|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 114
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 5:53 pm: |       |
Ok Sadam, let's try it your way. I'll ignor the evidence and will not concern myself with the constraints placed upon my thinking based upon such trivial things as empirical data.
Case solved: A large monkey escaped from a ship that had docked in London. As the large monkey was a stowaway, nobody reported it missing. This monkey, due to hunger from getting little to eat while on board, roamed about London. Being a large monkey's, and being shy, it tended to avoid human contact. However, it was also a clever monkey, and had been domesticated. During this period of its life, it learned to eat with a fork and knife. At some point, it obtained a knife. The murders, in fact, are a result of this monkeys hunger. It attacked it's victims, who were too startled to scream, and given a monkey's strength, was able to overpower them quickly. It fled if approached, and given a monkey's ability to climb, it's escape routes are far more than that of a human.
Basically, Jack the Ripper was a large Monkey. The murders stopped because the monkey eventually starved. The mutilations increased due to the increased hunger of said monkey. And, I don't have to worry about the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to support and/or indicate any of this! I'm free from the contrainsts of the empirical data and now can solve this case any way I want.
Perhaps the above indicates why it's generally accepted that the data we have should be used to restrain our explanations?
- Jeff |
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 11:12 am: | |
Hi all,
The main problem people tend to have with Maxwell's evidence is that it goes against the medical evidence ie:the estimated time of death.
However,at least one modern day expert has commented,estimating the TOD as being around 10 o'clock the next morning.
This modern day estimate seems more likely to me,coupled with the fact that three people claimed to have seen Kelly on the morning of the Lord Mayors show.
To me,Maxwell's statement is solid and I don't think she was mistaken when she claimed to have seen Kelly twice.
If we recall,Caroline Maxwell tells us that the woman she spoke to just so happned to be standing in front of Millers Court,just so happened to be wearing the same clothes as Kelly was seen wearing in the early hours of the same morning.The woman oddly enough answered to the name Mary Jane!
When I hear people so readily dismissing all of this as a case of mistaken Identity,it reminds me of a comedy sketch by the two Ronnies.
Corbett and Barker play two simpletons muddling their way through life.
On this particular occasion Baker pays Corbett a visit and finds Corbett sitting at his kitchen table.On the table is a duck.
Corbett is looking very pleased with himself and tells Barker that he has bought himself an Argentinian racing pigeon from a chap down the pub and what a bargain it was at only 20 quid!
"It's a duck"!says Barker.
"Na,na na,it's a racing pigeon",insists Corbett,"Goes like a shot".
"It's a duck", repeats Barker.
"Look" says Corbett,"He escaped the other day,flew like a bullet".
"Where d'ya find 'im then"? Barker asks.
"Er...emmm..err down the duck pond" admits Corbett reluctantly!
Getting back to Mrs Maxwell's evidence.
Commenters have argued that she probably genuinely belived she had encountered Kelly twice on that morning because the woman she had always attached the name "Mary Jane Kelly" to,was in fact someone else.
But Maxwell aso said that she knew Joseph Barnett and it is highly likely that she would have seen Kelly and Barnett together at some point as she worked just across the road from Millers court.This fact renders the idea of a miss-association on Maxwell's part, a lot less likely.
Also in a statement Maxwell refered to Kelly as a "Fine little woman".Those dismissing Maxwell leap on this,taking the "little" part as being litteral,because we that know Kelly was by no means a short woman.
For all we know,Maxwell could have used the word "little" every other word.A person I know does just that.
Finally how can we explain away the fact that both Barnett and Maxwell attended Kelly's inquest where any case of mistaken identity would have been Imediately obvious?
Best regards,
Steven
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 7:37 pm: | |
Jeff,
If you want to advance a central epistemological proposition that a stowaway hungry monkey was responsible for the Whitechapel murders, then you must go ahead and explain the whole of the case evidence according to that center. You have to account for how the monkey got hold of that red neckerchief Lawende reports the murderer wearing in Duke Street, for example, and for why the monkey waited forty days before murdering in Miller's Court. If you can explain the whole of the case evidence by the monkey, congratulations, you have solved the case. If you can't, then you are free to choose a different center and try again.
