|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Site of 13 Miller's court
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Site of 13 Miller's court
Author: Kevin Aldridge
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 04:30 pm |        | Chris.
I will certainly look up in the local library & see if there is any info re- local haunting about the ripper case.Might be interesting.
Just on a another note. There are many elderly people living locally who's parents or Grandparents were alive at the time of the murders & might give an insight into what local people thought about the case.
My own Grandmother was aged 4 at the time of the murders & living in Bethnal Green, unfortunately she passed away when I was nine but I would have loved to question her about what everyone in the East End felt about who the culprit was.
The point I am making is has anyone to your knowledge actually done any full length research as to what was going on at street level in the East End at the time & what the local population thought.?
If not then I feel it would be very interesting to perhaps question elderly people who have lived in the area all their lives & see what the response would be. You never know it could turn up some new info that has never been unearthed before.
What do you think.?
Cheers-Kevin |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 04:52 pm | | Hi,Kevin'
The Fruit Exchange story is confirmed by my Dad,who worked there in the late 60's-early 70's...I vaguely recall reading that either Buck's row or Mitre sq'(can't remember which) was also haunted..might have been a book by Eliot o'Donnell....since moving to the Midlands I've only visited the area once...what a change since I used to drink there regulaly 25 years ago!!!
Steve S |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 06:09 pm | | In the manner of tootling my own horn, but for those who have posted asking for information on Miller's Court:
The April issue of "Ripper Notes" will carry a new feature, 'The Whitechapel Dossier,' which is designed for serious students of the case, putting together research that may not ever make it to books and presenting it to the interested reader. Dossier #1 is titled "Miller's Court and Dorset Street," and is compiled from the researches of Viper.
Anyone who is interested may contact me by e-mail. Subscription details for RN can be found at:
http://www.casebook-productions.org
As ever,
CMD |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 11:07 am | | To all,
There seems to be a lot of newer Ripper enthusiasts posting lately, so I wanted to take the opportunity while we're on this subject to urge you to subscribe to 'Ripperologist' and 'Ripper Notes'. These are two wonderful magazines for people seriously interested in the Whitechapel murders, the East End, or even just Victorian London. I made the mistake of first subscribing to another Ripper journal, now defunct, and felt I had wasted my money. This caused me to put off subscribing to the above too magazines for quite some time. As soon as I saw my first issues of them, however, I regretted waiting so long. It's like having Ripper books arrive in your mailbox all year long! And if you have any researches or theories to make public, these are great forums for doing so. Anyway, I just thought I'd take this chance to endorse my two favorite magazines. Now, back to Miller's Court!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. CM - That's a wonderful idea for a feature. I can't wait to read it. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 12:49 pm | | Hi, Tom:
Thanks for your fine words about Ripper Notes and Ripperologist. We at Casebook Productions (including myself, CMD, Sam, and Dave), publishers of Ripper Notes, and Paul Begg, editor of the Cloak and Dagger Club's magazine Ripperologist, are appreciative of your endorsement of our efforts to encourage scholarly and entertaining discussion of the Whitechapel murders.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 07:55 pm | | Yes, thank you, Tom. One might almost think you were being paid off by the publishers! :-).
Kevin - Tom Cullen, when researching his 1965 "When London Walked in Terror," interviewed a number of people in the East End, just as you suggest. Unfortunately, while he turned up some interesting local connections (such as a Mr Bousfield whose mother had been Martha Tabram's landlady and who still posessed one of the watchains the unfortunate Tabram sold), mostly he was regaled with stories from people who claimed - either falsely or by honest mistake - to have played greater parts in the Ripper panto than they did in life, such as a Mrs Annie Tapper, who claimed to have sold grapes to the Ripper on the night of the "double event."
