Finding more out about MJK

[MayBea]

I don't believe it was Maybrick.

I hope that doesn't put you off of Liverpool as Mary's place of origin.

Some think a Liverpool accent would be easily recognizable to Whitechapelers, but I don't believe that is true.

To me, it would be like a Newfoundlander saying he's from Nova Scotia. Sure, you can tell the difference if you live with Newfoundlanders and have been to Nova Scotia often. Otherwise, you could easily be fooled.

Four years in London for a woman who's a vocalist or sorts makes a difference too. Singing tends to remove accents so singers can probably do the same when speaking.

[Natasha]

I hope that doesn't put you off of Liverpool as Mary's place of origin.

Some think a Liverpool accent would be easily recognizable to Whitechapelers, but I don't believe that is true.

To me, it would be like a Newfoundlander saying he's from Nova Scotia. Sure, you can tell the difference if you live with Newfoundlanders and have been to Nova Scotia often. Otherwise, you could easily be fooled.

Four years in London for a woman who's a vocalist or sorts makes a difference too. Singing tends to remove accents so singers can probably do the same when speaking.

Hi MayBea,

I agree!

As it was said on the info on Kelly, there was problems with ascertaining where she came from. Some of the witness s say Kelly spoke of Wales & Ireland, but perhaps it was a case of Chinese whispers.

I have been looking into the Liverpool theory, and I have found the following:

Marriage: 31 Oct 1874 All Saints Parish, Stand, Lancashire, England
James Kelly - (X), full Collier Bachelor of Park Lane
Mary Ellen Harrison - 19 Winder Spinster of Park Lane
Groom's Father: Bridget Kelly, Spinster
Bride's Father: William Harrison, Labourer
Witness: William Briggs; Alice Anne Harrison
Married by Banns by: Richard K. Corser, Curate
Register: Marriages 1869-1880

I haven't had a chance to look into the above info, but it's a start. Also I have been looking at a possible murder in Liverpool connected to the ripper case:

http://www.old-merseytimes.co.uk/murder1879.html

My next move, is to look at the mining history in Liverpool.

[Natasha]

G'day Natasha



In 1888?

Hi GUT

I've said before that there were female searchers in prison, and because the victims were women, I can't believe it wasn't an option for the police to suggest at the very least

[Natasha]

We can't compare detection in 1888 to what's available today. They didn't have blood grouping, they couldn't even identify human from animal blood, they didn't have fingerprinting and the only real way to uncover the killer was to catch him in the act. Whitechapel 1888 late night was busy and much busier than what we would see in a city today. Putting women around to be caught would have been close to futile given the crowds out late, and the numbers of prostitutes working.

The Jewish community in Whitechapel at the time was quite large especially in clothing manufacture and retailing. It would be hard if not impossible to work out where to start, and there's no evidence that a Jew was involved.

Hi Mark

I know it was quite primitive in terms of forensic science back then, but other cases in that era were solved.

I think as the first victim may have been perceived as not important, that may have contributed to the ripper getting away with the murders. If it had been people who were upper class who were murdered, this case would probably have been solved. I think so anyway.

I know the streets were busy etc, but as I've said before cases of that time have been solved. There was a murder/robbery on a train that was solved, I think the suspect was arrested in Germany. They caught Holmes. There was the French Ripper as well, that was solved. You see what I mean.

Schwartz would be a good place to start.

The GSG, I'm not saying it was defo linked, but Warren didn't take that seriously, rather he was more interested in protecting the Jews than the poor women who were killed.
You may argue that it was done to stop a riot, but the murders themselves were causing more unrest. It was important evidence. Also if they were really worried about riots starting, why not find out who wrote it? There was nothing to stop the writer of the GSG doing it again. I do take into account that the GSG could have been a diversion for the police, but as the ripper was never caught for the crimes that have now become an infamous mystery, we may never know how important the Jews were in all this.

[Cogidubnus]

Realistically there were very few ways an "ordinary" murderer was going to be traced...witness testimony, informants, analysis of motive, being caught in the act etc...yet, despite the odds, the police, particularly the Met, were pretty good at tracking these down...

But this wasn't an "ordinary" murder

This was something new as far as the Met were concerned, (and pretty new as damn nearly every other police force in the world was fairly soon to find out)...This was an apparently motiveless serial killer...

The witness testimony was so fragmented as to be useless, the usual informants were silent, there was no apparent motive, and despite a couple of near-misses nobody was caught in the act...

There were no forensics, no fingerprints, no reliable witnesses, no obvious motives, no cctv, and all this in a seething mass of humanity that few nowdays can truly imagine, and yet it is still asserted confidently by some posters that the Met were somehow deficient...

