Once you have eliminated the impossible

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon

But would Kelly have risked McCarthy saying "Oh thanks for the 6p I'll put that towards your rent arrears"?

I think not.

G'day GUT.

A great point, or perhaps if served by Mrs McCarthy who may have had a little more compassion?

I thought the very same point as you about that candle, apparently, regardless of the suggested debt McCarthy sold Kelly a candle on Wednesday.
Which caused me to pose the question, was that debt real or was it fabricated in order to extort money from her relatives who might be expected to settle any debts when they turned up at the funeral?

[Wickerman]

I know from some of my wifey's text books that at least some places you took your own billy and they'd just put it in there.

It had an added benefit that you could then hang it over the coals if needed to keep it warm.

I think we have an account of someone taking their own plate to the chandlers shop to fetch supper.
Used newspapers were the cheapest option I suppose, that is what I expected Packer to have used to wrap his produce in, but the account of the grapes doesn't actually say so.

[Errata]

In historical times, as I have read, people tended to sleep in shorter cycles than we are used to today. They would go to sleep soon after sunset, in the era before electricity, sleep for four or five hours, then alternate that with a period of wakefulness around midnight to two or three, then go to sleep again until dawn.

It wasn't uncommon for people to pass the wakeful hours by reading, some crafting, some visiting friends for conversation, and so forth. I think it makes sense for people in cities, who may have worked a long shift, to have their supper at midnight or later. And I know I've seen a witness account saying she was coming back from visiting a friend at what we'd consider a very late hour (but given this information, may make more sense.)

That was more 15th century than 19th. Industrialization killed that particular habit. Poverty wasn't great for it either.

Though technically for peak efficiency we should be starting our workdays at 10. So maybe it will come back.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
Of course mutton and bread is not a typical breakfast and all the posts confirm my own thoughts,

I was only teasing, just making fun.

In the stride case I seem to remember reading someone saw someone carrying a parcel wrapped in newspaper, which in all likelihood was James Brown heading off home with his supper.

PC Smith saw Stride talking with a man carrying a newspaper parcel, at the same time & location that Packer said he saw Stride with a man who (we are told) bought grapes from him.
Both Brown's home & the chandler's shop were south of that spot which makes it difficult for that man to have been James Brown.

I use the fish and potatoes simply to back a time of death as being 6 or before.Nothing really unbelievable about it so not sure why everyone is now taking a view that she could have had fish for breakfast?

Wouldn't "6 or before" be breakfast?

Of course anything is possible but why stretch credulity
The fish and potato had not digested,the likelihood is that the victim had eaten it soon before death...chances are it was bought in the small hours

I'm not seeing what you call "stretching credulity", but yes it does appear the fish & potatoes had not fully digested by the time of her death. From the details, or lack thereof, we can't determine the extent of the digestion with any accuracy.

[packers stem]

Wouldn't "6 or before" be breakfast?

Hi Wickerman
Quite so thus emphasizing the point that the Millers Court victim had consumed the meal in the small hours.Everything I've read about digestion of food suggests 1-3 hours for both fish and potatoes.If there was enough left undigested for Bond to identify what it was surely less than 3 hours?
There was an excellent dissertation on this site a few years back by wolf van der linden on the subject in regards to the Chapman murder where he had obtained an expert view on the issue of the baked potato,can't seem to spot it now

I'm not seeing what you call "stretching credulity", but yes it does appear the fish & potatoes had not fully digested by the time of her death. From the details, or lack thereof, we can't determine the extent of the digestion with any accuracy.

The stretching credulity relates to suggestions that Kelly was murdered AFTER being seen by Maxwell and Lewis by suggesting a fish supper could be bought for breakfast.. I know you suspect the same rough time of death as me anyway we just disagree on maxwell and Lewis I think
An interesting point is that we're mostly creatures of habit.If Kelly was in the habit of buying her fish from the same street vendor which I would consider normal....why did he not come forward? Maybe Kelly didn't have a fish supper, someone else did...

[Rosella]

Joseph Kallinger. I was reading about him today.

Thanks very much Harry. Dreadful man!

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
Quite so thus emphasizing the point that the Millers Court victim had consumed the meal in the small hours.Everything I've read about digestion of food suggests 1-3 hours for both fish and potatoes.If there was enough left undigested for Bond to identify what it was surely less than 3 hours?

Hi Packers.
It's a shame Bond did not quantify the remains, was there more in the intestines than the stomach, or vice versa? The difference could indicate hours, but generally I think up to three hours is reasonable.

Assuming the cry of murder, between 3:30-4:00am, is the point of attack then roughly 12:30-1:00am would be the time of her meal.
This would suggest she ate after her liaison with Blotchy.

