Why Would Dew Know Kelly By Sight?

[Natasha]

Hi All,

I find it quite unusual that the police would know Kelly seeing as there are no official police records that suggest she was someone who had frequented the station/s.

Could Dew's admission of knowing Kelly (by sight granted) suggest she was an informant?

Could this be the catalyst for her death?

It is slightly strange that he didn't know the other victims. I say this because if it was in his professional interest to know who is who on the streets he worked, wouldn't it be logical that he would know some of the other victims? It appears he didn't, so why would he know Kelly? I think for Dew to know Kelly by sight would suggest that he and perhaps the other police etc knew her for other perhaps more personal reasons.

[Natasha]

Was Dew Hutchinson?

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

I find it quite unusual that the police would know Kelly seeing as there are no official police records that suggest she was someone who had frequented the station/s.
.
.
. so why would he know Kelly? I think for Dew to know Kelly by sight would suggest that he and perhaps the other police etc knew her for other perhaps more personal reasons.

Hi Nats.
Dew does give the reason, he had seen her walking the streets:

"...I knew Marie quite well by sight. Often I had seen her parading along Commercial Street, between Flower-and-Dean Street and Aldgate, or along Whitechapel Road. She was usually in the company of two or three of her kind, fairly neatly dressed and invariably wearing a clean white apron, but no hat."

[GUT]

I think I'd find it stranger if the local bobby pounding the same beat day in day out didn't know most of the locals by sight.

I grew up in a smallish town with only a couple of police and they knew everybody, or near enough to everybody by name, by what they drove, by where the lived. In the days of local policing t was pretty much expected of them.

[Natasha]

Hi Nats.
Dew does give the reason, he had seen her walking the streets:

"...I knew Marie quite well by sight. Often I had seen her parading along Commercial Street, between Flower-and-Dean Street and Aldgate, or along Whitechapel Road. She was usually in the company of two or three of her kind, fairly neatly dressed and invariably wearing a clean white apron, but no hat."

Hi Jon,

I still think something is amiss here. How would he know she was the same woman after she was killed, when Barnett could only id Kelly by her eyes and ears?

Also as it's been pointed out frequently Mary Kelly was a fairly popular name.

He doesn't even refer by name who the other women who accompanied Kelly were. Surely he would know after the murder at least who those women were.

I suppose he could have been jumping on the bandwagon to perhaps have a small part in the ripper case, but I just think it unprofessional of him to do so.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I still think something is amiss here. How would he know she was the same woman after she was killed, when Barnett could only id Kelly by her eyes and ears?

Hi Nats.
I would hazard a guess that Dew is merely going on the fact he knew Mary Kelly walked those streets, and it was Mary Kelly who was found murdered.
I don't think an ID by him was necessary, he was going on what was known.

[Natasha]

I think I'd find it stranger if the local bobby pounding the same beat day in day out didn't know most of the locals by sight.

I grew up in a smallish town with only a couple of police and they knew everybody, or near enough to everybody by name, by what they drove, by where the lived. In the days of local policing t was pretty much expected of them.

I know I said I thought it was strange that the police would know Kelly, but I meant it in the sense that Dew talks about her, but not the other victims. Why would he know her and not the others? Especially since she was the one who was unrecognisable after death. Eddowes lived down the road from Kelly, why was she not someone Dew had seen out and about on occasion?

[Natasha]

Hi Nats.
I would hazard a guess that Dew is merely going on the fact he knew Mary Kelly walked those streets, and it was Mary Kelly who was found murdered.
I don't think an ID by him was necessary, he was going on what was known.

I guess, but he didn't know her name, how did he come to the conclusion it was the same woman?

Reading the reports about Kelly I get the feeling there is a script here that everyone (the officials) has stuck to. There is no enlightening info about her they all say the same thing, it all seems like someone has been told to stick to the script. This is where Maxwell is relevant, maybe there is truth in her statement.

[Wickerman]

I guess, but he didn't know her name, how did he come to the conclusion it was the same woman?

Well, I'm not big on memoirs, so I'm the last person to try justify one

Other police might have told him it was the same woman, then he may have recollected the one attractive woman who had long red hair, no hat and a clean white apron, who no longer walked those streets?

There inevitably will be a degree of hyperbole in any recollections.

[Natasha]

Well, I'm not big on memoirs, so I'm the last person to try justify one

Other police might have told him it was the same woman, then he may have recollected the one attractive woman who had long red hair, no hat and a clean white apron, who no longer walked those streets?