They worked their arses off and tried everything that was then known...for all we know they may have come close, they may have halted or slowed JtR (we don't know because so much evidence is missing)...but it is totally unfair to brand the police inefficient...I would contend that only a total prat or someone with an underlying motive would claim this...but who knows...I may be wrong too!

All the best

Dave

[Sam Flynn]

Some think a Liverpool accent would be easily recognizable to Whitechapelers, but I don't believe that is true.

Did you ever re-do that more detailed census survey, MayBea? I'm pretty sure we'd find a goodly number of people of (broadly) Liverpudlian origin possessing (broadly) Liverpudlian accents living in or moving about the East End. Not that it would take too many for the accent to become familiar; you'd only need one and he'd be heard for miles

(Sorry! I shared digs with a Wallasey lad during my student years, and I know you're not all as loud as he was )

[Natasha]

Realistically there were very few ways an "ordinary" murderer was going to be traced...witness testimony, informants, analysis of motive, being caught in the act etc...yet, despite the odds, the police, particularly the Met, were pretty good at tracking these down...

But this wasn't an "ordinary" murder

This was something new as far as the Met were concerned, (and pretty new as damn nearly every other police force in the world was fairly soon to find out)...This was an apparently motiveless serial killer...

The witness testimony was so fragmented as to be useless, the usual informants were silent, there was no apparent motive, and despite a couple of near-misses nobody was caught in the act...

There were no forensics, no fingerprints, no reliable witnesses, no obvious motives, no cctv, and all this in a seething mass of humanity that few nowdays can truly imagine, and yet it is still asserted confidently by some posters that the Met were somehow deficient...

They worked their arses off and tried everything that was then known...for all we know they may have come close, they may have halted or slowed JtR (we don't know because so much evidence is missing)...but it is totally unfair to brand the police inefficient...I would contend that only a total prat or someone with an underlying motive would claim this...but who knows...I may be wrong too!

All the best

Dave

Dave

I don't take being put in the camp of prat very kindly, I will take it personally because it was me who mentioned the police may have been incompetent.

It is obvious I hit a nerve for you to comment vehemently.

I don't have any 'underlying motive' as you put it, but there are cases today, although quite rare, where some policemen have either committed a crime, or have tampered with evidence.

We don't have sufficient evidence, paperwork etc on this case, every angle needs to be assessed, even the police!

TBH, Dave has been a real pain in my a*** on ere, ever since I joined, I will not report it, because people are allowed to their opinions, and this is mine.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Natasha

I most certainly did not intend you to take personally anything I put in my post...particularly the prat label (which with hindsight probably wasn't the wisest terminology I've employed) and I'm sorry if you should've interpreted it that way...

There's no personal nerve hit either...it's just that with the state of forensics and scientific detection in 1888, the only chance the police really had of catching JtR was either by means of an informant, a reliable witness or the incredible luck to catch him in the act. In the abdsence of the first two, and no luck with the third, they were doomed to failure. It's hard catching a serial killer today...back then almost impossible

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell

I think they could have questioned the Jewish community more.

Hi Natasha,

We don't know the extent to which they questioned the Jewish community.

In regards to Schwartz, they could have questioned him further, make him attend the inquest etc. I'm very surprised they never suspected him.

Do we know the extent to which the police questioned Schwartz? Do we know that he wasn't suspected? (The surviving records are far from complete). It is the coroner (not the police) who decides who will and will not be called to give evidence at an inquest. His non attendance at the inquest cannot be ascribed to police incompetence.

They should have employed women to go undercover, and shadowed them, in order to catch the ripper.

And if one of them had been killed? This was a risk they may have been wise not to take (even supposing that there had been any volunteers for such dangerous employment).

This is one of the biggest mysteries in history, they managed to crack other cases back then. So why was this case so difficult to solve?

It's one of the most famous certainly. This was an era before fingerprint technology or effective crime scene investigation. These appear to have been random attacks. It is very difficult, even today, to protect an entire community against a killer of this kind.

It has been suggested that maybe someone in the force was somehow involved and TBH I think that's quite feasible.

It has been suggested but there is not a shred of evidence to support such a contention.

[MayBea]

Did you ever re-do that more detailed census survey, MayBea? I'm pretty sure we'd find a goodly number of people of (broadly) Liverpudlian origin possessing (broadly) Liverpudlian accents living in or moving about the East End.

I just completed a broader search on Findmypast.co.uk. Here are my results:

Your search criteria
Lancashire
Birth county

Whitechapel
Registration district

Your search returned 486 results

That's around 500 people born in Lancashire living in Whitechapel Reg. dist. in 1881. Whitechapel Reg. dist. has a census-return population of 70000.

Of those 500, maybe half are Liverpudlians and, depending on when they left, fewer still would have a Liverpool accent.

