Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Jon,

    If it was not said, then how do you know it happened?

    Regards,

    Simon
    You don't, whether anything more was said is still an open question.
    Whereas you are dismissing the fact anything else could have been said.
    There is a big difference in that.

    I'm sure you know yourself various press sources edit down the same stories. Some may provide three or four lines while other give seven or eight lines.

    If you ever get the chance compare inquest testimony (Eddowes & Kelly) with a broad example of press coverage for each inquest.
    You'll find the press typically provide more detail because their readers have a different interest from the court recorder who only makes brief notes from a legal perspective.

    We need to collate both sources (court record & press) to get a complete picture of the inquest, not just pick one personal preference and dismiss the rest.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      I thought that such a person wasn't particularly outlandish, and wouldn't have been unheard of in the neighbourhood. At least, that's what some "Hutch was telling the truth" advocates have often pointed out - and I'm happy to take their advice.
      In McCarthy's defence of Dorset St after the Worst Street in London article was published (in 1901), there is this;

      "MR. RAYMOND of the "Brittania" beer-house, spoke a few words and entered his protest against what was a false and ruing account of Dorset Street. Mr. Munro (George Yard Mission) said, that he had in company with his wife, visited the street for thirty-eight years and always received the greatest courtesy possible, he had gone down this street, where thieves are said to be trained and his gold watch and chain, money and valuables had been as safe as in his own home. "

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
        Hi Joshua,

        Now I think you're starting to get it.

        Regards,

        Simon
        I hope Joshua can explain to me what it is you think you've "got"
        It all reads straight forward to me.
        The police issue a 'wanted' description on the 13th, and Hutchinson gives his story to the press on the 14th (or late on the 13th).
        Both descriptions are bound to be comparable.

        Did you find an example where the police give a source for any of their official 'wanted' descriptions?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Just a couple of questions.
          Why did Kelly have to buy the fish and potatoes? Seems she was short of cash.
          Also,she could probably cook,or have had the meal which was cooked by someone else.

          Having served in law enforcement,It's my opinion that officers have no better memory than anyone else.Where they give a detailed description,it's normally
          entered in their notebooks at the time the evidence is within their sight.
          Not from memory three days after,as Hutchinson's was.

          Comment


          • Fish and Chips

            Since we're on the subject of Fish & Chips and pretty much EVERY piece of evidence and witness testimony has both its Supporters and Detractors I was just wondering if everyone can agree on one piece of witness testimony in which she was mistaken? And that would be the testimony of; Caroline Maxwell's, and her claim to having seen Kelly sometime between 8 & 8:30 am on Nov. 9th. In it she claims to having talked with Kelly about her being in drink and told her to go to Mrs Ringers for some Hair of the Dog. Kelly replied that she had already been there (a claim never backed up by anyone *besides Maurice Lewis and in which case the times don't match up* in the Britannia Pub. You would think a bartender would remember serving her just a few hours before her death??) and had brought it back up (ie:vomited) and then pointed out the pile on the corner of Millers Court. But we know when she was found she had some undigested food in her lower intestine which would mean she would have had to have eaten within the past hour or two (or maybe twenty minutes *RJ*) before her death. Now I don't know about anyone else but when I've drank to the point that I've thrown up, the absolute last thing on my mind would be eating some Fish & Chips! Or Anything for that matter.

            So, Question? Can we disregard her testimony as to her having either mistaken Kelly for someone else or just got the day wrong (or maybe just the time)? Or is there anyone who believes her statement? Or maybe just some of the statement? Or just wants to keep the door open for possible future references and isn't quite ready to completely discount her testimony.

            For me personally, I'm ready to discount her account.

            Comment


            • Hi Jon,

              Notice how the two press descriptions of Astrakhan Man were slightly different: different enough to lend credence to the idea that they had been supplied to the police by two different witnesses.

              Which was the whole idea.

              Interesting how the following day Astrakhan Man was given the bum's rush, never to be heard of again.

