A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Michael W Richards]

As subsequent newspaper reports revealed, Mike, the Blotchy lookalike was an undercover policeman.

Hi Gary,

Thats the first time Ive heard that, whats the source for that Gary?

Cheers mate

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

I would think that the item used by Blotchy to carry his beer was likely the property of the bar, so be it a tankard of ale,..which I believe Cox referred to, an actual pail, or a large metal container, it likely belonged to the bar and would have to be returned by the patron. Which makes me think Blotchy made at least 1 trip back to the same pub after taking Mary home. Maybe not that same night, but who knows.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

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

[Garry Wroe]

Thats the first time Ive heard that, whats the source for that Gary?

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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