A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Michael W Richards]

Didn't they do a good job, Michael?

It might explain why it was swept under the rug by the police with a single day Inquest. Surely this murder raised as many or more serious questions than the previous ones had.

Just supposin ya know.

Cheers Curious

[Ben]

General comments only serve to confuse the issue.

To be honest, Jon, I thought my comment summed up the issue pretty succinctly, and the above press extracts serve to clarify it even further. The "issue" here is that various individuals were taken into custody on the basis of very little; talking crossly to a woman, hanging around Dorset Street, being a bit foreign, having a grumpy face etc etc. All very, very thin reasons for being taken into custody, and essentially the result of mob paranoia in the wake of yet another mutilation murder. Once in custody, of course, the police were duty bound to do their job, which most emphatically does not mean restricting themselves to asking the suspect "his name, his address, and possibly his place of employment, where applicable". When faced with the possibility, however remote, of having the actual killer interrogated as a suspect (and thus potentially signalling the end of the largest manhunt in London's history), I think we can expect a little more thoroughness than "What's your name and where do you come from?", which would tell them literally nothing about the likelihood of the suspect being the killer.

I'm not sure what you mean by the following:

Then, once verified, they let them go - why? because they know where to find them if needs be.

A sort of: Thanks for the info, sir. If you do turn out to be Jack the Ripper we'll be in touch!

I think a more reasonable assumption is that the movements of these "suspects" were verified. Here's an account of the same arrest from the Echo:

Late last night hundreds of people came surging down Commercial-street round a posse of police who guarded a tall, rather vigorous-looking man, who looked flushed and defiant, and was evidently strongly believed by the mob to be the assassin. It went from mouth to mouth that he blood on his clothes. The crowd in the wildest excitement rushed down to the station, but of course were excluded. What degree of importance was to be attached to the arrest could not then be known. The man was given into custody by some women as one who had accosted them on the previous night, and whose conduct was suspicious. The prisoner was, however, released - so the police announce - during to-day, his statements being verified.

This man was "tall" anyway, so he could not realistically have been your Astrakhan-Britannia-Bethnal Botherer conglomeration.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Stories abounded of "suspicious" men being reported to the police and taken into custody, more for their own personal safety than for any other reason.

General comments only serve to confuse the issue.
We were talking about Nov. 10th specifically.

There were three incident, one at Bishopsgate P.S., the other two in Commercial St.
The Star did not cover both the Commercial St. incidents, only the one I was interested in.
The story of Mr Eaton and the Somerset House clerk, appear to be the same story.
Then they report:
At about half-past eight there was a big scene in Commercial Street.
A tall middle-aged man with a dark moustache accosted two girls and spoke to them in a rather brutal way. One of them made a show of accompanying him, but as soon as she saw a policeman she gave him in custody. He was escorted by a howling mod to the police-station, where he was detained.


The St. James Gazette, does not report the Bishopsgate incident, only the two Commercial St. incidents.
The police have made two arrests in connection with the murder. One man was accused by a woman late last night of being the murderer; but he was released after a short detention, his statements being satisfactorily verified.

The 2nd arrest was a foreigner.
The second arrest was made in the small hours of the morning, when a man, apparently a foreigner, was brought to Commercial street on suspicion. He also has been released,...


The Morning Advertiser & Irish Times, record only the one I noted:
A man was arrested last night in Whitechapel on suspicion of being concerned in the murder. He was given into custody by some women as being a man who had accosted them last night, and whose conduct was suspicious. He was taken to Commercial-street police-station, followed by an immense crowd.


The Daily News reports the Foreigner,
One unfortunate foreigner, whose physiognomy was certainly not prepossessing, was taken into Commercial street Police station, when it turned out that that was the third time he had been arrested on suspicion of being Jack the Ripper, in the course of these murders. What with his odd face, his deprecatory shrugs and posturings, and his broken English as he tried to answer the interrogatories put to him, his examination was irresistibly comic. "How d'ye manage to get into trouble like this, then?" demanded an officer. "What do you do? What makes people pounce on you?" "Dat is ze zing," said the unlucky fellow spreading the palms of his hands and shrugging his shoulders. "Zat is what I like to know. Why do zey?" He had given a false name at his lodging house, but that, he tried to explain, was because "it eez not grand to leave in a lodging house."

plus the one I am interested in.
Later on hundreds of people came surging down Commercial street round a possy (sic) of police who guarded a tall, rather repellent looking man, who looked flushed and defiant and was evidently strongly believed by the mob to be the assassin. It went from mouth to mouth that he had blood on his clothes, and the dark and dogged look of the man very well bore out the idea of his having been taken with evidences of his guilt upon him. The crowd in the wildest excitement rushed down to the station, but of course were excluded, and what degree of importance was to be attached to the arrest is not known.

but not the Bishopsgate incident.

