|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 9:59 am: |       |
Hi Leanne
I never claimed that any portion of the Daily Telegraph report of 3 October 1888 was reproduced virtually word for word in Lloyd’s Weekly issue of 11 November 1888, which is where the extract you reproduce above comes from.
Lloyd’s Weekly, 7 October 1888 page 4 actually reported the following:
“Before being positively identified by Kelly on Tuesday night the body was seen at the mortuary in Golden-lane by a party of six women and a man. Some of the former had, it is said, described the clothing of the deceased so accurately that they were allowed to confirm their belief by viewing it at the Bishopsgate-street police-station. Subsequently they were taken to the chief office in Old Jewry, and thence conducted to the mortuary. Here two of the women positively identified the deceased as an associate, but they did not know her by name. She did not seem to have borne a nickname. Whenever she was in an impecunious state she had, in the company of the women who identified her, slept in a shed off Dorset-street, which is the refuge of some 10 to 20 houseless creatures who are without the means of paying for their beds. There is scarcely any doubt, however, as to her doings on Saturday night.”
I think you’ll agree that this is essentially the same as the report from the Daily Telegraph, 3 October 1888, which I included in my earlier post.
While, as you rightly identify, being women obviously makes these witnesses unreliable, and being poor clearly compounds their failings,  the reason I lack confidence in the reliability of what they had to say is that, apart from supposedly describing her clothes accurately, they knew absolutely nothing about the woman they claimed to be associates of.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 366
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 10:32 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Re: "Why don't you have confidence in what these woman said? Is it because they were poor or because they were women?"
Surely you don't believe that any of us poor men out here are so sexist, class conscious and elitist that we would disregard information just because it came from a destitute woman.
The biggest problem I can see with the story of Kate sleeping rough in a shed with other women would be that if news of a free, sheltered place to spend the night leaked out, there would be scores of both men and women trying to get in out of the elements.
All The Best
Gary |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 2:00 pm: | |
Hi,
The shed concerns me,why would McCarthy allow that premises to be used on a regular basis, for vagrants, I would have thought every drunk, or undesirable character, would have flocked to 26 Dorset street, in order to shelter.
I am of the opinion, although doubted by many that McCarthy was a decent person, that mayby was a bit nieve, I cannot believe that he would have risked people of immoral character on his premises,when he had a business there , and a wife.
I such a place existed and I feel sure that it did, then McCarthy ,would have only allowed people in the shed that were known to him, and they proberly had to visit him , to be allowed on the premises, therefore most likely the only people that were allowed , were people he was familiar with , and trusted to behave.
I can not except , him allowing mixed sexes, or roaring drunks to occupy free accomodation, right under his nose.
Richard. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 226
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 2:37 pm: | |
The shed:
1) People brought together by circumstance dont always share their private lives with each other. In the military I shared a tent with 20 other men. I can tell you the appearance of anyone of them, yet few if any details about their private lives other than the one across from me that I developed more of a friendship with. That these other women didn't know much of her life, but could identify her by sight leads me to believe their stories to be true.
2) A free bed out of the cold is a cherished secret and not something to be wasted. The select few who had the knowledge would keep this to themselves or risk loosing such a treasure. Had one of the lucky few who shared this accomidation not been murdered, it would have remained one of the lost secrets of Whitechapel...
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
Hi all
Richard, if McCarthy was providing the shelter out of kindness, why close it just as winter was coming on?
Shannon, I find it hard to believe that these women wouldn't have told each other all about their lives, how many children they had, who their partners were, all their partners' annoying habits, plus asking each others' advice about their personal problems, etc etc etc etc.....
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 368
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 3:27 pm: | |
Robert
At the very least the women would have discussed the sorry excuses for husbands, paramours and 'life-partners' that resulted in their having to seek nightly accomodation in a pathetic shed.
Best
Gary |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Mayby he closed it after he realized, Eddowes was one of his regulars...
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1171
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 5:11 pm: | |
Hi Richard
If Kate was a regular, and could stay for free, why should she go off to the casual ward, as she is supposed to have done just before her murder? This would have cost her twopence.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 369
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 7:33 pm: | |
Hello All
It seems we have McCarthy running a regular hostel for the destitute. It strikes me as much more plausible that on ocassion a few people were allowed to stay in the storage shed or snuck in unbeknownst to McCarthy or with his tacit consent. If the papers got hold of this bit of information would it not then become impossible for McCarthy to set the record straight as to how many people and how often indigents were using the shed. Of course he could state that he had to routinely turn trespassers away from his premises and come across as the proverbial heartless landlord.
