Jack The Ripper: In My Blood

[richardnunweek]

Hi G U T,
I was under the impression from day one, that the police would have checked any lead they had, they certainly checked and verified Maxwell's account,
But as you rightly point out. no verification as such.[So I Cannot give you a reference]..so it looks like its only Maurice Lewis's word about the milk, but why would he say it?
Regards Richard.

[GUT]

G'Day Richard

Thanks I thought I'd missed something.

I don't strictly disagree with you, but I don't think the milk is enough to build a suspect on.

[richardnunweek]

Hi GUT,
Its not,,however it would be a explanation why Morris stated to the press, ''she returned with milk shortly after''..that would suggest she did not travel far..
So a milkman in Dorset street, might be where she obtained the milk?
That does not suggest a suspect,just a observation.
Regards Richard,

[Amanda Sumner]

Richard and Gut,
Could she not have borrowed the milk from a neighbour?
Lots of neigbours to this day borrow off one another.

Just a thought...

[richardnunweek]

Hi,Amanda..
She could indeed , but as far as we know, none came forward to see they had given her milk that morning, if they had.. that and along with Mrs Maxwell's statement would have given us a daylight murder for sure.
What it boils down to is, if Maurice Lewis was being honest to the press , and Mary was carrying milk, then she apparently obtained it from someone who never admitted giving it to the dead woman...
Regards Richard.

[Elenahoyos66]

Ridiculous and offensive to say the least.

Ridiculous in the regard that she'd make the claim, "I tried EVERYTHING to make it seem he wasn't similar to the Ripper. . ." and, "They were clearly hiding from something."

Oh, really? What might that be? He sold someone a sour pint of milk and the poor bloke fell down dead due to food poisoning? As if!

There were many men who were unkind to women back then; many men who lived in an around that area. I doubt there is much credence in her claims, if any at all.

And the before mentioned phrases isn't doing much to help her either; its basically like saying, "OH, I wish it wasn't true - - but it is, it IS! I mean, they were hiding from something (really, what proof have you got there? lol)" Wishful thinking much?

Ridiculous!

And offensive in the regards that anyone, legit, anyone, can make such claims to know of the Ripper, or be related to one of his victims. What is more offensive is to think that people would believe you.

Ugh. . .people.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi,Amanda..
She could indeed , but as far as we know, none came forward to see they had given her milk that morning, if they had.. that and along with Mrs Maxwell's statement would have given us a daylight murder for sure.
What it boils down to is, if Maurice Lewis was being honest to the press , and Mary was carrying milk, then she apparently obtained it from someone who never admitted giving it to the dead woman...
Regards Richard.

I'm trying to find the inventory of what was in the room. All I keep finding is references to the fireplace and the burnt remains of clothes.
Was any milk found?
It is possible, and the police thought so at the time, that both witness's were mistaken about which morning they saw her.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Amanda,
There is no surviving inventory of room 13.The thing is...what we find important, isn't necessary what the police then found significant.
Mr Lewis gave a press statement, not a police one, he would not have admitted to the police that he was playing an illegal game of 'pitch and toss' in the court to them, but without hindsight...he referred that to the paper..the admittance of the game, and the running when a policeman came close by rings true, that being the case why not the milk?
It is not unreasonable to assume that the knock on Kelly's door by Mrs Picket, at 7,30am, awoken her from a drunken sleep, she left the room around 8am , to fetch milk, and possibly get some air, was sick, returning to her room with milk obtained from the visiting milkman, either charged , or by feminine charm..
If the police did check on the selling of milk to the dead woman, and found nobody had , that does not mean they checked the obvious.
Regards Richard.

[Hair Bear]

I know I'm late to this party but I've just finished the book. There was no need for anyone to check the records to verify whether the so-called Ripper lived in Whitechapel or not, as (amazingly) the book includes a registration photocopy of the address "20 Grove Street, Marylebone"! Given that Bainbridge also claims her relative actually worked in Whitechapel - which unless I've missed something doesn't appear to have been disproven - I'm perplexed why she didn't use this angle to push her theory. More disappointing is Kirtland's input. How can anyone take him seriously as an investigator if he can't read "Marylebone"?

[Debra A]

I know I'm late to this party but I've just finished the book. There was no need for anyone to check the records to verify whether the so-called Ripper lived in Whitechapel or not, as (amazingly) the book includes a registration photocopy of the address "20 Grove Street, Marylebone"! Given that Bainbridge also claims her relative actually worked in Whitechapel - which unless I've missed something doesn't appear to have been disproven - I'm perplexed why she didn't use this angle to push her theory. More disappointing is Kirtland's input. How can anyone take him seriously as an investigator if he can't read "Marylebone"?

The book wasn't actually out at the time the records were looked up. The theory was the subject of a programme by Fred Dinenage, which led to the research.
I got the impression Norman Kirtland collaborated as an author for Diane Bainbridge's research and to showcase his artwork, not as an 'investigator' .

[Hair Bear]

The book wasn't actually out at the time the records were looked up. The theory was the subject of a programme by Fred Dinenage, which led to the research.
I got the impression Norman Kirtland collaborated as an author for Diane Bainbridge's research and to showcase his artwork, not as an 'investigator' .

Regardless of who did the 'investigating', Kirtland can still read, and he put his name to a theory based on an address that was clearly poppycock.

[Debra A]

Given that Bainbridge also claims her relative actually worked in Whitechapel - which unless I've missed something doesn't appear to have been disproven -...

Belcher certainly worked as a milk carrier and the company in Dorset Street Spitalfields existed at some point, but no source was presented by the authors to support the idea that Belcher worked in Dorset Street, Spitalfields in 1888. There's really no way to disprove a statement said to be based on a source the family said they wanted to keep private, short of a list of employees for that company dated 1888, turning up.

[Hair Bear]

Belcher certainly worked as a milk carrier and the company in Dorset Street Spitalfields existed at some point, but no source was presented by the authors to support the idea that Belcher worked in Dorset Street, Spitalfields in 1888. There's really no way to disprove a statement said to be based on a source the family said they wanted to keep private, short of a list of employees for that company dated 1888, turning up.

Thanks. Whilst I'm here I have a question for you. Not sure I should be placing it here, will delete if not. Nichols murder, Baxter says "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first". I can't find where Llewellyn says this. Can you shed some light on this? Thanks.

[Wickerman]

Some members may be on vacation, I don't think you will find Dr. Llewellyn making that remark. Most of the press coverage of the inquest use the same, or similar paragraph.

However, The Daily News has this to say:
"Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18880903.html

Confusion is a state we all go through with these murders, if you're not confused at some point you simply have not done enough research.

[Pcdunn]

Belcher certainly worked as a milk carrier and the company in Dorset Street Spitalfields existed at some point, but no source was presented by the authors to support the idea that Belcher worked in Dorset Street, Spitalfields in 1888. There's really no way to disprove a statement said to be based on a source the family said they wanted to keep private, short of a list of employees for that company dated 1888, turning up.

Interesting. I have been erratic in visiting Casebook, and had missed the mention of a new alleged suspect. Somehow, I seem to recall someone posting on here quite awhile ago about doing "family research" and asking JtR questions, but not answering much about their line of inquiry. Don't know if that was Ms. Bainbridge or not.

William Belcher's case does seem shaky to me, being another case of circumstantial evidence, as most "relative" suspects seem to be. At least he can be proved to be in the time and general area, which some cannot be.