|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 7:52 am: |       |
G'day,
When Mary's kettle spout was discussed before, it was agreed that she would have kept it if it had burnt off on an earlier occasion, or perhaps she used an old kettle that was given to her. I agree!
Barnett would have known this, but he forgot to mention it and Police never thought to ask!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 644
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Leanne,
I don't see why Barnett would have mentioned it, it doesn't seem that incriminating. The police obviously didn't ask for a reason, probably the same, that they didn't think it important to ask about. Although this does show that the police did miss out some questions with Joe so it is possible that them letting him off could have been a mistake, slightly off topic but just an observation.
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hi,
The milk is a vital point, for if there was a milk container in her room, not used,or partly used , or fully used, it would point to Lewis telling the truth to the press.and that would imply that kelly was killed 9am plus on the morning of the 9th.
Surely if the police , having become aware that lewis, was informing the press of a sighting of kelly, describing milk, and them not finding the item anywhere in her room, would have questioned him , why he made such false statements to the press, which could hinder there investigations.
Question.
Why should Maurice Lewis, describe such a sighting , mentioning that she was carrying a certain item, if it would be discovered by a search of the room, that this was not so?.
I would say that was a dumb thing to do...
Regards Richard. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Andrew wrote:
"Still, let's remember one thing. The police (Abberline, I believe) seemed to attach some importance to the fire and the detached spout."
This could very easily have no relationship to whether it was actually relevant to the case or not. They made lots of whacky decisions, and this could very well be yet another.
(I still picture Abberline chewing on his moustache while saying: "'Tis 'orrible! A broken teapot would never do. This MUST have just 'appened, as no self-respecting woman would allow such a domestic tragedy in her domicile!")
Richard wrote:
"if they found no milk in her room, Lewis surely would have been questioned why he made such a false claim"
The police clearly discounted her claims overall, so I don't know why you expected them to pay special significance to just one of many things they think she got wrong. The fact that you think she was right doesn't change the fact that the police at the time didn't.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 679
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
When refering to Lewis, I was refering to Maurice Lewis [male].
If a statement was made to the press, by a potential witness, I Would have imagined that this person , would have been, along with Mrs Maxwell, interviewed quite extensively.
Therefore any container,of milk, and any container of beer, found in her room, would have been evidence , of whether, these two people , were telling the truth or porkies.
There is a sketch made of kellys room, which clearly dipicts a bottle of beer on the mantlepiece, we do not know the origin of that sketch, was it a police sketch, or a press asumption?.
I was merely stating the obvious, Milk, and beer, we know that kelly was not reported to have drank in a public house, on the morning of the 9th, but she could have drank the contents from the mantlepiece, and as she was reported to have been seen carrying a container of milk, one can imagine, the contents ,or part contents, would have been visable in her room,
I made a comment , that if no milk of any description was found in her room , then surely Mr Maurice Lewis, would have been asked, why he fabricated that particular story to the press, which , i would have imagined the extremely frustrated police to have took a dim view of such a statement.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
G'day Rich,
The press were and still are in the habit of turning everything that is said into the 'picture' they want. ie: Maurice Lewis could have said something like: "But I could have sworn I saw her..."
LEANNE |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 378
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
Dan wrote:
This could very easily have no relationship to whether it was actually relevant to the case or not. They made lots of whacky decisions, and this could very well be yet another.
I don't think it is quite accurate to argue that it could "very easily" have no relationship to the case. While the police could have, and certainly did from time to time, make incorrect assumptions, on the whole we should regard as significant that which they did unless proven otherwise. They were closer to the case than we and they were experts at observation. Indeed, having less technology to rely upon their skill in observation may have been superior to ours.
Andy S.
} |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 12:55 am: | |
My analysis of the milk situation:
The explanation is simple. JTR liked milk. He knew that it does a body good, so he took it with him when he left. He probably was tired and thirsty after all his work, so whatever he used to haul off his trophies was probably used to haul the milk. It might be a bit of a cover if he was stopped on the street by a policeman. For example:
Constable: Excuse me sir, what do you have in your bag?