It is generally agreed that it is unfortunate much "local tradition" was not recorded, as such on-the-spot observations would be invaluable today. The difficulty with trying such a project now is that too many people's memories have become tainted with Ripper junk over the years, so it is almost impossible now to know if someone is relaying an accurate oral tradition or a dimly-remembered youthful episode coloured by the history of the intervening years. Young Liverpool yobs shouting about the Ripper in front of Battlecrease House, for example. True or not?
I can speak from slightly personal experience here. When chatting with an elderly relative of mine, a nun, I happened to mention my work on the Whitechapel Murders. To which she replied, absolutely faithfully, that her mother used to tell her the Ripper was one of the Royal family. Now, I have no doubt Sister was not lying and believed what she told me. But IF her mother told her such a thing, then that puts an Eddy-like rumour into general circulation about the years 1925 - 1935, which would tend to lend a great deal of circumstantial weight to the proto-Sickert tale. Did mother really mention Eddy, or another royal - or was it a general head-shaking agreement that "one of the nobs" must have done it and Sister's memory has conflated that with Knight, Speiring, &c.? Who knows?
So, in my opinion, that's why such a project as you suggest, Kevin, is probably useless now. Pity it wasn't done 30-40 years ago, though.
CMD |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 01:22 am | | Hi, Keith:
In the excellent The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Skinner and Evans, the authors mention such rumors at the time of the murders of some type of Royal involvement. They quote from the Referee of March 9, 1890, which denied a story that "Lord Salisbury concealed Jack the Ripper at Hatfield House on the night of the last murder." The Referee mentioned that a rumor had circulated "especially at the East-end. . . that the police had received orders to drop the inquiry from high official quarters." Evans and Skinner comment laconically, "The groundswell of suspicion has pervaded and become enshrined with the facts of the case ever since."
In recent years, there has been a new movement afoot in the discipline of history: a concerted attempt to collect oral histories. I wonder if any of the East Enders who might have been interviewed have said anything interesting about traditions about the Ripper that may have circulated in the East End? I seem to recall talking to Viper in the chat room about this and he remarked that he had checked and found no such reminiscences that touch on the murders, but possibly when he said this he had not thus far encounted them and there are some out there. This is yet another line of enquiry to be followed! 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 11:45 am | | VIPER!
Since I see you are around posting today you may wish to address the topic up above.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 05:12 pm | | Chris,
Remember Annzhome who used to visit the chatroom and frequent these boards occasionally? I believe she had come across these oral traditions, and I am aware of at least one such story as well. Most of these tales seem to involve royalty, like the one CMD mentions above, and in particular Eddy, Duke of Clarence. Some of them can be traced back to at least the inter-war period. Now, we can only speculate as to where these stories originated (given that we agree they aren't true), but since these royal theories invariably involve conspiracy and cover-up, it seems quite possible that the story of JTR at some point became confused with another event which was hushed up. The obvious one is the Cleveland Street case - same period, same detective, it involved Royalty and it most definitely involved a cover-up.
Unfortunately it's time to dive out again for a few days now, but it's hard to leave this subject behind. My next homework topic? The church of St. Botolph without Aldgate, a.k.a. the Prostitutes Church! Good background topic for JTR research as well as for the examination :-)
Regards, V. |
Author: Dean James Hines
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 03:30 pm | | | Hi there everyone. I've been following with intrigue the various discussions on this site over the past year or so but never thought that I had anything myself to contribute. However, regarding scene of crime photos (a first I gather at the site of Mary Kelly's murder) I seen in a copy of 'True Detective' some time back a photograph of 13 Miller's court as it appears in Donald Rumbelow's book but with 'that' window boarded up which obviously supports the case that the police first removed the window to photograph the s.o.c. I was just wondering whether anybody else had seen this photo and if so where did it originate from? |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 05:15 pm | | On the issue of oral history, the jury is still
out. It seems to go in and out of fashion.
