A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

I will say one thing about Reid, in case anyone isnt aware of it, ...he was part of a hand picked team working under Abberline for these cases. Goldley and a Pearce were 2 more team members. They did interviews, followed up leads... and in the case of Mary Kelly, Reid was among a few of these men accompanying Abberline the Saturday morning to re-sieve the ashes.

One would imagine that he would have been abreast of anything important regarding the investigation of that murder, at least from street level.

Best regards all

[DRoy]

Hi Jon,

I must have missed something here, where did Insp. Reid enter into this?

I wish I could post the entire article but it is huge. He is called Inspector Harris because the newspaper reporter could not releveal his true name or the Inspector would have been in big trouble. Anyone that has read the full article surely must accept it is Reid. If it is something you or anyone would like me to post in more detail then I will do so in a different thread.

Also, if you notice the press article appears to suggest this "Kate" is making the claim that she lived with MJK..."She (Kate) sat down on the edge of the bed and volubly assured us that she was the identical person who had lived there with the murdered woman."

The extract posted is too brief for me to determine the context, but if you are saying this Inspector is relating the story then he is also telling us that this woman told him who she was.

The beginning of the article is Insp. "Harris" stating that Kate lived with MJK. Regardless whether it is believed as being Insp. Reid or not, I think that whoever the inspector was, you'd have to believe that they would know who was living with MJK or not and would have checked it out. If they didn't check it out then they were incompetent; but if they did check it out then they'd know whether it was a lie or not.

I'm left to wonder why, who was she claiming to be and for what reason? The 'history' which has come down to us does not include a woman in the position she claims to have been.

I think I explained this in my previous post. She could have been Julia or Julia could be "Kate". Then her story matches Barnett's and disputes nothing else known.

The better question is what does both she and the Inspector say that doesn't fit with 'history' other than her name (or alias) not being one we've heard?

DRoy

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Something is wrong even if "Kate" wasn't using her real name or using different aliases. How does Kate not fit in with what we know of MJK?

The article quotes Inspector Reid saying Kate lived with MJK, not Kate saying so. He had to be aware of who was living with MJK. It can't be a case of Kate making up the story otherwise Reid would surely know.

There also is the comment from Reid stating Kate made application to have the room back while the police held it. Who would she make application too...McCarthy or the police? I would assume the police but only if she was in fact living there would they allow it and Reid would then be in the know. If it was McCarthy, he could have allowed anyone to take over the room. Obviously he let Kate have it as she was living there...yet he only charged her roughly half that of MJK which makes little sense.

Julia is the only one that could possibly fit as being "Kate". Barnett doesn't say how long Julia stayed there and also doesn't say she left.

We could very well have verification of MJK having a roommate at the time of her murder. As per my previous post, it could give answers to the most puzzling questions we've had about her murder...the key, oh murder, the locked door, MJK's apparent trust of her murderer, etc.

DRoy

Hi DRoy.

I must have missed something here, where did Insp. Reid enter into this?

Also, if you notice the press article appears to suggest this "Kate" is making the claim that she lived with MJK...
"She (Kate) sat down on the edge of the bed and volubly assured us that she was the identical person who had lived there with the murdered woman."

The extract posted is too brief for me to determine the context, but if you are saying this Inspector is relating the story then he is also telling us that this woman told him who she was.
I'm left to wonder why, who was she claiming to be and for what reason?
The 'history' which has come down to us does not include a woman in the position she claims to have been.

Regards, Jon S.

[DRoy]

I don't think your 'Kate' was using her real name in the article, or if she was then she doesn't seem to fit in with what we know about Mary Kelly.

We seem to have four names of women who either visited Mary or stayed with her in her last week.
Lizzie Albrook apparently lived in Millers Court, but visited Mary on Thursday 8th.

We have a "Julia" offered by Barnett..
"We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected; and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left her, and took lodgings elsewhere."

Maria Harvey gave a different address at the inquest. So even though she claimed to have stayed overnight twice (Mon/Tue), she doesn't appear to be living with Mary permanently.

Then there is this "Margaret", apparently not her real name..
"A young woman who goes by the name of Margaret says:- I saw Kelly on Thursday night in Dorset street. She told me she had no money, and intended to make away with herself. Shortly after that a man of shabby appearance came up, and Kelly walked away with him."
Her story only appears on the 12th, then by the 17th Lizzie Albrook appears, their stories are not too dissimilar.