              I fully understand your reluctance to believe anything untoward about the role of the police in the Whitechapel murders. But until we grasp the full extent of their culpability we might just as well spend the rest of our lives blowing bubbles for all the good it's going to do us in solving this mystery.

              Regards,

              Simon
              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                We need to collate both sources (court record & press) to get a complete picture of the inquest, not just pick one personal preference and dismiss the rest.
                Yes collate them, and refer to them by all means but which is correct? We get back to the accuracy of press reports of the inquests, against the accuracy of inquest testimony given at the time.

                The only inquest testimony we can safely rely on is that in the case of Eddowes. The depositions were taken down at the time and signed by the witnesses. We know this to be correct because the signed depositions are still in existence so we are able to compare the inquest testimony against the various newspaper articles and we see discrepancies, and we also see additional testimony recorded by the papers which is not recorded in the depositions. Even that may be suspect, because what is taken down, and how accurate it is, is reliant on the speed of the reporter taking it down.

                The other issue with the newspaper reports is who was actually present to take down the testimony. We see reports in papers far and wide, and we know that those articles were formulated from other sources which again may not be accurate.

                So by all means researchers should refer to all the reports but as you say should not pick a specific article because it suits their preference, and researchers should remember that unless the reporter was present and took down the testimony at the time, which would be referred to as a primary source, all other reports are secondary sources.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  You put the blue dot where it suits you (bias?).
                  Emphatically NOT bias, but an objective reading of what Lewis said. I could have put the blue dot even further west, as a point of fact, and it would still tally with her statement.

                  What I could not possibly do is put the couple at the entrance to Miller's Court, still less in it, because that would in no way be supported by Lewis's testimony.
                  Last edited by Sam Flynn; 07-04-2018, 11:21 PM.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    But you've seen examples of this already.
                    Look again at the witness statements to Abberline on 9th Nov. none of them contain much detail. Particulars are extracted in any subsequent questioning, in that case by the coroner.
                    Just compare their brief police statements with their detailed inquest testimony.

                    Hutchinson's statement is what he believes important. Whoever else was in the street was of no importance when compared to the fact he saw Kelly with a man.
                    Why do you think the police today are always saying "tell us everything". Simply because the witness does not always appreciate the importance of the details they leave out.
                    In his subsequent press statement, Hutchinson says;
                    "one policeman went by the Commercial St end of Dorset St, while I was standing there, but not one came down it. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset St and noone else."
                    If that's reported accurately, that's not just leaving out detail, that's effectively a denial that he saw Lewis.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Indeed, which is partly why I suggested extending RJ's 20 minutes to an hour for contingency.
                      Eating late at night can also slow digestion rates, according to RJ's linked article.
                      Plus, Whitechapel was apparently known for fish according to this
                      Pall Mall Gazette 4 Nov 1889 article, reporting a tour of Whitechapel with Inspector Moore;

                      In the course of their perambulations, the inspector tells the correspondent that they call Whitechapel the "three F's district, fried fish and fights."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RedBundy13 View Post
                        In it she claims to having talked with Kelly about her being in drink and told her to go to Mrs Ringers for some Hair of the Dog. Kelly replied that she had already been there (a claim never backed up by anyone *besides Maurice Lewis and in which case the times don't match up* in the Britannia Pub. You would think a bartender would remember serving her just a few hours before her death??)
                        True enough, but I've always taken Kelly's response to have been just a bit of sardonic Irish humor, not to be taken literally.

                        'O Gawd, I have the horrors.'

                        'Go have a half pint; you'll feel better.'

                        'I've already had it' (pointing to the vomit). 'Indeed I've had gallons of it, and there it is.'

                        Or, as the Aussies say, 'Been there, done that.'

                        I don't think she was saying that she had actually been there recently.

                        I realize this is subjective, but that's the way I read it.

                        Wickerman: the reason I believe Dew worked the Ripper case is threefold. 1. He was a Detective Sergeant in in H-Division during a policing nightmare; at some level he had to have been involved. 2. His autobiography shows an obsession with the case very typical of a detective whose first major investigation ended in failure. 3. He represented the police in a court hearing involving the fairly important Ripper suspect Nikaner Benelius.

