Was She Wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Wickerman
    Commissioner
    • Oct 2008
    • 14897

    #31
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    Fortunately, we do not have to rely on the press, as we have his original statement. “Hair” is wrong
    Thats funny, you clearly didn't read ". . .along with the court recorder . .", which is simply what you posted above.
    If official is what you prefer, use the medical record, the doctors actually stood over the body, not the court recorder.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment

    • rjpalmer
      Commissioner
      • Mar 2008
      • 4356

      #32
      Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
      Fortunately, we do not have to rely on the press, as we have his original statement. “Hair” is wrong
      Thanks for that, Kattrup. I have always leaned towards the 'hair' explanation, but it does seem very unlikely that both his original statement and his later inquest testimony would have the same error, especially since his statement would have been read back to him. Ear it is.

      A commonsensical interpretation would be that there was something distinctive about Kelly's ear. A mole, a skin tag, or a lobe damaged by an earring having been pulled out, which is not wildly uncommon and might have been an occupational hazard of sorts. In which case, there's nothing nefarious or strange about his ability to recognize it.

      Cheers.

      Comment

      • GBinOz
        Assistant Commissioner
        • Jun 2021
        • 3045

        #33
        Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
        Well done, Kattrup, that is very interesting. He is "positive" from seeing the eyes and ear. That is astonishing, and for some, a little bit suspect!
        Hi Doc,

        I find it a little suspicious that both Barnett and McCarthy were so sure of their identifications after a brief look through a broken window. If Mary had presented herself that morning, how would she explain the woman in her room? Using a premises for immoral purposes was an offence attracting a prison sentence. Could McCarthy have been implicated? Did he send Bowyer to the police and follow on to give himself time to check the room for incriminating evidence? Why would he allow the rent to back up to 29 shillings when women were being turned out into the night for the lack of four pence. I also find it suspicious that he claimed to not have a key for his own premises. Was it better for all concerned for Mary to just disappear leaving the presumption that she had been murdered, particularly if she had struck a new relationship as indicated by her visit to Pennington St?
        Last edited by GBinOz; 07-04-2025, 01:43 AM.
        No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence - The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman

        Comment

        • Doctored Whatsit
          Sergeant
          • May 2021
          • 684

          #34
          Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Doc,

          I find it a little suspicious that both Barnett and McCarthy were so sure of their identifications after a brief look through a broken window. If Mary had presented herself that morning, how would she explain the woman in her room? Using a premises for immoral purposes was an offence attracting a prison sentence. Could McCarthy have been implicated? Did he send Bowyer to the police and follow on to give himself time to check the room for incriminating evidence? Why would he allow the rent to back up to 29 shillings when women were being turned out into the night for the lack of four pence. I also find it suspicious that he claimed to not have a key for his own premises. Was it better for all concerned for Mary to just disappear leaving the presumption that she had been murdered, particularly if she had struck a new relationship as indicated by her visit to Pennington St?
          Hi George,

          As I have previously written, I am keeping an open mind on this issue. Maxwell would normally be considered the best witness in the entire JtR catalogue, she was on first name terms with Kelly, spoke to her, identified her clothing correctly, her observation was confirmed by another witness, she made her statement the same day, and her movements that morning are corroborated by others. She should be the best witness by a mile, and yet we don't believe her because two men, who both could have strong reasons to lie, positively identified her mutilated body - a body which could have been mutilated deliberately to make identification difficult. Actually, I think they identified the body formally, and not via a brief glimpse through the window as you suggest.

          I can't reject the possibility that Kelly left to start a new life with a fairly wealthy client. I really don't know - the evidence is so contradictory. Who is right?

          Comment

          • GBinOz
            Assistant Commissioner
            • Jun 2021
            • 3045

            #35
            Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

            Hi George,

            As I have previously written, I am keeping an open mind on this issue. Maxwell would normally be considered the best witness in the entire JtR catalogue, she was on first name terms with Kelly, spoke to her, identified her clothing correctly, her observation was confirmed by another witness, she made her statement the same day, and her movements that morning are corroborated by others. She should be the best witness by a mile, and yet we don't believe her because two men, who both could have strong reasons to lie, positively identified her mutilated body - a body which could have been mutilated deliberately to make identification difficult. Actually, I think they identified the body formally, and not via a brief glimpse through the window as you suggest.

            I can't reject the possibility that Kelly left to start a new life with a fairly wealthy client. I really don't know - the evidence is so contradictory. Who is right?
            Hi Doc,

            I agree with your assessment of Maxwell as the best witness and most under-rated by far. While Barnett, at least, eventually identified the body formally, I was referring to their initial statements when they first viewed the body through the window. First evidence ...and all that.

            I think we can confidentially say that no one knows what actually happened, and we are all here to try to speculate what may have happened. Who is right...no one that I can discern, although many think they might be. I don't think I am right, I am merely considering possibilities.