As I recall McCarthy later came to own much of Dorset St., which he let as common lodgings. It would be difficult for him to accomplish this by allowing free shelter.
Obviously he let Kelly get behind in her rent but there are plausible explanations. A familial relationship would be one, another would be sexual favours.
The fact that Kate was identified by her clothes by two women really proves nothing insofar as her possible connection to the shed is concerned. She was destitute. She wore the same clothes day after day. Anyone who knew her by sight could identiify her clothing. This would not mean they knew her by name or otherwise had any further knowledge of her.
Are we expected to believe that the shed connection somehow proves that MJK and Kate knew each other. Furthernore that Kate found out something about the relationship between Kelly and Joe that resulted in Barnett's having to silence her.
Until something more substantial can be established linking Kelly and Kate Eddowes I would consider the shed connection very dubious at best.
All The Best
Gary |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 10:49 am: | |
Gary,
I'm confused. You said The biggest problem I can see with the story of Kate sleeping rough in a shed with other women would be that if news of a free, sheltered place to spend the night leaked out, there would be scores of both men and women trying to get in out of the elements.
Are you saying that you don't believe that Kate necessarily slept there on odd occasion or are you saying that this place of shelter didn't even exist? From what you have said above it sounds like the latter is true. I just wanted you to clear that up for me. Thanks. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 227
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 7:59 pm: | |
Gary, no the shed doesn't link Mary Kelly and Kate Eddowes. What it does do is raise the question: How did 3 of the 4 (5 if you include Liz) victims live withing 25 yards of each other and not know each other, if not personally, then by sight.
Carrie stated at the inquest that she knew Mary by being about the lodging houses. It is possible that one of the victims did the same. It's less than a stones throw from #13 Miller's Court to 35 Dorset where Annie Chapman lived or the shed where Kate stayed from time to time.
With the number of females in Whitechapel who either resembled or were prostitutes, what are the odds of 3 of victims living so close to each other? And, living withing such a small area, not personally knowing or at least knowing of each other?
Shannon |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 370
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 8:54 pm: | |
HI Sarah
I believe the shed existed and I believe it is possible that Kate may have stayed there on odd occasions.However, I don't accept her residency there as a fact. I believe the newspapers may have gotten hold of the story and exaggerated the number of people staying in the shed as well as exactly who knew about it.
Hi Shannon
I suspect that the victims proximity of residence may have made them acquaintances by sight. Before I would go beyond that I think you have to take into account the tremendous number of people living together in a small area. I also suspect totally without grounds that the killer was living somewhere nearby Dorset St.
All The Best
Gary |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 228
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 9:24 pm: | |
Gary, I agree as well. The only way the killer could know about Miller's court is to have been there. Its only 3 foot wide, not marked, and literally would be missed if the killer were passing by. Its one of the points I found interesting about the location.
The other point is Joe Barnett himself. Everyone in court knows him, knows he is Kelly's man, and that he is there almost all the time, and never knows when he will show up again to see her. So, how is it someone was able to make their way down Dorset Street, find an unmarked passageway, choose the room occupied by his girl friend (with no view of the interior of the room from the street), and know when it was safe to enter without being seen by the other half dozen occupants, kill her without disturbing the upstairs neighbor, and exit without a trace?
Unless she brought the killer home, who ever it was, would have to know the layout, timing, and where Joe was. There was always a chance of a reconsiliation between Mary and Joe, and/or he could have been there waiting for her to come home to try and work things out.
Mary alone is one thing, now add in that 2 of the other victims live either across the street from the entrance to the court, or frequent McCarthy's barrow shed from time to time, and you see how strange it becomes.
Its what attracted me to Joe Barnett to begin with. He seems to me to be at the center of things.
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 2:06 am: | |
G'day,
ALEX: Sorry for that mate. I see now where I went wrong in reading Bruce Paley's 'Sources'. I got 'Lloyd's Weekly 7 Oct.' mixed up with 'Lloyd's Weekly 11 Nov.'.
These 6 women and 1 man probably new each other just well enough to say: "I'm off, I'll see you all tonight!" and when one didn't return, they probably went straight to the police station to report their concern , and were shown the deceased's clothing. All this means is that Catharine most likely didn't go to the Casual Ward like she told John Kelly - naughty girl!
