Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

I think that's a fair example of mistaken identity, this woman was described as living upstairs, on the second floor. Is there a suggestion that different reporters invented this woman and child?
We do not know all the second floor occupants of No.26. Mistaken identity is very feasible given what we subsequently learned about Kelly.

Is the existence of this woman and child 'unbelievable' or 'believable'?
Does the suggestion that this woman was the victim mean, the woman did not truly exist?

Come on Jon are you serious?

Firstly, am I even suggesting that the Echo reporter invented the dosser?

Secondly, I can give you loads more examples.

What about the reported bloodstains leading from Brady Street to Bucks Row after the Nichols murder, described as zig-zagging along the road? Should we be accepting them as definitely there because they were reported in a newspaper?

Did the scavengers who were cleaning the roads help to cart the body of Nichols off to the mortuary as reported in the East London Observer?

The Manchester Courier of 10 November reported that "The crime was first discovered by a young man named M'Carthy who went to the house yesterday with his mother to collect the rent" and who said "Mother, there's another murder" when he saw the body. Is that correct?

The Central News reported that Sir Charles Warren turned up at Millers Court at 2pm on 9 November. Is that correct?

The same agency reported that some "neighbours state they heard an altercation going on within the house in Miller's-court between the deceased and a man". Do we accept that as true?

Not everything in the newspapers is true Jon and I could give you a thousand more examples.

[Wickerman]

You are mischaracterising what I am saying. I'm not saying those men were "the only two people in the whole of Dorset St." who knew Kelly.

Ok, fair enough, I was alluding to an earlier comment you made...(below)

However, it doesn't matter a great deal if the dosser's story is true or not because this is the only supporting evidence you have produced to show that Kelly was known outside Millers Court and it only relates to a few men in a single local lodging house.

Various sources indicate she was popular, none of these sources were required to publish an exhaustive list of people who knew her.

[Wickerman]

I'll give you one example straight of the top of my head Jon. The news story that was reported that Kelly had a child living with her.

If you want me to delve into the stories reported about the Kelly murder from 9 November onwards I know I could produce quite a few more.

I think that's a fair example of mistaken identity, this woman was described as living upstairs, on the second floor. Is there a suggestion that different reporters invented this woman and child?
We do not know all the second floor occupants of No.26. Mistaken identity is very feasible given what we subsequently learned about Kelly.

Is the existence of this woman and child 'unbelievable' or 'believable'?
Does the suggestion that this woman was the victim mean, the woman did not truly exist?

[Wickerman]

Just wanted to respond to this. In the inquest papers we have statements from two residents of Millers Court, Cox and Venturney. Neither of them say that Mary Jane was sunny of nature and very popular, or something similar. On it's face, therefore, Dew's statement was untrue. And the idea that all the other residents of Millers Court included in their statements to the police a comment to the effect that Kelly was sunny of nature and very popular is not credible.

Neither the Court, nor the local press were charged with proving just how popular Mary Kelly was.
I posted a handful of sources which indicated, not proved, just indicated that Kelly was popular at the local level, in a small way a local celebrity.

Why her popularity is of significance to you still escapes me but I was not saying I could prove it. There are no sources of the time tasked with 'proving' it, but by the same token none of the period sources 'prove' she was insignificant, or just blended into the background, or easily forgotten.

Points such as her local popularity are details which may surface within an overall context of researching her background from the locals. 'May' surface, and not from everybody, and especially not from court records, such details are not pertinent to the case under investigation and can safely be omitted from the record.

Interviews with locals given in the press are the best reliable source on this bearing in mind the subject is of little major importance in a murder investigation so an occasional reference is all that we can expect.

[David Orsam]

On the other hand I think you suggested this reporter, by coincidence?, just happened to locate the only two people in the whole of Dorset St. who claim to have known Mary Kelly?

Is this being realistic?

You are mischaracterising what I am saying. I'm not saying those men were "the only two people in the whole of Dorset St." who knew Kelly.

On the other hand, are you saying that everyone in Dorset Street knew her?

Also, don't you think it's strange: Detective Dew said that everyone who lived in Miller's Street spoke of Kelly's "sunny nature". Yet the reporter was told that Kelly engaged in street brawls and was "sudden and quick in quarrel, and - for a woman - handy with her fists".

Do you also wonder why the story said of the reporter: "as he stepped out into the darkness visible of Dorset-street from the glow-light of the lodging-house kitchen, the men laughed loudly and their laughter was carried up the street."? Why were they laughing so much?

[David Orsam]

We have not even come close to discussing what newspapers report on; like politics, exchanges in the house of commons, criminal cases nation wide, national & international accidents, fires, sports, weather, and foreign wars.
What from the above are you suggesting we dismiss as false, and why?

I'll give you one example straight of the top of my head Jon. The news story that was reported that Kelly had a child living with her.

If you want me to delve into the stories reported about the Kelly murder from 9 November onwards I know I could produce quite a few more.

[Wickerman]

You seem to be coming close to saying we should accept everything we read in the newspapers!

We have not even come close to discussing what newspapers report on; like politics, exchanges in the house of commons, criminal cases nation wide, national & international accidents, fires, sports, weather, and foreign wars.
What from the above are you suggesting we dismiss as false, and why?

