If (!) history will be rewritten

[John G]

Hello John

Sorry about the delay in answering - been busy with baby-sitting duties! And also with familiarising myself with the case. What it looks like to me is some kind of gang-related punishment. Perhaps she had passed on information of some kind to the police, or owed money. There are two reports on bruising, one saying she wasn't very bruised, and one saying she looked as though she had been kicked all over, which would fit, and also she was reported as saying "haven't you done enough", possibly this was when she was moved. It is also possible that she was attacked somewhere else and then carried to the boarding house, to avoid questioning and to keep an eye on her. I don't know if her attacker(s) expected her to live, but I expect that she was told, as were the people in the lodging house, to stick to the story of the man who was with her. I find it difficult to believe that she wouldn't scream when stabbed so viciously, drunk or not which points to an attack somewhere else.

About McCarthy's involvement. If he was there, it would probably be in connection with what she was said to have done. Can't really see him shacking up with an alcoholic, syphilis-ridden unfortunate. He had strong connections with the entertainment business, so if he did have a mistress it would most likely have been a pretty young dancer. I attach no significance to Mrs Mc's throwing Austin out, women are often more hard-hearted towards other women.

That's my take - they didn't find the jewish-looking man because he didn't exist, it was gang-related, and not JTR either.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

Sorry for the late response! I doubt that it was a gang related attack, as the deputy claimed that the victim was admitted to the lodgings, where she was attacked, in the company of a man, I.e. he didn't admit a gang of men!

What is remarkable is the extent of the cover up, with the deputy, Sullivan and other residents even lying about the room where the attack took place. In fact, Sullivan even moved the victim to another room after the attack: Superintendent Mulvaney commented: " This shows how completely unreliable these people are. The man Sullivan [Crossingham's brother in law] appears to have had the deceased woman removed from No15 cubicle on the third floor to No 44 cubicle on the 1st floor; and told the deputy to say she slept in 44, which was the cubicle pointed out to the deputy's wife to police as that in which the deceased was stabbed."

The deception continued as Sullivan had her dressed in another woman's clothing and put in a cab. Inspector Divall clearly thought it to be an inside job, which is not surprising as the exit gate at the bottom of the stairs was locked, and could only be opened by someone with a key, I.e. Sullivan or the deputy.

In fact, they even tried to maintain the conspiracy when the coroner got involved;

Coroner: "Can you understand how it was that everyone was told that the woman slept in No 44 and not No 15?

Crossingham: "No, except the place was on such a horrible state, and they thought it was going to be a hushed up matter."

Coroner: "A hushed up matter! Why they even showed me to No 44 after the inquest was fixed."

I find Crossingham's explanation for the deceit, I.e. problems with the decor, frankly hilarious. I mean, the place was hardly the Ritz!

Perhaps not surprising Inspector Divall indicated that they might be trying to protect someone of importance. In a report he opined:

"Her assailant is some well known local character, otherwise the Deputy and the lodgers (the house being full) would not be so anxious to shield him, if he had been a stranger which they are evidently doing."

In fact, I see no reason why Sullivan would have been so personally involved, effectively instigating the cover-up, unless he was trying to protect himself or, say, his brother in law (Crossingham), or McCarthy.

[curious4]

Hi C4,

I was thinking of the latter Austin murder, arguably reminiscent of the earlier Whitechapel murders, or at least the attack on Emma Smith (because of the insertion of an object, possibly a knife, into the womb and rectum.) There is also little doubt that a major cover-up took place, which involved Daniel Sullivan, brother-in -law to William Crossingham.

Moreover, in the Bank Holiday Murders Tom Westcott refers to a somewhat vague rumour (based on a overhead conversation on a pub) that Austin and McCarthy were having an affair.

What is known for certain is that, a week before the murder, she'd been living at 37 Dorset Street before being ejected by Elizabeth McCarthy, John McCarthy's wife. However, on the night of the attack she occupied a bed at 35 Dorset Street-the same lodging house that Annie Chapman had been turned out of on the night of her murder-which was let to Austin and a man by the deputy, Henry Moore, and his wife, but they claimed that they were unable to describe the man (very unlike a Whitechapel witness!)

Interestingly, on the night of Kelly's murder Sarah Lewis claimed to have heard a cry of "murder" from the direction of McCarthy's shop, which is not surprising considering it was next door to the Keylor's.

Mind you, perhaps all of these "coincidences" don't really add up to very much!

Hello John

Sorry about the delay in answering - been busy with baby-sitting duties! And also with familiarising myself with the case. What it looks like to me is some kind of gang-related punishment. Perhaps she had passed on information of some kind to the police, or owed money. There are two reports on bruising, one saying she wasn't very bruised, and one saying she looked as though she had been kicked all over, which would fit, and also she was reported as saying "haven't you done enough", possibly this was when she was moved. It is also possible that she was attacked somewhere else and then carried to the boarding house, to avoid questioning and to keep an eye on her. I don't know if her attacker(s) expected her to live, but I expect that she was told, as were the people in the lodging house, to stick to the story of the man who was with her. I find it difficult to believe that she wouldn't scream when stabbed so viciously, drunk or not which points to an attack somewhere else.

About McCarthy's involvement. If he was there, it would probably be in connection with what she was said to have done. Can't really see him shacking up with an alcoholic, syphilis-ridden unfortunate. He had strong connections with the entertainment business, so if he did have a mistress it would most likely have been a pretty young dancer. I attach no significance to Mrs Mc's throwing Austin out, women are often more hard-hearted towards other women.