One of my interests is in polar and arctic/antarctic exploration. Back in the 1970s
(when I started reading up on the Franklin
Expedition and it's tragic ending) I read how
it was unwise to trust the statements made by
Inuits as witnesses, because they tended to tell
their questioners what those questioners would
like to hear. The people who wrote such statements obviously thought little of Eskimos/Inuits as a truthful, honest group. More
recently whole studies on the fate of the crews
of the Erebus and Terror were based on oral
traditions of those same eskimo/inuit witnesses!
I once, years ago, was studying for an examination
with a lovely lady who was from England. We once
were talking about famous English crimes, and she
mentioned that her grandmother told her, when she
was a girl, that she believed that she saw JTR
on the street, looking at her, just as a murder
was discovered. Now how do you prove or disprove
that? No doubt the lady I spoke to really heard
this tale from her grandmother. But (a) did it
happen as she said it; (b) what exactly happened
when the incident occurred; (c) was the man who
saw this actually JTR?
Jeff |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 April 2001 - 09:52 pm | | Dean
You mention an interesting photograph, this is one I have not seen, though I think there is a dwg in existance, an artists conception, but not an actual photograph of the windows boarded up at Millers Court.
If there is such a photograph it does not support the removal of a window, what it does support is the story that the room was boarded up & sealed against inquisitive intruders, and a P.C. posted at the door. All this was done after the body was removed and in no way confirms the removal of windows. That story, put out by The Times has yet to find any support, it appears to be literary licence, which was not uncommon throughout this series of murders.
Did you also read the report that Kelly's head was found severed and tucked under her arm?.
All intended to sell more papers, but the boarded up window story is likely what anyone might guess at once they saw boards up at one or both windows.
If you recall everyone was cleared out of the court and it was closed to everyone including the press until the investigation was over, so quite possibly no members of the press were present until after the court was opened and the door & windows had both been repaired and sealed, hence the speculation.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Dean James Hines
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 10:23 am | | | Hi everyone, and a big thanks especially to Jon for his response to my query. Please be advised that I incorrectly refered to the magazine in question as 'True Detective'. It is as I've just discovered a '99 copy called, 'Master Detective'. Although it's not the edition with the Millers Court photo. I shall endeavour to find the copy in question. Jon, I was not aware of the lurid sensationalism that The Times (I'm assuming) reported. Thank God that Dr Bond's notes turned up. Perhaps it shall dispell the romance/drama that has been built up of Mary and the other victims. I see that the movie, From Hell is rumoured to feature a love interest between Abberline and Mary! How implausible, how terrible. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 10:31 am | | Hi, Dean:
Love between Abberline and Mary? Yes implausible and unreasonable. But it's Hollywood. My upcoming musical Jack--The Musical, written with composer Erik Sitbon, explores a relationship between Jack and Mary Jane Kelly which when you think about it is not so outlandish or implausible. Jack may have had "something" which lulled these women into trusting him.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Dean James Hines
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 11:17 am | | Hi Chris,
Yes, a relationship between Jack and Mary is more plausible as we are dealing with a man without identity. Have you read Paul Harrison's 'JTR- The Mystery Solved' which points to Mary's lover Joseph Barret being Jack?. Good luck with the musical.
Regards
Dean |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 April 2001 - 12:17 pm | | Hi, Dean:
Thanks for the best wishes regarding our musical. No, I have not read Paul Harrison's book. I have read Bruce Paley's book, though, in which he also singles out Joseph Barnett for the mantle of the Ripper. I find Barnett to be an unlikely candidate for Jack, partly because, as with George Hutchinson, you have to posit a fixation on MJK and then project back to the other murders for which there seems little motive if, as the proponents of these theories say, the focus was MJK all along.
Chris |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 06:27 am | | G'day Chris,
It's easier to think of Joseph Barnett as Jack, if you can 'picture' him reading the newspapers to Mary, to try and convince her that there was no future in a life on the streets. Added to this is the possibility that Joe lost his mother to prostitution, so that's why the Ripper targeted older women. He could have 'cracked' in the end and murdered Mary!....Simple!
