Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Originally posted by harry View Post
    because of the lord mayors show,even Dorset street might not have been as busy as usual.
    On the other hand, might it have been busier than usual? A lot of Eastenders apparently treated the Lord Mayor's Show as an unofficial holiday so might well have been killong time before rhe show started by gambling, for instance, or drinking in the pubs. Which might explain why no landlords remembered Mary in particular visiting their establiahment that morning?

    Comment


    • Prolly didn't remember because she was dead.

      Well thought out apart from that

      Cheers mate!
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RedBundy13 View Post
        .... 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.
        Precisely what I have said too, like you the very last thing on my mind was more food.

        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.
        What comes to mind for me are cases where some people come forward and claim they knew the deceased, or they were friends, they are looking for their own 15 minutes of fame.
        Given proximity, it is very likely Maxwell might have known Kelly, but what she goes on to say about Kelly is not at all encouraging.
        So I am of the opinion that Maxwell was mistaken about who she saw. As for whether she actually spoke to her is another question.
        Did Maxwell just invent this exchange to make her story more convincing?

        Maxwell was carrying a lamp/lantern, now I don't know how light it is in Whitechapel between 8-9 am on a November morning. We also see from the stated locations & distances between the two women, that there is room for Maxwell to have misidentified some other woman, as they were not standing close together.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          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.
          Hi Simon.
          I agree, we see slight differences. Though I see nothing that can't be explained by sloppy editing at the newspaper.

          Interesting how the following day Astrakhan Man was given the bum's rush, never to be heard of again.
          It wasn't the "following day", the last report mentioning Astrachan was the 19th. I have yet to understand why you said earlier that you didn't agree - it's there in black and white.

          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.
          Fair point
          Knowing what a pigs ear the West Yorkshire police made of the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry, it does make me wonder if we are relying a little too much on Scotland Yard being the consummate professionals in the Whitechapel murder cases.
          So your point is well taken.

          I just prefer not to theorize on speculation, we must to theorize on the evidence. And, if there is no evidence of corruption, or of ineptitude regarding the investigation, then I am reluctant to entertain deficiency where it is not readily apparent.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            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.
            I have yet to read any inquest testimony which is contradicted by press accounts. There is nothing in the press coverage of the Kelly inquest which contradicts the court record. The same is true for the Eddowes inquest, and in both cases (Eddowes & Kelly) the press coverage provides more detail. So it is an added bonus to our understanding of the case.
            So we collate all accounts together to end up with a more complete picture.
            That's the academic approach, and that is how we should approach these cases.

            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 court recorder used long-hand, whereas journalists used short-hand. Thereby enabling the press to write more in a shorter space of time.

            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.
            We can see from consulting the various sources that agency journalists were present, and in some cases local papers sent their own journalist.
            We have to be careful though because often the evening papers copied stories from the morning papers. And when long sections of inquest coverage appear at the same time in the morning papers we can see that they had to have sourced their story from an agency.
            It's quite a study in itself, but we can learn a lot by just analyzing the various press coverage.

            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
            except, I don't want to touch on the Primary/Secondary argument here.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              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.
              What I was getting at Gareth is, that I agree Lewis said "further on", but you cannot assert that "further on" meant beyond Millers Court.

              We can both accept (I hope) that Lewis was following some distance behind this couple as she did not offer a description of either one. So, "further on" can equally mean "ahead of me", further on down Dorset St. between me and Millers Court. That is what she could have meant.

              And yes, she could also have meant "further on" passed Millers court.
              What she truly meant is an assumption for us, so we must use the rest of her statement to help clarify the issue.
              This is why I keep mentioning that she saw them pass up the court, because this confirms the "between me and the court"" interpretation.
              So we can now say for sure what "further on" did mean.

              In the past I recall you committed an unforgivable sin with respect to the evidence.
              If I recall correctly you suggest that her "pass up the court" statement could be a misprint? for "as I passed up the court".
              If this was an academic forum your membership would have been rescinded, you'd have been sent to Coventry.

              One of the most solemn tenets in research is to never change the evidence to suit your theory. I was just half expecting the same response this time. I'm pleased I was wrong.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                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.
                Like I tried to explain earlier, seeing "no-one else" means no other men.

