Could MJK have survived Miller's Court

[Michael W Richards]

And that doesn't strike you as odd?

Hi again curious,

It would strike me as odd if someone who should in fact be homeless at the time....due to her arrears....had more than 1 or 2 "outfits". I enclosed the word in quotations because its probable that many of the women we look at in this area of study would wear different combinations of the same clothing in order to get some variety in their wardrobe.

Look at what Catharine was wearing the night she is killed...everything she owned apparently. We might expect that Mary, being the only Canonical who wasnt homeless at the time of her death and the only one killed in her own place of residence, might have more clothing than the garments we have heard about, but, any clothing she may have had might well have been pawned for booze in the weeks Joe and her weren't paying their rent.

I figure that they couldnt pay for a replacement window pane, nor could they likely pay for another key to be cut to replace the one they "lost"....either one might have been affordable with one nice dress to pawn.

Mary was said to have been frightened by the killer stalking the streets....if she had the means to make her room safer I suspect she would have.

Cheers c

[Wickerman]

The only witness we know saw Mary Kelly near home is Mary Ann Cox curious, so.. we actually have one outfit described.

How do you mean, "know"?

Maxwell's sighting is confirmed/supported(?) by Maurice Lewis, and a few others.
Cox's sighting was confirmed by no-one. Even Cox's presence at that location and at that time remains unconfirmed by anyone, whether she actually saw Kelly or not.

I'm not suggesting I prefer one witness over the other, I'm just questioning your use of what "we know", in this context.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

To me the way MJK is said to have spoken does not suggest a woman who has just found a horrific murder has taken place in her room. While being sick might be a response to shock.

I agree. She also does not sound like someone about to abscond. The only two things that make sense are that She died after Mrs. Maxwell saw her, or Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken.

@ RivkahChaya

I know there are questions of TOD, but if MJK was spotted at 10:00, and then found dead and completely destroyed at 10:45 ... then a whole gang must have worked her over, IMHO.

I agree with the poster who said it is entirely possible Mrs. Maxwell did not know who Mary Kelly was, and thought she was someone else staying at miller's Court, although that woman wouldn't have come from Miller's Court that particulat morning.

Regarding time: the police probably carried watches, and McCarthy may have had an office clock, but mist people relied on the nearest bells, which I suspect rang on the full, half, and quarter hour, because every time reported is just that, n:00, n:15, n:30, or n:45. People are probably reporting the time as the last bells they heard, and it's always possible, especially when dealing with 9 or 10, that someone miscounted. You also have to wonder about someone up in the middle of the night, if they were up long enough to hear a correct time, or if those are all pure guesses.

1:30 if probably reasonably reliable, because there were several policemen there, and inspectors, at some some of whom I would think had watches, but 1:30 was still a median time, and maybe the bell had just rung.

Anyway, when Caroline Maxwell says "9am," that could mean she heard the 9am bell, but hadn't heard 9:15, or it could mean she heard 8:45, and it had been some time, so she thought it was very close to 9:00. Or, she could have heard 8, and miscounted. Do we know whether she had to be some place, and had a good reason to know 9 from 8?

The person who said 10 could have miscounted, or could have had a watch that was slow, or could be mistaken entirely, and that doesn't mean that CM was mistaken.

Bowyer may have heard the 10:45 bells, and was reporting the last bells he heard, and he really got there at 11, or what he saw on the clock when he left the office, or perhaps he left at 10:30, and added time for the walk. Maybe the walk was really just five minutes, but he was accustomed to giving times in quarter hours.

My point is, that I think that times are just estimates, and as such, actually allow for MJK to have been killed between the time she saw CM, and the time Bowyer stopped by.

Really, CM could have seen Kelly anywhere between 8:53 and 9:14, unless she was off by an entire hour, and saw her somewhere around 8. Or maybe she hadn't heard any bells, and just made a guess, and really saw her at 8:40. Same sort of muddle for the person who claimed to have seen her at 10. He doubtfully saw her right at 10, and could have seen her as much as an hour earlier. It's also possible that CM was correct, but he was wrong. That could get MJK back home at 9:30, and put Bowyer there as late as 11.

Unless, for some reason, Bowyer did not go straight to Kelly's (I don't really think this-- it's "movie version"), but if his employer saw him leave the office at 10:35, and he gets to the police at 11:25, he's not going to admit he ran a personal errand first, and found a policeman in five minutes. He's going to claim to have gone straight to Miller's Court, and put the delay in looking for the police. But 10:45 has come down to us as the time he found the body. Maye he did really hear bells, or thoughtfully check his pocket-watch immediately upon finding the body, because he's been watching CSI, and reading Agatha Christie, but I don't see a time in the A-Z for Bowyer contacting police.

