Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through January 14, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Mary Jane Kelly » Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly? » Archive through January 14, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 383
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hmmmm, good question. The removal of Mary's heart seems very symbolic but throw in Kate's kidney and I have no idea.

There was always speculation that Kate knew Jack though, maybe this had something to do with it, but then again maybe not.

I really wish I had the answers.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 605
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 2:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Sarah,

I can accept that Joe should have had higher status as a suspect than other recent boyfriends, customers and acquaintances immediately after Mary was found murdered and before the police started their enquiries. My point is that Joe presumably did have this higher status, and was questioned accordingly soon after the crime, but the police felt able to discount him, for reasons that may never fully be known or appreciated.

But maybe one of the other males in Maryís life would not have got off so lightly, if all had been investigated so soon afterwards and to the same degree. Perhaps they all were, and satisfied the police just as Joe did.

But if they got to Joe quicker and gave him a more thorough grilling than the others, but let him off the hook, donít we have to acknowledge this by lowering his status in comparison with those who werenít scrutinised in the same way, if at all?

Love,

Caz




(Message edited by Caz on January 07, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 168
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Caz
Exactly!! what if Hutch had been caught hanging around ,lingering longer in that doorway..long night though.. but he nay have sauntered back up the street and observed the Mrs M confrontation..then he would have been on the scene so to speak..strangely he wasn't there!! Gone up to Romford maybe!?
That was meant to be may not nay!
Well?? Cheers
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 392
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:18 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Vlad,

You said:-

"wouldn't killing the other victims have an equal chance of making MJK run to Lawrence to get away from Miller's court"

I don't see why. None of the murders occurred in Millers Court or even Dorset Street so why would Mary want to leave her place with Joe because of the murders.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 180
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 3:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard.Thanks for that little gem on 'Lawrence' must admit it sent me scuttling for my a-z..nothing!! where does this errant drover hail from then?? anywhere reputable??Seems like a pretty dodgy herbert though!! info please!!
Sarah-Although none of the murders actually occured in Dorset St itself..don't forget that The Britannia was on the corner of Dorset St and would have been the very natural 'melting pot' for the populace thereabouts!!..Come on!! of course they all knew eachother..even if only by sight..maybe like Mrs Maxwell!!..although allegedly m.j.k. did refer to her as 'Carrie'..Interesting eh??
Cheers
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vladimir
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sarah,

Any place had to be better than Miller's CT.
Don't you think if she had ANY othe rplace to go she would have taken it.
Especially since she was behind on the rent.
I mean, if the only reason that she was with Joe was so she could use him for money, wouldn't she also do it to Lawrence. If she did, she would not have to live in Miller's CT. She would not have to sell herself on the street.
Especially if she was scared to be alone at night.
I just do not see that Lawrence was an option for her. And I also do not see Joe being tired of her wanderings.
If Lawrence did exist, wouldn't he be just as likely a suspect as Joe?
He came around avery now and then, did these coincide with the murders? If he were her husband, don't you think the police would have found out about him and questioned him?
Personally I think a HUsband might be a tad more upset about his wife's wanderings, than a live in boyfriend. It is that marriage commitment thing, it was a strong commitment back then, at least moreso than now.

I have a question, did Joe have an aruement with Mary the day (day before since she was killed after midnight) she was murdered?
I was curious, because if Joe was Jack, you might think that he might have just been really calm when he left. As though he had a moment of clarity when he left and knew what he was going to do.

Or he could have been upset and stewed on it and it boiled over. Did the people playing cards see him as upset? Distant?

I dunno, just some thought I had.
Maybe I am rambling, but hey I am tired and at work.

Thanks,
Vlad
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 403
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 5:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Vlad,

You will have to ask Richard about Lawrence as I don't have much knowledge of him. If he was her husband, which I'm not sure of, then she didn't stay with him much. She stayed with Joe a lot more so I don't see how he could have been her husband.

I know that Dorset Street had a very bad reputation but so did a a lot of Whitechapel. If none of the other murders were taking place near where she lived then why would she feel safer anywhere else?

If Mary did go to stay with this Lawrence on occasion why do you think that Joe would not get upset by it?

We know Joe went to see her on the evening before her murder but we do not know that they rowed. Maria Harvey (presuming it was her) left Mary with Joe alone so only Joe and Mary would have know if they had argued or not and one died and if the other was the murderer then he wasn't about to admit to arguing with her before she died.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 459
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 7:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello All

Forgive me for coming in late on this discussion, I've been tied up of late.

I don't believe it is all that important as to when Hutchinson made his statement. The point seems to be that he knew he was spotted and he would have been aware that some type of description of him would be forthcoming. The fact that the person who observed him gave a vague description would not have been important in light of the fact that he came forward early on. He would have thereby foreclosed the damage done by a potentially accurate description which COULD have been made of him by the woman he saw noticing his odd behavior in and around Millers' Court.

