Open or Closed-Probabilities

Dews personal recollections of the sight he saw in Room 13 cannot be accurate, as evidenced in the pictures that exist of that room and Marys remains. There were no "bulbous" organs or tissue hanging from the ceiling, for one.

Dews comments seems to be the easiest to debunk....although his comments that he often saw Mary with her hair out, with others of "her kind" and wearing a clean white smock do sound like they might be accurate. We do know that Mary knew Maria and Julia and Elizabeth and Mary Ann to some degree, all were assumed at least part time prostitutes.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Why are we suggesting that
a] He proberly was not even at the millers court scene
b] he proberly did not even enter room 13.
c] he proberly did not slip on the floor.
d] he proberly never, ever, knew Mjk.
e] he never interviewed a youth at commercial street station around 11am nov 9th
f] he never interviewed a youth in millers court after the body was discovered.
g]he could not distinquish the difference between a man in his fifties, and a 14 year old.

In order, Rich:

[a] He claims to have been on the spot, with Inspr Beck, and that the latter instructed him "For God's sake, Dew - don't look!". The only reference to this appears to be Dew's own memoirs. No mention of Dew was made by McCarthy or Bowyer at the time - and neither was Dew called to the inquest. Beck was called, but he doesn't mention Dew in his testimony. From this, it appears that Dew was not the first at the scene, as he claims, and - if that's the case - it must cast at least some doubt that he was ever there at all, at least whilst the body was in situ (see next point).

[b and c] It's possible that he was one of the officers who attended later, but his claim to have slipped in the "awfulness on the floor" doesn't seem to tally with the fact that the "awfulness" was either soaked into Kelly's mattress, actually on the mattress, or otherwise on the bedside table. This might be faulty recall, but if some newspaper accounts are to be believed, there was "awfulness" strewn all over Kelly's room. This suggests to me that Dew might have read one or more such accounts, using them to give the illusion that he knew what the inside of Miller's Court was like. We know otherwise.

[d] There is at least one reference (Kelly not wearing a hat) that may be traced back to contemporary newspaper reports. Whilst it's quite possible that this might have been Dew's personal recollection of Kelly, we can't be sure that he wasn't relying on press cuttings.

[e], [f], [g]. These, to me, are some of the most damning points against Dew's claimed involvement in the Kelly case, in that Dew mistakes the middle-aged (and some!) Thomas Bowyer for a "youth". I'm almost certain that this came about because Bowyer is described in numerous press accounts as McCarthy's "servant" who "helped at McCarthy's shop", and that Dew took this to mean that Bowyer was younger than his employer. Dew could not have been more wrong on this, and no amount of faulty memory can explain how a 50-something army veteran turns into an errand-boy.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
With reference to Dew, I have always felt it strange that the majority of Casebook place little inportance to his recollections.
Why are we suggesting that
a] He proberly was not even at the millers court scene
b] he proberly did not even enter room 13.
c] he proberly did not slip on the floor.
d] he proberly never, ever, knew Mjk.
e] he never interviewed a youth at commercial street station around 11am nov 9th
f] he never interviewed a youth in millers court after the body was discovered.
e]he could not distinquish the difference between a man in his fifties, and a 14 year old.
Infact at the time of penning his book, its a wonder if he knew his own name, for he [ according to casebook] was clearly a liar, or suffering from complete memory loss.
Fact is Inspector Dew, was a very good police officer, served the force well for many years, and made it clear in the book, that although many years have passed , the events of the 9th Nov 1888, were etched in his memory for ever.
And I can quite understand that...cant you?
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

I have to confess, Sam, I've never read Dew's book. From your description, though, it sounds right up my street!

Enjoy the sparklers.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

I’m not so sure about the retinal photographs being mythical, Sam. Certainly, in an internal memo dated 5 October, Henry Matthews inquired: ‘Have any of the doctors examined the eyes of the murdered women?’ Dr Phillips may have dismissed the idea of ocular afterimagery, but you can bet your bottom dollar that an investigative suggestion proffered by the Home Secretary would have superseded the scepticism of a lowly divisional surgeon.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

Nonetheless, there are no contemporary records to Kelly's eyes having been photographed, Garry. We know about the breaking down of her door, we know of the melted kettle, we know of the time wasted waiting for the dogs, we know of the sifting of the embers of the fire... even of Abberline's endorsement of our beloved Hutch's testimony. Yet there's not a sniff about ocular photography being used on Kelly anywhere, until Walter "Cuttings" Dew writes his undoubtedly spiced-up memoirs. "I was first on the scene... 'For God's sake Dew, don't look!".... "I fell in the awfulness on that floor", indeed! Was he limbo-dancing under the bed?

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

it didnt mention whether they thought that meant he was mistaken or a liar

Not explicitly, although an interesting extract from the Echo of 13th November may provide a clue:

Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I’m not so sure about the retinal photographs being mythical, Sam. Certainly, in an internal memo dated 5 October, Henry Matthews inquired: ‘Have any of the doctors examined the eyes of the murdered women?’ Dr Phillips may have dismissed the idea of ocular afterimagery, but you can bet your bottom dollar that an investigative suggestion proffered by the Home Secretary would have superseded the scepticism of a lowly divisional surgeon.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

I guess either you or I need a break, because when I cannot get Sam Flynn to use an open mind, common sense, logic and his quite able mind to see clearly what is being contended....then either my confidence in my ability to formulate an understandable post should be shaken, or in reality my opinion of the of the poster isnt quite accurate.

