Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 11 June 1999 - 07:38 pm |        |
| Minor speculation has it that Hutchinson was waiting to rob Kelley's client when he emerged from her room. |
Author: RLeen
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 11:57 am | |
Hello Everybody,
I'm still trying to make some sense of the paradox which states MJK's time of death at one hour yet has several witnesses seeing her some hours after. Now I know that Wolf has put forward some excellent reasoning to show that Ms Kelly probably passed away around 10 am but still, well still I have my doubts.
One witness saw her, with some companions, in a public house. Another witness saw her outside this public house. But herein lies the dichotomy, where were her companions and the landlord etc when the story broke. Would these people not have either come forward or at the very least been traced by the police? Did the police even attempt to verify the witness statements? Did some gin-sozzled journalist, enterprising as they were called by McNaghten, even look into this matter.
Could someone please shed some light this conundrum which is threatening to keep me awake at nights.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Wolf
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 06:21 pm | |
Hello all. Rabbi Leen, thank you for the kind words. I'm not going to add any medical evidence but I would like to say this, that according to the Kelly inquest, the police did follow up on what the witnesses had told them.
Mrs. Maxwell, who was either returning china or going to the milk shop in Bishopsgate Street (depending on who you read), was closely questioned by Abberline and subsequant inquiries at this (or these) location(s) proved her statements. Not only the time but the date were proven correct by, supposedly, unbiased and uninvolved corroborating witnesses. I assume that the police also made inquiries into both Maurice Lewis and the unnamed woman mentioned in The Times.
As for why none of the other people who had possibly seen MJK that morning came forward, who can say? Fear of the killer or mistrust of the police or possibly, like George Hutchinson, the inquest moved with such blinding speed that they were left in Coroner Macdonald's dust. They would only have to note the disbelief and ridicule faced by Mrs. Maxwell and Mr. Lewis in order to see that neither the police nor the coroner were going to believe them.
Wolf. |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 03:04 am | |
Hello Wolf, Rabbi
The subjects of Mary Kelly's time of death, and the witnesses who claimed to see her alive on the morning of 9th November rear their head quite regularly on these boards. For thoughts on Maurice Lewis from a previous round of discussion, check out the Witnesses/Specific board.
Regards, V. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 03:42 pm | |
Just a notice that we now have a RealAudio version of "A Violet from Mother's Grave" available on the Mary Kelly victim page. It is approximately 380Kb in size, but well worth the download -- it contains full instrumental background music as well as vocals sung in the voice of an Irish female, as produced by Frogg Moody in Yours Truly Jack the Ripper You may purchase a copy of their album, which is actually quite good, at the above link.
I'd recommend that everyone download a copy of RealPlayer (its free, go to http://www.real.com) and have a listen. Its quite powerful to listen to the music Kelly sang only hours/minutes before her death, while viewing her photos and reading her life story.
If you'd rather just listen to it here, you can download it here. |
Author: Diana Comer
Friday, 23 July 1999 - 06:54 am | |
| I just listened. It's chilling. ". . . but while life does remain, in memoriam I'll retain, this small violet . . ." Oh Mary, life did not remain but a few short hours. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 25 July 1999 - 02:04 am | |
Hi y'all.
Took this newbie a bit to load the RealPlayer software, but worth it ... lots of new goodies I can use now. Thank you Stephen! Between your recent flurry of added attractions and Stewart's excellent crime scene photos (thanks Scannerman!) - we're halfway home to a virtual Whitechapel here. ;-)
To (almost) hear the voice of a woman whose face I can never quite see - sharpens my perspective of this case. Mary dances closer ...
Janice |
Author: Robert Crawford
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 08:24 pm | |
Poignant. It adds a new dimension to the tragedy that was the life and death of Mary Jane Kelly.