JTR: A bottle of milk. See? I'm taking it home to the family.
Constable: Carry on then good chap. Watch out for suspicious characters. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 687
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Hi Eric,
With respect that is rubbish.
The milk is a very constructive point, It would show whether, or not Kelly was killed early A,M , or late Am, that is providing the police had enough intelligence, to Follow up, such common sense, I have my doubts although, to their investigations knowledge at that date.
Richard. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 4:01 pm: | |
Andrew wrote:
"While the police could have, and certainly did from time to time, make incorrect assumptions, on the whole we should regard as significant that which they did unless proven otherwise. "
We have a fundamental disagreement then.
I think it's wiser to consider but not accept their conclusions unless we have the same evidence they did and can verify that their conclusions were sound. It's a standard rule of mine for everything. That's how scientists do things, and it's logical to do elsewhere also.
I've found a lot of "experts" (the kind that you'd think it'd be logical to assume they know what they are talking about) throw all sane reasoning standards out the window when it comes to anything stressful or important to them. Considering the lack of appropriate skills at the time, I can hardly call the 1888 police forces experts by any modern standard, so I trust their judgments even less.
Beyond just that, even when conclusions sound reasonable to well trained modern investigators they can turn out to be wrong too. How many white trucks and vans did officials try to track down in the DC area before they stumbled upon the actual vehicle and the actual killers? |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Oh jeeze! I can see the ad's now. "Got Milk?" And there is some JTR actor in a top hat and a bloody knife drinking it. AGH! I recall that there was a bottle of some sort found in her room close to or on the fire place. I assumed it was beer or the like. Was that empty or not? Do any of you know anything about that bottle? |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 381
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 1:25 am: | |
Dan --
Yes, we do have a fundamental disagreement in how we evaluate the opinions of those who investigated the case at the time. I generally ascribe to the theory that those who were there were in the best position to know and act on the facts. While our technology and knowledge of criminal psychology surpasses theirs, we are severely hampered by our knowing only a fraction of the facts they did.
Andy S.
|
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:47 am: | |
With respect Richard, it was making a joke. Lighten up. I don't think JTR was a milk thief nor that he was thirsty. I was trying to bring some sunshine to our weary quest of catching Jack |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Hi Eric,
I did assume old chap , that it was meant in joke form, however the clue of the milk , is a vital one, for if she did return to her room that morning , with a container of milk, it was because, she needed the use of milk, as i can safely asume, that she did not intend to pour it on her favourite bowl of weetabix, one can assume, that it was her intention, to make tea, which , would require the use of a fire, and a kettle, which happens to fit in remarkably well , with the facts of this case.
Richard. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:49 pm: | |
Andrew wrote:
"we are severely hampered by our knowing only a fraction of the facts they did."
Yes, we are. But just because we have less information doesn't mean that they came to the right conclusions with the extra information they had. In fact, based upon what we do know, it's probably safe to assume that most of their conclusions were wrong. |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 2:26 am: | |
Richard,
Who in the world makes tea with milk?! Maybe JTR wanted hot cocoa and Mary didn't have any, so he killed her. Makes sense to me.  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hi Eric,
Most people prefer their tea, with milk, however, as there is no mention of a teapot , in the items of her room, it is conceivable that frys cocoa, may have been the prefered choice,
Richard. |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 6:43 pm: | |
Most American's don't as a habit drink milk with tea but in Enland it's rather common. But then again the American's are the ones who put tea in a soda can. Both are gross if you ask me, I only like lemon in my tea.  |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 31
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
I think the fire was started by MJK at about 1.00am. This was the only time that a witness (Mary Ann Cox) saw LIGHT coming from MJK's room. At this time, because it was a freshly lit fire, it would glow. MJK may also have had the candle burning as well. I think Blotchy left Miller's court between 1.10-1.15am, as Mary Ann Cox went out at 1.05am and saw no-one enter or leave the court. MJK leaves the court at 1.50am- to just miss Elizabeth Prater who had been standing at the entrance to the Court, but then went into McCarthy's for a chat. Between 2.00am and 3.30am MJK meets up with George Hutchison and Hutch's Man. Hutch's Man leaves Miller's court at about 3.25am. As he is walking through the Miller's Court Archway to get on to Dorset Street, The Ripper just passes him, after Hutch's Man has turned on to Dorest Street (his back to the Ripper). MJK is waiting at the doorway looking at hutch's man go away, sees a possible next client come up the court (the Ripper) speaks to him, as she's on a roll with clients and felt comfortable with Hutch's man, invites him in and and then the murder starts- almost bang on time at 3.30am. Mary would have already been undressed. She would have done this with Hutch's man. The clothes that belonged to Maria Harvey may have got blood stained during the murder- a likely probability and the murderer threw them onto the fire, causing it to smoulder.