I have a feeling that British people are particularly upset by my thinking above on the case. It is as if I were lifting up their skirts to see what they have up there. But this is what you have to do to solve the case, I think.
Saddam |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 8:59 pm: | |
Dear Jeff,
The monkey scenario has been run by the posters before...except it was an orangutan (plant-eating tree-dwelling species from Sumatra). The problem here seems to be, that given the 'freedom' to propose a solution outside the canonical suspects,
you will insist on the singular killer-monkey, rather than many killer-monkeys. Since there is no evidence for many killer-monkeys there is none for the singular killer-monkey, either! And while I can accept that there may be both one and many killer-monkeys operating at the same time, I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that it only ate Whitechapel prostitutes!
Rosey :-) |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 12:22 am: | |
If Mary really intended to fake her own death, why would she stay in the area after the murder? She could confirm the body was found and identified as her by picking up a paper from some other area of London where she would be hiding. I think this simple detail is enough to rationally conclude that Mary was the actual victim. |
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 10:23 am: | |
Hi all.
I know that in believing that MJK was killed mid morning and that Maxwell actually saw Kelly,I am in a minority.
I admit,the whole story is not without its share of stumbling blocks and like so many aspects of the case,fraught with missing pieces of information,which often leave us both tantalized and frustated.
As I mentioned in my last posting,we should exercise caution when interpreting statements given by the various witneses.
Also I mentioned before that Maxwell's use of the phrase "Little woman" should not be taken litterally as it was most likely used rather in the maner that people habitually use the word "Old" for instance.
I know somebody who often uses phrases like:"He's a lovely old boy" irrespective of the persons age!
I would like now to deal with another detail of Maxwells statement which at first sight,would seem to weaken its credibility.
According to Maxwell,Kelly had told her that she had "The horrors of drink" upon her,to which Maxwell suggested that Kelly should try the "Hair of the dog " remedy.
According to Maxwell,Kelly then explained that she had already had "A drink of ale and brought it all up" motioning with her head in the direction of The Brittania as she did so.
Maxwell of course,assumed that MJK had actually been to the Brittania for her drink.
Acting on Maxwells words the police later visited the same public house,only to find that nobody had seen Kelly that morning.
The mistake here is we are basing everything on what is most likely an incorrect assumption on Maxwell's part.
In motioning her head,Kelly may have been pointing to the vomit and not the pub.The ale she drank could have been the last of the quart pot supplied by Mr. "Carroty mistache".
Kelly may have finnished the ale,felt sick and decided to go for a walk and get some fresh air discarding the quart pot as she did so.
Ok,Maxwell claimed that she saw the same woman again,half an hour later talking to a man outside the Brittania,but we have no evidence at all to suggest that Kelly went into the Brittania on that morning.
We also have the fact that Maxwell claimed that she knew Barnett.Why on earth would she even mention his name if she had got the wrong woman?
Quite simply she would have done so because MJK was the woman that she had often seen in the company of Barnett,behaving as partners do towards each other.
If her conviction was based on mere assosiation ie. she had only heard that Barnett had lived with a woman called Mary Kelly and somehow attatched the wrong name to somebody living in the area,then I doubt whether she would have been so sure of herself when she gave her evidence.Even more so as the coroner had cautioned her.
What is most frustrating is that if Maxwell had in fact got the wrong woman,she would inevitably have encountered the same woman again and realised her mistake.
If this were the case then I really think we would now about it today.Or was Caroline Maxwell so embarrassed that she mentioned it to nobody?
Best regards,
Steven
|
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 133
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:20 pm: | |
Evening All,
Is everyone familiar with the phenomenom of "deja vu"?
You know, where you do a certain task, or go through certain motions so monotonously day-to-day,that after a while, you do them automatically?
When you loose your car keys, and say out loud:
"But how could I have locked them in the car? I ALWAYS make sure I have them in my pocket before I close the car door".
I've gone on a bit, but what I am broaching is a picture of daily routine; boring ritual in daily life. Done so regularly, it becomes almost subliminal.Like a rushed off their feet parent getting the kids ready for school.