                        Comment


                        • Is it possible for Kelly's murder to have taken place about 10AM,and for the killer to have left undetected? Might there have been periods when the court was empty?It would only take seconds to be out and in Dorset Street?A long coat could have hidden blood that might have been on inner clothing,and because of the lord mayors show,even Dorset street might not have been as busy as usual.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                            True enough, but I've always taken Kelly's response to have been just a bit of sardonic Irish humor, not to be taken literally.

                            'O Gawd, I have the horrors.'

                            'Go have a half pint; you'll feel better.'

                            'I've already had it' (pointing to the vomit). 'Indeed I've had gallons of it, and there it is.'

                            Or, as the Aussies say, 'Been there, done that.'

                            I don't think she was saying that she had actually been there recently.

                            I realize this is subjective, but that's the way I read it.
                            Hi RJ,
                            Most accounts could be taken this way, but according to Mrs Maxwell's deposition, at her suggestion of some hair of the dog;

                            "she said oh no, I have just had a drink of ale and have brought it all up, it was in the road I saw it - as she said this she motioned with her head and I concluded she meant she had been to the Brittania [sic] at the corner"

                            Which sounds a little more that just sardonic humour. But it's possible she misinterpreted the nod, especially if the vomit was in the same direction as the pub.
                            At any event, I don't think any pub was able to confirm she had visited. Although I think one landlord did suggest he had seen her recently with an unidentified man who was a butcher, and suggested him as the murderer.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RedBundy13 View Post
                              Since we're on the subject of Fish & Chips and pretty much EVERY piece of evidence and witness testimony has both its Supporters and Detractors I was just wondering if everyone can agree on one piece of witness testimony in which she was mistaken? And that would be the testimony of; Caroline Maxwell's, and her claim to having seen Kelly sometime between 8 & 8:30 am on Nov. 9th. In it she claims to having talked with Kelly about her being in drink and told her to go to Mrs Ringers for some Hair of the Dog. Kelly replied that she had already been there (a claim never backed up by anyone *besides Maurice Lewis and in which case the times don't match up* in the Britannia Pub. You would think a bartender would remember serving her just a few hours before her death??) and had brought it back up (ie:vomited) and then pointed out the pile on the corner of Millers Court. But we know when she was found she had some undigested food in her lower intestine which would mean she would have had to have eaten within the past hour or two (or maybe twenty minutes *RJ*) before her death. Now I don't know about anyone else but when I've drank to the point that I've thrown up, the absolute last thing on my mind would be eating some Fish & Chips! Or Anything for that matter.

                              So, Question? Can we disregard her testimony as to her having either mistaken Kelly for someone else or just got the day wrong (or maybe just the time)? Or is there anyone who believes her statement? Or maybe just some of the statement? Or just wants to keep the door open for possible future references and isn't quite ready to completely discount her testimony.

                              For me personally, I'm ready to discount her account.
                              Hi DK
                              well if Maxwell was accurate and it was Mary then I don't think they would have found any food in her stomach, if she had vomited from alcohol poisoning.


                              I think Maxwell had the wrong person. There were a lot of women living in the court, friends coming and going, mary had friends visit a lot and even let them stay with her.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                She didn't. Lewis describes walking down Dorset Street towards Miller's Court, sees the mysterious watchman outside Crossinghams and a couple "further on", evidently meaning "further on in Dorset Street". Whatever, she does not report seeing the couple so much as pass in front of the entrance to Miller's Court, still less walk up it. For the avoidance of doubt, Lewis even says that "there was nobody in the court" when she arrived.

                                Edit: I thought a Noddy picture might help. What Lewis described was surely something like this (not to scale )

                                [ATTACH]18707[/ATTACH]

                                Green = Sarah Lewis en route to the Keylers
                                Red = Mr Widewake, or "Hutch" if you like, gazing at the entrance to Miller's Court from outside the lodging house
                                Blue = Couple (I'm assuming they were on the same side as Lewis, but they could easily have been "further on" the opposite side of the street)
                                bingo sam!!
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X