            Cheers, George
            No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence - The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman

            Comment

            • Doctored Whatsit
              Sergeant
              • May 2021
              • 684

              #36
              Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Hi Doc,

              I agree with your assessment of Maxwell as the best witness and most under-rated by far. While Barnett, at least, eventually identified the body formally, I was referring to their initial statements when they first viewed the body through the window. First evidence ...and all that.

              I think we can confidentially say that no one knows what actually happened, and we are all here to try to speculate what may have happened. Who is right...no one that I can discern, although many think they might be. I don't think I am right, I am merely considering possibilities.

              Cheers, George
              Hi again,

              I am a firm believer in the concept that the police were not stupid - which some peoples' proposals require - though they could make mistakes. But they also had a great deal of information which we don't possess, and that might have made a difference. They chose to reject Maxwell's story for reasons which we cannot know.

              The thought that they must have known something which we don't know, causing them to dismiss Maxwell's account, is possibly the only reason I have to accept that it was Kelly who was murdered.

              Comment

              • GBinOz
                Assistant Commissioner
                • Jun 2021
                • 3045

                #37
                Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                Hi again,

                I am a firm believer in the concept that the police were not stupid - which some peoples' proposals require - though they could make mistakes. But they also had a great deal of information which we don't possess, and that might have made a difference. They chose to reject Maxwell's story for reasons which we cannot know.

                The thought that they must have known something which we don't know, causing them to dismiss Maxwell's account, is possibly the only reason I have to accept that it was Kelly who was murdered.
                Hi Doc,

                I would not question your assertion that the police were not stupid, but Abberline questioned Maxwell and stated that he could not break her story and that he felt she was a person of integrity. She held to her story in the face of opposition from the coroner. Could there have been a hidden agenda? Surely not. People of influence have never been known to steer proceedings in a desired direction.

                McCarthy was a person of influence, and when he went to the police station he requested to speak with a specific person (Reid). Perhaps he had previous dealings with Reid, or perhaps he had influence with Reid. I come back to my former question. Who would be hurt by a murder victim in Kelly's room, that was not Kelly, rented from McCarthy under the peculiar circumstance of what essentially amounted to rent free room?
                Last edited by GBinOz; 07-04-2025, 11:48 AM.
                No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence - The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman

                Comment

                • Doctored Whatsit
                  Sergeant
                  • May 2021
                  • 684

                  #38
                  Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Doc,

                  I would not question your assertion that the police were not stupid, but Abberline questioned Maxwell and stated that he could not break her story and that he felt she was a person of integrity. She held to her story in the face of opposition from the coroner. Could there have been a hidden agenda? Surely not. People of influence have never been known to steer proceedings in a desired direction.

                  McCarthy was a person of influence, and when he went to the police station he requested to speak with a specific person (Reid). Perhaps he had previous dealings with Reid, or perhaps he had influence with Reid. I come back to my former question. Who would be hurt by a murder victim in Kelly's room, that was not Kelly, rented from McCarthy under the peculiar circumstance of what essentially amounted to rent free room?
                  Yes, I agree that at least initially, Maxwell impressed Abberline, which is why I wondered whether other information, which we don't have, was discovered.

                  And yes, I am very dubious about McCarthy.

                  Comment

                  • Herlock Sholmes
                    Commissioner
                    • May 2017
                    • 22317

                    #39
                    If anyone is looking into the Kelly inquest they can do no better than checking out this thread on JtRForums by Wickerman. He has not only posted the original inquest report but he has done the same for the versions printed in 17 newspapers. A great resource to have all in one place.

                    Thanks to Wick for this.


                    Regards

                    Herlock Sholmes

                    ”I think that Herlock is a genius.” Trevor Marriott

                    Comment

                    • Doctored Whatsit
                      Sergeant
                      • May 2021
                      • 684

                      #40
                      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      If anyone is looking into the Kelly inquest they can do no better than checking out this thread on JtRForums by Wickerman. He has not only posted the original inquest report but he has done the same for the versions printed in 17 newspapers. A great resource to have all in one place.

                      Thanks to Wick for this.


                      https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...tion-jon-smyth
                      Yes, I was going to add, after a check of the facts in the A - Z, due to George's comments about proceedings being steered, that the inquest was quite odd. Firstly we had the dubious choice of Macdonald as Coroner instead of Baxter, then Macdonald ended the inquest in one day preventing a great deal of evidence being revealed. Easily both the most vicious murder and the shortest inquest. Baxter would have continued the inquest over a much longer period, and much more information would have been made public. This again is odd and suspicious.

                      Another out of the ordinary feature was that Maxwell said it was very odd to see Kelly up at this time of the morning.
                      Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 07-04-2025, 02:29 PM.