My point is, I wonder if Caroline Maxwell knew Mary Jane Kelly so well, because they frequently
encountered each other in the court, the morning after the noticeable MJK had had a big night?
Could she have muddled up the sighting because they had foregathered thus, so often in the past?
Now I know Caroline did not say this was a common morning-after ritual, but she seemed to be keen to emphasise her intimacy (first name terms) with Mary Jane.Whatever the situation, I am sure Caroline M. truly believed her own evidence.
As for signs of MJK having vomitted in the court, did not the landlord's young assistant
vomit after peering through the broken window pane, into Mary Jane Kelly's room? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 4:03 am: | |
Hi Steven,
I believe there are a lot of people, who think the way you do regarding time of death[ I for one]in my mind there is more evidence of that, then her being murdered in the night hours.
The police may have originally believed that the murder occured, during the night, but the statement made in the house of commons stating' There is evidence in the case of kelly that was found wanting in the other murders, which makes it more likely that the murderer may have had an acclomplice, who assisted the killer, if not in the murder itself'
One interpretation of that , is if the murder happened in the daylight hours , the killer had more chance of being spotted by someone, at his place of obode, whether at a lodging house or private accomodation.
I believe that the police believed , that the murderer, may have had private accomodation, and unless he lived alone, someone would have noticed his condition[ this is in our forthcoming book]
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 3:03 am: | |
Hi All,
I think the fact that Carrie admitted to a measure of surprise to see the woman she took to be Mary Kelly up so early that morning makes it slightly less likely that she was mistaken. Anything out of the ordinary tends to make you check, even subconsciously, to confirm you are not 'seeing things'.
Carrie was evidently left with the impression that this was the same woman she often saw around, but not usually until significantly later in the day - which would fit if Mary tended to sleep in late as a result of working and/or drinking well into the early hours.
The question is, if Mary regularly had a skinful and the horrors of drink on her the morning after, what would have brought her out significantly earlier on this occasion?
Love,
Caz. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 3:12 am: | |
Hi Caz,
I can think of two reasons.
a] she was awaken by Catherine Pickett banging on her door at 8am
b] Did she not tell people that she wished to go to the lord mayors show
And a further one.
If she felt unwell, she may have wished to venture out to get some fresh air.
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 12:04 pm: | |
I dont know if anyone is still posting on this subject but I was wondering if Mary Kelly was killed around 10 in the morning would that have given the killer time to mutilate the body in such away. He would have been takeing an awful risk of being noticed all the other killings happend in the early morning hours. The killer would have broken his routine. if this is the case it gives more creadence to the Barnett theory. he could come an go without raising to much suspicion. or the theory that it was not kelly at all. However why would kelly have to fake her own death. if she wanted to go why could she not just leave. I dont believe kelly faked her own death and I feel she was probley killed around 4 in the morning but maxweell could have been mistaken on the time she saw kelly. I would believe she saw her around 8 mabey nine to give the killer time enough to committ the murder the most likely thing to me is she is lieing alot of people involve them self in cases by fudging the truth. It brings to mind the reacent sniper case were a man claimed to have witnessed the shooting but when the police reviewed the store suvailence tape the man could not have seen the shooting because he was in the store buying something at the time I know it is a rather rude statement seeing how I never knew Mis Maxwell but it is just a thought However if I remember right a few more people claimed to see kelly the day of the murder. the book the unfortunates which was written by scruffy covers this topic. It is interesting. TAKE CARE. CB |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 3:36 am: | |
Hi C B.
It is a fallacy that the murder of kelly took a long time, look what he did to Eddowes in a few short minutes, multiply that by tenfold, and thirty to forty minutes, would have been ample.
The facts are that evidence what little there is. points to Kelly being killed around 9am on the morning of the 9th.
Lets not forget , at the time of that murder , people in the immediate area, were of the opinion also.
We should also remember, that Mrs Maxwell , swore on oath at the inquest, to that fact, even tho she was warned that her evidence was contradictory to medical reports.