That's my take - they didn't find the jewish-looking man because he didn't exist, it was gang-related, and not JTR either.

Best wishes
C4

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello John. Thanks.

"Is this something to do with the fact that certain words have more than one meaning?"

Yes, indeed. "Business" is the possibly offending word.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John, Packers,

No, don't think so. Admittedly there is an anonymous letter saying that Mary had notice to quit, but that's taking it a bit too far :-).

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

I was thinking of the latter Austin murder, arguably reminiscent of the earlier Whitechapel murders, or at least the attack on Emma Smith (because of the insertion of an object, possibly a knife, into the womb and rectum.) There is also little doubt that a major cover-up took place, which involved Daniel Sullivan, brother-in -law to William Crossingham.

Moreover, in the Bank Holiday Murders Tom Westcott refers to a somewhat vague rumour (based on a overhead conversation on a pub) that Austin and McCarthy were having an affair.

What is known for certain is that, a week before the murder, she'd been living at 37 Dorset Street before being ejected by Elizabeth McCarthy, John McCarthy's wife. However, on the night of the attack she occupied a bed at 35 Dorset Street-the same lodging house that Annie Chapman had been turned out of on the night of her murder-which was let to Austin and a man by the deputy, Henry Moore, and his wife, but they claimed that they were unable to describe the man (very unlike a Whitechapel witness!)

Interestingly, on the night of Kelly's murder Sarah Lewis claimed to have heard a cry of "murder" from the direction of McCarthy's shop, which is not surprising considering it was next door to the Keylor's.

Mind you, perhaps all of these "coincidences" don't really add up to very much!

[curious4]

Now there's an interesting suspect!

Hello John, Packers,

No, don't think so. Admittedly there is an anonymous letter saying that Mary had notice to quit, but that's taking it a bit too far :-).

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

Now there's an interesting suspect!

Isn't he just

[John G]

The bully was McCarthy.

C4

Now there's an interesting suspect!

[curious4]

Hi,

of course not. Concearning Barnett - if one would like him as a suspect he must have killed all the others before Kelly and had some relation to them as well. Probably as a bully. Then Kelly would just be another victim. That would put a stop to all the romantic ideas about Kelly and I believe that would be better for history.

Regards Pierre

The bully was McCarthy.

C4

[John G]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

The Stein quote is clearly thus; however, the Coolidge quote may mask an equivocation. See why?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Is this something to do with the fact that certain words have more than one meaning?

Regarding Stein: hasn't it been suggested that the quote has a hidden meaning, therefore not strictly a tautology, because that would imply that the line is meaningless? Stein herself once commented: " Now listen! I'm no fool. I know that in daily life we don't go around saying 'is a...is a...is a...Yes, I'm no fool; but I think that in that line the rose is red for the first time in English poetry for a hundred years." (Four in America.)

[lynn cates]

Tautologies R Us

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

The Stein quote is clearly thus; however, the Coolidge quote may mask an equivocation. See why?

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Lynn or John G.

Forgive my ignorance but given the above examples*, are these two also tautologies (and don't say, "No, the first is part of an odd poem!").

1) Gertrude Stein: "A rose is a rose is a rose...."
2) Calvin Coolidge: "The business of America is business."

Jeff

*The first one actually confuses me and possibly is not a perfect tautology. It falls apart because of an example of capitalization in the second use of the word "apple". Just like "all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs", an "Apple" is an "Apple" but not every "apple" is an "Apple". When we generally speak of a small-"a" "apple" it is a fruit we eat. When we talk of the large "a" "Apple" it is a computer brand using a picture of the fruit, "apple", as it's symbol and name. But we don't eat it.

Hello Jeff,

Just noticed the second part of your post. Of course, an " apple is an Apple" is not a tautology. The correct technical term, in this context , I believe is: predictive text issue!

[GUT]

I guess Apple Records doesn't have the appeal it once had, how things change, so sad.

Yet Ringo (I think) once said the brand name was the biggest money earner they had.

When Apple computers started there was a BIG settlement over the name, but it excluded music related use of the Trademark. Thenof course along came iPod and an even bigger payout, and then iTunes added more to the wealth of he Fab ones.

[Wickerman]

*The first one actually confuses me and possibly is not a perfect tautology. It falls apart because of an example of capitalization in the second use of the word "apple". Just like "all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs", an "Apple" is an "Apple" but not every "apple" is an "Apple". When we generally speak of a small-"a" "apple" it is a fruit we eat. When we talk of the large "a" "Apple" it is a computer brand using a picture of the fruit, "apple", as it's symbol and name. But we don't eat it.

I guess Apple Records doesn't have the appeal it once had, how things change, so sad.

[GUT]

Hi,

of course not. Concearning Barnett - if one would like him as a suspect he must have killed all the others before Kelly and had some relation to them as well. Probably as a bully. Then Kelly would just be another victim. That would put a stop to all the romantic ideas about Kelly and I believe that would be better for history.

Regards Pierre

The most common theory I've heard about Joe is that he was trying to scare Mary off the streets.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,
a very angry ripper in 13 Miller's Court? Perhaps a personal motive involved?
I hope it's not going to be Joe Barnett all over again? Although he is one of my favourite suspects.
Cheers,
IchabodCrane

Hi,

of course not. Concearning Barnett - if one would like him as a suspect he must have killed all the others before Kelly and had some relation to them as well. Probably as a bully. Then Kelly would just be another victim. That would put a stop to all the romantic ideas about Kelly and I believe that would be better for history.

Regards Pierre