Mary only had a three-quarter bed, so where did she expect this "unfortunate" (Julia) to sleep while Barnett was there?

Regards, Jon S.

Jon,

Something is wrong even if "Kate" wasn't using her real name or using different aliases. How does Kate not fit in with what we know of MJK?

The article quotes Inspector Reid saying Kate lived with MJK, not Kate saying so. He had to be aware of who was living with MJK. It can't be a case of Kate making up the story otherwise Reid would surely know.

There also is the comment from Reid stating Kate made application to have the room back while the police held it. Who would she make application too...McCarthy or the police? I would assume the police but only if she was in fact living there would they allow it and Reid would then be in the know. If it was McCarthy, he could have allowed anyone to take over the room. Obviously he let Kate have it as she was living there...yet he only charged her roughly half that of MJK which makes little sense.

Julia is the only one that could possibly fit as being "Kate". Barnett doesn't say how long Julia stayed there and also doesn't say she left.

We could very well have verification of MJK having a roommate at the time of her murder. As per my previous post, it could give answers to the most puzzling questions we've had about her murder...the key, oh murder, the locked door, MJK's apparent trust of her murderer, etc.

DRoy

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

If you were yourself quoting someone else, then I apologise for mistaking your meaning.

No problem Bridewell, easy done, something I myself have been guilty of. As Mike has recently posted some of us, myself included, are not very adept at writing the written word so to speak

Regards

Observer

[GregBaron]

Something to hang your hat on...

Hello all,

It seems that people can easily mis-read a posters intentions, and therefore miss the contextual point being made. I wish I was as elequent as AP Wolf when it comes to expressing digital thoughts,but since I have to be content with lesser skills, heres some rebuttal in point form;

-The Signature of the killer that was responsible for Polly and Annie changed with Liz, changed back somewhat with Kate, and then a psuedo version with Mary Kelly. Therefore, as Lynn pointed out many experts who share his opinion, it is most reasonable at this point in time to include only three of the five Canonicals in one spree.
-Since the Canonical Group is not based on the actual evidence but rather the opinions of some prominent contemporary officials and modern theorists, discussing other theories should NOT be held up to greater standards.
-What we can say for a fact is that there were clandestine operations run by many senior Ripper investigators at the same time as the Ripper crimes, concerning threats from various locations abroad.
-Ive said many times that the mutilation of Mary Kelly, an assumed indoor victim half the age of the street walkers, was an attempt by the murderer to group that murder with the previous ones.
-Ive never claimed that Hutchinson was coerced, I have suggested that his story was made up with the intent of assigning blame to someone specific.
-Abberlines acceptance of Hutchinsons statement, and written support of it, most probably reflects his inside knowledge of the local underground figures due to his extensive investigative work in this area of town, and his laudable eagerness to solve these murders.

Since there is an underlying, far more important investigation going on simultaneously with the Ripper investigations, involving some of the key officials in the Ripper cases and members of government, and since we have comments from a senior police official of an expressed belief of Irish self rule involvement in the crimes...the one who penned the Memorandum, and since in Mary Kellys case we have evidence both of a personal knowledge of killer and prey, and, Irish Constabularies and Members of Parliament...(one week after re-convening)...visiting the murder site at the beginning of the week when crowds and controls were in place,...it would seem we have ample framework for considering how all these various factions and activities might have overlapped.

It might also be prudent to explore possible ways in which the victims could have interacted with each other.

Nothing here is as insular as a "Canonization" would make it seem.

Just to clear a few points up.

My best regards all

That's fairly well stated Michael, for a digital thinker. While what you say is true, the skeptics are still waiting for the connection between these high minded activities and the savage murders of unfortunates in Whitechapel.

All we know is that several women were murdered and mutilated at that time. That usually means some guy is roaming around who likes murdering and mutilating women. It seems Parnellian, Prussian or Fenian involvement is as equally far fetched and complex as the Royal Conspiracy Theory.......... and we know what everyone thinks of that....

Anyway, I still think C's 1,2,4 and 5 have the same signature. On back, legs spread, throat cut, abdomen opened.........M.O. and signature are different...

A little bit of inside information Greg, Lord Randolph Churchill was tribly in chief, code name, six and seven eights. Warren was seven and a quarter

Good one Observer. I bet Abberline was 7 3/8....



