MKJ murder, NOT mjk?

[Suzi]

Hi all
I've read through though this huge thread with some interest
OK a few points spring to mind-

*The concept that MJK was tall is spurious she may have been shall we say taller than the average woman in the LVP which would have put her around 5' 6" at tops- hardly a giantess!.

*The fact that allegedly she wore her hair free is interesting but considering her alleged 'profession' that may have been shall we say an advertising point maybe

*The fact that Maria/Julia Harvey- a Laundress allegedly left clothes with MJK is interesting- at the time a 'Laundress' was a euphemism for a prostitute.OK the clothes were found there- but maybe that's just what friends do- we'll sort 'em tomorrow- pawn 'em or maybe get 'em washed for some coin.

* Let's assume then that MJK after the sightings various finally took to her bed after a few sings around 3.30 ish (Mary Cox/ Sarah Lewis etc etc) and the Mrs Prater is awoken by the ubiquitous Diddles at some time between 3.30 and 4.00 am taking no notice because it was such a 'common cry' so.... she goes back to sleep.

IMHO MJK staggered in wet and possibly 'not at her best' lit a few miserable bits on the fire and fell asleep leaving her boots to steam dry in the hope that they'd be wearable for The Lord Mayor's Show the following day.

* Mrs Maxwell allegedly didn't know MJK that well- but possibly well enough to be on some sort of first name terms as most people were in those times as a surname was something that could and would change quite often!..... and IF Mary was that noticable she would have almost certainly been in no mistake as to who the woman across the road was!

*Caroline Maxwell was a woman who dealt in regular times with regular duties and after her 'intense interrogation' stuck to her story- a total anomaly in the story of MJK which IMHO sparks a lot of doubts

*Concerning the TOD usually body teperature is a factor- many times on Casebook the fact that the body was 'stripped bare' and that the fire 'burnt the spout off of the kettle (or did it) comes into play Many theories have been put into play on this point

*Enough!- I feel that in the circumstances Mary would not have gone- let alone taken to her room- a stranger!- she took someone with whom she'd 'Be Comfortable'....now a trustee- ------a Priest?......a Policeman?....a Lover??? a Friend?? who knows..........but NO way would she have closed that door that night on a stranger!!!!!

Suzi
x

[richardnunweek]

Suzi.
Hello..I agree with you MJK would never taken a stranger back to her room during darkness, it just isnt feasible, according to Lottie, a resident of the court in 1888, Mary was fearful of the murders, infact she reportedly had a nightmare about murder[ hers].
According to Dew.. she was fearful of the Ripper[ where he got that from is unknown].
Fearful of taking a stranger back at night... yes.
But broad daylight..one wonders?
Enter Mrs Maxwell.
But that is medically impossible is it not?
Regards Richard.

[Suzi]

Hi Richard-
Exactly and I seem to recall she had Joe Barnett read to her re 'The 'Orrors' -odd for an "uneducated girl " I always say

Suz x

[richardnunweek]

Hi Suzi,
If Astracan was not a pure invention , then he must have been known to Mary, for there is no way 'spreeish ' or not, she would have invited a man dressed in that attire , carrying a parcel wrapped in American cloth, back to her room, its just not feasible, the same applies to Blotchy, he was known to her.
Both were .
There is a lot of questions needing answering in the Millers court murder, that we have not got to grips with yet, that goes without saying..
Still how longs this site been going 14 years , we have plenty of time......
The best Richard.

[Rubyretro]

...Well, surely a prostitute does invite strange men into isolated places and puts herself into a vulnerable position : that's why prostitutes get attacked
easily.

