelly didn't eat her last meal(Fish and Potatoes) in her room. Which means she must have eaten out. So if she ate her last meal in the morning, and ate it outside her private premises, then again, wouldn't she be spotted by several people? Regards, Chris H.
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 07:37 am
Hi Richard, Actually the Pardon came about mainly due to Schwartz testimony of the Stride Case. Since Schwartz saw two men around the victim not long before her death, the Police were contemplating on whether there had been an accomplice, such as a look-out. Also, there was the dubious theory that Nichol's body had possibly been dumped from a carraige by the Murderer(s). And there is the conflicting statements of Eyewitnesses describing men of varying descriptions with the victims, plus the fact that no one came forward in the Police's house to house search to reveal a man lodging somewhere who was cleaning blood off of himself after each of the murders.(I.E. Someone may be hiding Jack.) So add all of this together and the Police could think that Jack had someone helping him. So in a desperate attempt to catch the murderer, they offer a pardon to anyone who may be fearful of coming forward to point their accusing finger at Jack. Regards, Chris H. P.S. Much of this is revealed in Sir Charles' request for a Pardon being offered.
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 08:53 am
Chris, If the fish and potatoes found in Kelly's stomach were fried fish-n-chips as sold in a fish-n-chip shop then, eating utensils and plates didn't need to be found in Kelly's room. It was always common practice to eat them with the fingers straight from the newspaper that they were wrapped in. Rick
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 08:57 am
Chris, If the fish and potatoes found in Kelly's stomach were fried fish-n-chips as sold in a fish-n-chip shop then, eating utensils and plates didn't need to be found in Kelly's room. It was always common practice to eat them with the fingers straight from the newspaper that they were wrapped in. Rick
Author: richard nunweek Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 10:06 am
Hi chris. referring to the Pardon. The pardon i referred to was offered on the 10th nov 88 expressly confined to kellys murder . the idea of a pardon may well have arisen after the stride murder. but their were strict rules on this laid down by Henry Matthews and would only be granted where more then one person appears to have been concerned in a crime. The goverment was under such pressure to issue a pardon,infact in october the home office secretary offered cogent reasons for not offering a pardon for two reasons 1] that the public would fear an accomplice as well as the killer 2]and that it would be seen as police failure; Soto cut a long story short i am intrested only in the pardon offered after the kelly murder, and was trying to come up with some explanation why the police had a reason to suspect a accomplice in this event. Regards richard.
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 10:21 am
Hi Rick, Yes, you are correct. However, I'm curious at how easily obtainable was Fried Fish and Chips at the time of the murders.(I.E. Cost and where they could have been bought.) I'm still leaning more towards a traditional Fish and Broiled or Stewed Potatoes being the meal.(But I don't fully discredit the idea that it could be simply Fish and Chips.) Hi Richard, I know what you mean. However, if you read Sir Charles' request for the pardon, which was made AFTER Kelly's death, you will see that much of the information regarding a two person involvement in the murders is from the previous murders.(These instances are spoken about in said request.) The idea of the pardon had been tossed around before Kelly's death, but after her death the public outcry was becoming so high that something had to be done to quelch some of the fears that the officials didn't care about what happened in Whitechapel.(Not to mention that even Parliament was asking about the possibility of a Pardon being given.) Regards, Chris H.
Author: richard nunweek Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 11:06 am
Hi chris. I accept the fact that Sir Charles request for a pardon was made after kellys death, However as the pardon was issued on the 10th nov twenty four hours only after the latest event. My point is what evidence did the police have regarding THIS MURDER ; not the others. What i base this assumption on is to repeat THE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES which were wanting in other cases,which made it more probable that there were other persons who had any rate after the crime had assisted the murderer. The above statement is said with an air of confidence by Henry Matthews . So my point being regardless of the other murders and a possibility that an accomplice might have been present in them .I am solely intrested in the statement made to the commons on the 23rd nov 88 by Matthews. so lets examine the possible solutions. That kelly was believed to have been killed during daylight hours and someone would have either noticed his appearence or manner. There was some kind of evidence that somebody had returned to the room to plant some evidence or remove items. Witnesses saw more then one person acting strangely that morning in the area of dorset street. So there are 3 points to consider , I feel that the kelly case is the answer to solving this mystery , and the more we try to explain these mysterys the more we can go forward to the possibility of getting somewhere near the truth. Regards richard.