I can't imagine this fact being overlooked by the authorities of the time.
Digestion was the 4th key factor for determining time of death, so it was of some significance.

Once the remains of food was discovered the doctor would inform the police because they now have a potential time window to focus on. I'm sure the police would have made inquiries at the various food stalls, & shops open between 11:00-3:00am.

The stretching credulity relates to suggestions that Kelly was murdered AFTER being seen by Maxwell and Lewis by suggesting a fish supper could be bought for breakfast.. I know you suspect the same rough time of death as me anyway we just disagree on maxwell and Lewis I think
An interesting point is that we're mostly creatures of habit.If Kelly was in the habit of buying her fish from the same street vendor which I would consider normal....why did he not come forward? Maybe Kelly didn't have a fish supper, someone else did...

No-one would come forward, the remains of food were not published in the press and not mentioned at the inquest - so no-one knew.

That does not mean the police did not uncover the source, we have no record of the police investigation. It is often forgotten that information given at the inquest does not represent the full and total knowledge of the police investigation.

[packers stem]

Hi Wickerman

No-one would come forward, the remains of food were not published in the press and not mentioned at the inquest - so no-one knew.

I think most of us have our favourite kebab house,indian,chip shop etc.
There's a pretty good chance that Kelly would have had her favourite street vendor for cetain meals.Walking the streets at 1 or 2 am fairly regularly she may well have stopped to chat from time to time and be fairly well known to him as a regular customer.
Whereas lots of people came forward to tell of sightings,no food vendor did.
It's not about what was known about her meal it's about "ooh,i saw her at 2 at the stall" type of thing...just a thought

That does not mean the police did not uncover the source, we have no record of the police investigation. It is often forgotten that information given at the inquest does not represent the full and total knowledge of the police investigation.

True,but the press at the time were all over everything.And often gave us info that the authorities failed to or denied...see the mccarthy letter post

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
.
.
Whereas lots of people came forward to tell of sightings,no food vendor did.
It's not about what was known about her meal it's about "ooh,i saw her at 2 at the stall" type of thing...just a thought

If you recall, we read that 53 witnesses gave statements to police about Kelly being seen with a stranger.

"As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin."
Echo, 13 Nov. 1888.

We have no idea who they were or indeed how many in total came forward to offer statements, only the press select a handful to publish.
To say someone did not come forward just because the press did not print the story is assuming too much. What we do not read in the press is no guide to how the investigation is progressing.

.....but the press at the time were all over everything.And often gave us info that the authorities failed to or denied...see the mccarthy letter post

The press were complaining throughout the investigation that the police will tell them nothing. Also, we do have instances where the press complain that the police have lied to them, I don't find that surprising in the least.

The police were wrong not to use the press, I don't deny that, but the culture between the press and police was different than today.
Also, we do have cases where the press published false stories, in some cases intentionally made up and in other cases just plain incorrect.

We just need to be very careful in what we choose to believe in the press, especially if no source is given or if the story is vague on details.

[packers stem]

If you recall, we read that 53 witnesses gave statements to police about Kelly being seen with a stranger.

"As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin."
Echo, 13 Nov. 1888.

We have no idea who they were or indeed how many in total came forward to offer statements, only the press select a handful to publish.
To say someone did not come forward just because the press did not print the story is assuming too much. What we do not read in the press is no guide to how the investigation is progressing.



The press were complaining throughout the investigation that the police will tell them nothing. Also, we do have instances where the press complain that the police have lied to them, I don't find that surprising in the least.

The police were wrong not to use the press, I don't deny that, but the culture between the press and police was different than today.
Also, we do have cases where the press published false stories, in some cases intentionally made up and in other cases just plain incorrect.

We just need to be very careful in what we choose to believe in the press, especially if no source is given or if the story is vague on details.

Fair Comment.We need to be careful of everything though,not just the press and in a lot of instances i'm happier with the press.
Why deny the existence of the McCarthy letter? Could easily have said it's just another hoax like the hoaxes they produces facsimies of

[Emma Carew]

Playing the police?

(Forgive my digression from the "fish and chips" part of the thread - new and apparently late to the party of the "What kind of man was he?" speculation.)