Having said that, I don't think that she invited any man to spend the night with her -I think that Hutch either accompanied, or followed , her back to the Court, observed her open the door by putting her arm through the window, hung around long enough to be sure she was asleep, then silently opened the door via the window himself, and attacked her in her bed.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Why would Hutch want to kill Mary, was he in your opinion JTR.?
Who was Hutchinson can you identify him?
Do you believe Topping, was the witness Hutchinson?
I do, 'Topping' was Hutchinson, and no killer, I do not dispair, that no one on Casebook heard a radio broadcast in the early 70s, like I did, when Reg Hutchinson [ son of Topping ] gave a recorded interview for radio.
I heard it, I know it was the same man that gave his name in the 'Ripper and the Royals'[ Some 18 years later] because it was the same account.
If anyone cares to search through every copy of the Radio Times, between 1971-75, and concentates on the rear pages, it will be there. I spent two hours two years ago, with two members of my family doing just that, it was a hot sweaty day, and guess what, we only searched the front , up to the start of the weekly programmes, not the rear which I now know it was .
I have little doubt that GWTH was the witness, and he was being genuine to the best of his ability, and assisted the police all he could.
Was the man he described kellys killer, and JTR,?..I have my reservations.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Richard, Hi ! I am well aware that it gets up some people's noses when
discussions turn into ' Hutch' debates...still you can't ignore him on a MJK thread and, I confess, your questions are like a red rag to a bull as far as I'm concerned ; So let's go:

Why would Hutch want to kill Mary, was he in your opinion JTR.?

Ill answer the second question first: Yes! I can't see two organ harvesting, throat cutting, strangling, murderers operating at the same time in such a small geographical area.
Why would Hutch want to kill Mary ? -well why would JtR want to kill Prostitutes ?? Mary was probably more physically attractive than most, had a private room to allow full reign for his fantasies, some shelter and a fire if he was tired from walking from Romford and found himself out in the cold and rain, nd he probably knew her and had built up a fantasy around her already.

[QUOTE]

Who was Hutchinson can you identify him?[

Nope. I think he was approx aged 28, fit, probably an ex-groom, possibly an ex-soldier, racist, a thug -but with some 'charm' (the gift of the gab), and crafty.

/QUOTE]Do you believe Topping, was the witness Hutchinson?

Nope -I certainly did; I've been convinced otherwise.

I do, 'Topping' was Hutchinson, and no killer, I do not dispair, that no one on Casebook heard a radio broadcast in the early 70s, like I did, when Reg Hutchinson [ son of Topping ] gave a recorded interview

I agree with Garry, that Reg might have been sincere, but Toppy could not have been 'Hutch' : Toppy told porkies. We have some facts about Toppy - namely that he had followed hs father into plumbing and had been a fairly long term apprentice, and he was only 22. I think that he was in the East End at the time, and did other jobs (to be fair to you), but a poor man with a valuable trade such as plumbing, would have given that trade as his main
occupation -not 'groom' (I can't see JtR being caught out lying on innocent
detail).

[QUOTE]

Was the man he described kellys killer, and JTR,?..I have my reservations

[
I have my reservations too, Richard -I think that A Man was made up.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
There is a chance that Astracan was invented, but with a twist ie, the police paid Hutchinson/Topping? to make a statement to that effect in order to confuse the possible killer of Kelly, and lead him into a false sense of security.
I doubt that however , although it may explain the money allegedly given to Hutch.
If Topping was the witness[ Which I believe] then he clearly liked the attention by mentioning that he knew a victim , and was paid, one hundred shillings for his help, but of course he having made the Astracan statement had to stick to that account, he could hardly admit it was invented by the police.
The payment which I believe existed, was not a poultry sum in those days, and was not given away just for a walkabout or two with officers.
I believe the 'Wheeling article' is of absolute importance, as this was a rare publication, and not likely to be purchased by the local east ender.
The mention of payment, was not commented on in any other newspaper, and although it was considered a 'Gossip sheet'. dont you think it strange that Topping decided that, as he had the same name as that witness, he would read up on his account, he would take in all the local gossip at the time, and mould himself in George Hutchinson, which would surely make a bob or two in future years, if not a few pints.
Anyone who believes that view I cannot understand.
I would suggest that only the real Hutchinson would be aware of what Topping refered to.
The last words of that 1970 radio broadcast stay in my memory' It was my fathers biggest regret, that dispite the efforts made, nothing came of it'
Topping was the witness.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

The payment which I believe existed, was not a poultry sum in those days

I'm tempted to say that it was 'chicken feed' -but it obviously wasn't.

