Help On Some Details

[GUT]

Possibly Ozzie slang, originally. From a citation quoted under the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "scrubber":

B. Mather, Snowline, 1973: "She looked a scrubber [i.e.] a mare that runs wild in the scrub country, copulating indiscriminately with stray stallions. The derivation is Australian, but [the term is] applied to women of similar propensities in other parts of the English-speaking world."

The term also seems initially to have been associated with jazz groupies:

Encounter, May 30, 1959: "The scrubbers [are] very young girls who follow jazz bands around the country"

Jazz musician George Melly hints that the word had only become an epithet for a prostitute fairly recently, writing in 1965: "I understand that [scrubber] now means a prostitute. In our day this was not the case. A scrubber was a girl who slept with a jazzman, but for her own satisfaction as much as his."

Germaine Greer links the term with manual (cleaning?) work, but also indicates that the term was relatively newly coined when writing in 1970: "The most recent case in which contempt for menial labour has devised a new term of abuse for women, is the usage of scrubber for a girl of easy virtue".

Certainly in Aus a scrubber is a woman who is “easy”, I’ve never come across it here as a prostitute.

[Wickerman]

Not so easy when dealing with a case 130 years old. Much of what is in conflict relates to secondary sources, again mainly newspapers, and as such researchers should not readily accept the content of these types of reports. For the purpose of discussion playing one off against the other is fine, but proving which one is the correct account is not so easy.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

True, but isn't it precisely because this case is so old and most of the information is missing that we shouldn't dismiss one account when we have nothing to the contrary?

As to not readily accepting secondary? sources (I'm sure you mean press articles), the alternate is often that the theorist will invent a solution of their own making. How is that intended to benefit anyone, but the theorist?
That is not a legitimate approach.

In the rare occasion where we have two contrary accounts, both must be held as credible when we cannot demonstrate which is at fault.

For once I would like to read a book that takes all witness accounts as potentially credible and see in what direction the case seems to go.
The only exception is where stories were shown to be false by Scotland Yard at the time.
Sadly, theorists are too wrapped up in their own beliefs to write a balanced account of these murders.

[Wickerman]

And Barnett claimed they were both prostitutes, in the PIP, and blamed them for the break-up. Is this where the term "scrubber" originated? Although come to think of it wasn't Julia reported to be a charwoman in most reports?

Only if you take it that "Julia" had to be Julia Vanturney, I'm not so sure.
Vanturney was not said to be a prostitute in any account I read, though given the notoriety of the court it must be considered.

"Marie never went on the streets when she lived with me. She would never have gone wrong again, and I should never have left if it had not been for the prostitutes stopping in the house. She only let them in the house because she was good hearted, and did not like to refuse them shelter on cold, bitter nights."

Yet, that may be contradicted by one of the two reasons he gave to Abberline on 9 Nov.:
"....when in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution, I resolved on leaving her".

Which appears to indicate she turned to prostitution before he left her on 30th Oct.

[Trevor Marriott]

True, but isn't it precisely because this case is so old and most of the information is missing that we shouldn't dismiss one account when we have nothing to the contrary?

But we dont know for sure what if anything realtive is missing. The issue here seems to revolve around Millers Court and who did what, or who said what. At the end of the day does it matter. Even if the real truth was before us would it have that much of an impact on the outcome of the case, would it help solve the case. No it wouldn't, it seems researchers are arguing for the sake of arguing over what is nothing really relevant, and its the same group of resident researchers all the time, and time and again we see the same topics cropping up and the same arguments over and over again by the same small minority. Its easy to see why so many other researchers have come and gone

As to not readily accepting secondary? sources (I'm sure you mean press articles), the alternate is often that the theorist will invent a solution of their own making. How is that intended to benefit anyone, but the theorist?
That is not a legitimate approach.

And this is another problem with Ripperology when these inventions come to light as is the case here, it sets researchers off into a casebook feeding frenzy.

On the rare occasion where we have two contrary accounts, both must be held as credible when we cannot demonstrate which is at fault.

Its not a rare occurrence there are conflicts from the first murder right through to the last.

For once I would like to read a book that takes all witness accounts as potentially credible and see in what direction the case seems to go.
The only exception is where stories were shown to be false by Scotland Yard at the time.
Sadly, theorists are too wrapped up in their own beliefs to write a balanced account of these murders.

yes and Fisherman and his Cross theory is one to mention, if everyone were to let it go and stop encouraging him by trying to take him on, his wild theory would fall by the wayside. It is quite clear that whatever is said, or put forward to negate his theory, he is not going to relent so why keep giving him the publicity he seeks.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

yes and Fisherman and his Cross theory is one to mention, if everyone were to let it go and stop encouraging him by trying to take him on, his wild theory would fall by the wayside. It is quite clear that whatever is said, or put forward to negate his theory, he is not going to relent so why keep giving him the publicity he seeks.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh dear - Trevor wants my head on a silver plate - I am done for!