Leanne. |
Author: Dean James Hines
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 10:56 am | | | Hi Leanne, yes, it is a simple solution to a century old mystery. I was wondering does anybody know whether Freud made any comments at the time, what with his theories on families and dreams? |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 05:22 am | | Here's a neat little passage. It is taken from the Whitechapel Board of Works Annual Report for 1878, concerning the Quarter ended 28th September that year.
OVERCROWDING IN A SCHOOL ROOM.
The Inspector, Mr. WRACK, on visiting the houses in Miller’s-court, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, on the 11th September, found that the ground-floor room of No. 6, was used as a school-room during the day and as a sleeping-room at night. At the time of his visit there were 19 persons in the room, namely, 17 children, all under 7 years of age, and the schoolmaster and his wife.
The dimensions of this room were 12 x 12 x 8 [feet], giving only about 60 cubic feet for each person.
The court contains six houses, and is about 50 feet long, 5 feet 6 inches wide at the north end, and 7 feet 10 inches wide at the south end, and is approached by a covered entrance 26 feet 4 inches long and 2 feet 10 inches wide. At the north end of the court there are three public privies, and at the south end there is a public dust-bin, both of which are within a few feet of the school-room in question.
On the following day, accompanied by the Inspector, I visited the school, and informed the schoolmaster of the unfitness of the place for a school, and I intimated to him that the room could not be allowed to be so occupied; and I advised him to get a larger room in a healthier locality. The schoolmaster acted upon my advice and removed from the court two days afterwards.
I have had to bring under the notice of the Board, from time to time, several cases of school-rooms similarly overcrowded, and in no instance have I been obliged to take legal proceedings against the occupier, the nuisance being either abated by reducing the number of children attending the school, or by the occupier finding a larger and more commodious room.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 08:29 am | | | Agreed, thanks V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 07:46 pm | | Hi, Viper:
Thank you so much for that valuable insight into living conditions in Miller's Court. I think though that the cubic feet per person in the schoolteacher's room, i.e., 60 cubic feet per person, is highly misleading. It is of course calculated using the dimensions of the room given, i.e., 12 x 12 x 8 feet divided by 19 persons = 60.6 cubic feet. However, since the "8 feet" is the floor to ceiling dimension, we are talking the cubic feet includes the space between a person and the ceiling, which while it is breathing room is not the space that is actively day-to-day "lived in" or on--which is the floor space. The more realistic dimension may be to calculate from the dimensions of the floor space 12 X 12 feet = 144 square feet, and divide that by 19 persons, which gives only 7.6 square feet per person. This maximum square feet available to each person would be further diminished by the furniture in the room.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 05:20 am | | Yes, Chris, but presumably the calculation used was a standard one used by inspectors of the time?
Of greatest interest to me are the details which the report gives about the layout of Miller’s Court. Up to now most of our descriptions have been vague. For instance, the width of the passage was ‘about’, ‘just under’ or ‘just over’ a yard, unquantified. Now we have a specific measurement of 2 ft. 10 ins. Also the length of the covered area is given – somewhat longer than the commonly mentioned ‘about 20 feet’.
Similarly, people have speculated about the position of the various facilities in the court. The plans reprinted in Sudgen’s book (p312) and in Tully’s (p360) do raise one or two questions, and Tully actually has a section called ‘Points to Ponder’ where the court’s layout is discussed as point 14. There now seems to be a very strong case that the last door on the left at the end of Miller’s Court – which commentators have agreed was not the entrance to a dwelling – was in fact the location of the toilet facilities. One wonders if it contained a tap at all, given that both the above plans agree on the location of a ‘pump’ some way away from it, behind Kelly’s room.
For all Tully’s speculation, the structure up against the house nearest to Kelly’s room on the right of the court was almost certainly just the dustbin area. Incidentally, I think the downstairs of that house is the most likely location of the schoolroom. By 1888, when the slum houses were let out by the room, the downstairs and upstairs of that house were numbered as 11 and 12 respectively.