Robert Crawford
http://members.tripod.com/~Sci_Fi_Man/index.html |
Author: Diana Comer
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 03:35 am | |
I just realized something. If we are to believe the witnesses, Mary Kelly had two customers the night of her death. At 11:45 PM a Mrs. Cox saw her in the company of a man with a carroty mustache and a pail of beer. Later at about 2 AM the morning of the 9th George Hutchinson says he spotted her with a man in an astrakhan trimmed coat. (Although I have my doubts about Hutchinson's story.) Her rent was due the next day. Even if there was only one customer wouldn't he have paid her? Here's the kicker: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY? No account I have ever read mentions the finding of even one penny in her room. The only possibilities I can think of are 1) Mary (an alcoholic) spent it at a pub.
She was heard singing about violets in her room from the time she took Mr. Beerpail home till 1 AM. Wouldn't the pubs be closed by then? Or are the people who saw her early the next morning right and she went to the pub and spent her money then? 2) Instead of giving Mary money Mr. Beerpail shared the contents of his pail with her. 3) (Highly unlikely) Bowyer looks in the window, sees the ghastliness, and spots the money lying on the table. Knowing that McCarthy is owed that money and that once the hullabaloo starts it may disappear he slips into the room, grabs the cash and leaves, locking the door behind him. Only then does he raise the alarm.
4)Jack took it. |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 04:35 am | |
How about
5) The first policemen entering the room took it.
David |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 04:41 am | |
And how about
6) Mary Jane paid the money over to Jack the Ripper because he was her pimp.
David |
Author: Diana Comer
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 05:13 am | |
David;
Both quite possible. |
Author: Wolf
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 01:22 pm | |
Diana and David, no money was found on any of the victims and considering the Ripper went through the pockets of Annie Chapman and possably took her rings and also did a partial search of Catherine Eddows, it is probable that the Ripper took the money. It is one of those questions that is not often asked, did the Ripper attempt to rob his victims of what little they might have had?
Wolf. |
Author: Diana Comer
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 04:08 pm | |
| Trophies, Wolf, Trophies |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 05:38 pm | |
Or, it possibly means he was vulnerable to being distracted by money if easily available. This would seem to indicate he'd be one of the lower classes. It doesn't seem quite right to me that he'd take a few coins as trophies, when there were far more personal items available for this purpose.
David |
Author: Wolf
Thursday, 05 August 1999 - 11:40 pm | |
Two uteri, a flap of stomach wall including navel, a kidney, a heart and two thirds of a bladder, these are the Rippers trophies.
Wolf |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 06 August 1999 - 04:07 am | |
Hi All,
I think the Ripper was a local, a member of the poor working class, and that he did rob his victims. There are indications that Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly all had money shortly before they were murdered, yet none was found on their bodies or at the crime scenes (mythical farthings not withstanding). As Wolf pointed out, the Ripper searched Chapman's pockets, and did at least a partial search of Eddowes, so I think it's likely he did rob them. Even the few pence they were likely to have had would fetch several glasses of cheap gin in a local pub, or a bed in a doss house, both of which would have had significant value to someone of that class.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Wolf
Friday, 06 August 1999 - 02:19 pm | |
Hey Jim, I have to agree but I can't see money for a Doss. The Ripper would have at least some blood on him and also various body parts, living in a Doss House therefor, doesn't seem right. The Ripper was some East End denizen but one who was probably employed and had at least some kind of room to himself where he could clean himself up and gloat over his trophies.
Wolf. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 06 August 1999 - 06:56 pm | |
Hi All,
Wolf: point taken. I recall reading that the police made fairly intensive inquiries in the local lodging houses, with little or no positive result. As crowded as some of those places were, and with the knowledge that a killer was in their midst, if someone had come in bloodstained or toting a uterus he would have been noticed. So yes, I probably provided a poor example of what the Ripper would have done with the money, but I think the main point is still valid. I.e., he robbed his victims because he was a member of the local working poor, and would have considered even the few coins his victims may have had to be of considerable value.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Wolf
Friday, 06 August 1999 - 11:42 pm | |
Yes Jim, I think you'r on the right track. The Ripper was a nobody who lived a quiet life in Whitechapel and was forced by his ego to try and make a name for himself by butchering five women and getting away with it.
Wolf. |
