The fire in the grate explained

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You are so predictable.

No, yours wasn't my question.

I wanted to know why there isn't a record of more tenants being interviewed by the police on 9th November 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[John G]

Hi All,

As far as can be ascertained there were eight rooms at 26 Dorset Street [rooms 13—20].

In Millers Court there were six cottages each split into two rooms, one up, one down. A total of 20 discrete residences.

26 Dorset Street & Millers Court, 1881 and 1891 Censuses—

1881—43 residents, with 5 rooms occupied at 26 Dorset Street.

1891—43 residents, with 1 room occupied at 26 Dorset Street.

Of 10 named residents [possibly 9 if Lewis and Kennedy were the same person] only 4 were interviewed on the day of the murder and later called to the inquest [Cox, Prater, Venturney and Lewis].

Assuming the tenancy rate to have been similar in 1888, why were not more tenants interviewed by the police?

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

I wonder if it was common practice to only record statements in official reports from residents/ potential witnesses who had anything useful to contribute: other locals who were spoken to, but who had seen or heard nothing of consequence, could simply have had their details recorded in the constable's notebook-and I doubt many of these notebooks have survived.

Thus, Sergeant White claimed that he interviewed Matthew Packer on the 30 September, at which time Packer stated he'd seen nothing suspicious. However, Sergeant White's written report of the interview (his special notebook, which he would have been supplied with to record his findings has disappeared) is dated 4 October, the same date that Packer's somewhat controversial account appeared in the newspapers where, of course, he claimed the police hadn't spoken to him: the implications of this are, of course, that Sergeant White only submitted the official report following the publication of, and on direct response to, the newspaper articles.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You are so predictable.

No, yours wasn't my question.

I wanted to know why there isn't a record of more tenants being interviewed by the police on 9th November 1888.

Ah, so you agree there was a flaw in your question then.

As originally asked:

Why were not more tenants interviewed by the police?

Now:

Why isn't there a record of more tenants being interviewed by the police on 9th November 1888?

Knowing the question, I can answer it: Almost certainly because virtually the entire contents of the Metropolitan Police file regarding the Kelly murder is missing or destroyed.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Missing files.

The apologist's answer to everything.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi John G,

If, on 30th September, Matthew Packer told Sergeant White that he had seen nothing and nobody, and couldn't have avoided noticing his words were being recorded in White's notebook, how on earth could he have possibly hoped to get away with later telling the Evening News that the police had not questioned him?

And why did Packer's newspaper statement lead to his interview at Scotland Yard?

I would suggest it was Sergeant White telling the porkies.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Missing files.

The apologist's answer to everything.

I'm not an "apologist" Simon and it's the answer to your question.

I'm sorry I couldn't give you one more to your liking.

[jerryd]

According to the Evening News, the Packer story first became public due to the exertions of LeGrand and Batchelor. The same newspaper LeGrand sold his information to.

LeGrand and Batchelor didn't trust each other.

[David Orsam]

Re Simon Wood's question: Presumably only 4 were willing to say anything, either to the police, or at the inquest. The others either heard nothing-- or told the authorities they had not heard a thing.

I agree with this incidentally. If a tenant told the police that he or she heard and saw nothing during the night I doubt this would have been recorded in a written statement but if it was it is now lost.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Why summon Julia Venturney to the inquest?

According to her 9th November statement she saw and heard nothing during the night.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Why summon Julia Venturney to the inquest?

According to her 9th November statement she saw and heard nothing during the night.

Presumably because she was able to testify as to the relationship between Barnett and Kelly as well as the fact that she had seen Kelly on the Thursday. Quite possibly also because her statement simply said "I was awake all night and could not sleep" without making clear that she didn't hear anything so perhaps the coroner wanted confirmation of this.

[Paddy Goose]

What do you suggest, Simon as the reason there's isn't a record of more tenants being interviews by the police on 9th November 1888?

Paddy

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't think that really proves anything. Even single people might have preferences as to which side of the bed they sleep, and if she was asleep when attacked she may have been tossing and turning in the night.

However, if she was killed by JtR, I still think it likely that he would have attacked more or less as soon as they were through the door and out of sight of potential witnesses; which is exactly what Sutcliffe did when he murdered Atkinson in her flat.

The neatly folded clothes on the chair are also something of a conundrum. Is this, for example, something Kelly would be likely to do whilst drunk-and a number of witnesses suggest she may have been inebriated, or had been to the pub-or would she be more likely to just throw her clothes on the floor in this situation?

That's a good point about the clothes. It's been a while since I've been well and truly over the knot, but thinking back to my youth I wouldn't have been folding clothes up before jumping into bed.

But then I've always wondered just how mortal Kelly was. Cox walked up behind the couple and didn't notice she was 'drunk' until Kelly spoke. Now round this way, in the mining communities, mortal, or drunk, means can't walk straight and it would have been noticeable walking behind Kelly. My estimate is that Kelly was only half cut and so able to fold her clothes up.

Regarding the bed point, Eddowes was chatting with Jack with seemingly all the time in the world, assuming it was Jack; so there is something there to tell us he was prepared to wait in order to not arouse the suspicion of the victim thereby making the kill much easier.

I do think that lying on one side of the bed suggests there was probably someone else in there with her, particularly as it won't have been a big bed, and it would have been very convenient for Jack for her to willingly lie down against the wall.

I do take your Sutcliffe point although I think Sutcliffe had a burning desire to kill whereas Jack had a burning desire to mutilate. I think there was something different about them in the sense that Sutcliffe was not altogether concerned with a quick kill and seemed to want to cause as much pain as possible; whereas Jack despatched the victims with the minimum of fuss before he got down to business.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Yes, MJK was a very chatty Cathy about her relationship with Joe Barnett.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Yes, MJK was a very chatty Cathy about her relationship with Joe Barnett.

I don't actually know what that means.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;376628]

Hi John,

What is the source for this?

The neatly folded clothes on the chair

Regards, Pierre

are also something of a conundrum. Is this, for example, something Kelly would be likely to do whilst drunk-and a number of witnesses suggest she may have been inebriated, or had been to the pub-or would she be more likely to just throw her clothes on the floor in this situation?