But even being very conservative, with Kelly back home after 10, and Bowyer at the room at 10:45, well, I didn't watch, but there are several youtube videos that claim to show you how to butcher large carcasses (cows and deer, mostly, but there a pig), from whole body to cuts of meat, and they vary in length from 6:45 (minutes:seconds) to just under 10 minutes.

I know a lot of our units of measurement are different, and the atom, let alone the cesium atom, hadn't been discovered in 1888, but pretty much, a minute was still a minute then. It wasn't like pounds, and stones and shillings, and meters.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
Mrs Prater saw Kelly at 9pm wearing her jacket and bonnet, the latter only being left that day by Harvey, making it a sure thing that Prater was not mistaken on date, and she could hardly be mistaken on identifying Kelly.
Mrs Cox saw Kelly at 1145 , minus the jacket and bonnet,
So that is two outfits.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The year 1888, albeit 124 years ago, is not so ancient as people realise.
People were not primitive, if one reads the papers of that period, [ not just the Ripper sections] one can relate somewhat to life today, the advertisements, the gossip etc.
My grandmother 1880-1963 was nearly 9 when the Ripper murders were happening, going to school, along the same roads that are in the area today, attending the same school, which is 100 yards from my cottage.
They might not have had the transport , and modern day technology , but normal family life continued, as they knew it, and clocks, and timing was still essential as in today's world .
So we should not discount people like Maxwell, Maurice Lewis, Bowyer, as oblivious to time, and speculate vast differentials .
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The year 1888, albeit 124 years ago, is not so ancient as people realise.
People were not primitive, if one reads the papers of that period, [ not just the Ripper sections] one can relate somewhat to life today, the advertisements, the gossip etc.
My grandmother 1880-1963 was nearly 9, when the Ripper murders were happening, going to school, along the same roads that are in the area today, attending the same school, which is 100 yards from my cottage.
They might not have had the transport , and modern day technology , but normal family life continued, as they knew it, and clocks, and timing was still essential as in today's world .
So we should not discount people like Maxwell, Maurice Lewis, Bowyer, as oblivious to time, and speculate vast differentials .
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Sorry double posted
Richard

[Wickerman]

I agree. She also does not sound like someone about to abscond. The only two things that make sense are that She died after Mrs. Maxwell saw her, or Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken.

More likely the latter, but there are problems with both scenario's.

Regarding time: the police probably carried watches, ...

Constables on the beat were not issued with a watch. Whether anyone carried a watch would depend on whether he owned one himself.
Indications from court testimony involving police statements is that for the most part a beat constable relied on local clocks just like most of the citizenry, ie; they did not carry watches.

and McCarthy may have had an office clock, but mist people relied on the nearest bells, which I suspect rang on the full, half, and quarter hour, because every time reported is just that, n:00, n:15, n:30, or n:45.

When I was a kid the local church bell would ring a different pattern of chimes on the quarter-hour than the half-hour, but there is still the count problem.
Because there is no advance warning of a serious incident the best a witness can do is try to remember the chime-count last heard before the discovery of a body. Its a question of memory recall and as such cannot be relied on fully.

My point is, that I think that times are just estimates, ....

Quite so, and should be taken as such throughout the case, not just with this scenario. Too much reliance is put on stated times given by witnesses.

With Maxwell though, I do not feel comfortable in accepting her sighting, even though it is supported by Lewis. Maxwell must have been mistaken in who she saw, only adding that they exchanged words just to make her sighting more believable.
It is an intriguing problem.

Regards, Jon S.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi,

They might not have had the transport , and modern day technology , but normal family life continued, as they knew it, and clocks, and timing was still essential as in today's world .
So we should not discount people like Maxwell, Maurice Lewis, Bowyer, as oblivious to time, and speculate vast differentials .
Regards Richard.

We can speculate that they were mistaken as to time, or as to who they actually saw. This is a good way to think if all you wish to entertain is that MJK died in that room.

If we accept that people were more time-conscious, after all those who had jobs didn't dare be late, and those looking for day work would know when the best times to find say, a ship that needed unloading or something of the sort.
This is the way to think if you wish to entertain the possibility of MJK surviving. Clocks and watches existed, so this wasn't tell time by the sun or anything.

