When was the estimation of when Mary took her last meal of fish and potatoes?

[John G]

Hi John

Actually, the East End was awash with people with blotchy, ruddy and red faces. I posted a newspaper clipping a while back which described the people who were lining the streets in Whitechapel when one of the victim`s funeral cortege made it`s way through the streets.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for this. Now I come to think of it I do seem to remember mentioning this some time ago-I'll try and remember the information this time! By the way, I've just been reading Chris Scott's article on Sarah Lewis in Rip 133, which is very interesting. He also refers to the mysterious Mrs Kennedy, who apparently was never positively identified. He notes that some people believe that she was mixed up with Sarah Lewis, but points out that although there are similarities in their accounts there are also differences.

[curious4]

https://books.google.se/books?id=STIbNXbk_BQC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=pail+of+beer+london&source=bl&ots=IzxVqxu9Ai&sig=9Eb7cK41I_3-iZuBCibtzuwYBl0&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAjgUahUKEwjR0PjE-v3HAhUEWiwKHUi8ACI#v=onepage&q=pail%20of%20beer%20london&f=false

growler-station.com/about/history

Hello Lynn and Packer

It seems that carrying beer home in a bucket was quite usual. The bucket was known as a Growler (there are various explanations for this, one was that a child spilling any beer would not be popular). The first link has to do with the origins of the name "growler" and the other shows a picture of buckets/pails lined up on the counter. They are not very big, as I remember, held half a quart (going from memory here).

Best wishes
Gwyneth/C4

[curious4]

Hello Gwyneth.

"I have always thought of Mr Blotchy as the facilitator and Astrachan man as the killer."

And I have always marveled at how BOTH men fit the physical descriptions of, respectively, "Red" Jim McDermott and Frank Millen--both agents of Sir Ed Jenkinson the spy master.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn

I think the descriptions could have fitted many men at the time but I will give you that seeing the two together (sort of) is perhaps a pointer.

I do have difficulty with anything involving anarchists, Irishmen and the like. Overkill. Slit the throats of a duchess or five and that would get people`s attention, but killing five of the poorest and then mutilating them doesn´t seem to send any plausible message. I know that one idea suggested is that it would make people lose faith in the police, but I´m not sure they had much to start with. And why mutilate the bodies? Slitting the throats of several women to disguise the fact that just one was the target I might just accept (not really ;-)), but the mutilations would be entirely unnecessary.

Best wishes

Gwyneth

P.S. Do we know just in what way Mr Blotchy was blotchy? Severe acne, alcoholic or syphilitic?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby
We can't totally discount a witness who wasn't called to the inquest surely...she wasn't the first,she may well have been the last though
Many valuable witnesses weren't anywhere near inquests...so if we don't have a police statement we only have a press report.May or may not be true,that's for us all to determine but as many on here don't even believe witnesses who did attend the inquest anyway.... lol
Furthermore ,if you discount Kennedy,believing she's really Sarah Lewis, it makes a complete mockery of the Lewis testimony as an unreliable witness does it not

Hi PS
we don't really know who she is first of all
She could be sara Lewis, or her sister or someone else or nobody.
She, or what she even purportedly said adds nothing to what we know.
The only thing she adds is confusion.
I'll pass.

and Sarah Lewis on the scale of credible witnesses is toward the higher end all things considered.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby. Thanks.

Very well. But I wonder what "MJK" was thinking? Here's a bloke who is paying for a bit of ooh la la, and there he sits, clothed, whilst I sit and sing for an hour?

A bit unresponsive?

Cheers.
LC

probably happy thoughts Lynn. She seemed to be in a good mood.

As Ive mentioned before we don't know if its going to be a straight prostitute/client transaction. All things considered, it looks more like a man and woman "Hooking up" -as we used to call it in college, during a night out partying.

Again, perhaps mary was looking at it as a potential relationship with a man who has money, after recently breaking up with one who didn't.

And even if he was going to be a paying customer-perhaps they were also enjoying each others company- having fun-drinking some more, singing enjoying a cozy fire-and in no rush to get to business, so to speak.

[Rosella]

Would they be 'enjoying a cosy fire' though? It coasts money to buy coal . Considering Mary was in debt for her rent, were there any signs in her room (like a coal scuttle) that wood or coal had been burned earlier?

[Abby Normal]

Would they be 'enjoying a cosy fire' though? It coasts money to buy coal . Considering Mary was in debt for her rent, were there any signs in her room (like a coal scuttle) that wood or coal had been burned earlier?

Hi Rosella
The next day after Marys body was found they discovered that there had been a large fire in her fire place (hot ehough to melt the spout of a hanging kettle) in which there were remains of burnt clothes among the ashes.

My take is that they probably started the fire once they arrived at her place on a cold rainy night and that Blotchy, after killing mary, threw some of the clothes that Marys friend had left there.
perhaps out of spite, or to keep the fire going so he could se what he was doing.

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
According to the police [[The Times Nov 12] , the police believed that this murder, was committed in daylight[ not firelight] and Mary's velvet jacket. and apparently Mrs Harvey's bonnet, had been burnt by the killer, because they were bloodstained.
Nobody seems to have interpreted what this implied.
Any takers.?
Regards Richard.

