Jack The Ripper: In My Blood

[Debra A]

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.

I was shocked this morning when reading these new posts that Belcher was written about over 9 years ago!
I think the biggest obstacle is that the authors stated as a fact that Belcher lived in Whitechapel when in fact he lived in Marylebone and they had the streets mixed up.

[Debra A]

HI Debs,
Any idea what the company was called, or where it was in Dorset Street?
I do recall one mention of a milk company in the press (the Echo 9 Nov), describing the locality of the latest murder;

"Dorset Street is a narrow street running out of Commercial-street, between Whitechapel and Shoreditch. The street is half composed of warehouses and half of lodging-houses. Opposite the house in which the murder was committed stands the Commercial-street Chambers for men - a big substantial building, which should accommodate many men of a night. The other side of the Chambers is a warehouse of Messrs. Bayne and Wright, milk contractors."

'The other side', to me, puts the warehouse in White's Row but I've not seen it on period maps. Although there is an unnamed "provision warehouse" on the northern corner of White's Row and Commecial Street which might fit the bill.

Hi Joshua

I noted it from the book as 'Bayles and Wright' -I don't have access to the book now to check back.

In his dissertation here on Casebook, https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...erdossier.html Viper wrote that "There is little evidence of other businesses being conducted from Dorset St in the 1880s, but in the years following we see two milk contractors listed at nos. 13A and 14A by Messrs. William Wright and Amos Payne and a coal dealer, Miss Jane Brooks from no. 39."

Obviously there is a name in common in those sources, including in your Echo excerpt- 'Wright'

Debs

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

HI Debs,
Any idea what the company was called, or where it was in Dorset Street?
I do recall one mention of a milk company in the press (the Echo 9 Nov), describing the locality of the latest murder;

"Dorset Street is a narrow street running out of Commercial-street, between Whitechapel and Shoreditch. The street is half composed of warehouses and half of lodging-houses. Opposite the house in which the murder was committed stands the Commercial-street Chambers for men - a big substantial building, which should accommodate many men of a night. The other side of the Chambers is a warehouse of Messrs. Bayne and Wright, milk contractors."

'The other side', to me, puts the warehouse in White's Row but I've not seen it on period maps. Although there is an unnamed "provision warehouse" on the northern corner of White's Row and Commecial Street which might fit the bill.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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"?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...