There was no written proof produced at her inquest that she slept at the Casual Ward!
Did Joseph Lawende know anything about the woman he saw with that man, other than her clothes?......But then again he was a MALE! 
GARY: In the East End of London during that time, people who couldn't afford a room slept anywhere: in the street, against a shop wall, in stairwells, in wharehouses that were left unlocked. Remember that Alfred Crow of 35 George Yard buildings, passed Martha Tabram's body on the stairwell and took no notice because he was used to seeing people sleep there.
RICHARD: John McCarthy may not have known about, and/or was powerless to stop drunks from sleeping in his wharehouse, if he didn't lock it. Perhaps these 20 or so homeless people kept it their little secret and threatened anyone who tried to move in uninvited.
LEANNE |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 10:22 pm: | |
I'm sorry, but I have to say that a number of the regulars here on this thread are doing the exact same thing we rightfully made fun of Cornwell for: picking a suspect and then twisting every single rumor and jumping to every wild conclusion that might be used to point the finger at him.
Even if you somehow choose to believe that three of the victims lived within 25 yards of each other there's still no reason to believe that Barnett was more likely to be involved than any of the other numerous shady characters who lived there.
Barnett makes more sense as a possible Ripper than many suspects put forth by others (like, say, Sickert, Lewis Carroll and the Masons), but the extent that some people here are willing to go in order to try to make him look guilty is just astounding.
One more time: Barnett had an alibi on the night of the one murder he had any potential logical tie to. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 4:45 am: | |
Shannon,
"The only way the killer could know about Miller's court is to have been there. Its only 3 foot wide, not marked, and literally would be missed if the killer were passing by."
Mary may have taken many clients back there as she was lucky enough to have had her own room so there could have been loads of people who knew about it. Plus many of the women around there knew her and where she lived. Just because it was a small place it may have been well known. There are small entrances to cul-de-sacs near where I live that you could easily pass by but everyone near where I live knows about them. Also you said it was unmarked, well that is just wrong. It had a sign above the entrance clearly stating it's name.
Regards,
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 3:27 pm: | |
G'day,
DAN: That's all right mate, you can mention names. Everyone knows who you're talking about anyway. Please don't compare these 'number of regulars' to Patricia Cornwell, who did heaps of research into her suspects life, but very little into the Ripper crimes. At least wait until you've read the next book, before you start to pick holes!
Instead of criticising other peoples theories in such a childish way, come up with solid stuff that damages their theories! I mean solid stuff, not Joes very weak 'alibi' of being in bed!
LEANNE |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 16
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 9:58 pm: | |
Let's take a deep breath and see just how far this Dorset Street shed story can go.
1)A story did run in the Daily Telegraph on October 3 that reported Det. Sgt. Outram had taken six women and a man to view the as still unidentified victim's body. They said the victim was someone with whom they had occasionally shared space in a Dorset Street shed. It is a fact that the story did run. Yet, in the competitive London press market (especially at a time that the Ripper was at work) no other paper picked up the story. Indeed, the DT didn't even do an in-depth interview with any of the seven.
2)Then, a week later, Lloyd's Weekly ran the story. This, too, is fact. However, it is not second-source confirmation as its story is almost identical with that in the DT (and such story lifting without independent research was common). Moreover, no other London newspaper, again in the competitive atmosphere, had bothered to send its own reporters after the story.
3) Still, it is entirely possible that the seven person delegation did make the trek to the police and then the mortuary. It should be borne in mind, though, that a detailed description of the victim's clothing (a knowledge of which was supposedly proof of the Seven's bona fides) was printed in the newspapers on October 1. We can also glean from other reports that it was a ghoulish game played by some to concoct tales in order to see Ripper victim's bodies. And, according to the DT, having once said "yes, that's her," the Seven couldn't tell the police a single thing about the victim aside from the assertion that she occasionally took refuge with them.
4) There is also a question as to just when Eddowes did repair to this refuge that they could so well remember her clothes (which were hardly designer originals anyway). After all, Eddowes and Kelly had been off hopping for the previous month and were otherwise pretty much regulars at 55 Flower & Dean Street. Their first night back in London they spent together at the Shoe Lane Casual Ward and the second night Eddowes went to the Casual Ward at Mile End.
