True or not ?

[DVV]

Is it true that Walter Dew never went to Millers Court and never saw Kelly's body there ?

[Pontius2000]

I believe he went there just as he said. the first officer that Bowyer notified was Insp Beck, and Dew describes this accurately. says that Beck told him to follow him and they gathered other constables as they went. I also believe that he went in the room and almost fell in the mess as he described, when they went to move the bed (for the camera) and lift the body.

there were some inaccuracies (his recollection was 50 years later), but he was very accurate on a lot of things...still remembering witness names and accounts, etc.

I see no reason to think he would have lied or embellished, I think he was there. Paul Begg's 2004 book is a good read. I believe, like Begg, that while the memory gets somewhat foggy with time, there's no real reason or evidence behind these law enforcement personel to outright lie.

I also think there were very real circumstances surrounding Kosminski that made Anderson think he was JtR, even if he wasn't.

same with Druitt and Mcnaghten.

most of these men were very religious and seemed to have very high moral standards. I don't believe they would lie outright.

[Rubyretro]

I've no idea if Drew lied or not. I'd just like to point up the fact that it is
totally impossible to my mind to spot who is too morally upright to lie or not.

I've bought and sold things all my life, and I can say that it is totally impossible to judge who would steal or not (and it's linked somewhere).

The ones that look dodgy (or say dodgy things) are just the ones that you're more suspicious of and so catch out more. It's the others that you'd never suspect who get away with it , and so develop a sense of impunity

[Pontius2000]

I've no idea if Drew lied or not. I'd just like to point up the fact that it is
totally impossible to my mind to spot who is too morally upright to lie or not.

I'll go ahead and disagree with that one. I work with about 25 people in my office and I could absolutely tell you the ones who would cheat on their spouses, the ones who aren't good parents. I could tell you who would stab you in the back in order to get a promotion. so I think it's pretty easy to see who is morally upright.

most of these men in question had very good reputation and were known to be very religious. a believe a few devoted their lives to mission work after retiring from the police. Anderson wrote religious books almost exclusively. Swanson was known to be very kind and sympathetic to the poorest people in the East End. these are people who I have no problem saying were "morally upright", unless you or somebody else can point to some proof that says otherwise.

they got some facts wrong or misremembered along the way, but there is not one shred of evidence to suggest any of them lied.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I'll go ahead and disagree with that one. I work with about 25 people in my office and I could absolutely tell you the ones who would cheat on their spouses, the ones who aren't good parents. I could tell you who would stab you in the back in order to get a promotion. so I think it's pretty easy to see who is morally upright

.

You're working on a sample of 25 people whom you have some personal knowledge of, so you're not judging them just by their 'public' persona.

I can tell you that you can't spot a shoplifter. In an Ikea where I have worked, they have caught a gendarme shoplifting and even a judge ! How many charity workers have been caught stealing from the charities that they work for, or vicars cheating on their wives ? -there are often stories in the papers. How many people who would consider themselves as honest would fiddle their taxes or lie on their CV ? What about all those politicians caught
fiddling their expenses ? Policemen cheating on ther wives.

These are supposed to be 'morally upright' people according to their jobs.

Writing 'Memoirs' gives great scope for lying, whether outright, obliquely,
maliciously, or simply by omission and exaggeration. We can't state 'so-and-so' would NEVER lie, because he was 'morally upright'.

[DVV]

Bowyer : "We came back with the Inspector" (ie : Beck)

McCarthy : "I told Inspector Beck what I had seen. He put on his hat and coat and came with me at once."

No mention of a Detective named Dew.

[Fisherman]

DVV:

"No mention of a Detective named Dew."

No, David - but that does not necessarily mean that he would not have been there. If Bowyer had fetched a doctor, and if that doctor had accompanied him to Miller´s court together with an assistant, we have no way of being certain that this assistant would ever have been mentioned - he would just have tagged along, sort of. Chances are that he would not have been referred to, since he was not the one Bowyer actually came for.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

possibly so, point taken.

However, in his account Dew seems to imply that McCarthy never went to the Station - only Bowyer.

Which is in flat contradiction with Bowyer and McCarthy testimonies at the inquest.

Amitiés
David

[Fisherman]

David:

"in his account Dew seems to imply that McCarthy never went to the Station - only Bowyer.

Which is in flat contradiction with Bowyer and McCarthy testimonies at the inquest."

From "Time is on my side", Don Soudens interesting dissertation on the Kelly slaying:

"There is another very suggestive difference between McCarthy's police statement on the 9th and his inquest testimony on the 12th, but in this instance he omitted information at the inquest rather than adding something. In his statement to the police, McCarthy said "I then despatched Bowyer to the Police Station Commercial Street (following myself) to acquaint the Police." At the inquest, however, McCarthy carefully said "I and Bowyer went then to the Police Court Commercial Street. . . ." suggesting that they had gone together, without actually impeaching his previous statement.