So I think we're talking about 200 or so out of 70000. And that 70000 is a sea of accents--Russian/Eastern European/German/Jewish/Irish/Scottish/Welsh/various London and England/Scandinavian/Mediterranean/etc...

'iya me name is Ringo. Am Davvies.

[RockySullivan]

Looking for L.E Fisher whose name was on the shorts which the thames torso was found in...I stumbled upon the name Lizzie Fisher who possibly lived above Mary Kelly? This brought me to an old thread and someone who had the same though...could LE Fisher be Lizzy Fisher? Does anyone know lizzie's middle name or anything about her? It's interesting that Mary Kelly was first falsely identified as someone who shared the same initials that where on the clothes with thames torso!

here's the archived thread:http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/5730.html

But then this....

"With regard to the drawers bearing the name "L.E. Fisher" on the band, and which the man Faircloth had stated had been bought at a lodging-house at Ipswich, it had been found that they belonged originally to a domestic servant at Kirkley, near Lowestoft, and had been sold as old rags by her mother while staying near her daughter in November last."

Is this true are there any other sources for this i wonder? who was the servant at kirkely...an LE Fisher? Did John Faircloth...the man who lived with Liz Jackson in Ipswhich claim the shorts were Jacksons? It;s interesting that this link includes an anectode about Faircloth having "two black eyes"...could the ripper have sustained black eyes from one of the victims fighting back? I wonder when these black eyes occured...i cant seem to make sense of the story about faircloth posted in the below thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=62

anyway...is there no chance that the LE Fisher on the shorts was Lizzie Fisher, MJK's neighbor?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=62

[MayBea]

I'd like to know what the source is for the existence of a neighbour on the second floor named Lizzie Fisher.

It's quoted all over the place but there is no citation or reference.

[Debra A]

Looking for L.E Fisher whose name was on the shorts which the thames torso was found in...I stumbled upon the name Lizzie Fisher who possibly lived above Mary Kelly? This brought me to an old thread and someone who had the same though...could LE Fisher be Lizzy Fisher? Does anyone know lizzie's middle name or anything about her? It's interesting that Mary Kelly was first falsely identified as someone who shared the same initials that where on the clothes with thames torso!

here's the archived thread:http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/5730.html

But then this....

"With regard to the drawers bearing the name "L.E. Fisher" on the band, and which the man Faircloth had stated had been bought at a lodging-house at Ipswich, it had been found that they belonged originally to a domestic servant at Kirkley, near Lowestoft, and had been sold as old rags by her mother while staying near her daughter in November last."

Is this true are there any other sources for this i wonder? who was the servant at kirkely...an LE Fisher? Did John Faircloth...the man who lived with Liz Jackson in Ipswhich claim the shorts were Jacksons? It;s interesting that this link includes an anectode about Faircloth having "two black eyes"...could the ripper have sustained black eyes from one of the victims fighting back? I wonder when these black eyes occured...i cant seem to make sense of the story about faircloth posted in the below thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=62

anyway...is there no chance that the LE Fisher on the shorts was Lizzie Fisher, MJK's neighbor?


http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=62

The underwear stenciled LE Fisher was identified by the previous owner. I can't remember the details offhand but the person was traced and recognised the garment that had been sold as 'rags' that was bought for Elizabeth by Faircloth.

Faircloth was given the two black eyes by Elizabeth Jackson when she threw a handbrush at him during a row. Faircloth didn't go to work for a couple of days after it happened and lied about the reason for not turning up for work. They were in Ipswich at this time.

I'm not sure there was a real Lizzie Fisher in Miller's Court, it was just a mistake I thought? Coincidentally, Catherine Eddowes had a sister named Elizabeth Fisher too.

[Penhalion]

I don't think it would have been practical to have women as 'undercover decoys' because at some point they would have had to actually perform as sex workers to maintain the illusion. If the punter was Jack, he wouldn't do anything until they had gone off alone and if he wasn't Jack, then the punter would expect return for his investment and if the woman managed to get out of it then they risked being out-ed as fake thus rendering them useless for the investigation. What women would perform sex acts in dank, dirty alleys on the off chance they might be with a murderer? Any woman who could be considered trustworthy and able would balk at such a thing and any woman who was already living that life would probably be considered untrustworthy and undependable.

[Debra A]

L E Fisher

Just checked the details;
Police discovered the drawers belonged to Lucy Elizabeth Fisher, a domestic servant living in Kirkley, Lowestoft. Her father and mother (who were now living near Newcastle) both confirmed the underwear was stenciled with Lucy's name and had been sold for rags about the time Faircloth said he bought them in a lodging house.
Lucy appears on the 1891 census at Kirkley, Lowestoft as a domestic servant aged 20 and her mother and father and siblings appear in Byker, Newcastle, as the newspapers reported.