Even today, people such as migrant workers and day laborers know exactly where to go and when to be likely selected for work. My dad lived in Tucson, and in the mornings jobless people, mostly Mexican illegals, would be on certain street corners at certain times in the mornings. Guys would drive up and truck and hold up fingers to indicate how many workers they needed. The required number would climb in the back of the truck and the next person hiring would take his place and so on. None of these people would dare to be late, they needed the work. Whitechapel was very similar.

We have a very interesting debate here, and I'm glad to see people debating and not fighting. I salute you all!

God Bless

Raven Darkendale

[curious]

Hi again curious,

It would strike me as odd if someone who should in fact be homeless at the time....due to her arrears....had more than 1 or 2 "outfits". I enclosed the word in quotations because its probable that many of the women we look at in this area of study would wear different combinations of the same clothing in order to get some variety in their wardrobe.

Look at what Catharine was wearing the night she is killed...everything she owned apparently. We might expect that Mary, being the only Canonical who wasnt homeless at the time of her death and the only one killed in her own place of residence, might have more clothing than the garments we have heard about, but, any clothing she may have had might well have been pawned for booze in the weeks Joe and her weren't paying their rent.

I figure that they couldnt pay for a replacement window pane, nor could they likely pay for another key to be cut to replace the one they "lost"....either one might have been affordable with one nice dress to pawn.

Mary was said to have been frightened by the killer stalking the streets....if she had the means to make her room safer I suspect she would have.

Cheers c

Hello, Michael,
I understand where you are coming from, Michael, and you may be right.

On the other hand, we have all sorts of stories of MJK being "finer" and "better" than the other women in her station of life.

She had apparently lived with at least two and possibly three different men who worked and kept a roof over her head.

In addition, Walter Dew in his book apparently made a statement about her always wearing a long pristine apron.

The clothing appears to be an issue.

I don't think she would have spent good money on having the window replaced for her personal safety, because she would not have been expecting not to be safe in her home. The murders had all been out on the streets. So, I don't believe that replacing the glass would have entered her mind as a safety issue.

curious

[andy1867]

I'm a little curious as to why the Landlord... McCarthy?...would let arrears reach the sum of the said 29 shillings..You read it was 4d for a doss for the night...was the rent of a property at the time a lot higher....has anybody any idea how much the 29 shillings would equate to as in terms of time?
regards
Andy

[Michael W Richards]

Some good questions and points made.

To address responses to my last post...

Jon, when I said that Cox is the witness we know was there its because she is the only witness that lived in the court and had to pass Marys room when she came in and out. No-one else staying in the courtyard that night saw Mary, and I believe some that said they saw Mary didnt. Mrs Maxwell had lived on the street Mary lived on and saw her once and a while. I believe they spoke either once or twice in the 4 months previous to "Co[a]rrie's" story. By the by, I doubt Mary was on a first name basis with a very casual knowledge of each other.

Richard, I consider what was described by Prater as accessories, not wardrobe, so I dont believe taking a hat off and jacket/sweater off constitutes a wardrobe change. I also know that Mary was described by a few people as being in the habit of not wearing headgear and having her hair out, likely braided, often.

Curious, I believe that from what we are told about Mary Kelly that she has been in some decline since her time as an escort to a France bound gentleman, and I think you struck on a key element of Mary Kelly when you mention her having men "take care" of her. When added to her comments about her regrets for her lifestyle, her arrears, and Joe coming daily to give her money, I think its likely she convinced the men in her life that if they wanted her off the streets as their gal then they better have the coin.

I think that may be the real reason why Joe was ousted at the end of October. He hadnt been "keeping" her well. Perhaps the fight that causes the window damage had to do with matters like that. By the way, I think its likely the second pane broken was the one that offered access to the latch, I think the higher pane breakage on the left was a result of the fight and they needed to make the additional lower right access break when the key was lost, to reach the latch.

Seems to me a young and apparently attractive woman who sold her favours on the streets would have no reason to run arrears at all. She would be far more marketable than women like Polly, Annie and Liz. I think the arrears shows she wasnt the type to work the streets unless no-one around her came up with a meal or some drink money for her.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

I'm a little curious as to why the Landlord... McCarthy?...would let arrears reach the sum of the said 29 shillings..You read it was 4d for a doss for the night...was the rent of a property at the time a lot higher....has anybody any idea how much the 29 shillings would equate to as in terms of time?

Hi Andy

You and me both mate...and it's been very widely speculated upon by a whole raft of people...I think the weekly rent on the room in Millers Court was 4s 6d, so the 29s represented over six weeks rent...however, it has to be borne in mind that McCarthy ran the chandlers at the entrance to the court, and might've allowed a "slate" to build up to a tenant...so the sum owed might include some necessities such as food, as well as rent.