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 05:27 am | | Hi, Viper:
I am glad that the report that you cited mentioned the location of the outside privies in Miller's Court which was one of the things about which I was curious since they don't show up on the plan of the court with which we are familiar.
As the report puts it, "The court contains six houses. . . . At the north end of the court there are three public privies, and at the south end there is a public dust-bin. . . ."
The dust-bin and waterpump do show up on the known plan of Miller's Court that I mentioned. I thought you all might like to see a view of a similar court of the period in Liverpool which would have been similar to those in the East End. Here there are two privies or water closets shown at the end of the court. If we calculate that in Miller's Court in each of the six houses there were a minimum of five to ten people, that makes a total of thirty to sixty people sharing three privies, or at least ten to twenty people per water closet. The overcrowding reported with up to nineteen people in one room of a house might nudge the number of people using each privy up to fifty to a hundred.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 08:13 am | | Gents
Certain minds think alike? 
As soon as I read Vipers poste, giving the dimensions of Millers Court, I pulled out Tully's book to try make a comparison.
I am not sure from where the 7' 10" is taken from, between which walls?.
The 5' 6" must be across the far end where the privey's are.
But which houses are they including when they say "the court included 6 houses", why am I seeing more than 6?.
Regards, Jon |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 08:21 am | | Jon,
You can exclude the houses that fronted Dorset Street itself. Inside the court there were six houses, three each side. One-up, one-down designs, hence 12 rooms, (and so MJK was at no. 13). On the left-hand side the terrace had four doorways and the last one was the cause of speculation. Now, it seems, we know what it was used for.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 08:26 am | | Thats it, 4 on the left side, thats what was throwing it out. I thought it should be 3 + 3, as you say. But I wasn't sure if the back shop on the left of the passage & No13 on the right would also be included, making 8.
Jon |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 05:01 pm | | Hello everyone,
At the risk of going slightly "off beam",but still relating to the site of Millers court.Can any body give me any more details about the Kitty Ronan murder in 1909.All I know is that the young woman was found dead,with her throat cut, in the room once occupied by Elizabeth pater.This room was of course No.20 and was situated above No.13.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 09:16 pm | | Hi, Mick:
Ripperologist I am pretty sure carried an article on this murder several years ago. I have looked through my back issues and have so far been unable to locate the article. Possibly someone else can help?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: adam wood
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 04:19 am | | Hi Chris
An article by Andy Aliffe on the murder of Kitty Ronan did indeed appear in Ripperologist.
I'll dig out the appropriate issue and post details here, but if you can email me a fax number, Mick, I'll send you the pages.
Regards Adam
adam@chickenweb.co.uk |
Author: adam wood
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 06:17 am | | Hi all
Below is an extract from Andy Aliffe’s article “Kit, Kitty, Kitten” from issue 21 (February 1999) of Ripperologist.
The article details the reports of Kathleen Blake Watkins – ‘Kit’ – of the Toronto Mail, who visited some of the murder sites during the writing of articles on London life. Her report of her visit at the end of 1891 describes visiting Bucks Row and Hanbury Street.
From Andy’s article:
From there Kit walked to Dorset Street and number 13 Millers Court, which was "reached by a narrow passage under an arch reeking with filth and crowded with women and children".
Still residing there was Elizabeth Prater, who lived above Mary Kelly on the night of her murder, but was now living opposite. She told Kit how she had been woken by her kitten ‘Diddles’ at about 4am and had heard a faint cry of "oh murder" from somewhere near by.
Elizabeth then took Kit across the court to meet the current occupant of Mary Kelly's still blood stained room of number 13, a lady who went by the name of ‘Lottie’.
"I was her friend." said Lottie, speaking with difficulty because of a broken and battered nose given to her by a kick from her husband's heavy boot. "I was living further up the court then. She (Mary Kelly) says 'I'm afraid to go out alone at night because of a dream I had that a man was murdering me. Maybe I'll be next. They say Jack's been busy in this quarter'. She said it with such a laugh ma'am that it just made me creep. And been sure enough ma'am she was the next to go. I heard her through the night singin' - she had a nice voice - "The violets grow on your mothers grave" - but that's all we 'urd". Lottie seemed to have no repugnance in sleeping in the room with its now blood blackened walls.
