Help On Some Details

[Wickerman]

What is the basis for Maria Harvey living in Millers Court at any time?
Does anyone know?

[Wickerman]

Thanks Jon, I must have missed that. Do you have the source?

Sorry Joshua, I deleted that post, just plain wrong.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

I'm just wrestling the last Christmas cannoli to the ground.

To tell you the truth, I cannot for the life of me decide who, in the Millers Court scenario, was either lying through their teeth, not telling the whole truth, or being deliberately misleading.

I think I've covered everybody.

Happy New Year.

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon, here's hoping you manage to survive the cannoli.

In all honesty, don't you think it has become a bit of a cop out to accuse anyone of lying, especially when there's no evidence to the contrary?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon, here's hoping you manage to survive the cannoli.

In all honesty, don't you think it has become a bit of a cop out to accuse anyone of lying, especially when there's no evidence to the contrary?

All through this Ripper mystery from start to finish we see clear evidence of conflicting evidence from not only the civilian witnesses, but police as well. We also see many ambiguities cropping up with the witness testimony, which perhaps should have been addressed back then but wasn't.

So what reasons are there
genuine mistake?
trying to be to helpful?
deliberate lie

Some of the conflicts referred to are in my opinion lies, which perhaps came about because of inducements offered by the press, because many of the conflicts appear in press reports.

Without a doubt people lied back then

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

This is the issue when relying on secondary source material.

It serves some people’s agenda to push a sinister explanation, as it serves others to push a totally auspicious one.

As for the two hour delay, many here seem to be wholly focused on the issue of the hounds, and are not appreciative of the investigatory aspect. Bagster Phillips was clear the victim was beyond medical help. There was no rush to enter the crime scene.

Monty

[Wickerman]

But you're generalizing Trevor.

Of course some witnesses exaggerate, get it wrong or maybe just lie. But why is it the one's who just happen to contradict your theory are the one's accused of lying, coincidence?
Accusing someone of lying just because we don't like what they say is a dead giveaway that the theory being offered is weak.

It used to be that it was necessary to come up with an alternate story before you could argue that someone was lying. Sadly, those days of serious inquiry are mostly long gone.
Maybe I am among the remaining few of a dying breed, but in my view if you want to accuse someone of lying, you must demonstrate they are lying, not just offer self-serving accusations.

[Sam Flynn]

As for the two hour delay, many here seem to be wholly focused on the issue of the hounds, and are not appreciative of the investigatory aspect. Bagster Phillips was clear the victim was beyond medical help. There was no rush to enter the crime scene.

That's also my take on the matter, Neil.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Is it possible Joe Barnett called twice on that fateful evening? In his initial police statement, taken on 9th November he says - I was friendly with her and called to see her between seven and eight pm Thursday (8th) There was a woman in the room when I called.
But in his inquest testimony he says - I last saw her alive between half-past seven and a quarter to eight on Thursday night last, when I called upon her. I stayed there for a quarter of an hour.
Maria Harvey said - She left when Joseph Barnett arrived at 6.55pm. This fits in neatly with Barnett arriving.
Did he then nip out for, say twenty minutes or so not long after seven coming back around half past. He did say I LAST SAW HER ALIVE, not the full hour but around fifteen minutes, big difference. Is this what he meant?
Lizzie Albrook said - She left at about 8.00pm, following the arrival of Joseph Barnett. Again could fit.
In reply to the coroner Barnett says - Was there any one else there on the Thursday evening ? - Yes, a woman who lives in the court. She left first, and I followed shortly afterwards.
Considering Mary lived on the corner of the court and seemed to be well known anybody going in and out of Millers Court would pass her room. And back in those days popping in to see someone as you were passing was far more common.
Could a timeline be Barnett calls around 7, Maria immediately leaves. He then nips out himself around 7:10, comes back around 7:40 were Lizzie has popped in stops the fifteen or so minutes [Last time i saw her alive], leaves around 8 with Lizzie leaving say, ten minutes before. He may even have assumed that Maria and Lizzie were the same person if either or both left immediately when he entered and he didn't take much notice of either or again both.

[rjpalmer]

The relevancy isn’t that Kelly was dead and thus in no need of medical attention. That is understood. Forcing the door two hours earlier wouldn’t have brought her back to life.

But that’s hardly the point.

The relevancy is that this long delay was based on a misconception; Phillips was clearly of the impression the dogs were still available and were to be used, when obviously they weren’t. In modern terminology, “he never got the memo.”

Is the efficiency of the C.I.D. of no interest?

The men in the trenches can’t follow policy if they don’t know what the policies are. At the very least, it suggests there was a breakdown in communications between Warren and Anderson, and this lack of communication trickled down to the divisional level.


Recall that it has long been argued that Sir Robert Anderson is the most trustworthy and reliable commentator we have when it comes to the Whitechapel Murders case. As such, it is surely worthwhile to examine Anderson’s behavior in the rare instances when we have the opportunity to see him under fire. In this instance, Anderson appears to have been entirely unaware of where the dogs were, and whether or not Warren still wanted to ‘test them.’ I think that is of considerable interest.

Further, when questioned about the matter, Anderson states the murderer “never leaves anything behind” and thus there is no human way of tracing him. This statement, made in November 1888, completely undermines a later statement, also made by Anderson, where he implies the murderer left behind a tobacco pipe.

[Monty]

It’s very much the point.

To be clear, are you putting the delay solely down to the purposed pending arrival of the hounds?

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

"Recall that it has long been argued that Sir Robert Anderson is the most trustworthy and reliable commentator we have when it comes to the Whitechapel Murders case."

What fool first made that argument?

In my book, I pointed out three instances of Anderson lying in "The Lighter Side of My Official Life." There are probably more instances. Time will tell. Anderson was an arch fabulist.

The flaw in your argument is the idea of misconception, that everyone was telling the truth as they understood it. That way everyone gets off the hook.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

"Recall that it has long been argued that Sir Robert Anderson is the most trustworthy and reliable commentator we have when it comes to the Whitechapel Murders case."

What fool first made that argument?

Probably Anderson.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

"Recall that it has long been argued that Sir Robert Anderson is the most trustworthy and reliable commentator we have when it comes to the Whitechapel Murders case."

What fool first made that argument?

Probably Anderson.

c.d.

lol. bingo

[rjpalmer]

To be clear, are you putting the delay solely down to the purposed pending arrival of the hounds?

Monty

Hi Monty. Isn't that more or less that what Abberline stated at the inquest?

"Frederick G. Abberline, detective-inspector, Scotland-yard, having charge of this case, said he arrived at Miller's-court about 11:30 on Friday. He did not break open the door as Inspector Beck told him that the bloodhounds had been sent for and were on the way, and Dr. Phillips said it would be better not to break open the door until the dogs arrived. At 1:30 Superintendent Arnold arrived, and said the order for the dogs had been countermanded, and he gave orders to force the door." --The Times, Nov 13th.

Why shouldn't we take Abberline at his word? And in support of his statement, we have an interview with Anderson where he admits that he and Arnold discussed the matter of sending the dogs sometime around 11.15 a.m. and decided not to send them.

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.

It's unclear to me why you find asking these questions outlandish or conspiratorial. I am laying no blame at the feet of Abberline, Beck, or Phillips, but I do have to question the management style of the upper brass. Those on the front lines were obviously on an entirely different wave length than Anderson. If you disagree, why precisely do you disagree?