Busy Beaver |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 926
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hi Busy,
You are suffering from the same vivid imagination as myself , Good for you.
However I do not feel that Mjk would stand at the other end of the passage waveing goodbye to Hutchinsons man, and just by coincedence the real killer happened to pass by the entrance, spots kelly, who smiles at him, and the killer thinks whoopie, and casually walks up the narrow passage to create history.
Richard. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 32
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Richard you're right- my imagination is running riot! I suppose we've only got Mrs Maxwell, Mr Lewis, George Hutchison, Mrs Prater and Sarah Lewis as witnesses. Don't know what Diddles saw. It was such a narrow time frame between the movements of MJK from being seen at 1.00am by Mary Ann Cox, to Elizabeth Prater probably missing her at 1.50am as she left Miller's Court, only to bump into George Hutchison at 2.00am. I still do think Hutchison's Man did not intend staying and I think 30 minutes would be long enough to do the deed, pay and go. I think it has been said on other threads, that the killer would not have wasted time with the foreplay- he would have gone straight in to kill, which is why I think MJK did meet up with the killer after hutchison's man left. I know it may be conincidence, but the Ripper just happened to be lucky. I think it was the only way he would have got inside. There is no way he broke in during the night, unless of course MJK was being stalked and the killer knew about the lock etc. Sometimes truth can be stranger than fiction...
Busy Beaver |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 114
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 10:38 pm: | |
Great Imagination Busy I love it.
I agree with you in that the fire was lit earlier in the night around 12:00 - 1:00. I'm not sure though about the killer burning the clothes because they had blood on them. Blood was not incriminating as evidence back then and there was plenty of blood left in the room anyway. They were not his clothes so, yeah, I just can't see why he would burn them for reasons of blood.
Scotty. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 928
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 4:15 am: | |
Hi,
It is being suggested that Mjk lit the fire herself between 1200-2am.
Surely the police would have asked Barnett, Mrs harvey and residents of the court, if it was normal practise for Mary to light a fire in the middle of the night.
If the answer was Yes' Then they would not have supposed that the killer needed light.
If the answer was 'No' then they would have assumed that the killer lit the fire to obtain light.
Considering the man known as Jack the Ripper was used to working in darkness, and in the case of kelly had a candle close by , a luxury not afforded to him previously, why would he light the fire.
If Barnett lit the fire in the morning, it would serve no purpose , unless he did it to entice kelly back to bed, so the question is then why burn Harveys belongings?.
Spite is a possibility. if he lit a fire then he would not have added harveys clothes to fuel it whilst kelly was alive to object, so there must have been some amount of fuel in the room to use.
Looking at all the scenerios and using common sence, the most likely occurance was that Kelly herself lit the fire that morning to heat up the room, before then leaving her room to obtain milk, when she returning home the final time around 850am she took off her wet boots and placed them next to the hearth.
She then was visited by her killer who she obviously knew, who was expecting her to be in bed,she imformed him that she felt unwell, he encouraged her to undress and return to bed, once she had, he killed her...