Kit continues: "Other women began to gather presently and grew voluble over the hideous details, like birds of prey. They had hard faces with an evil look on them - the demands for money, for beer, the curses, the profane language, jests about the awful fiend who did his deadly work here, the miserable shrewd faced children listening eagerly: it was horrible beyond expression".
Kit Watkins would write about this encounter again in 18 years time so let us now journey that length of time into the future and to the events of July 2nd 1909. "Ghastly Murder in Spitalfields. A bright young girl cruelly done to death" cries The Illustrated Police News. "Whitechapel Murder: Jack the Ripper crimes recalled" heads the East End News.
"A sensational discovery was made on Friday at a house off Duval Street, Commercial Street, Stepney. Shortly after two o'clock in the morning it was discovered that a young woman, locally known as "little Kitty" who was employed as an ironer at a lodging house in the locality, had been murdered, her throat having been cut from ear to ear apparently while she was sleeping, whilst her mouth was stuffed with a pocket handkerchief. The victim had been living, it is said, with a man who knew her as Kitty Ronan, at 12 Miller's Court".
They had actually been living in the room formerly occupied by Elizabeth Prater.
Kitty Ronan's male friend was Henry Benstead, a news vendor who had been living with Kitty for about four weeks. It was reported that "He left home on the morning of the tragedy about 9 o'clock, and left the deceased in bed. Witnesses described his subsequent movements until 1.30 the next morning when he parted from a man whom he knew at Spitalfields Church, and then went home. On reaching Miller's Court he found the street door open, and made his way upstairs. He found the bedroom door open, he lit a lamp and saw Kitty lying on the bed fully dressed. He said 'Hello Kitty' and then noticed blood on her neck and on the bed. She did not answer him, he rushed out crying 'someone has cut Kiity's throat' and into McCarthy's shop, then went on to Commercial Street police station."
Detective Inspector Fredrick Porter Wensley took up the case.
The body was subsequently identified by both her mother, Mrs. E. Dresch of Hoxton, and her father, Andrew Ronan, of Fulham, who said that she had been in domestic service when he had last seen her several years before.
The Illustrated Police News was quick off the mark to satisfy its reader's thirst for the morbid and graphic details of this atrocious killing.
Dated July 10th 1909 it reads:- "Several neighbours ran upstairs and found the girl lying in bed with a terrible gash in her throat. The room of the tragedy was the top apartment of a two roomed house. There was about half a dozen white walled houses in the court and the opposite houses are only a few feet apart. Two doors away on the right hand side near the entrance, is the house in which one of the last "Jack the Ripper" murders was committed. Andrew Stevens a 17 year old market porter, who went into the house when the discovery was made told the following story. 'I was standing out in the street opposite the court about five minutes to twelve last night and I saw Kitty come down the street with a strange man, pass up the court and enter her house. About 12.20 I saw him come down the court again. He looked round sharply once or twice and the walked briskly up to Commercial Street.
From what I remember of him he struck me as being a man of military appearance or perhaps a sailor; but he was well set up. he had a moustache and was wearing a dark suit and a dark cloth cap. When I went upstairs I saw Kitty was lying in bed fully clothed. There was blood on the bedclothes. The room did not appear to have been disturbed in any way and there were no signs as if there has been a struggle. It looked to me as if she had been strangled first, and then her throat cut afterwards.
On the floor I saw an ugly looking knife with blood on the it. It was a pocket knife but the blade was a thin one. I should think it was about three and a half inches long. The point of the knife was about half an inch in length. At the time of the crime the court was quite deserted. You can hear everything in the ordinary way, but nobody heard a sound or a scream.