[jerryd]

Hi..
According to the police [[The Times Nov 12] , the police believed that this murder, was committed in daylight[ not firelight] and Mary's velvet jacket. and apparently Mrs Harvey's bonnet, had been burnt by the killer, because they were bloodstained.
Nobody seems to have interpreted what this implied.
Any takers.?
Regards Richard.

Thanks Richard,

I'll take a crack.

1)The killer was destroying incriminating evidence. The clothing had a makers mark for example.

2)The killer wore the clothing to disguise himself when he came/left. There were many cross dressers and men disguising themselves as women in Whitechapel during that time frame. Some were even detectives and journalists.

3)See, Schnieder and Son cap factory, Buck's row. Directly across from the Nichols murder scene. Seems bonnets are mentioned a lot in many of these murders. Schnieder was running a sweatshop and many of the young girl employees were very unhappy with the way they were treated.

[packers stem]

Hi PS
we don't really know who she is first of all
She could be sara Lewis, or her sister or someone else or nobody.
She, or what she even purportedly said adds nothing to what we know.
The only thing she adds is confusion.
I'll pass.

and Sarah Lewis on the scale of credible witnesses is toward the higher end all things considered.

Hi Abby
Don't get the logic at all.If true it adds a tremendous amount...
It is a possible sighting of Kelly,with a well dressed man and a dishevelled looking woman well after Hutchinson and Sarah Lewis. It is quite possibly the last sighting...how can it add nothing if true.
Let's remember if we hadn't got extremely lucky in finding Abberline interviewed schwartz we'd be ruling him out also as only the star knew about him,he wasn't in every paper...
'if' she was Sarah Lewis then Sarah Lewis' testimony is clearly utter nonsense...
Either way it's as important as any other unless were dismissing witnesses if they 'dont fit a theory'
Maybe we can knock blotchy and his pail of beer on the head as well as Kennedy?? I mean, why believe anyone?

[Abby Normal]

Hi..
According to the police [[The Times Nov 12] , the police believed that this murder, was committed in daylight[ not firelight] and Mary's velvet jacket. and apparently Mrs Harvey's bonnet, had been burnt by the killer, because they were bloodstained.
Nobody seems to have interpreted what this implied.
Any takers.?
Regards Richard.

More press nonsense.
The police believed the murder was committed in the middle of the night as per TOD that they got from the doctors.

They were looking for suspects, Blotchy and A-man, provided by witnesses who saw these men at night.

Maxwell basically got blown off by the police and coroner because they didn't believe mary was still alive in daylight per the drs TOD and above said witnesses. Besides she didn't provide anything significant in the way of suspects any way.

Where in the police record does it say they found bloodstained clothes in Marys room or in the fireplace?

[packers stem]

More press nonsense.
The police believed the murder was committed in the middle of the night as per TOD that they got from the doctors.

They were looking for suspects, Blotchy and A-man, provided by witnesses who saw these men at night.

Maxwell basically got blown off by the police and coroner because they didn't believe mary was still alive in daylight per the drs TOD and above said witnesses. Besides she didn't provide anything significant in the way of suspects any way.

Where in the police record does it say they found bloodstained clothes in Marys room or in the fireplace?

The TOD is correct,this is determined by the Fish supper... I've no doubt that maxwell and Maurice Lewis(twice) were also correct....
...and back to the dishevelled looking woman seen by Kennedy

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Thanks Jerry D.
We know the bonnet was most likely Mrs Harvey's as she stated she told Mary''I shall be leaving my bonnet then''...also Mrs Prater saw Kelly wearing the said jacket and said bonnet at 9PM, at the bottom of the passage, they engaged conversation.
Strangely at midnight, Mrs Cox sees Kelly wearing different clothing..?
In order for the Velvet jacket, and bonnet, to have become bloodstained, they either were on the bed, when she was attacked, or Kelly was wearing them when attacked.
If she was wearing them ,she must have changed back into the smart outfit after returning home with Blotchy...unless Cox was lying?
If she went to sleep , and was attacked, the clothing must have been local to the bed.
Either way we are posed the question...
Why did the killer burn these items ..because they were bloodstained..?
It has to be relevant to the murderer.
Scenario..Mary Kelly is alive in daylight, she is seen by Maxwell , and Maurice Lewis as witnessed, she then goes home to get ready to go to the Lord Mayors parade, and when dressed welcomes a person into her room. who kills her whilst wearing that outfit..
The killer who may have a cast iron night alibi, wishes to give the impression she was killed during the night, therefore burns these objects,that might give cause for doubt...
Regards Richard.

[curious4]

The TOD is correct,this is determined by the Fish supper... I've no doubt that maxwell and Maurice Lewis(twice) were also correct....
...and back to the dishevelled looking woman seen by Kennedy

Don't really see how we can get an accurate TOD if we don't know exactly what time she ate.

C4

[packers stem]

Don't really see how we can get an accurate TOD if we don't know exactly what time she ate.

C4

Hi C4
It's true we can't know exactly but an educated guess at a fish supper is after the pubs closed.
From about 3 or 4 or so it wouldn't have been available to buy,the street vendors after this time were catering for people on their way to work with coffee and a light breakfast(piece of bread?)