|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 12:51 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
The heading of the thread will be explained later.
Starting of with Mrs maxwells alleged sighting of Mary Kelly, she states she saw her at the entrance to the court around 815am on friday the 9th november 1888, not only that but had a brief conversation with her, she was interviewed by the police questioned by Abberline himself who quoted' I tried everything to get her to change her mind , but she was adamant and i could not break the woman'.
She swore under oath at the inquest although warned by the coroner that she should be careful for she was going against medical advice.
She gave a description of her conversation, a description of Kellys clothing, a description of where she was heading at that hour, the clothing matched with kellys room clothes and the people she visited that morning confirmed that it was that very morning .
Mrs Maxwell said to kelly '?what brings you up so early and not in bed? to which the reply was 'oh carrie i cannot sleep for i have the horrors of drink on me as i have been drinking for some days past'
Horrors of drink..
Hangover, Nightmare horrors induced by alcohol
The above is pure speculation but Mrs Maxwells statement seems to me to point the finger of truth.
Back to my heading for this thread.
what did the scavengers see?
Answer nothing.
Let me explain, According to The East and West ham Gazette. 10th November 88, several scavengers who were in the court at 9am declared that the body was not there then.
According to the New collins Dictionary A scavenger is a street cleaner, therefore several streetcleaners were in the court around 9am that morning but did not see a body infact were adamant that no body was there.
The paper in question puts the body being in a outhouse meaning room 13, and therefore the reference made by the scavangers indicate that that at 9am that morning they saw no body in that spot.
Lets go back then to events that morning .
At 8am Catherine pickert knocks on Kellys door to obtain a decent covering [ wrap over] kelly does not answer , i would have imagined that the window was covered over with the muslin curtain and pilot coat otherwise she would have gone to the window to indicate to kelly if she was awake her request.
At 815 kelly is reported to have been seen by Maxwell, she is still out on the streets at845am.
At 9am the street cleaners enter the court and claim later that there was no body there, that itself indicates that there was a viewing capacity into the room at that time.
However at 1045 am Bowyer has to pull back the curtains and gaze through the window.
This would imply to me that between the time of what could have been kellys return home and the finding of her body the curtains were pulled back again for obvious reasons.
I have never heard this account before and i thought it would be intresting to raise, as it does seem to give more strength to Maxwells claim.
Regards Richard. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 834
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Richard,
Let's see what that newspaper article said:
At half-past 10 yesterday morning the dead body of a woman, with her head almost severed from her body, was found in an untenanted outhouse or shed in Dorset-court, Dorset-street, Commercial-street, Spitalfields. It had evidently been there for some hours, but several scavengers who were in the court at nine o'clock declare that the body was not there then. They might, however, have been mistaken, as the place is very dark.
The newspaper reports "the body was found in an untenanted outhouse or shed." This is hardly a description of number 13 Millers Court. It was not a shed, but an integral part of the building and was not without a tenant.
The article further states the scavengers "might, however, have been mistaken, as the place is very dark." Not a terribly ringing endorsement by the newspaper. Last winter I wrote an article for Ripper Notes ("The Murder in Cartin's Court") on the subject of the many erroneous newspaper reports at the time of the murder in Millers Court and this one is no different from most except that the East and West Ham Gazette at least had the grace to concede it wasn't entirely sure of its facts.
Your suggestion that Mary Jane Kelly was alive at 9 a.m. that morning is possible and continues to be debated, but I would not use the "scavengers' tale" to support it.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1565
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
I realize that the description is a vague one, however the report of the Scavengers being in the court may well be valid, just the newspapers description of the murder spot been wrong.
I Believe in Mrs Maxwell so strongly that any possible conformation that is possible to find is worthy of mention, although i do accept your point.
Regards Richard. |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Richard.
I found this quite funny as sometimes I have to go down to the Court with the solicitors, and the cleaners are forever giving their opinions. But the Judge never listens to a word.
In my opinion the Maxwell story, as defined in the Evans and Skinner book, is a marvel. It is the sort of thing that attracts people to the case . However, we know for certain that the terrible mess in 13 Miller's Court was there for all to see at 10.00 am or thereabouts, and it can't just have taken only an hour to produce. So If the cleaners say there was no body there in broad daylight at 9.00 I expect we can dismiss their opinion. I am getting the impression I pour cold water on everything :-( |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
"At 9am the street cleaners enter the court and claim that there was no body there, [which] indicates that there was a viewing capacity into the room at that time [...] at 1045 am Bowyer has to pull back the curtains [implying] that between the time of [...] kellys return home and the finding of her body the curtains were pulled back again"
Genuinely interesting observation, Richard, but the stronger implication to me is that the scavengers didn't notice anything simply because the "curtains" were still drawn shut. There is also a fairly strong argument that says that, even if the curtains were open, the scavengers had no right or inclination to peep in.
Without seeing the newspaper report in full, there is a suggestion (from your transcription of the tale) that the scavengers were commenting on whether there was a body in the court, which of course there wasn't. It was on a mattress tucked into a dark corner of a pokey bedsit, with a door and a pair of "curtained" windows in the way.
It'd be interesting to know if the newspaper has the scavengers stating explicitly that there was no body in that particular room, rather than in the Court (-yard) itself. Do you (or anyone else) have the actual text? |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
I don't wish to be indelicate, but would there have been a noticeable smell in the court had the body been in the room at 9:00? Would there have been flies? Of course it was a cold day.
And another thought which has no bearing on Richard's argument at all really disturbs me. In that time and place there probably would have been rats. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 839
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Gareth,
Go to the "Press Reports" section of Casebook (on the upper left of this page), click on "calendar feature," click on November 10 and then click on East and West Ham Gazette.
Incredible resources on Casebook if you just look.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Don,
"Incredible resources on Casebook if you just look."
I know - so much so that I didn't even know about this feature! Thanks for the tip. |
Erin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 65
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
Diana,
Not necessarily. It was quite cold, and her body temperature would have gone down even faster considering the state of the corpse. Cold inhibits decay, which is partly how you get those perfectly preserved, non-stinky Neanderthals that have been encased in a chunk of ice for thousands of years. Granted, it wasn't that cold in London, nor was it as dry, but the process of putrefaction (destruction of the tissues), which has a lot to do with the distinctive odor produced by decaying bodies, generally begins within about 4-10 days after death. However, Dr. Michael Baden, one of the foremost experts in the field (who has, incidentally, done a video on the Ripper, which I'm dying--no pun intended--to see), does say that higher temperatures speed the process up; on a hot day a body can be quite decomposed within 24 hours. On the other hand, other factors, besides temperature, can slow the rate of putrefaction. Death from loss of blood (exsanguination), as was the case with Kelly, is such a factor.
All in all, I suppose this is all just a very roundabout way of saying, No, it is highly unlikely that the body would have begun to smell at that hour. It probably didn't even smell when the police were there. I don't know if this impacts Richard's argument in any way, but I figured I could clear up one question at least. 
Edited to add that there probably wouldn't have been flies yet, either, given the low temperature and other factors.
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on November 27, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 868
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Diana & Erin,
To our more delicate taste there probably would have been a distinctly unpleasant odor in Millers Court. It was a place without indoor plumbing at a time of indifference towards many aspects of personal hygiene. I would guess it would be several days before the stench of a decomposing body would stand out from the ambient aromas.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