McCarthy and his role have been debated fairly recently at:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6796

and:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6449

You should find much food for thought there!

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

So we should not discount people like Maxwell, Maurice Lewis, Bowyer, as oblivious to time, and speculate vast differentials .
Regards Richard.

I didn't say "oblivious," I just said "not as precise as now."

Seriously, in my own lifetime, people have gotten more precise with time, as we've moved from analog to digital clocks, and from wind-up, to electric, to electronic, to satellite. My father was a very punctual person, and would call up time & temp on the phone every morning, and set his watch, then wind it. If it had gained or lost more than a minute or two overnight, he'd adjust the speed, and he'd check the big clock on campus, because that's what most of his students relied on. He'd get annoyed with my mother if he watch was running more than five minutes fast or slow, or she'd forgotten to wind it.

I'm not saying that people just reckoned morning, noon, afternoon, and evening, but when someone says that something happened at 9am, I think it's reasonable to assume there's some play in there-- not hours, but 20 minutes or so, and it's not quite the same as someone today saying their cell phone said 9:06 when something happened. In that case, you really can believe that it happened within about a minute of 9:06, particularly since you can check with the person's cell phone provider to find out whether the time was broadcasting correctly then.

I'm a little curious as to why the Landlord... McCarthy?...would let arrears reach the sum of the said 29 shillings..You read it was 4d for a doss for the night...was the rent of a property at the time a lot higher....has anybody any idea how much the 29 shillings would equate to as in terms of time?
regards
Andy

The figure I always see is that she was 6 weeks behind, which was almost 5 shillings a week.

A shilling was worth 1/12 of a pound then, and a pound in 1888 was worth ~5 US dollars. (I have to convert to dollars, or I can't do this.) So, she was paying 5(1/12x$5), or $2.08 every week. It depends on what you are buying, but a dollar then had anywhere from 4 to about 20 times the purchasing power it has now. Housing would be on the higher end, particularly housing in London, even crappy housing. That means she'd be paying a little over $40 a week. People who rent partitioned space in apartments with a separate entrance (which isn't legal) in New York usually charge between $50 and 100 a week, depending on a lot of things, like bathroom access, and whether there's a stove. People sometimes "sublet" their couches to people who are between leases for $10-25, depending on whether or not you're a good friend, and how long they expect you to be there. (No, no one charges a friend who is there for a few days, but you need to think about utilities, and sometimes it costs $10 just to get a spare key made.)

Working backwards, she was paying about 23 pounds a week in modern money.

For a crappy room, in a crappy neighborhood, where housing was very competitive, and she did have a fireplace, a window, and an outside entrance, it sounds about right to me.

My question is what evidence we have, other than McCarthy's statement, for the amount owed. Is there any reason he thought someone else might reimburse him, now that she was dead, and so he added on a few extra weeks, or he wanted to keep whatever she left behind, so he made sure she owed enough that he'd get to? Or did he think that by sounding like he'd already put up with a lot, the police would hurry up and release the crime scene, as opposed to preventing him from cleaning it up and renting it again, by continuing the investigation?

I'm just saying, it's another reason for the amount.

Or, there's this: maybe he just collected once a month, she hadn't yet paid for October, it was a week and a half into November, and he'd made just a couple of attempts to collect for November so far. Maybe she'd actually been good about paying, back when Barnett was there, and had been there a while, which is why he'd been collecting by the month, and really had just missed her when he'd tried for October. If he didn't know Barnett had moved out-- or even if he did, if she had a good track record, he didn't have any reason to believe that as soon as he caught her in, he'd get the money.

Saying she was "six weeks in arrears" makes it sound like she was giving him a new excuse once, twice or even three times a week for six weeks, but that might not be the case. She might have been nine days late with something she usually paid on time (and "on time" might mean the 2nd or 3rd of the month), and he'd just not seen her, rather than been turned away with an excuse.

Where does the "six weeks arrears" come from anyway? Does it come from McCarthy? or was it the sob story she was telling friends, when she tried to borrow money?

[Cogidubnus]

currency clarification

Hi Rivkah

A pound consisted 240 pennies...a shilling was twelve pennies, and therefore a twentieth of a pound...

Two shillings (a florin or two bob) was a tenth of a pound.

Two shillings and sixpence (a half crown, two and a kick or half a dollar) was an eighth of a pound

All the best

Dave