The suggestion that kelly lit the fire upon waking that morning makes more logical sense, then her lighting a fire in the middle of the night.
And as it would also be logic, that the killer would not have drew attention to the room by lighting a fire around 3am , when he had a candle if required, and he clearly would not have needed a fire in daylight, I would suggest that as Harveys clothes were burnt, the killer singled them out to get rid of for spite, thus indicating that he knew Harvey, and the recent involvements in that room.
Need I say more...
Regards Richard. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 33
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 6:15 am: | |
It was cold and raining on the morning of November 9th. Mary Ann Cox, although doesn't directly say it- gives a clue, as she said she returned to the court at different times to "warm herself up". There was a discussion as who in the court had a fire place. Mary, because her room was a cut off back parlour may have been the lucky tennant to have the fire place. Others may have had them, but mayby couldn't afford the coal to get it started- such as Mrs Cox or did she have a fire smouldering as well??. It is also possible that the police did not ask about when Mary normally puts on the fire. I know if I came home at 1.00am in the morning, I couldn't be bothered lighting a fire, but in victorian times, it would have been quite normal. Coal if not bought, could easily be obtained from the street if it had dropped of a passing coal cart, and I think that's how the poorer whitechapel residents would have got their coal. Mary being out early in the morning would have got coal as the carts would pass around that time, or she got it cheaply from McCarthy's.
Going back to the clothes- If JRT did kill MJK, it has also been discussed that JRT did not pick out his victims. It seems the clothes issue leans towards a scenario of her being singled out. Mayby the clothes got in the killer's way and he just tossed them on to the fire. Mary's clothes were folded up neatly on a chair, the killer might not have saw them. We don't know where the clothes were originally in the room. They may have been on the table, and the killer needed that. If the killer was seeking revenge, MJK's boots would have also been thrown on for "good measure", especially since she was mutilated beyond recognition, the killer obviously did not want her to be identified, so why leave her boots there as well?
Busy Beaver |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 118
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
Hi all.
Richard, sorry to disagree with you again but I just have to. While I agree that we all must float theories regarding JtR otherwise there would be no point in these boards, I feel you often stretch the facts to fit your theories and try to present them as fact.
Even if the police did ask regarding the fire and were able to establish that Mary was not in the habit of lighting a fire in the middle of the night that does not prove that she did not light one that night. I floated a time of 12:00 - 1:00 as it seemed logical, but let's face it a fire could have been burning since the early evening. I have not read anywhere (although I am willing to be corrected) that the fire showed any signs of warmth, if anything that points to the fire having been out for several hours.
What the police believed about whether the killer needed light is worth noting, but it should also be noted that these were only theories and not fact.
I am willing to concede that Harvey's clothes could have been thrown on the fire out of spite. So what? People do things out of spite every day, it does not provide evidence that they are a murderer. I still think that there is a real possibility that the killer threw the clothes on the fire. There could have been any number of reasons for this and many of those reasons could be in no way pertaining to Harvey.
There is a clear discrepancy between a fire hot enough to melt the kettle and one which did not burn the clothes fully away. This leads me to believe that the kettle may be a red herring and that the fire was not hot enough to completely consume the clothes when they were thrown on. I think it is a strong possibility that the clothes were spread over the fire such as to smother it just before the killer left the room at around 4 - 4:30am. When he opened the door and left, anyone seeing him would not have the light of the fire by which to identify him. Over the ensuing period the fire would slowly burn through some but not all of the clothes before going out.
Em, yes, you need say more. I am not convinced. There are many more plausible scenarios than the one you have manipulated above.
Scotty. |
craig
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Hi Guys, I dont think that back in 1888 dear old Jack was thinking two much about melting tin based solder on a copper kettle. i also doubt that poor old Mary could afford a copper kettle, but rather found or purchased a spoutless kettle cheaply. Jack would need two very important items in the mutilation of Mary.
