How strange is this

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I have always had reservations concerning Cox'x statement,,the clothing aspect for one, as it is in complete contrast to Mrs Prater's account of a meeting at 9.pm..[ which I believe].
Also Cox told her niece [ years later] that she saw Kelly with a real toff, which again is not a description of the shabby ''Blotchy man''
I believe we have all these years, been led astray by her midnight sighting...and we should not take that as a sighting..
Regards Richard.

[Scott Nelson]

Sound advise Richard.

[GUT]

Hi.
I have always had reservations concerning Cox'x statement,,the clothing aspect for one, as it is in complete contrast to Mrs Prater's account of a meeting at 9.pm..[ which I believe].
Also Cox told her niece [ years later] that she saw Kelly with a real toff, which again is not a description of the shabby ''Blotchy man''
I believe we have all these years, been led astray by her midnight sighting...and we should not take that as a sighting..
Regards Richard.

Or did she see "A" man not blotchy?

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
Yes indeed possible that she saw A man, at a earlier time surveying the territory [ so to speak].
I would say that the murder of Mary Kelly was a premeditated act, and meeting A man [ seen by Hutchinson] was not the first time she had brought that man back to her room that night..
What that all means , is open to speculation..
Regards Richard.

[Natasha]

You are quite right Natasha.

Cox's words have been exaggerated to suggest Kelly was blind drunk when she saw her. The truth of the matter is quite different, as you correctly point out.
Cox followed Kelly down the passage and she could not tell by her walk that Kelly was drunk, so she wasn't that far gone.

An interesting comment by Walter Dew, after discussing the evidence of Cox, we read:
"...Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man."

Interesting for two reason's.
First, given the controversial statement provided by Hutchinson, it is interesting that Dew did not apply this caveat to Hutchinson with regard to the suspect he saw.
Second, one wonders if questioning the credibility of Cox was Dew's private suspicion, or does it reflect police opinion at the time?

Hi Jon,

I think Dew had suspicions about Cox trying to blight Kelly's name. I don't think there is any mention by any other witness s that they saw Kelly bringing men back,. He also said Kelly was of a sober disposition more often than not. I think there was a mixture of both, as he knew Kelly by sight he must surely formed his own opinion as well as following police procedure.

He did say this, in regards to Maxwell n Hutchinson: But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchinson were wrong.

So by him saying that, he doesn't have 100% believe in Abberline's judgement.

[Rosella]

But Dew was only a humble copper in 1888, even if he did rise to senior rank later. He wasn't privy to all that senior police knew (or didn't know) at the time of the Ripper killings and much of what he wrote about the Ripper case was years later, in his retirement.

[Wickerman]

"Humble copper"?, Dew was a Detective-Constable.
As such he likely knew considerably more than the regular beat constable.

He may have been a temporary Detective-Sergeant at the time of the Ripper murders, he was described as such when he appeared in court on 19th Nov.
Even if he did not know 'everything' in those days, he had plenty of time over subsequent years to learn more about what went on. He was with the police for another 22 years.

[Rosella]

I'm not saying that Dew wasn't actively involved in the Ripper investigations, just that it wasn't on a senior level. It's doubtful that Abberline confided in him.

Dew was in his seventies when he wrote his memoirs. Like many retired police of the time he no doubt relied on his memory a great deal when he wrote his reminiscences, and his memoirs are riddled with inaccuracies. His memory certainly failed him when he wrote of the death of Emma Smith. He also felt that Emma was Jack's first victim. He also recalled 'Indian Harry' Bowyer (a middle aged Indian Army pensioner) as 'a youth' whose eyes 'bulged out of his head'.

[Sally]

Exactly so Rosella

Dew was writing 50 years after the events of 1888 in memoirs that were primarily intended to capitalise on his sensational capture of Crippen; rather than to provide an authoritative account of the Whitechapel Murders.

Somebody recently remarked on another thread that memory occurred in the present - not the past, which is of course correct. I have said before that Dew's latter-day recollections, whilst interesting, should be approached with caution, for obvious reasons.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Dew most likely was describing McCarthy's 14 year old son, who was present in the court that morning, no way he could have meant Indian Harry,
Regards Richard,

[Harry D]

This is an amazing find! If it's to be believed that Mary Kelly's murder is the key to solving the Ripper mystery, who knows what we could find by digging deeper into this. Just to recap, we have a 'Ripper letter' supposedly sent from the street opposite Miller's Court predicting another Ripper murder (albeit in Great Yarmouth) just a week before Mary Kelly is murdered, and the sender address was the home of Caroline Maxwell, a controversial witness who claimed to see Mary Kelly after her time of death? From reading the rest of the thread, there's also the suggestion that the message was coded?

I agree that there could be any number of motives for sending the letter. The possibilities are endless. What I'd like to know is why send it to Ipswich? If this wasn't just another hoax, what why they hoping to achieve by sending it up there instead of to a local rag?

[Wickerman]

I'm not saying that Dew wasn't actively involved in the Ripper investigations, just that it wasn't on a senior level. It's doubtful that Abberline confided in him.

Hi Rosella.
I don't think we were talking about things said "in confidence", that ensemble would be rather small.
Anyone at Dew's level would know who they were looking for, and why. He should also know who Scotland Yard believed, and who they didn't, it directly affects his job.
The Detective-Constable had a wide range of duties, as well as door-to-door enquiries, and obtaining descriptions from witnesses, so knowing what & who to look for was part of his day-to-day duty.
The remarks he makes about Cox, Hutchinson & Maxwell are well within his purview. The caveat though, as with all memoirs is, how accurate are the details he shares, and how complete are they?

I wonder how many here on Casebook could relate what they did 50 years ago, and how accurate would it be.
I imagine very few will qualify to answer that question...

[Natasha]

I'm not saying that Dew wasn't actively involved in the Ripper investigations, just that it wasn't on a senior level. It's doubtful that Abberline confided in him.

Dew was in his seventies when he wrote his memoirs. Like many retired police of the time he no doubt relied on his memory a great deal when he wrote his reminiscences, and his memoirs are riddled with inaccuracies. His memory certainly failed him when he wrote of the death of Emma Smith. He also felt that Emma was Jack's first victim. He also recalled 'Indian Harry' Bowyer (a middle aged Indian Army pensioner) as 'a youth' whose eyes 'bulged out of his head'.

I agree with what Jon says in regards to the relationship Dew and his colleagues had.

Yes he may have been old, he did mention though that he had a very good memory. Darwin had an enhanced memory according to his DNA. I know the aging process affects memory, but Dew does recall names well, and other things well, so lets not put him in the senile group.

Exactly so Rosella

Dew was writing 50 years after the events of 1888 in memoirs that were primarily intended to capitalise on his sensational capture of Crippen; rather than to provide an authoritative account of the Whitechapel Murders.

Somebody recently remarked on another thread that memory occurred in the present - not the past, which is of course correct. I have said before that Dew's latter-day recollections, whilst interesting, should be approached with caution, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying that, but there is only so much evidence etc we can refer to and make judgements from.
I don't think Dew was a complete senile old fart, so it's still worth looking at his point of view, from the horse's mouth.

Also with memory it's short term memory that is more likely to decline rather than long term, look at some dementia/alzheimer sufferers for example.

[Sally]

I think Jon's view is eminently sensible on this occasion.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,,
I can recall vividly events I did, and happenings to me when I was 18, which is that time span...obviously not trivial things, but important events most definitely.
Regards Richard.