Richard, I don't want to go on...but you know that I can't resist your gambits!

Imagine that you are a 22 year old man, a bit outgoing (I think that Toppy was, from the way he he met his wife), and the papers and public were all talking about a witness to the latest in a line of notorious murders in the area that you lived in..and that witness happened to be called Richard Nunweek, just like you (and don't forget that the name George Hutchinson
was far more frequent than 'Nunweek').

It is easy to imagine that your friends would joke about it, and it's easy to imagine that acquaintences in the pub would ask you if you were THE 'Richard Nunweek' -and stand you drinks for a story 'from the horse's mouth'. From there it is easy to imagine blagging free drinks for a lurid story
and a laugh, but also taking an active interest in the REAL witness's details -and, since this was an exceptional and maybe an exciting time -being the centre of attention- you'd never forget those details (especially if, like Toppy, you had a very good memory).

Maybe you wanted to impress a young son and dug the story up years later -a souvenir of your youth..an exciting time when you felt linked to the frenzy surrounding the Ripper crimes ?..yet tellingly, Toppy never mentioned that he
was shown MJK's body (surely a memorable , life marking experience ?), and he didn't talk about the case much at all..

I actually think that the Wheeler Report is a clue that Toppy lied to Reg: It is a fact that in false 'hypnotic regression' fantasies, we can see that (sincere) people did not really live former lives -not because of all the detailed historical facts which they got right, but because of the mistakes that they make which can be traced to mistakes in documents with which they have obviously come in contact.

I think that the Wheeler Report is wrong about the sum of money paid to Hutch -and if Toppy reported it, that was his source.

Garry is right that being an apprenticed plumber was costly and long, and at aged 22 (not fitting the description at all, of the Hutch the witness), why would he say that he was an 'un-employed Groom??

I can't believe that, going voluntarily to the Police, he would then lie about something so 'innocent' -it's not like he was trying to hide the fact that
he was a Butcher, or a Surgeon ? Why lie about plumbing ?

I read the handwriting Posts the other day -although superficially they are similar (due to learning fashionable styles by rote) -they are different.

Sorry, Hutch and Toppy were different people..

[richardnunweek]

Hello Rubyretro.
Information that I received, suggests Reg Hutchinson, proven son of Topping, knew absolutely nothing about the murders personally, infact he borrowed a book to educate himself from a younger member of the family.
I heard that broadcast in the early-mid 70s, 18 years prior to The publication The Ripper and the Royals, and it is extremely unlikely that Reg would, or could, make the whole episode up, the only way he could have given that interview for airing on radio was to have had the whole story given to him , by either his father, or a ambitious , eagle eyed radio producer.
I prefer the former.
I can see your argument, and I can not prove you are wrong.
But I do not suspect skull-dudgery present, and I still maintain that the elusive Wheeler report, was just that elusive, especially to the average east ender, and that the only person that could record the payment information, well into the 20th century was Topping.
It is known amongst the Topping family, and Regs wife, that the story was not inventory, dispite all the holes Casebook make .
Regards Richard.

[miss marple]