1) A very sharp knife
2) Some light
A farthing dip candle is fine for basic visability, but to rip a body in the way Jack did would need a half decent light source. No night vision goggles available in 1888. Try to prepair your sunday roast at night with a modern parrafin candle in a darkend room and scream blue murder when you amputate your finger.
P.S Doubt she had a supply of seasoned logs either as fuel, cloths would do fine. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 8:56 am: | |
Hi Scott,
Then I shall say more.
I agree with you on one point, there is no evidence that when the police arrived on the scene the fire was still in progress, giving the impression that it may have been lit at a earlier stage than 8am.
I have a possible reason for this, The man Hutchinson saw accost Kelly seemed to imply to Kelly that she would be 'All right for what he had told her' and she replied 'All right my love you will be comftable'
That type of conversation could imply that he was going to pay her well, and in return she would make him comftable.
It is possible that because she was going to entertain such a respectable gent, and it had been raining that she would light the fire when she returned to her room, so that his clothes could dry.
A very likely scenerio, however if the case I doubt if this man was her killer, for as soon as he entered that room , she would have been killed, I cannot imagine such a monster, waiting for her to light a fire, take of her clothes and jump into bed.
I have believed for a long time that the man seen by hutchinson was no more than a man seaking a place to rest in some private room , before continueing on to the Lord mayors show, and as kelly was not unattractive, mayby passing the next few hours away in a pleasant way.
I believe he left at first light, leaving kelly sleeping, and i can just imagine his horror when he found out., that woman had been murdered by 'Jack' he could obviously never come forward, he would have been in severe jepody.
The above reconstruction would explain the remains of a fire , but not the burning of Harveys clothes, unless of course she was so excited on meeting such a wealthy client , she threw caution to the wind , and used them to keep the fire going.
Richard. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 34
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 9:08 am: | |
Richard that's an interesting point about mary putting on the clothes on the fire to keep the heat going for Hutch's man. Today when women take a bloke home it's normally oops- wait a minute and we hurridley force every single item of clothing we have on the floor and on the bed into the wardrobe. Mary didn't have a wardrobe so I suppose the fire was the best place! And it kept her warm.
Busy Beaver |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 46
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
I can't believe that Mary would burn the clothes--they were just too valuable.
Mags |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 930
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
Hi Maria,
I agree entirely with you , the clothes were pawnable assets, and she simply would not burn them unless circumstances forced her to.
I was simply giving all the possible ways the fire could have been lit , taking in all the clues we have availiable.
Busy.
I was not suggesting that Kelly burnt the clothes to clear up after bringing home hutchinsons gent, I was assuming it was possible that as she mentioned the word comftable, and it was a rainy night, that she may have lit the fire to dry of the mans clothing whilst more intimate relations occured. But on saying that i would suggest that a fire may have already been laid in the grate from more conventional fuel, therefore although possible I feel unlikely that she added Harveys clothes to Continue the blaze, for mens shirts,a girls petticoat, and a bonnet, would have been several shillings in pawnable value.
I still plump for the fire being started later.
Richard. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 35
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
I have just been looking at the US Naval Observatories website for phases of the moon. If the Ripper was using the moon to help him carry out the murders, the moon was not co-operating. On the 8th of November the moon was a waxing crescent, at 23.34pm quite high up in the sky. With only 27% of the visible disk illuminated, it was not perfect for carrying out a full mutilation in a dark Victorian court. Therefore it does make some sense that the Killer did put the clothes on the fire in an attempt to get some light. It is difficult to asertain wether or not the windows at Miller's court were in the correct position to get moonlight through them at that point in time. The small window may have got some light, but the larger window was of course covered by the man's Pilot coat and the Gas Lamp outside in the court was almost in line with the door of number 13. On the morning of Friday 9 November the Sunrise was at 5.40am, but because of the rain, brightness would be a factor. I have the killer well out of the room by this time. Joe Barnett burning the clothes? I don't think so- I go back to my point about the possibility of an argument taking place about him doing this and the fact that a witness, Lizzie Albrook, was present.