The only sound was the footfalls of the man coming out of the court. One of the neighbours I believe heard the sound of footsteps coming down the stairs, but nothing else.'"
John Callaghan, a stableman who was living at Mary Kelly's old address, number 13, was also called as a witness, having taken charge of the murder weapon at the time.
At the inquest Dr. John Clarke said he saw the body of the deceased on the bed. "The woman was lying on her back with her head to the left side. There was an incised wound on the right side of the neck about one and a half inches below the jaw; the wound divided the windpipe and all large vessels on the right side of the neck. There was a large quantity of blood on the right side of the neck but there was no sign of a struggle. In his opinion the injuries were not self-inflicted and must have caused instantaneous death."
Police evidence was also given, including a statement from Detective Inspector Wensley who said that every inquiry had been made, and every clue followed, but without success.
The Coroner in summing up, alluded to the mode of life led by the deceased (possibly a part time prostitution) and those associated with her. The jury returned a verdict of "wilful murder against some person or persons unknown" and expressed the opinion that the police had done all they possibly could under the circumstances.
Had the "Ripper" returned once more only to disappear so inexplicably again?
And so it was finally with this murderous event that Kit Watkins reported the news for the Toronto Mail recalling her first visit to the same mean street in the 1890s and the horrors which in time seem to have repeated themselves.
Incidentally, in the 1891 Census “Lottie” is listed as living with one Harry Owen; Julia Van Turney in her statement said she lived with man of the same name. Was the woman interviewed by Kit in fact Van Turney? Adam. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 03:36 am | | Hi, Adam:
Thanks for your lengthy reply to Mick Lyden's enquiry about the 1909 Kitty Ronan murder in Miller's Court. I felt sure that my memory was not deceiving me about the appearance of the article of the murder in Ripperologist! I was pleased to be reminded that the article was another of Andy Aliffe's contributions on East End history. Thanks again.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 12:44 pm | | I'd like to thank Adam for his reprint of Andy Aliffe's article, "Kit, Kitty, Kitten. I'd never heard of it, but I'm glad I have now. To me it gives out with a message or two,-- messages not at all complimentory to the human race!. Can it really be true that McCarthy never had all traces of what happened in that room obliterated, and the room scrubbed out?. That he let that room to other people--women, in that state, expecting them to live with it,-- which they did, without attempting to clean it up themselves!!!. Some of you posters may call me naive, but to my way of thinking, theres no chance at all of getting round these peoples minds. I think their minds had been poisoned by the way of life they were being forced to live, no way could they or their values be compared with us today and the way we live. This was three years after Kelly's murder,--- nothing has changed!!! Then 20yrs after Kelly's murder, another murder! in the same house, committed in the same way ,except for the mutilation, and really, Jack the Ripper could have come back if he had wanted, or was able, started his game again
and what would the police have done?. They couldn't catch Kitty's killer either, could they?.
But quite a good description of suspect was given.
Regards Rick. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Hello,
Adam, many thanks for the Info,it's much apreciated.
Rick,maybe Barnett didn't go into retirement after all!
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 04:54 pm | | Rick,
Thought you might be interested, in light of your thoughts about the fate of Miller's Court...
The house in which someone (perhaps Lizzie) killed Lizzie Borden's parents with repeated hacks from an axe and left their bloody bodies -- mom on the floor between the bed and dresser and pop, his head crushed in, resting on the divan -- that house is now a fully operational Bed & Breakfast. And it has been painstakingly restored to its original layout and with the original furniture (as much as could be preserved) and some replicas. Yes, you too can stay in the very same bedroom in which mom was butchered and you can even sleep in the same bed and use the same dresser and take a rest on the same divan where they found dad's body. Or you can sleep in Lizzie and Emma's room if you like. There are regular tours given as well (it's also a museum), but you can book a room there for a night or a week and stay and live in the house and use it all as well.
It's sort of a novel and creepy vacation idea. But it might appeal to some of our fellow readers.