Thats the long and the short of it.

In all cases, their statements were verified and they were very soon set at liberty. In other words, none of them were the real killer.

Ah, like Sutcliffe you mean, interviewed nine times, so you think Sutcliffe was not the Yorkshire Ripper?

Why do you think they let these people go?, in 1888, all they asked the suspect was his name, his address, and possibly his place of employment, where applicable. Then, once verified, they let them go - why? because they know where to find them if needs be.
Releasing them does not mean they were innocent, the police have nothing to hold them on.

Jon

[curious]

T Or it could also suggest that perhaps Mary was being protected by the police, rather than investigated.

Didn't they do a good job, Michael?

[GregBaron]

Good point indeed...

Maybe he needed something to carry the heart in.

Good one Nighthawks and welcome to the boards....It's a fun place
to kill time and brain cells...



Greg

[Nighthawks]

I would suggest that for every 100 dancing Tumblety's we would have 114 Feigenbaum's, 107 Isenschmidt's and 102 Druitt's...



Hi Lynn,

I don't know the answer but I'd guess that it illustrates your point. And yes, I agree that minutia can break the case.

The particular minutia that we are talking about here concerns Blotchy's beer container. Obviously, it was never found, so assuming the sighting was accurate, he must have taken it with him. Why? Well, he either had more beer which probably means he wasn't in the room very long or he knew it might be used as evidence. The latter is obviously the more intriguing suggestion...

Feel free to further minimize the discussion....



Greg

Maybe he needed something to carry the heart in.

[Michael W Richards]

Let's say for a moment this undercover cop was the Blotchy seen with Kelly.

Then, is it not possible that Kelly being seen in the company of an undercover policeman might be the explanation for her death a few hours later and that whatever ongoing police operation he was involved in somehow involved MJK?

And his being an undercover policeman would account for us thinking that the police never learned the identity of MJK's visitor that night . . .

very interesting.

curious

The idea is interesting curious, I agree. Or it could also suggest that perhaps Mary was being protected by the police, rather than investigated.

The Parnell Commission commencement runs parallel with the Jack the Ripper series that Fall, and many, many witnesses were being interviewed. Lots of street informants. What would be the criteria for a street person to have some kind of involvement with that commission? An Irish background and social circle I would imagine for one, and access to information of individuals, clandestine meetings or actions. Something to help prove the allegations against the Senior Irish Member of Parliament perhaps.

We all know that witnesses played a huge role in those hearings, and I would think most know that a double spy offered to testify at them for 10,000L.

Anyone have any idea what the modern equivalent value would be? An approximate number would be about 3/4 of a million L. Sterling. Give or take.

How important would a witness be to an investigation in modern times if he was actually paid that sum for his information? I believe he received 5,000L eventually. But how important would that information be?

Best regards curious

[Sally]

...it is exceptionally bad practice to accept all statements at face value, regardless of their source, simply because they can't be proven false.

Worse, its untenable. It rarely, if ever works. I'm not talking specifically about this debate, or even 'Ripperology'. The same is true of all historic enquiry.

What we ought to doing instead is using our critical faculties to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of eyewitness evidence, and while the inquest transcriptls and police statements belong in the former catergory, Mrs. Paumier and chums fall indisputably into the latter.

Yes, because whereas the police, and the courts, have a burden of duty to accurate reporting, the press is not so bound. Nor was it then.

[Observer]

Contrary to your advice to Sally, it is exceptionally bad practice to accept all statements at face value

So very true Ben. Although those with an agenda, those who believe they can fit a face to the killer, don't seem to mind too much about the statements veracity when the said statements meet their requirments to nail the killer.

Regards


Observer

[Ben]

Incidently, your other "invented witness's", Mrs Paumier & Sarah Ronay apparently did their civic duty, they managed to get the weirdo arrested.

"A man was arrested last night in Whitechapel on suspicion of having committed the Dorset-street crime. He was pointed out to the police by some women as a man who had accosted them on Thursday night and whose movements excited suspicion. He was taken to Commercial-street police-station, followed by an immense crowd."
The Northern Echo, 10 Nov. 1888.

If I'm not mistaken that was the Britannia-man, aka Bethnal Green botherer, hauled in and questioned.

Now the police knew his face, no wonder he never killed again.

You almost certainly are mistaken in this case, Jon.

