Help On Some Details

[Simon Wood]

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

[rjpalmer]

Having worked in a corporation for many years, a more cynical version of me would suggest that a very important event took place between 11.15 and 1.30 that may have delayed the arrival of Anderson and Arnold: lunch. And 'wires' run both ways, Simon. If they wired Anderson, he could have wired back.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

You're spot-on. Anderson could have wired/rung/telephoned back.

After he arrived in Millers Court he was quick enough to telephone Scotland Yard whilst Bond was conducting his preliminary examination of the body.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Well when there is a direct witness conflict between two witnesses someone either has to be telling lies, or has been misrepresented in the report. As has been said by Monty, researchers will believe which ever account suits their purpose.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Curious Cat]

Rolling things back to pre-killing, is this the likely timeline in the week leading up to the evening of 8th November...


Julia Vanturney 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, which results in a broken window (and possibly damage to the lock/door).

Joseph Barnett finds new lodgings in Bishopgate.

Julia Vanturney leaves 13 Miller's Court. 31st October-1st/2nd 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.

[Simon Wood]

It's a real stroke of luck that nobody visited or stayed with Kelly on the evening of 9th November.

[Wickerman]

Well when there is a direct witness conflict between two witnesses someone either has to be telling lies, or has been misrepresented in the report. As has been said by Monty, researchers will believe which ever account suits their purpose.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, "when there is a direct witness conflict between two witnesses", but how many times do we see this?
Far more lame accusations of lying are brought up in this case than are justified by the accuser offering the two opposing versions.

Then, the proposer will typically withdraw to, "well, I think he's lying".
What they fail to understand is, that is the same thing. Why on earth would you 'think' the witness is lying when you have no proof or factual indication of an alternate story?
A legitimate investigator might have a hunch a witness is lying, but the legitimate investigator will take steps to establish this hunch before he/she reaches a final conclusion in the theory.

[Wickerman]

Rolling things back to pre-killing, is this the likely timeline in the week leading up to the evening of 8th November...


Julia Vanturney is invited to stay at 13 Miller's Court at the end of October.

Vanturney was living with Harry Owen at No.1, directly opposite Kelly.

Isn't it odd that she would talk about Barnett at the inquest leaving Kelly when they argued, yet not mention that she was the one who moved in?
Barnett had to know her, given they lived opposite for about 10 months, yet neither Barnett or Vanturney mentioned her being the cause of the break-up.

Should we really be sure this was the "Julia" Barnett was talking about?

[Wickerman]

The police, on making a more minute search of the room in which the body was found, on Saturday morning discovered in the fireplace the charred rim and wirework of a woman's felt hat, as well as a piece of burnt velvet. These, no doubt, formed a portion of a hat and velvet jacket belonging to and worn by Kelly, which are missing. A woman, who is known by the name of Julia and who was in the habit of continually visiting Kelly's room, states she knew that she had two cotton shirts there.
Times, 12 Nov. 1888.

It is well established that Maria Harvey listed two cotton shirts among the clothes she left at room 13. Therefore, apparently identifying Maria Harvey with 'Julia'.

Yet, we have this attributed to Joe Barnett...

"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."
Penny Illustrated Press, 17 Nov. 1888.

Apparently distinguishing 'Julia' as separate from Maria Harvey.
For what it's worth, both Maria Harvey & Julia Vanturney claim to be a 'laundress'.

The latter article (PIP 17 Nov.) is attributed to Barnett, the former (Times 12 Nov.) is not attributed to anyone.
I wonder if the Times editor/reporter confused the Oct. 30th female visitor with the Nov 5/6th visitor. It might be an easy mistake to make.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

What are you trying to prove?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Trivia talk, Simon.
There's no, "the games afoot" to be had here, nothing to finally break the case wide open. And no theories to promote, none that come to mind...

[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?

I do not disagree Roger, nor find these questions outlandish or conspiratorial.

I’m merely trying to figure out why the delay is such an issue? And point out they were not sitting in their arses whilst waiting.

Certainly a lot more was discussed during that morning than the thirteen or so lines of statement laid down by Abberline at inquest. It is worth noting that the quote you cite is in relation to a specific question placed by the Coroner (Was it by your orders that the door was forced ?) as opposed to a more general one regarding what was initially done?

I also note that Anderson has no jurisdiction at the scene. He cannot view the soc until arrival and therefore cannot make the call regarding the dogs, nor to break down the door, he was not a player at that stage. Merely a provider and f information.

Neither am I at odds with you regarding Anderson. In fact I am with you. He was a barrister, not a police man. And plays the role as such. It seems to me that there was a communication breakdown in relation to the expected arrival hounds. Warren had laid down his own expectations yet confusion at the scene was compounded by Broughs retrieval of the dogs, Warrens resignation and the Lord Mayors show. Throw in the obtaining of a private photographer and location management, and we have a chaotic scene to manage.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

A legitimate investigator might have a hunch a witness is lying, but the legitimate investigator will take steps to establish this hunch before he/she reaches a final conclusion in the theory.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

[I]
For what it's worth, both Maria Harvey & Julia Vanturney claim to be a 'laundress'.

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?

"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."

[Sam Flynn]

And Barnett claimed they were both prostitutes, in the PIP, and blamed them for the break-up. Is this where the term "scrubber" originated?

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".