All The Best
Gary
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 573
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 3:28 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Gary
It is assumed by many that the only reason Hutchinson, presented himself on the monday, was because, of the inquest, and fright of being reconized.
If the Ripper was that paronoid, he would proberly have presented himself after every murder,with a good excuse, for being in the area , just in case....
This reasoning just wont wash with me.
Hutchinson in my opinion, came forward when he realized, he may be able to assist the police, he would have known he would be under suspicion, having placed himself at the scene of the crime, but that did not deter him, for he was guilty of no crime.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 340
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 5:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard, if Hutchinson was legit why couldn't he describe Mary in the same detail as he did the man she was supposedly with, after all he supposedly knew her far better than some stranger she was with?

Second, how is it that he was able to get so close as to be able to describe the tie pin the man wore and not be seen as a stalker on a cold rainy dark night?

Lastly, how is it that no one else in the area (thieves and muggers included) didn't happen to take notice of a man "so well dressed for the area?" If a man were to walk down any Whitechapel street dressed as Hutchinson described, he would have been found dead in the morning with his pockets empty. Considering the fact that if Hutchinson were telling the truth about the meeting between the man and MJK, the man would have walked some distance down a street with many "working girls" out and about and none of them seem to recall such a man who surely would have caught their eye, and even more so since they would now believe that man to be the Ripper, and would be looking for a part of the reward money for turning him in...

Sorry, all this adds up to a big fat Romford rat with only one agenda - to make money off the killing by describing someone that matches the description in the newspapers in the hopes that when the killer is caught his description is close enough to get the reward...

Shannon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vladimir
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 1:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

My point was more to the statement about Mary going to stay with Lawrence.

If he was her husband, why wasn't he questioned? Or was he? I mean wouldn't he be just as likely a suspect as anyone else? If Barnett were upset that his Girlfriend was going to see Lawrence, then would Lawrence be upset that Mary was living with Barnett?

Also, where did Lawrence reside? Was it in Whitechapel? Was it in a better area?
People say that Mary used Barnett for money, then why didn't she use Lawrence for a better place to live? Especially, if you believe that she was scared to be alone at night.

Just some questions that I suspect that we will have to wait for the answers until the book comes out.

Have a Nice Evening,
Vlad
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 415
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 10:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Probably. I have no idea about any of those questions. Richard would be able to help you there unless he can't disclose any of it.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 574
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 2:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi,
In a ideal modern police investigation, all connections to the victim, would have been investigated.
Little is known about this character Lawrence, he appears to have been a visitor to millers court, on occasions, he was reported to have been a drover by profession, he was reported not to have lived in the london area, he was reported to have stayed with Kelly occasionally, it was reported that Kelly used to stay with him , until she tired of the life, when she used to return to number 13.
Infact all we can go on is reports, the press seemed to have obtained imformation about this person, but we cannot possibly know , if the police traced him , or if he came forward after her murder.
One thing seems certain, that mrs hewitt, who forwarded the imformation to at least one press source, seems to have been aware of his existance, and as she resided at number 25 Dorset Street, and was aware of his occupation, aware of him visiting Kelly, although infrequently, had a conversation with him refering to a summons he was expecting, he appears at least to me, to have at least existed in Kellys life.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 257
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard-
sorry to be a bit (!) ignorant on this one...who is this Lawrence..and Hewitt?? Sorry about this..have been off this thread for a bit

help?
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 578
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Suzi,
Lawrence was reported to have been Marys husband, by some of the press, quoted as Mary Kelly/ lawrence.
Mrs Hewitt, resided at 25,Dorset street, and claimed that this man , was in and out of Kellys life, he used to only appear on the scene , every few weeks, she believed him to be her husband.
I would imagine, that Mrs Hewitt knew the deseased well, as otherwise why would Lawrence, call on her to ask , 'If a summons should arrive on my absence, could you take it in for me'
The whole episode with Kelly , is extremely confusing.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 269
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 3:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Richard,
Thanks for that.Hmmmm. extreeeeeeeeeeeeemly so!
Must look into Mrs Hewitt.Thanks
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Angelina Thomas
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sarah and all others,

Long time, no write, huh?
Well, I have been searching and searching through sights related to missing persons and cannot find a thing that could help us with the "to be Mary or not to be Mary" question. I have searched through most of the 1888 records dealing with London and some surrounding areas.I thought that I would get lucky around December 1888 hoping that a family would be desparate to find their loved one for the holidays - therefore posting a message, but nothing.
Any suggestions (they would be much appreciated)
Thanks,
Angelina
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 465
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 3:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Richard

Based on your response to my post I believe you may feel that I believe Hutchinson was the Ripper and hence your statement that his paranoia at possibly being seen would have prompted him to come forward after each of the murders. I don't believe Hutchinson was the Ripper. I simply think he has a lot of questions to answer about his behavior on the night of MJK's murder.