Stories abounded of "suspicious" men being reported to the police and taken into custody, more for their own personal safety than for any other reason. At least three such cases were reported by the Star on 10th November, and they each involved a pursuit by an "immense crowd" or a "howling mob" all anxious to identify Jack the Ripper. In all cases, their statements were verified and they were very soon set at liberty. In other words, none of them were the real killer. There is no evidence that Paumier and Roney had anything remotely to do with the arrests of these men, and even if they had, it would simply mean that they were "accosted" by a man who had nothing to do with the murders, and whose only "crime" was the imprudent decision to wear a silly hat, make crap jokes about his bag, and look for prostitutes in what was then a murder zone.

Contrary to your advice to Sally, it is exceptionally bad practice to accept all statements at face value, regardless of their source, simply because they can't be proven false. In fact, it seems to be only you and Richard who espouse that philosophy. What we ought to doing instead is using our critical faculties to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of eyewitness evidence, and while the inquest transcripts and police statements belong in the former catergory, Mrs. Paumier and chums fall indisputably into the latter.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Significantly suspicious, or extremely coincidental that this 'supposed' undercover agent (and not a cop but a private citizen?) looked exactly like one of the two murderer's they were looking for.

They had detectives to do this kind of work.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

From this it seems likely that the police officer to whom Galloway reported his suspicions recognized his colleague and attempted to placate Galloway in order to preserve the undercover man's anonymity, possibly even the integrity of an ongoing police operation.

Let's say for a moment this undercover cop was the Blotchy seen with Kelly.

Then, is it not possible that Kelly being seen in the company of an undercover policeman might be the explanation for her death a few hours later and that whatever ongoing police operation he was involved in somehow involved MJK?

And his being an undercover policeman would account for us thinking that the police never learned the identity of MJK's visitor that night . . .

very interesting.

curious

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I wasn't talking about what the coroner said, but to answer your question, the person most likely to be right is Mrs Cox who in her witness statement, taken by the police on the day of the murder , referred to the man as carrying "a quart can of beer". I too had a pewter tankard but I've never heard anyone refer to such an item as a 'can'.

I'm sorry Colin, I didn't explain myself.

You are quite correct Mrs Cox used the word "can" in her pre-inquest statement. Then in response to the Coroner at the Inquest, who also said "can", she said "pot".

We know the Coroner had no idea what the container was, so, I think its reasonable to suppose Macdonald had Cox's statement in his hands when she stepped into the witness chair.
This was likely standard procedure due to the fact it was Macdonald himself who was asking the questions.

Macdonald read her statement, which said, "the man was carrying a quart can of beer". Which prompt's Macdonald to use the same terminology and inquire
[Coroner] Had he anything in his hands but the can ?

To which Cox replied, "no".

Its not a case of the Coroner suggesting it was a "can", but he used the same term used by Cox in her statement, which he held in his hand.

Therefore, both "can" and "pot" came from Mrs Cox.

All I'm saying in this thread is that the container was, as described by Cox, either a "can" or a "pot" (I said mug or jug), but not a pail.
The police were not looking for a missing pail, there was a pail in the room.

Sorry for being too brief.
Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike

If it were akin to the old "Bottle and Jug" takeout, still very occasionally encountered as recently (in my experience) as the late 70s/early 80s, then (unless you were a specially favoured regular) you'd pay a deposit on the beer container, returnable next time you visited...

So yes, he'd take the container away, but not necessarily return it that night...I suppose it'd depend on how much the deposit was, and how Blotchy was for funds...all of which might depend on the value of the container and hence it's nature...

Incidentally the local pubs were reportedly questioned on the subject with negative results...anyone know more about this?

I simply can't believe that there were no local pubs or beerhouses operating "takeaway" or "outdoors" - and if they did, how could they reasonably account for who took what, returned what and when?

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

I think whats quite likely is that there were illegal operations even in private house possibly that extended the drinking hours for the locals. After hours establishments in depressed areas are still common.. in recent times often as hangouts for the better heeled rather than the locals. It does remind me that there were drivers for upper class Londoners to come a slummin' on occasion.

I share your surprise that this particular pub tradition couldnt be traced to any one pub in the area...and that the lending of the receptacle would likely have been done with a deposit. Unless the person was regular of course,..or unless the receptacle didnt originate from a pub, but a private home in the area.

Cheers Dave

[Michael W Richards]

I don't recall the newspaper(s) which carried the story in the fullest detail, Mike, but the Evening News of 17 November stated that the Blotchy lookalike was a respectable citizen. Elsewhere it was stated quite categorically that he was an undercover policeman. From this it seems likely that the police officer to whom Galloway reported his suspicions recognized his colleague and attempted to placate Galloway in order to preserve the undercover man's anonymity, possibly even the integrity of an ongoing police operation.

I would agree with your conclusions Gary... if that story is true. Thanks for the additional info.

All the best