                Remember what the subject is, - 'who else could have been the killer?'
                Did Hutchinson see anyone else enter or exit the street who could be the killer?
                "I saw no-one else".

                No-one seriously entertained the possibility that Jack the Ripper could be a woman.

                Hutchinson saw no-one else who could be considered as the killer.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  Fair point
                  Knowing what a pigs ear the West Yorkshire police made of the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry, it does make me wonder if we are relying a little too much on Scotland Yard being the consummate professionals in the Whitechapel murder cases.
                  So your point is well taken.

                  I just prefer not to theorize on speculation, we must to theorize on the evidence. And, if there is no evidence of corruption, or of ineptitude regarding the investigation, then I am reluctant to entertain deficiency where it is not readily apparent.

                  Not to jump cases but we are talking about Walter Dew here aren't we? The same Walter Dew that may have planted evidence which lead to the execution of Hawley Crippen?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    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.

                    I'm with you. Either that or what Jon said about her looking for her 15 minutes. That would have been a REAL risk for the Ripper to murder her, especially how he did it, at that time of morning. Someone easily could have stopped by or just peaked through the window in which case it would have been Game Over. And thats not even mentioning how he'd possibly get out and away un-noticed.

                    Comment


                    • Wickerman: "One of the most solemn tenets in research is to never change the evidence to suit your theory."


                      True, but that's not what I was doing. I don't precisely remember the instance to which you refer, but it sounds like a case of my trying to make sense of a possible ambiguity in the evidence, rather than changing the evidence to fit a preconceived theory. I have no preconceived theory, in fact.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Like I tried to explain earlier, seeing "no-one else" means no other men.

                        Remember what the subject is, - 'who else could have been the killer?'
                        Did Hutchinson see anyone else enter or exit the street who could be the killer?
                        "I saw no-one else".

                        No-one seriously entertained the possibility that Jack the Ripper could be a woman.

                        Hutchinson saw no-one else who could be considered as the killer.
                        Nobody seriously entertained the possibility that the killer was a policeman, either.

                        You're clutching at a very dubious straw. "Nobody else" is a unisex expression - if he'd seen a woman, he'd have said so.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          Nobody seriously entertained the possibility that the killer was a policeman, either.

                          You're clutching at a very dubious straw. "Nobody else" is a unisex expression - if he'd seen a woman, he'd have said so.
                          What role did "unisex" play in Victorian England?

                          Confusing the meaning of today's expressions with the dialogue of 19th century England causes other problems too. Meanings change over time.

                          We've debated the word "opposite" before because it also used to mean 'directly in front of', in Victorian England.
                          We've seen Bowyer being criticized for lying about seeing Kelly on a Wednesday "afternoon". What current members didn't realize is "afternoon" was often used for 'evening' in Vic. England.
                          "Going abroad" is another expression, today's CB members believed the suspect went overseas, this was not the case in Vic. England. It also meant going outside their local area.
                          There are so many examples...

                          When a very class structured society is male dominated, a reference to "anyone" or "no-one" is often aimed at the male.

                          Besides, when Hutchinson said:
                          "One policeman went by the Commercial-street end of Dorset-street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset-street."
                          He was talking about police patrols not being too frequent around Dorset St.

                          However then he says:
                          "I saw one man go into a lodging-house in Dorset-street, and no one else. I have been looking for the man all day."

                          Clearly that second line has nothing to do with police patrols, there has been an obvious change in the subject.
                          There was possibly a question by the reporter between the two comments.
                          The last line refers to potential suspects, as "looking for the man all day" indicates.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Oh, come on! If Hutchinson said that he saw "nobody else" he meant nobody else, of either sex.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • This is Dorset St., over 250 beds for dossers, round-the-clock scuffles & street fights, unfortunates coming and going, lodging-houses open till 4:00 am, not forgetting Cox came in at 3:00.
                              And we are supposed to accept that not a single person was seen in this street from 2:00 till 3:00 am?

                              No.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Thank you, Jon,

                                Dorset Street was the perfect venue for a "Jack the Ripper" murder.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X