A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[DRoy]

Here is a possible scenario I posted in a different thread. It's based on the following article from New York's The Sun December 8, 1889...

[DRoy]

Who is Insp. "Harris" in the article and is he reputable?
It must be Insp. Edmund Read and yes he reputable. Remembering that the article was written in Dec 1889, I'm sure his memory and knowledge of the crimes were as good as ever.

So if we can accept Insp. Harris' comments in the article then "Kate" was living with MJK.

So could "Kate" have been the one who Barnett called "a woman of bad character" that MJK allowed to move in which led to him moving out? Just because Maria Harvey had stayed with MJK a couple of random nights doesn't mean it was her that Barnett was talking about. Besides, why couldn't (and why wouldn't) MJK charge "Kate" for rent in order to catch up the rent she owed to McCarthy especially since Barnett wasn't working?

I think Praline is also on to something suggesting that Caroline Maxwell may have confused "Kate" and MJK. Caroline Maxwell says this to the Coroner about knowing Mary and Mary knowing her over the previous four months: "Oh, yes; by being about in the lodging house." Why would Mary be in a lodging house when she has her own place? However, we don't know where "Kate" was staying prior to living with MJK so perhaps she is who Caroline recognized in the lodging house.

I don't think the key is important as Abberline seemed content to accept Barnett's explanation that the key had been missing for some time. However, what should be considered is how many people knew how to unlock the door? Not the police, not Bowyer or McCarthy. MJK and Barnett for sure but what about "Kate"? As a roommate I would think so. Without a key, how did they lock the door? I think we have to assume the same way they unlocked it. The same three people would know how to lock it again. Since the door was locked after MJK being killed...

Is it possible that MJK was killed by her roomate? MJK would be comfortable with "Kate" her roommate which could explain some of the questions about how MJK was killed without making noise. In the alternative, if "Kate" didn't do it but was living with MJK then where was she the night of the murder? Perhaps she returned home to find MJK murdered and hence the cry of "Oh murder!" came from her.

I saw how receptive everyone was with the Lechmere/Cross threads due to so much supposition being tossed around. It is not my intent to create a new suspect; instead I am asking for assistance in either proving or disproving some of this thread's supposition.

Cheers,
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

I just started another thread on a person of Interest in this case, Joseph Issacs. Anyone interested in exploring that angle a bit is welcome to jump in there as well.

He's actually an interesting fellow...and it might play into how someone got as close as Marys own room... while she was undressed.

Cheers

[curious]

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

Perhaps it was swept under the rug that a witness expecting to be protected by the authorities was instead murdered in the goriest possible way.

However, the single-day inquest could have been held because of the nature of the case the undercover cop was working . . . . wouldn't you like to know that?

Just supposin too, ya know.

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps it was swept under the rug that a witness expecting to be protected by the authorities was instead murdered in the goriest possible way.

However, the single-day inquest could have been held because of the nature of the case the undercover cop was working . . . . wouldn't you like to know that?

Just supposin too, ya know.

I would very much like to know why a member of Parliament, a Senior Post office official and members of the Royal Irish Constabulary visit the murder site at the height of the crowds at the beginning of the week....and I think its likely to be because something of a semi-official nature drew their attention.

Needless to say, none of those three groups of people would have an obvious official reason for visiting.

Cheers curious

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Michael

Like you, I find the idea that Blotchy was meant to be a protector very interesting...and of course that would at least give some credence to the "Fenian witness protection" theory...which is not without it's merits.

Let me say at the outset it's not something I readily accept, but nor though can I easily reject it...these things niggle away in the background and I just try to keep an open mind...

The range of visitors to Millers Court is very interesting indeed...I find the Post Office official particularly interesting...could he be identifying an otherwise anonymous "bullseye" or "killer" franking on a cover or entire?

Whatever mate, it's quite clear that both you and I have been well and truly groomed by the evil one, so let's go celebrate Burns Night!

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

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.


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.

They didn't hold on to them long enough or that, if you notice in many cases by the very next morning whomever had been picked up the previous night was set free. How much background research could they do overnight in less than 12 hours?
Which implies not a great deal of verification was possible.

We shouldn't laugh, with the Yorkshire Ripper investigation under Oldfield, any suspect brought in who did not have a Geordie accent, and who's handwriting didn't match the letters they received, was set free.

Could Abberline & Co. have been any different?

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

"Tall" is relative Ben, as tall as what, the reporter, or as tall as the police who wrestled him, or taller than the women who fingered him?

Update: ....Astrakhan & Britannia-man were different men. Astrakhan is innocent in my opinion.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

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

Or turn it around.

You may recall those who suggest Hutchinson was the killer propose his appearance at Commercial St. was to inject himself into the case.

So maybe this character who volunteered(?) to help the police was thee Blotchy they were all looking for, he was merely injecting himself into the case.
You know....as they do...


Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

They didn't hold on to them long enough or that, if you notice in many cases by the very next morning whomever had been picked up the previous night was set free. How much background research could they do overnight in less than 12 hours?

Not much, Jon. Indeed, I've argued as much on other threads, usually with those who claim that Abberline's early approval of Hutchinson's account somehow means that the latter had been investigated and exonerated as a suspect within a miniscule time-frame, which is nonsense. Your chap, however, appears to have been arrested during the day, leaving potentially plenty of time to check alibis etc. And let's face it, if this "flushed and defiant" man was innocent and able to account for his whereabouts that night, checking his "credentials" would not have taken very long at all. Equally, the man in question could have been out of the East End at the time, and the woman who fingered him exposed as a liar. What I'm getting at is that if a report states that a suspect was set at liberty after his "statements were verified", it is safe to conclude that the individual in question was ruled out, for whatever reason, as being the murderer.

"Tall" is relative Ben, as tall as what, the reporter, or as tall as the police who wrestled him, or taller than the women who fingered him?

It's not that relative. I'm 6'5" but I'm hardly about to describe a man of 6'2" of being "short".

All the best,
Ben

[Nighthawks]

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

What would rule out Blotchy from being JTR and an undercover cop? I'm new here so I don't if the possibility that JTR was a cop has been discussed at length. If the police suspected one of their own then that could explain the hurried inquest, sweeping under the rug etc. I'd have to think about this some more, but let's say Blotchy sees MJK in a tavern, identifies himself to her as a cop and offers to walk her home for safety's sake. She invites him in because she believes she's safe with him (and he has beer...his "in" to the apartment). He bides his time while she sings and waits for her to pass out or exits and returns later.

[curious]

What would rule out Blotchy from being JTR and an undercover cop? I'm new here so I don't if the possibility that JTR was a cop has been discussed at length. If the police suspected one of their own then that could explain the hurried inquest, sweeping under the rug etc. I'd have to think about this some more, but let's say Blotchy sees MJK in a tavern, identifies himself to her as a cop and offers to walk her home for safety's sake. She invites him in because she believes she's safe with him (and he has beer...his "in" to the apartment). He bides his time while she sings and waits for her to pass out or exits and returns later.

Hi, Nighthawks,

Welcome to Casebook. Hope you enjoy your time here!

Actually, the thought of a policeman perhaps being JTR has been discussed. I personally don't recall much of the discussion, but you can poke around on the site and find others who have also considered that angle.

curious