Eh, before I am shunned by all the posters out here, Trevor, can you please tell me how my theory was negated? I must have missed that part!

[Curious Cat]

Looking back over things, I have to agree with Wickerman that the woman staying at 13 Miller's Court with Mary on the 30th October is not Julia Venturney. Barnett draws a clear distinction of the two women staying with Mary and, as mentioned, he would've been in some way familiar with Venturney enough to say it was her but he doesn't point in that direction.

Julia Venturney also doesn't identify herself as the woman in the room, only speaking of it as an observer. She does, however, suggest the windows were broken - by Mary while drunk - before 30th October. This opens up the time frame of Barnett using it as a means to open the door from before they separated rather than just the week leading up to the killing.

Is it known if anyone actually came forward to identify themselves as the woman staying with Mary on or around the 30th October, or was she only ever referred to by Barnett?


With this in mind, a revised time line up to the evening of the killing...


A woman called "Julia" is invited to stay at 13 Miller's Court at the end of October.

Mary Kelly and Joseph Barnett argue about this arrangement on the 30th October.

Joseph Barnett finds new lodgings in Bishopgate.

"Julia" leaves 13 Miller's Court some time between 31st October - 4th November

Maria Harvey stays at 13 Miller's Court 5th&6th November.

Maria Harvey moves to a room at New Court 7th-8th November.

Maria Harvey visits Mary Kelly at 13 Miller's Court on 8th November.

Joseph Barnett visits Mary Kelly at 13 Miller's Court every day since leaving on 30th October, including the evening of 8th November. He arrives while Maria Harvey is still there.

Lizzie Albrook also visits Mary Kelly on the evening of 8th November. When she arrives is not clear but she leaves before Maria Harvey at about 8pm with Joseph Barnett.

Maria Harvey leaves shortly after Lizzie Albrook, so anything between 8pm and 8:30pm.


Is there anything that may contradict this as a timeline or any other details I've missed? What I'm really after is building a picture in the lead up to the murder.

[Curious Cat]

A question about the key to 13 Miller's Court.

Is it reported how and where the key was found or was it just made known that it had been found?

[Wickerman]

Just to interject in your timeline, Kelly was seen by Bowyer on Wednesday 7th, presumably in the court.

Looking back over things, I have to agree with Wickerman that the woman staying at 13 Miller's Court with Mary on the 30th October is not Julia Venturney. Barnett draws a clear distinction of the two women staying with Mary and, as mentioned, he would've been in some way familiar with Venturney enough to say it was her but he doesn't point in that direction.

Julia Venturney also doesn't identify herself as the woman in the room, only speaking of it as an observer. She does, however, suggest the windows were broken - by Mary while drunk - before 30th October. This opens up the time frame of Barnett using it as a means to open the door from before they separated rather than just the week leading up to the killing.

Is it known if anyone actually came forward to identify themselves as the woman staying with Mary on or around the 30th October, or was she only ever referred to by Barnett?


With this in mind, a revised time line up to the evening of the killing...


A woman called "Julia" is invited to stay at 13 Miller's Court at the end of October.

Mary Kelly and Joseph Barnett argue about this arrangement on the 30th October.

Joseph Barnett finds new lodgings in Bishopgate.

"Julia" leaves 13 Miller's Court some time between 31st October - 4th November

Maria Harvey stays at 13 Miller's Court 5th&6th November.

Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag.
Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.

Maria Harvey moves to a room at New Court 7th-8th November.

Maria Harvey visits Mary Kelly at 13 Miller's Court on 8th November.

Joseph Barnett visits Mary Kelly at 13 Miller's Court every day since leaving on 30th October, including the evening of 8th November. He arrives while Maria Harvey is still there.

Lizzie Albrook also visits Mary Kelly on the evening of 8th November. When she arrives is not clear but she leaves before Maria Harvey at about 8pm with Joseph Barnett.

Maria Harvey leaves shortly after Lizzie Albrook, so anything between 8pm and 8:30pm.

A man seen in the court in the early morning of the 9th.

...Bowyer, the young man in Mr. McCarthy's employ was out at different times up Miller's-court on the Thursday night for the purpose of getting water from a tap there-the only available supply.Indeed, Bowyer vistited that spot as late-or, rather, as early-as three o'clock on the morning of the murder.......
........ Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.
The Echo Wed. Nov. 14 1888

Is there anything that may contradict this as a timeline or any other details I've missed? What I'm really after is building a picture in the lead up to the murder.