                      Comment

                      • FISHY1118
                        Assistant Commissioner
                        • May 2019
                        • 3658

                        #41
                        Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                        Hi Doc,

                        I agree with your assessment of Maxwell as the best witness and most under-rated by far. While Barnett, at least, eventually identified the body formally, I was referring to their initial statements when they first viewed the body through the window. First evidence ...and all that.

                        I think we can confidentially say that no one knows what actually happened, and we are all here to try to speculate what may have happened. Who is right...no one that I can discern, although many think they might be. I don't think I am right, I am merely considering possibilities.

                        Cheers, George
                        Not might be ,they think they "ARE"!!!!
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment

                        • GBinOz
                          Assistant Commissioner
                          • Jun 2021
                          • 3045

                          #42
                          Thanks to Herlock for the link, and to Jon for his compilation, and to Doc for his comments.
                          No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence - The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman

                          Comment

                          • Wickerman
                            Commissioner
                            • Oct 2008
                            • 14897

                            #43
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            If anyone is looking into the Kelly inquest they can do no better than checking out this thread on JtRForums by Wickerman. He has not only posted the original inquest report but he has done the same for the versions printed in 17 newspapers. A great resource to have all in one place.
                            Thanks Mike.
                            The comparison of sources demonstrates how limited the Court record was. Some prefer to think of it as the official record, but that is a misnomer as the record is not complete, and the purpose for the record is not for a historical reasons.
                            It should be noted the court record does not include questions put to the witness, unlike some press versions. Also, the court recorder, likely Hodgkinson, did not know shorthand, unlike the crime reporter from the newspapers who were required to know shorthand as part of their job. Which means his account was kept short, sometimes in summary, in order to not miss anything of significance.
                            Consequently, the court record is brief and lacks detail.
                            There is a distinct difference between what the court requires to be recorded for legal purposes and what the newspaper requires to make the account interesting to their readers.
                            Then, there is the varying degrees of editing by the newspapers in order to fit available space in their columns.

                            In summary then, there are three distinct reasons to keep in mind why we see differences between the court record and the press.
                            1 - the comparison between longhand, and shorthand accounts.
                            2 - what is required for legal purposes, as opposed to the interest of the public.
                            3 - the varying degrees of editing by individual newspapers.

                            When students of the case are prone to criticize one source over the other, it is necessary to take the above three reasons into account.

                            Only the Central Criminal Court, aka Old Bailey, was known to record court transcripts in shorthand, local inquests rarely if ever had the means to employ a recorder with knowledge of shorthand.



                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment

                            • Herlock Sholmes
                              Commissioner
                              • May 2017
                              • 22317

                              #44
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Thanks Mike.
                              The comparison of sources demonstrates how limited the Court record was. Some prefer to think of it as the official record, but that is a misnomer as the record is not complete, and the purpose for the record is not for a historical reasons.
                              It should be noted the court record does not include questions put to the witness, unlike some press versions. Also, the court recorder, likely Hodgkinson, did not know shorthand, unlike the crime reporter from the newspapers who were required to know shorthand as part of their job. Which means his account was kept short, sometimes in summary, in order to not miss anything of significance.
                              Consequently, the court record is brief and lacks detail.
                              There is a distinct difference between what the court requires to be recorded for legal purposes and what the newspaper requires to make the account interesting to their readers.
                              Then, there is the varying degrees of editing by the newspapers in order to fit available space in their columns.

                              In summary then, there are three distinct reasons to keep in mind why we see differences between the court record and the press.
                              1 - the comparison between longhand, and shorthand accounts.
                              2 - what is required for legal purposes, as opposed to the interest of the public.
                              3 - the varying degrees of editing by individual newspapers.

                              When students of the case are prone to criticize one source over the other, it is necessary to take the above three reasons into account.

                              Only the Central Criminal Court, aka Old Bailey, was known to record court transcripts in shorthand, local inquests rarely if ever had the means to employ a recorder with knowledge of shorthand.


                              Absolutely Wick. I’ve certainly been at fault in the past for assuming it should be ‘official version’ over newspaper reports. Until, that is, I’ve seen you mention that we need to take an overview of these reports, for the reasons you’ve stated, and then we can make an assessment to try to get a fuller picture.
                              Regards

                              Herlock Sholmes

                              ”I think that Herlock is a genius.” Trevor Marriott

                              Comment

                              • Wickerman
                                Commissioner
                                • Oct 2008
                                • 14897

                                #45
                                Thanks Mike, yes, it is only natural to assume the court record should include everything said at the inquest, but the reality is not the case.
                                The above caveats equally apply to the Eddowes case, it was also recorded in longhand.
                                A number of years ago I had a long conversation with the person responsible for the London Metropolitan Archives he may have been the curator, but he had a wealth of knowledge on these archived inquest records and the procedures back in the 19th century, I learned a great deal from him.
                                I had intended to give the Eddowes inquest the same treatment, I just never got around to finishing it.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X