Even if I did believe Hutchinson was Jacky, his behavior on the night of the murder would have been far more suspicious than that of anyone seen on the nights of any of the other murders.

The only thing I know for certain about GH was that he gave a patently absurd description to the police. He may have been a mugger, he may have been looking for the reward money. We may never know.

All The Best
Gary
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1853
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 5:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Gary

I too am fascinated by GH. I'm not too sure that he was a mugger, though - surely a mugger would have attacked the man immediately he entered the alley, not hung around in the cold waiting for him to re-emerge. Alternatively, if he was in league with Kelly, he could have burst in and caught our posh friend literally with his pants down.

The same reasoning seems to me to apply to Shannon's theory, that he came forward with his description because he was out for the reward. It doesn't explain the hanging around in Dorset St - unless, of course, GH was actually hoping that the posh man would kill Kelly, emerging bloodstained from the alley straight into GH's clutches.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko

Post Number: 139
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 5:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Shannon,

You wrote: ďSorry, all this adds up to a big fat Romford rat with only one agenda - to make money off the killing by describing someone that matches the description in the newspapers in the hopes that when the killer is caught his description is close enough to get the reward...Ē

If Hutchinson was so eager to make money, then why didnít he come forward on Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday during the day? Why did he wait until after the inquest was concluded, the inquest where Sarah Lewis deposed she had seen a man standing alone by the lodging house, looking up the court as if waiting to see if someone came out?

Why would there have been a reason to tell a story in which he waited for at least three quarters of an hour at that specific time opposite the entrance to Millerís Court? He simply could have told a more credible story that happened after 3 am and did not involve this 45-minute vigil. To me this all adds up to someone trying to (innocently) explain his presence somewhere at a specific time simply because he actually was there at that time. Agreeing with you that Hutchinsonís story was false, this can only lead me to the conclusion that he had something to hide Ė whatever that may have been.

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko

Post Number: 140
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 5:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Robert,

"It doesn't explain the hanging around in Dorset St - unless, of course, GH was actually hoping that the posh man would kill Kelly, emerging bloodstained from the alley straight into GH's clutches."

If GH was really hoping to catch him 'redhanded', then itís strange he only said to Abberline he was surprised to see a man so well dressed which caused him to watch and follow the couple, and the following day to the London Times that his suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but that he had no suspicion that he was the murderer?

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko

Post Number: 141
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 6:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Gary,

Regarding a mugging theory, I have recently discussed this with Monty on another thread and Iíve raised some points against such a theory.

If GH followed Mary and her client with the intent of mugging the man and later made up his statement with the intention of clearing himself of any suspicious activity, the fact that he gave his address as the Victoria Home would still not be a big help. Whether he actually did stay or sleep there that night wouldn't have mattered, the fact that he seemed to have passed his home after a long trip on a cold and wet night would still have been strange and could still have been regarded as suspicious.

If George had been planning to mug Mary's punter, then wouldn't it have been smarter for George not to have described Mary's companion as being so obviously wealthy?

And if we are to believe the newspaper article of November 14th in the London Times, in which GH said that after he left the court he walked about all night, as the place where he usually slept was closed, then a penniless George (in his statement he said he spent all his money going down to Romford) must really have mugged Mary's client for if he hadn't, then he wouldn't have had any money nor a reason to go back to the Victoria Home to see if it was (still) open. However, nothing is known of a (wealthy) man being robbed then and there.

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1067
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 6:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Frank,

And then after waiting there four 45 minutes, he walked away. If he was really concerned for Mary Kelly, he would have went right into the court and listened at the window.

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 468
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 6:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Robert and All

I believe Hutchinson was an odd duck with something to hide. He may have been a would be voyeur. I seem to recall that he admitted approaching one of the windows to Kelly's room during his ongoing vigil in the area of Kelly's lodgings.

If we are to believe the ear-witnesses, There was a cry of 'murder' around 4 a.m. and JTR may well have left the court at about 6 a.m. Hutchinson encountered Kelly at 2 in the morning and left, by his own suspicious account, around 3 a.m. Hutchinson testified that when he approached the window the light was out and all was quiet. He therefore neatly places himself away from the scene during the time when the murder would have been taking place. He is implying that the person he described stayed in Kelly's room ostensibly to sleep the night and then waited an hour and a half to kill her. This would be contrary to JTR's M.O. which involved a swift kill at the moment he had his victim alone and helpless.

If anyone can clarify this odd set of circumstances I would be pleased to find out what was really going on.

All The Best
Gary

P.S. One of the most odd things about the whole affair is that Sugden bought Hutchinson's story including the description of a caricature Jew.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1856
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 6:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Frank, Leanne

Frank, if (and I'm not saying it's true) GH was hoping that the man would kill Kelly, he could hardly admit afterwards that he suspected this man, and then did nothing - maybe while Mary was being butchered (if the man was JTR). He wouldn't have been very popular in the East End.

Leanne, there is one account in which GH does indeed go into the Court.

Robert

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.