Greg

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

It seems that people can easily mis-read a posters intentions, and therefore miss the contextual point being made. I wish I was as elequent as AP Wolf when it comes to expressing digital thoughts,but since I have to be content with lesser skills, heres some rebuttal in point form;

-The Signature of the killer that was responsible for Polly and Annie changed with Liz, changed back somewhat with Kate, and then a psuedo version with Mary Kelly. Therefore, as Lynn pointed out many experts who share his opinion, it is most reasonable at this point in time to include only three of the five Canonicals in one spree.
-Since the Canonical Group is not based on the actual evidence but rather the opinions of some prominent contemporary officials and modern theorists, discussing other theories should NOT be held up to greater standards.
-What we can say for a fact is that there were clandestine operations run by many senior Ripper investigators at the same time as the Ripper crimes, concerning threats from various locations abroad.
-Ive said many times that the mutilation of Mary Kelly, an assumed indoor victim half the age of the street walkers, was an attempt by the murderer to group that murder with the previous ones.
-Ive never claimed that Hutchinson was coerced, I have suggested that his story was made up with the intent of assigning blame to someone specific.
-Abberlines acceptance of Hutchinsons statement, and written support of it, most probably reflects his inside knowledge of the local underground figures due to his extensive investigative work in this area of town, and his laudable eagerness to solve these murders.

Since there is an underlying, far more important investigation going on simultaneously with the Ripper investigations, involving some of the key officials in the Ripper cases and members of government, and since we have comments from a senior police official of an expressed belief of Irish self rule involvement in the crimes...the one who penned the Memorandum, and since in Mary Kellys case we have evidence both of a personal knowledge of killer and prey, and, Irish Constabularies and Members of Parliament...(one week after re-convening)...visiting the murder site at the beginning of the week when crowds and controls were in place,...it would seem we have ample framework for considering how all these various factions and activities might have overlapped.

It might also be prudent to explore possible ways in which the victims could have interacted with each other.

Nothing here is as insular as a "Canonization" would make it seem.

Just to clear a few points up.

My best regards all

[Bridewell]

I think there is some confusion here. I am not of the opinion that Hutchinson was coerced into giving a false statement. In fact I believe the opposite is the case. I believe Hutchinson acted upon his own initiative. I was refuting the suggestion that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement, and mistakenly had him giving his statement at the inquest. The post you bring to light.

"Quite true Micheal, my mistake, but it does not alter the fact that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement."

was a correction to my previous post, and me reiterating that despite Hutchinson not appearing at the inquest, the fact still remained that the poster ( Mr Cates) had still entertained the thoughts that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement. Something that I believe was very very unlikely.

And if you can decipher the above, you are a better man than I am. I would suggest that you go back and read all the posts concerned with this matter.

Regards

Observer

Hi Observer,

If you were yourself quoting someone else, then I apologise for mistaking your meaning.

[Ben]

They didn't have time to investigate him before Abberline wrote his report. Abberline only said "I believe him" (paraphrase), which is something we have to trust.

I'll address this only briefly as I don't wish to get bogged down in another off-topic Hutchinson debate. It isn't a question of "trust". I've no doubt that Abberline felt that way at the time, but it's equally clear from various sources that the credence initially invested in Hutchinson's account was later retracted. There is no evidence that he was ever considered a suspect, and it would have been nigh on impossible to exonerate him as one even if he was. "Sitting in front" of someone is a notoriously false barometer for assessing truthfulness as it places too much emphasis on body language interpretation. "Oh, he seems very confident and matter-of-fact, so he can't be lying", and other equally incautious deductions can be the result.

But this has all been done to death numerous times, so back on topic we go.

Nevertheless, this other man, the "Accoster"...was arrested about 8:30 the previous night he was not detained for much more than 12 hrs, and most of that was nighttime.

Where is it said or suggested that the man was arrested at that time? And how long does it take to verify an alibi? "I was in Finsbury at the time as my landlady will confirm" or any vaguely similar claim can be looked into relatively quickly. It certainly wouldn't require 12 hours! I'd query the value of those Sutcliffe comparisons, incidentally. Sutcliffe was interviewed as one of the potentially hundreds of men who fit the dark, bearded description provided by witnesses. He was not dragged in as someone who had allegedly accosted a women right where the murder were being committed, as your flushed foreigner was. Obviously the latter necessitates a more thorough investigation, i.e. more than the taking down of a name and an address.