Busy Beaver |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 303
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Hi Busy Beaver,
Perhaps on a minor note, but it wasn’t the larger window that was covered with the coat, it was the first one around the corner, the smaller one. And sunrise wasn’t at 5:40 am., or at least according to this site dawn was at 6:31 am and sunrise at 7:07 am.. Hope you don't mind my butting in like this...
By the way, does anyone know if the larger window was also covered with some sort of blinds? In the photograph of the two windows taken from the outside of Mary’s room there seems to be some sort of white cloth hanging at the left side of the larger window.
All the best,
Frank
|
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 45
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
Well Frank, I won't be using that web-site again!
Took me ages to find it too.
Busy Beaver  |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
G'day Frank & Busy,
Frank's right, it was the smaller window that was covered with the man's coat. The smaller window had the hole in it.
The larger window had to have been covered by something, otherwise why did Bowyer have to pull aside the coat to see what was in the room?
BUSY: All Joe Barnett had to say to get away with burning the clothes without starting a noisy argument, was to say something like: "You don't need these Mare! RAGS FROM A RAG! I'll earn you enough money before the sun's up!"
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 944
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 4:04 am: | |
Hi,
The big window was covered with a muslin curtain
all Boyer did was put his hand through the broken pane, and pull aside the coat.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 307
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
That makes sense, Leanne, otherwise he wouldn’t have needed to pull aside the coat.
Thanks Richard for the info about the muslin curtain in front of the larger window. Could you tell me where I can find this information? Thanks again!
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 947
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
The muslin curtain reference comes from the revised edition of Donald Rumberlows 'The complete 'Jack The Ripper' 1987.
However according to Rumberlow the broken pane had been stuffed with rags originally[ which bowyer knew] he then pulled back the muslin curtain inside.
So it appears that originally the broken pane was stuffed with rags, since the row between the two of them , which if so would have made it hard work to keep slipping the bolt as Barnett claimed they did since the pane was smashed, one wonders if the pilot coat was hung over the window by the killer with the aid of forks to restrict any possible view.
The plot thickens....
Richard.
|
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 49
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
Richard, that would be possible, then he would have picked up the other clothes and chucked them on the already lit fire for a bit of light.
Busy Beaver |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 308
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Hi Richard & Busy,
Richard, thanks again for the reference and the additional info on the rags.
I agree that the murderer may have covered the window with the coat in order to keep others from looking into the room while he was ‘busy’. Like Busy suggests, he may even have primarily done it so that he could make a fire or keep an already burning fire burning without running the risk of being disturbed. If no light was made when he came into the room there would not have been that great a need to cover the window. The room would have been quite dark.
However, this doesn’t answer the question of who made the fire, because a similar explanation may be considered for Mary Jane as the one who lit the fire. She may have covered the window with the coat to keep the cool air from flowing freely into her room and may have used the clothes as fuel for a fire to subsequently warm up her room a little. We know that it was a cold night, we know there was no fuel found in the room, we know Mary had been drinking heavily that night, so to me it’s not unthinkable at all that she was the one to burn the clothes.
So, the murderer may have wanted to light up the room, something he could only safely do if he covered the window, and Mary may have wanted to warm up her room, something she could only rather effectively do by covering the window and making a fire with the rest of Maria’s clothes. In both explanations the coat and the burnt clothes are linked and in my view both explanations are equally acceptable.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 952
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Hi Frank/ Busy,
The police during the investigation would surely have obtained the knowledge, if the coat covering the window was a permanent fixture, this would have been confirmed by Lizzie, Harvey, or Barnett, if the coat was not usual hung in that way , they would have assumed that the killer did it to hide any possible view when he was at work.
if Kelly herself had been in the habit of using it as a curtain, also stopping the draught, they would have obtained that imformation also.
The rags are intresting, they appeared to have been originally placed in the broken pane, as a stopper, yet were not evident that morning, of course Kelly may have used the rags as fuel previous to that morning.