If she was a publicity seeker, would she have gone so far as risk a term of inprisonment, for no gain, lets not forget , she could when she became aware that her lies might lead her in hot water, retract her statement , with 'I must have been mistaken'
But she swore on oath, and was adamant that she saw her on the morning of the 9th, and I see no reason to doubt her.
I am as convinced as I can be that she was killed in her room, shortly after 9am, by someone she knew and trusted.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 7:40 am: | |
Hi Richard
I find the coroner's remarks to Maxwell very strange, because at the moment when she gave her evidence, the jury had only heard one piece of evidence (Prater's story of a cry) that might have suggested a death in the night. Lewis's evidence came after Maxwell's, and Phillips didn't suggest a time of death at the inquest (as far as I know).
Robert |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 2:29 pm: | |
Sorry I got confused and yes I was wwwwwwwrong Maxwell claimed to see kelly around 830 EARLIER I need a zip file. However there was a person who claimed to see Kelly around 10:00 in the morning with Joe Barnett. since I cant remember his name I wont venture a guess. Take care CB  |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 302
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 1:05 pm: | |
I would assume that the coroner knew in a general sense what evidence was going to be presented. So he was cautioning Maxwell that her evidence was different from that which would be presented by other witnesses.
Andy S.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | |
Yes Andy, I imagine the coroner knew the general background info. But just from the point of view of the jury, it's odd that the only evidence they heard to suggest that Maxwell may have been mistaken, was the two reports of murder cries - Phillips didn't testify as to time of death.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 57
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
Steven-
Have just picked up this thread..having rattled on about Mrs Maxwell ad.nauseum I thought that this may be the place to do it!! Caroline would not have mistaken the day she has to slither through the streets of Whitechapel returning her plates!! Also the Lord Mayors Show might have been an exciting prospect!! p'raps that was why the plates were being returned??
Well?
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
Common sense , says that Mrs Maxwell was telling the truth, she had no reason to fabricate the truth as so far , as swearing on oath.
For what financial gain?
The person who she returned the plates to, confirmed that it was on the morning of the 9th Nov,she could hardly have got the day muddled.
Abberline tried hard to alter her story, but with no success, clearly the woman saw , the person she knew as Mary Jane, from Millers court, that morning as described.
Lewis, who claimed to have known the deseased for Four years, described his sighting, and even mentioned the milk , for good measure.
An unnamed Tailoress, sometimes refered to as Mrs Goode, claimed to have seen the [ dead woman] in Dorset street that morning, alive and well.
Common sense tells me , we cannot ignore all these people independant of each other.
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 1:01 am: | |
You make a good point about 3 different witnesses comeing forward and claiming to see kelly and anything is possible. she may have been working that morning as well she knew it was rent day. I was wondering if you had a preferd suspect. ThANKS FOR YOUR POST TAKE CARE CB. |
oliviatrees
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 1:55 am: | |
} hello my name is olivia bergere and as you can see I am from the united states (california:Palm Springs to be exact ) I was surfing on the net just to see what kind of research was available on this subject and ,much to my surprise there you were!! I have been reading for the past hour and just thought I would introduce myself ,as I am sending in the registration form .well, thanks and I will be checking in every now and then .thanks olivia}}}}} |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 11:08 am: | |
Hi Olivia and welcome. So at last someone uses one of the flags!
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 68
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
 Oh that's what the're for then!!Hi Robert!
Richard -can't fault you on The Mrs M stuff! Don't you love the Mrs Goode stuff..where did you get that from?? Also the milk is a new one on me (!)..sounds a bit expensive for a girl who couldn't pay the rent!
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1664
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
Question : who is this?
Answer : Monty Druitt
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 3:40 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
Mrs Goode has always been reported as a tailoress , who knew Mary , at least by sight, who claimed to have seen the deseased at 8.30am on the morning of the 9th.
Maurice Lewis, said he saw Kelly return to her room that morning carrying some milk.
The two above sightings confirm at least to me, that the possibility, that kelly was alive,is entirely possible.
Richard. |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 102
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
Richard,
How do we explain the scream? The scream had to have some significance.
Yes, it was common to hear them, but it ties in perfectly with Mary's death.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