5)But wait a minute! Eddowes only said she was going to the Casual Ward and there is "no written proof" she was there. Of course, there is no written proof she spent the night in the shed either. Indeed, there is no proof, written or otherwise, she ever spent a night in the shed. Even the DT does not quote any of the Curious Seven as saying she spent that last night in the shed, which would have been a scoop. Moreover, the police would have had great interest in her immediate antecedents and not being the dolts some think no doubt did some checking.
6)Actually, aside from the two DT stories there is no proof that the shed, this free haven in the sea of paid doss houses that was Dorset Street, even existed. It has been suggested that businessman and shed owner John McCarthy (who had a string of paying tenants) just left the shed open because he was a "decent guy" and that anyway it was just "a little secret" shared by 10 or 20 transients. I would suggest that last suggestion is quite the oxymoron.
7) From all the above it is finally asserted by some that Eddowes lived on Dorset and from that "fact" it is speculated that . . . well, this has gone far enough. Suffice to say that as proof Eddowes lived on Dorset Street the shed story is a very slender reed, indeed, to which to cling, |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 11:00 pm: | |
G'day Donald,
I don't think Kate went to the Casual Ward that night. Question is did she just aimlessly 'walk the streets', when there was a free place to stay around the corner from Flower & Dean Street?
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 230
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 11:13 pm: | |
http://casebook.org/victorian_london/sitepics.w-miller.html
Sarah, here is the picture of the entrance to the court. The only thing even close to a sign is located about 9 - 10 feet high. Not something you would see or pay much attention to at eye level since it was bordered by two nearly identical doors.
Shannon |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 17
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 12:33 am: | |
Leanne,
With all due respect, you just don't know that there was this free place to crash. A major point of my posting was to that effect. I am not saying this haven didn't exist -- I don't know and at this remove in time no one knows. Two unsubstantiated newspaper stories in the same newspaper do not this safe haven establish as fact. That's all. Speculate all you wish, but do understand that however great a "mansion of theory" you create it will be built upon a foundation of sand if it posits that Kate spent the night before her final reckoning in the Dorset Street shed. Okay?
Don. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 7:29 am: | |
G'day Don,
OKAY! It is a fact that McCarthy had a shed/warehouse at the front of Miller's Court and it was never a registered doss house and didn't have to be an official one!
I have found something which substantiates people going to Bishopsgate police station with the idea of identifying the corpse, but I don't wish to state the source here! Okay? 
LEANNE
|
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 19
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 3:16 pm: | |
Leanne,
You may be right.
Don. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 3:01 am: | |
Leanne wrote:
"Please don't compare these 'number of regulars' to Patricia Cornwell, who did heaps of research into her suspects life, but very little into the Ripper crimes."
No amount of research does you any good if you are intent upon believing every ill-conceived rumor that could be twisted to support your suspect without using any common sense to see if the things you are talking about are even plausible. You and other posters are showing yourselves to be using the exact same strategies as Cornwell.
"At least wait until you've read the next book, before you start to pick holes!"
Considering that what you've already posted has holes enough to drive trucks through, I don't think that's at all necessary. Besides, that smacks of Cornwell's argument that she has lots more info than what made it into her book and that nobody can dispute her conclusions without seeing this other supposed evidence.
"Instead of criticising other peoples theories in such a childish way,"
Another Cornwell tactic: personal attacks instead of supporting own theories with solid reasoning.
"come up with solid stuff that damages their theories!"
You ignore the fact that just about every point you have ever raised here has been torn apart as ridiculous or completely unsupported by facts (look at this thread alone, there's no good evidence to support the idea that Eddowes was ever in this mysterious shed), just like Cornwell ignores all the extremely solid arguments against her theories.
"I mean solid stuff, not Joes very weak 'alibi' of being in bed!"
Just like Cornwell claiming that Sickert's alibi is weak.
You pretty much have her playbook down to a T. The only trick you are missing is millions of dollars to spend on publicity. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 5:32 am: | |
Shannon,
That sign seems pretty clear to me. Everytime I've looked at that picture it has stood out like a sore thumb. Also the archway leading into Millers Court is pretty obvious. If you walked past it you would know it was leading to somewhere dark and quiet.
Dan,
"Even if you somehow choose to believe that three of the victims lived within 25 yards of each other there's still no reason to believe that Barnett was more likely to be involved than any of the other numerous shady characters who lived there."
It isn't a question of CHOOSING to believe they lived there, they did. Simple. Maybe not at the same time as each other, that I don't know but they did at some time or another. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