If you were 5' 2'' you might describe him as tall if he were 5' 6-7'', "Tall" is still a relative term.

No it isn't a relative term. It's an objective term used to describe people who actually are tall according to conventionally accepted understanding, which nearly always mean's around 6ft and over. No sane person abandons all heigh-assessing rationale just because s/he happens to be an extreme of height. Would a midget describe a mini as a large car? Even if we do use your logic, remember that Sarah Lewis, who described her Bethnal man as short in stature, was herself alluded to in the press as a "doleful little body".

So on the one hand we have petite Sarah Lewis referring to a short man, and on the other we have a tall foreigner. They were, without any shadow of a doubt, different people, and there is no good reason to think either of them killed anyone.

All the best,
Ben

[Observer]

On what basis do you state this to be a fact as opposed to an opinion?

I think there is some confusion here. I am not of the opinion that Hutchinson was coerced into giving a false statement. In fact I believe the opposite is the case. I believe Hutchinson acted upon his own initiative. I was refuting the suggestion that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement, and mistakenly had him giving his statement at the inquest. The post you bring to light.

"Quite true Micheal, my mistake, but it does not alter the fact that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement."

was a correction to my previous post, and me reiterating that despite Hutchinson not appearing at the inquest, the fact still remained that the poster ( Mr Cates) had still entertained the thoughts that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement. Something that I believe was very very unlikely.

And if you can decipher the above, you are a better man than I am. I would suggest that you go back and read all the posts concerned with this matter.

Regards

Observer

[Wickerman]

Jon, are you saying that "Kate" is Maria Harvey?

They don't sound like the same person to me. "Kate" was apparently staying with MJK long enough to pay weekly rent. Maria only confirms to staying with MJK a couple days before she was murdered. Barnett claims he left on October 30th because of someone MJK took in.

"Kate" seems to match Barnett's story where Maria's doesn't. Does anyone have records as to who stayed in MJK's room after her murder?

DRoy

I don't think your 'Kate' was using her real name in the article, or if she was then she doesn't seem to fit in with what we know about Mary Kelly.

We seem to have four names of women who either visited Mary or stayed with her in her last week.
Lizzie Albrook apparently lived in Millers Court, but visited Mary on Thursday 8th.

We have a "Julia" offered by Barnett..
"We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected; and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left her, and took lodgings elsewhere."

Maria Harvey gave a different address at the inquest. So even though she claimed to have stayed overnight twice (Mon/Tue), she doesn't appear to be living with Mary permanently.

Then there is this "Margaret", apparently not her real name..
"A young woman who goes by the name of Margaret says:- I saw Kelly on Thursday night in Dorset street. She told me she had no money, and intended to make away with herself. Shortly after that a man of shabby appearance came up, and Kelly walked away with him."
Her story only appears on the 12th, then by the 17th Lizzie Albrook appears, their stories are not too dissimilar.

Mary only had a three-quarter bed, so where did she expect this "unfortunate" (Julia) to sleep while Barnett was there?

Regards, Jon S.

[DRoy]

The Daily News appeared to draw the same conclusion.

In Maria Harvey, the woman who had been compassionately taken in by Kelly, the Court had its one amusing witness.

Jon, are you saying that "Kate" is Maria Harvey?

They don't sound like the same person to me. "Kate" was apparently staying with MJK long enough to pay weekly rent. Maria only confirms to staying with MJK a couple days before she was murdered. Barnett claims he left on October 30th because of someone MJK took in.

"Kate" seems to match Barnett's story where Maria's doesn't. Does anyone have records as to who stayed in MJK's room after her murder?

DRoy

[Bridewell]

Quite true Micheal, my mistake, but it does not alter the fact that Hutchinson was co-erced into giving a false statement.

On what basis do you state this to be a fact as opposed to an opinion?

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi DRoy.

The Daily News appeared to draw the same conclusion.

In Maria Harvey, the woman who had been compassionately taken in by Kelly, the Court had its one amusing witness.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

murky

Hello Greg. Thanks.

"Yes Lynn, we have many opinions and when we veer outside the canon things get even murkier..."

Agreed. Quite murky.

"I wish I was firm in my convictions but I'm hoping for the unexpected evidence to tilt the scale.."

New evidence would be lovely. I hope for it as well.

"It may have been you who first said it, not sure, but the idea was that 1888 was a very peculiar year..."

Indeed. Whoever said it, I can go along.

Cheers.
LC