Ill assume its my inability to make an argument that cannot be refuted easily....although I know damn well that I have made such points that have been sound in evidence and logic, but have been refuted with opinions anyway by you and others......so.....time to re-direct some energy.....ciao for a while amigo.

All the best Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

and they did take photos of Marys eyes apparently.

The only contemporary reference to taking photographs of the eyes came in response to a question put by a juror to Bagster Phillips at Annie Chapman's inquest, and he dismissed the suggestion. It occurs to me that Walter Dew - who enshrined the "Kelly's eye-photograph" story in Ripper lore - either misremembered that exchange or tacked the story onto his account of the Kelly inquiry to spice it up. The "taking photographs of Kelly's eyes" story is, I firmly believe, yet another Ripperological myth.

How long did they leave any other Canonical body in place before effectively altering the crime scene by moving it?

Kelly was in bits! Of course it was going to take longer to deal with that crime-scene - and, to reiterate (I do a lot of reiteration these days) the body WAS removed on the afternoon it was found, and taken to the mortuary. That was nearly THREE DAYS before the inquest - plenty of time to make it half decent for witnesses, including next of kin, to make a formal identification.

Clearly in these cases, Marys murder scene was left untouched for much longer after its discovery than any other......and that was to maintain crime scene integrity....

And also because she was in bits, which meant that the doctors would have required longer to make an on-site examination. Famously, of course, the police were waiting for the dogs to arrive in addition. They certainly didn't keep the corpse there in order to force Joe Barnett's face to the window for any "peek-a-boo" identification to take place. (He said, reiterating again...)

one key facet of modern crime scene forensics.

... which they certainly didn't have at their disposal in 1888.

All I can tell you is that Glenn Andersson, who has studied hundreds if not more historical murders, told me that he believed that this may have been the first crime scene lockdown of its kind....and I can see that. The doctor decided he didnt need to enter immediately after glancing in the window, and so they waited for photographers, Im assuming Sketch artists, they tell us they waited for Bloodhounds that were in fact not on call anymore, both were out of town....and they entered with the mandate of recording the disposition of the room and its contents, including Mary, for some hours. Mary was in the room until around 4:30....they didnt enter until 1:30...so thats 3 hours on top of the 2 hours they had been waiting in the courtyard and taking notes and interviews. Just because they didnt use fingerprinting or hair and fiber analysis or DNA, they still apparently had "forensics" in the form of recordings...the camera....the pen and paper.....and they did take photos of Marys eyes apparently.

How long did they leave any other Canonical body in place before effectively altering the crime scene by moving it?

Clearly in these cases, Marys murder scene was left untouched for much longer after its discovery than any other......and that was to maintain crime scene integrity....one key facet of modern crime scene forensics.

All the best G.

[Sam Flynn]

Since this crime scene investigation may well be the first of its kind

I don't think so, somehow.

a scene completely locked down so forensics could be done

What "forensics" would they have carried out in 1888?

with the scene just as the killer left it...locked door and all.....

But the body WAS removed to a mortuary on the afternoon of its discovery - they didn't just seal her in there and whip her out before the inquest started.

there may have been no "procedures" as such.

There are many, many documented examples of witnesses being taken to mortuaries to officially identify corpses - before, during and after the Whitechapel Murders. I've yet to hear of too many occasions where the "next of kin" was put through the ordeal of identifying a mangled body at the blood-soaked scene of the crime.

Mike, dear chap, I wish you'd drop this increasingly surreal crusade.

We do not know when the other official IDs occurred either, but that they happened are documented in the police records, and the police had procedures to follow. And - for the umpteenth time - such procedures would not have entailed playing "peek-a-boo" through a broken window pane occluded by a makeshift curtain.

Hi again Sam,

Since this crime scene investigation may well be the first of its kind, a scene completely locked down so forensics could be done with the scene just as the killer left it...locked door and all.....there may have been no "procedures" as such. Perhaps this time something different was done for the IDs...since the lock down itself was a new thing for them. Mary was not moved until nearly 5pm.

On your point on Hutchinson, your correct, his story was said to be discreditted....it didnt mention whether they thought that meant he was mistaken or a liar....but at least Carrie was told she was likely mistaken to her face. We dont know what they thought of his character.

Best regards

[algernon]

Merely wondering here,exactly what sequence of events would need to be in place to envisage the body on the bed being anyone other than Mary Kelly?
To enable Kelly to escape and change her identity ,being thought dead? If so-to escape what exactly?And if that was the case ,then surely far from being the victim,Kelly would ,indeed be more likely to have been the murderer,or at best deeply implicated.
I guess its an interesting,if somewhat unorthodox way of looking at things,to say the least perhaps.

[Sam Flynn]

How difficult would it be... based on Hutchinson being eventually discredited...

To be clear, Mike, it was Hutchinson's story that was reported to have been "discredited". To say that Hutchinson was discredited puts an entirely different - and possibly false - perspective on the matter, in that it seems to deprecate his character. That his story was "now discredited" might well mean that it was simply no longer believed, and that may or may not have had anything to do with the character of the man himself.

[Sam Flynn]

What we do not KNOW though Sam is where and when the ID of Mary by Barnett occurred.

We do not know when the other official IDs occurred either, but that they happened are documented in the police records, and the police had procedures to follow. And - for the umpteenth time - such procedures would not have entailed playing "peek-a-boo" through a broken window pane occluded by a makeshift curtain.