Bye,
--John |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 05:09 pm | | Which just proves there's no accounting for taste! However, that sort of ghoulishness and voyeurism is by no means new. This is from the East London Observer of 24th November 1888...
"The following speaks well – should I say ill? – for the morbid amusement which some folk find in viewing the site of a murder: and yet a caterer must find a good demand for such an exhibition, for I hear on good authority that Mr. McCarthy, the owner of the house in which Mary Kelly was killed, was offered £25 from a showman for the use of the room for a month! Another enterprising Barnum wished to buy, or even hire, the wretched furniture on which the dreadful crime was committed. To McCarthy’s credit, both offers were rejected."
Regards, V. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 05:42 pm | | Fascinating citation, Viper,
If you could find that bed now, how much do you think it would bring on auction?
--John |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 03:06 am | | | Interesting thought, John. I dread to think... |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 09:36 am | | | I think we're being hypocritical. If I had the opportunity, nothing would please me more than to go on one of Rumbelow's Ripper Walks. What is the difference between us on this website and those Whitechapel denizens who have stared at the murder sites. Have we not speculated about time machines and how great it would be to catch him? |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 10:03 am | | Hi Diana,
Sure. And I've taken the walks and enjoyed them. But, if it was still there and intact, would we really want to stay in Mary's room for a few nights or sleep in her bed and use her furniture, the way you can at the Borden house? That seems to me to be behavior of a slightly different degree.
And the guy who offered McCarthy money for the use of Mary's room for a week (what was he planning to do in there?) or the one who tried to buy the furniture in the room at the time of the killing (no doubt planning to sell it for a profit), all less than a few weeks after the murder, seem to be a different sort of animal than the people on the Ripper walks.
At least I hope so.
--John |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 09:07 pm | | Dear John,
Maybe the entrepreneur was none other than Jack
himself!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 03:16 pm | | Hi All,
I have a question regarding the numbering of Miller's Court.
It started on the left side with No. 1 on the ground floor, and No. 2 above it, continuing consecutively down the left side and back up the right until Mary Kelly's at No. 13.
Why is it that Elizabeth Prater's room is No. 20, instead of No. 14?
It is a rather curious anomally. Does anyone have a reason for this? Thanks.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 04:12 pm | | Hi Jack-
Oddly, in Prater's written deposition her address is given as "no. 20 room, 27 Dorset St."; 27 Dorset was McCarthy's chandler shop. However from her inquest statement it seems clear that she lived directly atop Mary's room.
In an earlier post someone quoted an article written a few years after the murder which has Prater living across from Mary Kelly, which would correspond to an upstairs room over McCarthy's shop.
Strange.
AAA88 |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 08:46 pm | | Hi Jesse,
There is no question Prater lived atop Kelly and the only access was the first doorway on the right in Miller's court leading upstairs. Not difficult to see how Prater's address was written down wrong on her statement when one looks at a map of Miller's Court. McCarthy resided at No. 27 and carried on his chandler's business from its ground floor shop. No. 26 was being used as a storeroom at the time of MJK's murder. When Prater gave her statement she probably said she lived above Kelly's room at No. 20 behind McCarthy's on Dorset Street.
The article you are referring to was written by Andy Aliffe, 'Kit, Kitty, Kitten' (Ripperologist #21, February 1999). Kit Watkins of the Toronto Mail visited Miller's Court in February of 1892. I believe Andy might have it wrong when he said Prater was living opposite No. 13. In an article about Kit Watkins' four seperate journeys to London's East End (Globe and Mail, August 30, 1988), Prater takes Watkins downstairs to the room where Kelly died to meet the current occupant 'Lottie.'
On July 02, 1909, Kitty Ronan was murdered in No. 20 Miller's Court, the room formerly occupied by Prater. Like Kelly's this murder would also go unsolved.
Still, I would like to know why No. 20 is not No. 14 Miller's Court.
Cheers,
John |
|
|
|
|