[Wickerman]

But we dont know for sure what if anything realtive is missing. The issue here seems to revolve around Millers Court and who did what, or who said what.

Ok, so if we are specifically talking about Millers Court, then what reason do we have to accuse any tenant of lying?

After Hutchinson came forward on the 12th, this paragraph was widely published on the morning of the 14th. So it looks like the police went back to Millers Court to re-interview the tenants on the 13th.

"Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour."

None of these statements have survived, along with the hundreds of statements taken in the house-to-house search of Dorset St. & adjacent thoroughfares conducted over that first weekend after the murder.
So, in this very small corner of the case we can see hundreds of statements have disappeared which could throw a lot of light on the comings and goings of people in the critical hours leading up to the murder.

At the end of the day does it matter. Even if the real truth was before us would it have that much of an impact on the outcome of the case, would it help solve the case. No it wouldn't,...

Solving the case is a different matter, for a different discussion. More information would help cut down on the self-serving accusations thrown at witnesses for lying.

Its not a rare occurrence there are conflicts from the first murder right through to the last.

It's getting pretty bad when two posters can't even agree on how to identify a point of contention.

[kjab3112]

Hi RJ,

"Why it took Arnold an additional two hours and 15 minutes to personally arrive and announce this decision, I have no idea. That's what I've been pondering."

Lord Mayor's Day was chosen for the Millers Court murder because London was sealed off for the occasion. Dozens upon dozens of roads were closed off to wheeled traffic, including Scotland Yard.

Regards,

Simon

Two hours from Westminster to Spitalfields with road closures wouldn't be unusual even now. Arnold may well have decided "the dogs aren't coming, but I'll be there in under an hour, why bother 'calling'", only to be then delayed by an hour plus. If he was calling to a fixed line it should be considered how long the runners at each end would take to forward the message (yes, I watched Tora Tora Tora over Christmas where the Japanese ultimatum arrived over an hour late from their embassy despite prior planning)

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok, so if we are specifically talking about Millers Court, then what reason do we have to accuse any tenant of lying?

After Hutchinson came forward on the 12th, this paragraph was widely published on the morning of the 14th. So it looks like the police went back to Millers Court to re-interview the tenants on the 13th.

"Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour."

Well that doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that one out does it the police would have taken statements from witnesses in Millers Court as soon as practical after the body was found, and if she was out and about at that time then it adds more weight to Hutchinsons account of meeting her at about 2am, and her death occurring soon afterwards, and the perosm seen with her was likely as not her killer

It would seem that following the Hutchinson disclosure or perhaps even before it was made public. Thomas Bowyers says this, which would also seem to corroborate Hutchinsons statement

The Echo, 14th November, reported him going “out at different times up Millers Court on the Thursday night for the purposes of getting water from a tap there—the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late—or, rather, as early—as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water tap is by no means an infrequent (sic) thing, as Mr. McCarthy’s shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all “hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o’clock in the morning, while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.”

None of these statements have survived, along with the hundreds of statements taken in the house-to-house search of Dorset St. & adjacent thoroughfares conducted over that first weekend after the murder.
So, in this very small corner of the case we can see hundreds of statements have disappeared which could throw a lot of light on the comings and goings of people in the critical hours leading up to the murder.

But the material statements can be verified from the inquest testimony. I recently posted a post where I stated that the police would not have taken hundreds of statements, they would have only taken statements from anyone who could offer material evidence. The practice of taking negative statements is a more modern day police procedure,

Solving the case is a different matter, for a different discussion. More information would help cut down on the self-serving accusations thrown at witnesses for lying.

So are you trying to say that from your perspective no witnesses lied throughout the whole series of murders? If witnesses were lying then solving the case is impossible, which is the case whichever way you choose to assess and evaluate all that there is to be found on the case.

It's getting pretty bad when two posters can't even agree on how to identify a point of contention.

Some people want to argue for the sake of arguing, that's part of ripperology and most of those that do so are seasoned researchers who are fixated with a specific theory, or they have opinions that no matter what is said, or presented, they will defend their corner come what may. Part of the problem is that they are not able to assess and evaluate what is evidence and what is not, and put to much reliance on newspaper reports to prop up theories.

In the case of Kelly who was the last person to see her alive? Hutchinson, can his police statement be dismissed? Is there any corroboration to his statement? Yes from Bowyer as mentioned above, or was he lying. What happened before with all the other witnesses it somewhat academic in the grand scheme of things if Hutchinson and Bowyer are to be believed. and I know many do not want to believe Hutchinson but in the absence of anything to prove he was lying his police statement will stand for all eternity

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Curious Cat]

Hutchinson's presence in the vicinity of Miller's Court at the time he says he was there may be corroborated by proxy, but there appears to be nothing that corroborates the details he gave in his statement about Mary's approach to him, her meeting with another man moments later or the man himself.