Wouldn't the killer have had to be a person who knew, to an extent, how to confuse the police? The entire investigation seems to have been bungled by an over-reliance on witness testimony, lack of forensic evidence, and a multitude of weird little clues that can be interpreted a thousand different ways. I see a person clever enough to know that--with the system as it was--the myriad of detectives and investigators would all fixate on different things about the murders (the mode of killing, the Jewish implications, the letters) and draw different conclusions about who he must be. Even witnesses can be manipulated -- by dressing like a sailor, or like a man of Jewish appearance (whatever that means), the killer takes the focus away from his actual features and puts them onto his costume. Witnesses are notorious for forgetting/messing up small details or even large ones. Without knowing that they were potentially witnessing the precursor to a murder, how much attention could all those witnesses actually have been paying, and how likely were they to precisely recall everything later? There have been several modern studies (never a psych/criminal justice major, so not sure what they're called--only that they exist) about the unreliability of visual witness testimony. I think the killer knew that witnesses weren't 100% reliable especially at night, and used that to his advantage as well, laying several different trails for the police to follow -- all dead ends.

Basically, I'm talking about a "logical" or unemotional crime driven by a (to the killer) reasonable wish for these women to die, disguised as a series of crimes of passion. People assumed at the time that Jack must be driven by some grand motive (sex, eugenics, science, anatomical research, conspiracy) but not necessarily by a motive that was only grand to him. The weird little coincidences that seem to mean something, or that could be used to signify someone, actually mean nothing and are meant to mislead. (Elizabeth Long, witness, leading into Long Liz, victim; Michael Kidney, boyfriend of Stride, and missing kidney that was later sent to police; dual Mary Kellys; the sudden Jewish connection that seems to have appeared alongside the Stride murder.) He kept things as sensational as possible in order to keep the newspapers full of sensationalism and excitement in order to incite the public's prejudices and suspicions.

I think the killer took advantage of the desire of people to see patterns and reasons for behavior (questionable cause) -- maybe this is giving him too much credit, but he still hasn't been caught over a hundred years later, so if this IS the case, I guess he was successful.

[GUT]

G'day Emma and welcome.

But what Forensic Evidence??

Forensics basically didn't exist.

The "Jewish implication" only really arises from the GSG and we have no idea, in all reality who wrote it.

There were literally thousands of letters and we have no idea if the killer wrore any of them and if so which ones.

[Rosella]

Hi Emma and welcome. Do you mean that you feel that Jack may have decided to bamboozle witnesses by dressing in disguise, in character as it were, in clothing hinting at a profession like being a sailor or a well off Jew in an astrakhan coat etc? Perhaps that hints at someone who acted, was used to the theatre etc.

We know so little about this killer that gathering all the loose threads together about what he knew about detectives, about witnesses, how the police worked etc. would be well nigh impossible at this point in time, anyway.

I don't believe that Jack was an extraordinary smart killer, though he was certainly an incredibly lucky one. My own opinion is that he was a local and an opportunist, a 'disorganised' murderer, who killed in a millieu that suited him down to the ground, grimy, dimly lit, an area full of black alleyways and dark yards and courts where he was able to lure desperately poor women to go with him.

I think he knew the local area like the back of his hand. He probably did keep an eye out for police on the beat and the immediate environment in which he killed these women, yet he also took incredible risks. I'm not so sure that Jack deliberately and consciously set out at any time with a plan, however, whether to confuse or manipulate police or witnesses, or achieve anything other that to kill and mutilate, though I'm sure he secretly enjoyed the terror he caused among the local population.

[curious4]

Sir George

Not saying that Sir George Arthur was the killer, but he did have a passion for the theatre and acting, and the money to have various changes of clothes.

One possibility which has occured to me from time to time is that that a soldier suffering from "battle fatigue" (think that's what it's called nowadays) would make a good suspect. I had a weekend and holiday job, as a schoolgirl, in a private mental hospital and there were two patients who scared me stiff - one who reputedly had committed murder and another, an ex-soldier, who was suffering from what was called shell shock. He was quite "normal", if quiet, but heard voices which he believed were orders. One day he heard a message telling him to kill all women and tried to strangle one of the ward maids. The matron in charge was a very forward-looking woman and was against locking patients up in their rooms so all the patients were free to roam the large house, something I think benefited them greatly but was not without risks. I left not long after this incident and believe he was moved to a safer environment quite quickly. But perhaps a Jack who thought he had his instructions from higher up?

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

G'day Emma and welcome.

But what Forensic Evidence??

Forensics basically didn't exist.

The "Jewish implication" only really arises from the GSG and we have no idea, in all reality who wrote it.

There were literally thousands of letters and we have no idea if the killer wrore any of them and if so which ones.

Morning GUT
Think the Jewish hints were there well before the gsg
Elizabeth Long's Hanbury Street description hinted as much by saying foreign appearance
Think it was the press opinion of 'an englishman couldn't possibly do this sort of thing' helping things along