I would guess that kelly pinned the coat over the window to prevent any draught and for privacy, there does appear to have been some muslin curtain present as well , as surely if the bigger window was curtained, then the small one would have had a covering as well .
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
Hi Busy, Frank,Leeann and Richard, I have read the Cox testimony again and she claims there was a lamp that faced the door. could the light from the lamp have been enough light for him. The problem I have with the fire is the ripper would be drawing attention to the room I am not sure he would want to have brought attention to the room? Cox did claim that it was all quiet and dark when she returned home. I hate to admitt this but I am starting too consider the late night break in theory.
Hi Richard,
Your milk carton is a good point If there was a milk carton in the room then this would be a strong point in your favour. if a carton was not found then I dont believe the police would have botherd Lewis, they would in my oppinion dismiss the whole incident as a misidentification. Right or wrong I believe the police did not pay much attention to Maxwell or Lewis. I feel they most likely had already made up there mind about the time of death and they would simply dismiss both identifications as being a case of mistaken identity.
Interesting thought about the coat. Because I do not believe the coat that Maria dropped off and the coat that was hanging over the window to be one in the same. I guess the question you would have to ask would be did Kelly have lots of coats that she could afford to stick forks in. I feel out of simple modesty she may have put the coat up herself but both Cox and Hutchinson claim the man they saw with Kelly was wearing a coat. The coroner asked "What was the color of the coat?" Cox replied "A dark one"
One more thought on the milk cartan. I would assume the police took inventory of every thing that was in Kelly's room?
All the best CB |
joanna lest
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
Hi Richard! I'm new here but I just wan't to make my point of Mary Jane's time of death. I think it would have been quite incautious for the killer to do his "work" at around 9am and then walk among the people in horribly bloody clothes...or do you think he changed them? Didn't the police think that Mary Jane had been dead already in the morning?
Joanna |
Barbara Schlosser
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 2:41 pm: | |
hi, there,
after reading all your entries and throuroughly enjoying them i dare to put forward a few thoughts of my own concerning the fire and who lit it. the fact that neither kelly´s clothes nor her boots were used to fuel the fire points the finger to kelly herself. it appears to me that she must have run out of fuel and was desperately (or well paid) enough to use harvey´s clothes. and possibly those missing rags, too.
i can´t see any reason why JTR having skillfully "worked" on his other victims before in almost perfect darkness would suddenly need bright light especially as candle light is efficient enough to light a room - particularly a small one. just try it out (the candle, not the murder, of course).
i also can´t imagine JTR with murder on his mind (or just done) to take (and waste) his time to indulge in the certainly not too easy task of starting a fire in a room completely strange to him.
by the way, could there possibly have been two fires - both lit by MJK?
there´s also one point i´d like to throw some light on (can´t resist the pun!): what if MJK was murdered after 8 am? and i think there´s enough evidence to support that line of argueing. in that case JTR wouldn´t have needed any articial light at all.
barbara |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 311
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
Hey there CB,
We know the crime scenes of the others were sparsely illuminated, so Mary’s killer could have killed and mutilated her in the dark. However, it seems that both windows were covered with some sort of blinds and we know that the fireplace was more or less in the middle of the wall opposite the door. If a fire were burning, Mary’s murderer wouldn’t run the risk of the fire casting shadows on the ‘curtains’ while he was ‘working’ on Mary Jane. So, I don’t think a fire would necessarily have attracted attention, but of course I agree that no light at all would certainly not attract any attention.
But although I don’t think it’s unthinkable that Mary’s killer made a fire, like Barbara, I think it's more probably that Mary herself used the clothes to fuel the fire.
As to the coat, why do you think there were two coats? I’ve sifted through the newspapers and dissertations on this site and through the The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook and The Complete History of JtR in search of references to the coat. Several newspapers mentioned that a man’s pilot coat had been found in Mary’s room, but one coat only. According to Inspector Abberline remnants of only women’s clothing had been found in the grate. At the inquest the coroner established that the man’s coat given to Mary by Maria Harvey hadn’t been burnt, like what most probably happened to the other clothes she had given to Mary. On 14 November one newspaper mentions that the pilot-coat found in the deceased's room had been accounted for, which seems a reference to Maria’s inquest testimony.