What other reports/statements, if any, have details that either match or join up with the statements made by Hutchinson?

[Abby Normal]

Hutchinson's presence in the vicinity of Miller's Court at the time he says he was there may be corroborated by proxy, but there appears to be nothing that corroborates the details he gave in his statement about Mary's approach to him, her meeting with another man moments later or the man himself.

What other reports/statements, if any, have details that either match or join up with the statements made by Hutchinson?

Only sarah lewis waiting watching man. So he was there waiting and watching for kelly, not sure if the rest of his story is the truth though.

[Wickerman]

Well that doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that one out does it the police would have taken statements from witnesses in Millers Court as soon as practical after the body was found, and if she was out and about at that time then it adds more weight to Hutchinsons account of meeting her at about 2am, and her death occurring soon afterwards, and the perosm seen with her was likely as not her killer

It would seem that following the Hutchinson disclosure or perhaps even before it was made public. Thomas Bowyers says this, which would also seem to corroborate Hutchinsons statement

The Echo, 14th November, reported him going “out at different times up Millers Court on the Thursday night for the purposes of getting water from a tap there—the only available supply. Indeed, Bowyer visited that spot as late—or, rather, as early—as three o'clock on the morning of the murder. This early visit to the water tap is by no means an infrequent (sic) thing, as Mr. McCarthy’s shop, which supplies the wants of a very poor and wretched locality, whose denizens are out at all “hours, late and early, does not at times close until three o’clock in the morning, while occasionally it is open all night. Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid.”

Right, and Bowyer's disclosure was also published the same day as the results of the renewed inquiry of the Millers Court residents. Bowyer seems to confirm this 2nd attempt in questioning witnesses because he makes reference to speaking to Abberline & Reid.
So possibly, Abberline & Reid among others returned to the court as the article implies.

But the material statements can be verified from the inquest testimony. I recently posted a post where I stated that the police would not have taken hundreds of statements, they would have only taken statements from anyone who could offer material evidence. The practice of taking negative statements is a more modern day police procedure,..

How do the police know what constitutes material evidence until they begin their investigation?
Lets not forget, the only witness statements that have survived were the few selected by the Coroner. The rest remained in the police files and have not survived.

So are you trying to say that from your perspective no witnesses lied throughout the whole series of murders?

I think you know what I'm saying - don't accuse a witness of lying unless you can provide an alternate account of their story from another source.
Not agreeing with their story is no justification to accuse them of lying.

Part of the problem is that they are not able to assess and evaluate what is evidence and what is not, and put to much reliance on newspaper reports to prop up theories.

There's nothing wrong with newspaper reports if you know the difference between reliable inquest coverage, debatable witness statements, and questionable journalistic hyperbole.

In the case of Kelly who was the last person to see her alive? Hutchinson, can his police statement be dismissed? Is there any corroboration to his statement? Yes from Bowyer as mentioned above, or was he lying. What happened before with all the other witnesses it somewhat academic in the grand scheme of things if Hutchinson and Bowyer are to be believed. and I know many do not want to believe Hutchinson but in the absence of anything to prove he was lying his police statement will stand for all eternity[/B]

Whether you believe Hutchinson was the last person to see Kelly alive or not we have sufficient cause to accept Kelly was out on the streets between 2:00 and 3:00 o'clock Friday morning. Hutchinson, Bowyer, Kennedy & the press account of police returning to Millers Court. They can't all be lying, they can't all be wrong.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson's presence in the vicinity of Miller's Court at the time he says he was there may be corroborated by proxy, but there appears to be nothing that corroborates the details he gave in his statement about Mary's approach to him, her meeting with another man moments later or the man himself.

What other reports/statements, if any, have details that either match or join up with the statements made by Hutchinson?

Sarah Lewis, in her inquest testimony we only read that she saw...
"another young man with a woman passed along".

In the more detailed press coverage of her walk down Dorset Street, we read more about this other couple, the woman (like Kelly) being the worse for drink. The couple walked up the court (like Astrachan & Kelly) while the man standing opposite the court looked on.
Various papers offered selective coverage.

"The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."
Daily Telegraph.

"He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
Daily News.

"The man was alone, and was not talking to anyone. He was tall and "a stout looking man." He had dark clothes on. A young man went along with a young woman."
Morning Advertiser.

At the inquest no-one knew the value of her seeing this tipsy female with no hat accompanied by a man. Lewis did not know Mary Kelly so she couldn't tell the court who she had seen.
The importance of the couple she saw pass up the court only became apparent after Hutchinson came forward with his story.

There exists a longstanding resistance on these boards to accepting what Hutchinson said could be true. Which is why some try to interpret what Lewis saw differently.