This subtle but important change also appears in Bowyer's testimony. In his police statement, Bowyer said "Mr. McCarthy who also looked into the room and at once dispatched [me] to the police Station Commercial Street, and informed the Inspector on duty. (Insp Beck) who returned with him and his employer who had also followed to the Station." At the inquest, however, this had changed to "We both then went directly to the police station. . . ." Bowyer, it would seem, was not so clever a wordsmith as his employer.

The change between their statements to the police on November 9 and their inquest testimony sounds like a deliberate attempt to obscure the fact that McCarthy had sent Bowyer for the police and only after an interval did he himself follow."

Not uninteresting, I should say!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Not uninteresting, I should say!
Fisherman

You can say it again !

However, who did talk to Beck at the station ?
Was it Bowyer ? (as Dew tells us)
Was it McCarthy ?

Bowyer's police statement (9 Nov) isn't clearly worded but seems to have Bowyer talking to Beck.

McCarthy at the inquest says : "I enquired at first for other inspectors. I told inspector Beck what I had seen. He put on his hat and coat and came with me at once."

Amitiés
David

[Fisherman]

Hi David!

I think that we have to open up for a scenario where Bowyer reaches the station first, short of breath, and announcing - à la Dew´s memoirs - that Jack McCarthy sent him. After that, McCarthy himself would have arrived, shortly after Bowyer, and taking over the conversation with Beck.

Leastways, that is the one version that covers the details best, I think. But as you well know, we are dealing with memoirs written by a 75-year old man, and I am not opposed to other interpretations. It is a slightly entangled business, whichever way we look at it ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Pontius2000]

every account I've ever seen says that McCarthy told Bowyer to go to the police. Then, McCarthy locked up the shop and followed soon behind him.

yes, Beck did go. why would you assume that he would go alone when he's in a police station with other police in a part of the city that's already in a panic over these murders?

the level of "conspiracy theory" and "the police lie" on this board is just silly, imo. why would McCarthy mention Dew at the inquest? it would've been clear to anyone there that Beck was the one in charge.

as for the 'morally upright', I'm not continuing with that argument. I can spend 5 minutes with a person and tell what kind of character they have. maybe I'm just a better, or quicker, judge of character. There's not one cross word written about any of these men by their contemporaries. no reason I would see to believe that they would lie outright, unless somebody can point out the reasoning behind it.

[DVV]

I think that we have to open up for a scenario where Bowyer reaches the station first, short of breath, and announcing - à la Dew´s memoirs - that Jack McCarthy sent him. After that, McCarthy himself would have arrived, shortly after Bowyer, and taking over the conversation with Beck.

Fisherman

That's a reasonable scenario to me.

However, while I accept the point that Bowyer and McCarthy didn't need to mention Dew in their police statement nor in their inquest testimony, in his memoirs Dew is insistent that McCarthy was well known to the police. He even talks a bit about him. So how could he remember Bowyer and forget McCarthy, who certainly was with Beck and Bowyer from the station to Millers Court ?

As you said he was an old man in the 30s...

Still, I have the feeling that the Kelly's part in his book may well have been more than slightly embellished. Indeed, some details clearly belong to Mary's romance.
In my opinion it's enough to question the very presence of Dew at Millers Court. He may have been at the station, have seen Bowyer's arrival, but wasn't ordered to come along (?).

In any case, we are not dealing with conspiracy (don't worry, Pontius) but embellishment.

Amitiés
David

[Pontius2000]

In any case, we are not dealing with conspiracy (don't worry, Pontius) but embellishment.

Amitiés
David

so 50 years later, his memory was good enough to actually remember a witness' name and their account. and he says that he slipped in the mess on the floor, which is believable that SOMEBODY would/could have slipped in it since the 2nd Kelly picture is proof that the bed and table were moved to make room for the camera. so what exactly about his statements makes you think he's lying?

and you're saying that when someone comes into the station and tells Beck that another woman has been murdered by Jack The Ripper, Beck just says to himself, "ok, I'm gonna handle this one on my own and not grab any of the other cops that are around." is that right? because that appears to be exactly what you're suggesting.

[Steven Russell]

"as for the 'morally upright', I'm not continuing with that argument. I can spend 5 minutes with a person and tell what kind of character they have. maybe I'm just a better, or quicker, judge of character. There's not one cross word written about any of these men by their contemporaries. no reason I would see to believe that they would lie outright, unless somebody can point out the reasoning behind it."

Pontius 2000 - does that mean that no-one has ever done or said anything to cause you to alter the opinion you formed of their character within five minutes of meeting them? Remarkable.

On another thread, there has been much - often heated - discussion of Anderson's character and in particular his attitude to lying. Your statement about "not one cross word" is certainly not true in his case. Indeed, evidence has been presented which shows clearly that several of his contemporaries had rather a low opinion of him and were not afraid to say so.

And I strongly believe it to be a mistake to equate religiosity with moral rectitude. Strong religious convictions can have the effect of endowing a person with a sense of moral superiority. They are doing God's work therefore He is on their side so whatever they do or say is justified because they are doing God's work and He is on their side. Wonderful circular logic.

Now I am not calling Dew or Anderson a liar. But it is wrong to say that Anderson's character was never called into question and it is wrong to assume that someone would not lie because they are religious.

Best wishes,
Steve.