Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

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

  • #46
    Hi RJ,

    May I make a minor correction to your Post #43?

    " . . . and by 11.00 Anderson and Arnold had discussed the matter and decided not to send the dogs [which were no longer in London] . . ."

    A file cover received at the Home Office, 9th November, reads—

    “Commissioner of Police reports that information has just been received that a mutilated dead body of a woman is reported to have been found this morning inside a room in a house (No. 26) in Dorset Street, Spitalfields. The matter has been placed in Mr. Anderson’s hands.”

    Also contained in the file cover is a note—

    “Memo from Sir Charles Warren to Godfrey Lushington, Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office—

    “Mutilated dead body of woman reported to be found this morning inside room of house in Dorset Street, Spitalfields. Information just received (12.30) 9.11.88”

    No mention of a request for bloodhounds.

    Daily Telegraph, November 13th 1888—

    " . . . there has been no trained bloodhound in the metropolis at any time during the past fortnight.

    “The Whitechapel police officials themselves were not aware of this fact, for their first thought on receiving the intelligence of the murder on Friday was to leave the room absolutely undisturbed until the hounds should be brought on the scene, and it was only when they learnt that there were no bloodhounds to be had that an entrance was effected into the chamber . . ."

    Other policemen were also anticipating the arrival of bloodhounds.

    Echo, 12th November 1888—

    “The Press Association says – ‘It is stated that an officer was waiting at Leman Street police station for six or seven hours on Friday for the hounds which had been telegraphed for. There are reasons to believe that Sir Charles Warren was at this time out of town, and in his absence no one knew where the animals were, or how they could be obtained.’”

    Sir Charles Warren was not out of town. He was at Scotland Yard. The dogs were not on their way.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

    Comment


    • #47
      Hi Jon,

      Arthur Brisbane of the New York Sun interviewed Anderson on 14th November 1888. His report was headed "Notes from Whitechapel."

      The story appeared in the New York Sun on 26th November 1888.

      Regards,

      Simon
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • #48
        Thankyou Simon, I wondered why I couldn't find it.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #49
          Here you go, Wickerman.
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #50
            All,

            Brough himself doubted the use of his hounds, claiming they would not be of much use in an overly populated city like London. They were not brought down to solely sniff out the murderer.

            They were originally brought down to trial with all crimes in mind. And to aid in the training of their own, specially purchased pup with the aid of Barnaby who was to act as ‘mentor’ as it were.

            The use of these hounds during the hunt for the killer was an afterthought, not the primary reason.

            Monty




            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

            Comment


            • #51
              Thankyou RJ good stuff, and thanks to Simon for info on PM.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #52
                Going back to the door pre-killing...

                So we have the window broken a little over a week before but in that time Mary Kelly and John Barnett are separated. Is the only time Barnett is known to have been at or in 13 Miller's Court on the 8th November when he was visiting that evening while Mary had a female guest?


                Otherwise, how does Barnett come to say they/he used the broken window to open the lock? It's a short space of time, they're no longer together, he doesn't live there anymore. At what point since the window break did he use it as a means to enter the room?

                Is it possible the lock/door was broken at the same time as the window and so during their break-up argument?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
                  Is it possible the lock/door was broken at the same time as the window and so during their break-up argument?
                  The lock/door wasn't broken as such; the key had gone missing.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    On Monday 12th November, the early edition of the Evening Standard—on sale before the start of the inquest, and the fifth edition of the Star, on sale before Inspector Abberline gave his evidence—reported a development which would not be disclosed at the inquest—

                    The key to Room 13 was no longer missing.

                    Inspector Abberline—“The key of the woman’s door has been found, so her murderer did not carry it away with him, as was at first supposed.”
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      On Monday 12th November, the early edition of the Evening Standard—on sale before the start of the inquest, and the fifth edition of the Star, on sale before Inspector Abberline gave his evidence—reported a development which would not be disclosed at the inquest—

                      The key to Room 13 was no longer missing.

                      Inspector Abberline—“The key of the woman’s door has been found, so her murderer did not carry it away with him, as was at first supposed.”
                      Does the Standard attribute this info to Abberline directly? The Star doesn't seem to.
                      But as it happens it's strangely similar to the Daily News' reporting from the 13th of Abberline's inquest testimony;

                      "The key of the room has been missing for some time, so it is evident the murderer did not take it away with him"

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
                        Going back to the door pre-killing...

                        So we have the window broken a little over a week before but in that time Mary Kelly and John Barnett are separated. Is the only time Barnett is known to have been at or in 13 Miller's Court on the 8th November when he was visiting that evening while Mary had a female guest?
                        Not according to Barnett himself, in the Penny Illustrated Paper 17 Nov;

                        "I left her, and took lodgings elsewhere. I told her that I would come back if she would go and live somewhere else. I used to call there nearly every day, and if I had any money I used to give her some."

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          '... if she would go and live somewhere else.'

                          Presumably Joe meant they both should move somewhere else. There must have been something about Dorset Street, or its inhabitants, that he thought was leading Mary astray.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                            '... if she would go and live somewhere else.'

                            Presumably Joe meant they both should move somewhere else. There must have been something about Dorset Street, or its inhabitants, that he thought was leading Mary astray.
                            He was referring to the prostitutes staying there, he left because they came to stay, so he means he would come back if she, Harvey, would go live somewhere else.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                              He was referring to the prostitutes staying there, he left because they came to stay, so he means he would come back if she, Harvey, would go live somewhere else.
                              But Harvey had gone somewhere else, hadn’t she? To New Court, and she had made a point of saying to Kelly, seemingly in front of Barnett, that she would not see her again that evening.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                But Harvey had gone somewhere else, hadn’t she? To New Court, and she had made a point of saying to Kelly, seemingly in front of Barnett, that she would not see her again that evening.
                                That is not in the source you’re referring to. One cannot pick tidbits from one source and assume they’re in the context of another.


                                We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected; and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left her, and took lodgings elsewhere. I told her that I would come back if she would go and live somewhere else.
                                No mention of Harvey going anywhere, that’s from the inquest.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X