So, unless there was a second man’s coat that wasn’t mentioned anywhere (I could find it) or Maria’s coat was taken out of the room after she had given it, but before the police entered Mary’s room, the above seems to suggest that the coat given to Mary and the one found in the room were one and the same.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 3:32 am: | |
Hi Frank,
With reference to clothing, When kelly was alleged to have been seen carrying a jug containing milk that morning just after 8am, she was wearing her black velvet jacket, intrestingly that Jacket was not present in the room, but the remains of velvet cloth was found in the fireplace, therefore we can assume that this item was burnt.
However surely that would mean that the fire was lit after 8am ,and we can almost certainly assume that kelly would not have burnt her favourite item of clothing.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 5:16 am: | |
G'day Rich,
It was the 'Times' November 12 that described 'a piece of burnt velvet' in Kelly's grate.
When reporting what was said at her inquest the 'Times November 13 (the next day), said that Abberline described: 'portions of a woman's SKIRT and the rim of a hat.' (my capitals)
'The Daily Telegraph' November 13, (which reported the Coroners questions before the witnesses testimony), and said that Abberline said: "There were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and SKIRT..." (my capitals).
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
G'day,
Maria Harvey claimed she left in Kelly's room: '2 men's shirts, a boy's shirt, an overcoat a black one a man's, a black crepe bonnet with black strings, a ticket for a shawl in for 2/-, one little child's white petticoat.'
Abberline found: 'portions of a woman's skirt and the rim of a hat' in the fireplace.
A black crepe bonnet wouldn't leave a rim and men's shirts would hardly be confused with a woman's velvet skirt. A child's peticoat and men's cotton shirts probably would have been consumed by fire quickly.
Was Mary Kelly collecting clothes to sell on 'Lord Mayor's Day', to quickly raise money for the rent?
Was the burnt velvet skirt in the grate the remains of Mary's black jacket?
LEANNE
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 312
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Do you have any reference for the black velvet jacket not being present in the room?
Thanks,
Frank
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
I read your post too quick. I misunderstood you. It is interesting that the newspaper claimed that the coat found in Kelly's room had been accounted for. It probably means my theory is rubbish but nespaper reports were known to be inacurate and I still think that Maria's inquest testimony leaves some room for speculation. I do not believe in alot of speculation to build a theory and I take it you do not either. I do believe some speculation is needed to solve this 115 year old case. I base my theory on reading alot into Maria's testimony at the inquest and my own believes on how the police would handle evidence. Thanks for bring the article to my attention.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I believe that there may have been a second coat because of Maria Harvey's testimoney at the inquest. I dont have it in front of me so I cant quote the exact words but she was asked about if she had seen any of the cloths she had left with Kelly, she claimed she had seen the coat in another room in the court on friday afternoon. Assuming that the police would not let anything from the Kelly crime scene out of there possesion. This may indicate there was another coat?
The newspaper report is interesting but Maria claimed she saw the coat in another room in the court. Not in Kelly's room, She did not claim to see the coat because the police showed it to her. You may be right and probably are but I dont know if the coat would have ended up in another room in the court so quickly after the murder. If the police had shown the coat to kelly she may have mentioned this at the inquest.
My theory is that just maybe Lizzie Albrook was telling the truth about haveing seen Kelly earlier the night she was killed and just maybe she took possesion of the coat that Maria had left with Kelly. I believe she had a room in the cout and just maybe the room that Maria claimed to have seen the coat was Albrrok's. [ could I have said just maybe any more times in this paragraph? ] The newspaper article I guess just claimed that the coat had been accounted for, Not that it had been found in Kelly's room? I have not read the report but I am going to read the article.
All the best,CB |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