N o one is doubting Mrs M's respectability, or honesty, it is just that to believe she saw mk is make every one else wrong. The facts don't fit. She was not a friend of Mary, there were many people coming and going in Millers Court, she may have confused her with Maria Harvey.
To go back to her evidence.
She spoke to a woman at 8.30 in the morning, who had been drinking for days and had thrown up. She then saw her outside Ringers Pub at 9 talking to a man.
MK was seen butchered at 10.45 am by Bowyer.
Dr Bond examined her at 2 pm. Regor Mortis was setting in, this occurs 6 to 12 hours after death.Time of death is not an exact science, the doctors were not incompetent There are variables depending on external temperature.He thought she had been died between 2 and 6 am. AS THE BODY WAS COLD he opted for the earlier time.
As the body was cut up it would lose heat quicker so she might have been killed later, by only an hour or to, say 6am LATEST.
Dr Phillips who saw her at 11. 30 thought she had been dead 5 or 6 hours, say between 5 and 6
The heat of the fire in the room, may have slowed down the coolng of the body but not to the extent that she could have been killed after 9am.Both doctors had a ballpark time Before 6am
Mary had eaten her fish and potatoes the night before, still in her stomach, so not the woman who was violently sick at 8 30
To see Mary's movements the night before, there is nothing to suggest it was not her in her room.
Mary was drinking but there is no suggestion she had been drunk for days, or could not hold down a meal.
Mary had put her friend Maris Harvey up on the nights if 5 and 6 nov and Maria was with her on the afternoon of the 8th, she left when Joe Barnett visited mk about 7 SHE WAS SOBER.
Later that evening 11. 45 Mrs Cox saw Mary in front of her drunk with Blotchy man, they went to Mary's room.
Mrs Cox heard last heard Mary singing and 1am, there was still a light in her room
Mrs Cox went out at 1 came back at 3 all was quiet in Mary's room. Mrs Cox could not sleep and heard 'several men go in and out, and heard someone go out at 5.45. This could have been Jack.
If one believes Hutchinson he saw her enter her room at 2.30 with a client, which implies she went out after 1 am and was spotted later in her room
Either way, it places Mary in her room. A fire was lit to enable Jack to see what he was about, and he slipped out before 6.
The most truthful, honest,people can make mistakes. Witness evidence is famously unreliable, people being convinced they saw someone,look at all the sightings if Madelaine McCann. I think Mrs Maxwell had set in her mind that mk was someone else.
Cheers Miss Marple

[Chava]

Good points all, Miss Marple!

And the best refutation of Maxwell, in my opinion, is the fish and chips in the victim's stomach. The chippies stayed open late, but I doubt they were frying early. It's not likely that the woman who was so sick from drink that she couldn't keep a half-pint of beer down managed to stagger around until she found an open chippy. Bought, paid for and ate a heaping helping of lovely, fishy-smelling, lard-oozing fish and chips. And then managed to keep it all down long enough to partially digest it before being murdered.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I just dont buy that jack lit the fire to obtain light, the picture of jack prancing around the tiny room, sleeves rolled up lighting a fire, by the way when was this fire lit , before or after he killed Mary?
The mutilation on mjk was extensive, and I have no doubt, was carried out in daylight.. the body was discovered around 1045am, enough time for JTR to do his grizzly work.
I have always believed the man seen running through Mitre square around 1010am that morning is intresting, blood stained,respectable appearance, young, and carrying a parcel.
Especially as it was the same location as the double murder, my question is was this route passed on jacks way home after killing stride?
Remember the informant, who saw this man, mentioned seeing this man some forty minutes before kelly was discovered, and was not aware of the millers court bloodbath.
Regards Richard,

[joelhall]

what was the name of this witness, as I cannot find the reference to this?

Cheers,

Joel

[Chava]

Hi.
I just dont buy that jack lit the fire to obtain light, the picture of jack prancing around the tiny room, sleeves rolled up lighting a fire, by the way when was this fire lit , before or after he killed Mary?
The mutilation on mjk was extensive, and I have no doubt, was carried out in daylight.. the body was discovered around 1045am, enough time for JTR to do his grizzly work.
I have always believed the man seen running through Mitre square around 1010am that morning is intresting, blood stained,respectable appearance, young, and carrying a parcel.
Especially as it was the same location as the double murder, my question is was this route passed on jacks way home after killing stride?
Remember the informant, who saw this man, mentioned seeing this man some forty minutes before kelly was discovered, and was not aware of the millers court bloodbath.
Regards Richard,

But the windows in MJK's room face north. How much light do you think he'd get at that time of day at that time of year? And do you really think the Ripper would draw back the 'curtains' in order to get that light? I don't think I'd spend time dismembering a woman with the curtains drawn back so that anyone who came down the court in the middle of the morning and looked in the window could see what was going on.

The witness you're referring to, joelhall, is Caroline Maxwell.