On the other hand I think you suggested this reporter, by coincidence?, just happened to locate the only two people in the whole of Dorset St. who claim to have known Mary Kelly?

Is this being realistic?

[David Orsam]

Well actually David, the police did.

During the whole of yesterday Sergeant Thicke, with other officers, was busily engaged in writing down the names, statements, and full particulars of persons staying at the various lodging-houses in Dorset-street. That this was no easy task will be imagined when it is known that in one house alone there are upwards of 260 persons, and that several houses accommodate over 200.
Times, 12 Nov.

I don't expect Drew is implying he undertook this task himself, he is likely relaying pertinent details that arose from the house-to-house enquiries undertaken throughout Dorset St. and adjoining streets and courts, over that weekend.

Just wanted to respond to this. In the inquest papers we have statements from two residents of Millers Court, Cox and Venturney. Neither of them say that Mary Jane was sunny of nature and very popular, or something similar. On it's face, therefore, Dew's statement was untrue. And the idea that all the other residents of Millers Court included in their statements to the police a comment to the effect that Kelly was sunny of nature and very popular is not credible.

[David Orsam]

First this:

"I find it a little hard to take seriously the comments of the local dossers (did MJK actually require "doss money"?)...."

Then this:

"Surely not. Wouldn't doss money mean money for one night's doss in a lodging house? Would he have really given her 4s 6d for her weekly rent?"

Which I took to mean you were questioning the accuracy of the story attributed to this dosser by the reporter.

In my view, if we have no means of contesting this then we take it as given because we cannot know whether Mary lied to him in an attempt to gain money. In which case why he "thought" he was giving money to her is irrelevant.

You seem to be coming close to saying we should accept everything we read in the newspapers!

Of the three questions I asked, the first "did MJK really require doss money?" is capable of being answered. The answer being no.

The second: "Wouldn't doss money mean money for one night's doss in a lodging house?" is also capable of being answered. The answer being yes.

The third: "Would he have really given her 4s 6d for her weekly rent?" The answer, I think, being unlikely. And he surely would not have called that "doss money".

However, it doesn't matter a great deal if the dosser's story is true or not because this is the only supporting evidence you have produced to show that Kelly was known outside Millers Court and it only relates to a few men in a single local lodging house.

[Observer]

It's a real shame that you persist in your unfair and unwarranted allegation rather than withdraw it, referring vaguely to my "track record". It calls into question your own behaviour in my opinion.

In my opinion you are selective in you beliefs, the following will point out why I believe so.

Of course, there is so much inconsistent evidence in this case that it's impossible not to be selective if you want to express any opinion at all but your accusation is obviously that I am somehow improperly and irrationally selecting facts to support a certain position and ignoring others which don't.

The evidence which leads me to believe you are being selective is in no way inconsistent. More to follow.

I deny this absolutely and don't believe you will find any evidence of this in my posts. As it happens, I've expressed relatively few opinions on this forum regarding the murders and those that I have expressed only after carefully considering the evidence.

In my opinion you have ignored evidence as inconsequential when in fact it is anything but. More to follow.

you[/U] are being selective in your reading of my posts and seeing what you want to see.

I beg to differ.

[Wickerman]

I understand that, of course, but once we have to start attributing lies to characters in the story for it to make sense, such as Mary lying about her reason for wanting the money, the simplest explanation becomes, I would suggest, that the dosser in the newspaper story is simply making it up.

I would say the person in need of money at 2:00 am is more likely to lie in an effort to create sympathy to obtain said money, than the dosser talking to the reporter who claims to be the one who was suckered into giving it.

[Wickerman]

I agree but I wasn't even aware I was asking a question.

What is it you think I'm asking?

First this:

"I find it a little hard to take seriously the comments of the local dossers (did MJK actually require "doss money"?)...."

Then this:

"Surely not. Wouldn't doss money mean money for one night's doss in a lodging house? Would he have really given her 4s 6d for her weekly rent?"

Which I took to mean you were questioning the accuracy of the story attributed to this dosser by the reporter.

In my view, if we have no means of contesting this then we take it as given because we cannot know whether Mary lied to him in an attempt to gain money. In which case why he "thought" he was giving money to her is irrelevant.

[David Orsam]

David, I have to be honest here - just because he said he gave her money for her doss, that doesn't mean that's where it went. If you're asking for charity, it sounds better to say it's to pay for food or lodging than 'I'm going to use it to get hammered'. Mary may well have said she needed money for her 'doss', then spent it on gin or whatever.

I understand that, of course, but once we have to start attributing lies to characters in the story for it to make sense, such as Mary lying about her reason for wanting the money, the simplest explanation becomes, I would suggest, that the dosser in the newspaper story is simply making it up.

[Joshua Rogan]

What about the possibility that he paid her 8p for his 'doss'?

[MsWeatherwax]

David, I have to be honest here - just because he said he gave her money for her doss, that doesn't mean that's where it went. If you're asking for charity, it sounds better to say it's to pay for food or lodging than 'I'm going to use it to get hammered'. Mary may well have said she needed money for her 'doss', then spent it on gin or whatever.