There inevitably will be a degree of hyperbole in any recollections.

Well her appearance is something that has been commented on alot.

So perhaps case closed on this thread

[Wickerman]

It is slightly strange that he didn't know the other victims.

It is years since I read Dew's account, but here is one remark about Emma Smith.

"There was a touch of culture in her speech unusual in her class."

Is that true?, if so, how could he know that unless he had spoken to her?
Or, has he obtained that info from someone else?

So difficult to sort fact from fiction.

[Natasha]

It is years since I read Dew's account, but here is one remark about Emma Smith.

"There was a touch of culture in her speech unusual in her class."

Is that true?, if so, how could he know that unless he had spoken to her?
Or, has he obtained that info from someone else?

So difficult to sort fact from fiction.

Thanks for highlighting that.

The way he describes her by saying there was something about her, I think he did know her otherwise he would have said it like he was quoting what someone else said: it was said she spoke with a touch of culture etc etc.
He even describes how she says: "They would not understand now any more than they understood then. I must live somehow." saying it was said wistfully.

I don't think he was talking about knowing of her after the attack because he says "the detectives" when talking about them getting a statement from Smith after the attack, he never included himself being there. Also she never gained consciousness.

I don't know what he would gain from lying about that. If he was lying would he not say that he also knew the others?

Having said that though there is the fact that little is known about Kelly & Smith, so if he did lie nobody could really challenge him too much. But then again he said he was present at the discovery of Kelly's body and there was no mention, as far as we know, that he was there. Why take the risk of saying he was, when people could easily discredit him? As I said before I don't see what he would gain from lying.

[Rosella]

Didn't Dew write his memoirs in 1938, when probably many of his contemporaries and most of his superiors in the Police force were dead or had failing memories? Also Scotland Yard would hardly be leaping to contradict him.

In his retirement Dew was often asked by newspapers to comment, speculate and give his opinion on various famous cases of the time, like Agatha Christie's disappearance. His name was therefore well-known to the British public.

When it came to writing his memoirs he might have felt that readers would have felt disappointed if he'd said he really hadn't seen any of the Ripper crime scenes. So, for entertainment value, maybe one or two reminiscences of what colleagues and senior officers had said at the time re-surfaced.

I do think though, that Dew and other coppers did know some local prostitutes by sight.

[Natasha]

Didn't Dew write his memoirs in 1938, when probably many of his contemporaries and most of his superiors in the Police force were dead or had failing memories? Also Scotland Yard would hardly be leaping to contradict him.

In his retirement Dew was often asked by newspapers to comment, speculate and give his opinion on various famous cases of the time, like Agatha Christie's disappearance. His name was therefore well-known to the British public.

When it came to writing his memoirs he might have felt that readers would have felt disappointed if he'd said he really hadn't seen any of the Ripper crime scenes. So, for entertainment value, maybe one or two reminiscences of what colleagues and senior officers had said at the time re-surfaced.

I do think though, that Dew and other coppers did know some local prostitutes by sight.

It did cross my mind that perhaps his contemporaries wouldn't be alive to contradict him, but like I have mentioned before if that was the case then surely he would have made a comment about the others.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jon,

I still think something is amiss here. How would he know she was the same woman after she was killed, when Barnett could only id Kelly by her eyes and ears?

Also as it's been pointed out frequently Mary Kelly was a fairly popular name.

He doesn't even refer by name who the other women who accompanied Kelly were. Surely he would know after the murder at least who those women were.

I suppose he could have been jumping on the bandwagon to perhaps have a small part in the ripper case, but I just think it unprofessional of him to do so.

Hi Natasha,

By the time he wrote the memoirs, Walter Dew was one of the best known Scotland Yard inspectors, because he was the man who caught and brought back Dr. Crippen in 1910. It was front line news of the day. In face, the memoirs are called "I Caught Crippen". He doesn't need to advertise his credentials - they're known. He was also involved, in 1907, in the conclusion of the Druce-Portland identity mystery. Why try to build up any reputation on being a humble constable involved in a minor way at best in a prominent, but unsolved mystery of half a century earlier?

From what I understand of Dew, he was not a bad sort of fellow. He had no apparent chips on his shoulders against other Scotland Yard types (like Anderson and MacNaughten against each other). So he is not likely to mention anything that was negative regarding them.

Jeff