Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Sam Flynn 56 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by Batman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wolf Vanderlinden 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wolf Vanderlinden 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by DJA 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - (10 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-27-2017, 04:25 AM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 598
Default

IPN not IPS.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-27-2017, 04:42 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post

And I suppose he was or his statement to his superiors was used to verify Hutch's statement because at 2:00 am to 3 am he must have passed by Dorset at least 2x.,and must have seen Hutch once at least.At least according to their initial belief that Hutch was trustworthy.
This point has been raised before. That one of the first actions of the CID in receiving Hutchinson's statement would have been to have the pocketbook records of the beat constables checked for any corroboration for what Hutchinson told them.
However, this was after the inquest concluded.

For the inquest, the Coroner selects the witness statements which are going to help him uncover the identity of the victim, and the where, when & by what means the victim met her death.
If the beat constables statement does not contribute towards either of those determinations then he may not be called. He will not be called simply to confirm the statement of another witness, this is an inquest not a trial.

It is possibly too much to expect the beat constable knew Mary Kelly by sight given the number of newly drafted constables in the area. And the issue of Kelly being out after midnight never arose.

Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter the passage while the loiterer was present, but she did not know if the female was Kelly, Lewis didn't know Kelly by sight. So, no beat constable will be called to confirm what Sarah Lewis said, it was not known at the time to have been significant.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-27-2017, 05:23 AM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 598
Default

I understand it was an inquest and a different coroner too.The PC should have seen Hutch or a man standing across the court once, if a man was there they
would not have dismissed Hutchinson,if there was no man Hutch statement would have been dismissed,perhaps immediately..But if the PC did not pass Dorset St
then they would not have been able to tell and thus initially believing in Hutch then they dismissed him as they did not use him and used Lawende or Schwartz.
If for arguments sake the Seaside ID happened in Jan 1889 they were able to contact either one after a few months,why not years.The same would have
applied to Hutch. A trusted witness was better than a written report or a sketch.But enough of Hutch,I'm convinced he was not there.

"Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter the passage while the loiterer was present,"

No, up the street. Sarah did not say court or the passage going into it.

"It is possibly too much to expect the beat constable knew Mary Kelly by sight"

Only a sighting of a woman,couple or man would have helped or been significant, not anyone in particular.

Last edited by Varqm : 07-27-2017 at 05:37 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-27-2017, 05:30 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
This point has been raised before. That one of the first actions of the CID in receiving Hutchinson's statement would have been to have the pocketbook records of the beat constables checked for any corroboration for what Hutchinson told them.
However, this was after the inquest concluded.

For the inquest, the Coroner selects the witness statements which are going to help him uncover the identity of the victim, and the where, when & by what means the victim met her death.
If the beat constables statement does not contribute towards either of those determinations then he may not be called. He will not be called simply to confirm the statement of another witness, this is an inquest not a trial.

It is possibly too much to expect the beat constable knew Mary Kelly by sight given the number of newly drafted constables in the area. And the issue of Kelly being out after midnight never arose.

Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter the passage while the loiterer was present, but she did not know if the female was Kelly, Lewis didn't know Kelly by sight. So, no beat constable will be called to confirm what Sarah Lewis said, it was not known at the time to have been significant.

Stop pedaling this nonsense wick and misleading people. Sarah Lewis never saw couple go in the court. She saw them go up the street.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-27-2017, 05:46 AM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
I'm saying it was possible .Was it official (in the records,have not come across any) that the PC indeed passed Dorset St. in his beat?

Also it's just hard for me to believe that at 11:00 PM to 3:00 AM,the PC or PC's, if a beat changed.missed all these incidents,Kelly and Blotchy walking in Dorset St. to Millers Court at around 11:45 pm, Cox at 11:45 pm...12 am ...1 am -in and out (although a discrepancy with Prater)...3 am,Prater 1:00 - 1:20 am,Lewis at 2:30 am - and her sighting , the 2 couples - one on either side of Dorset St, the man standing across the court.So the times he passed by Dorset st. the street/street corners were empty,no couples or single man which would have been noteworthy .

And I suppose he was or his statement to his superiors was used to verify Hutch's statement because at 2:00 am to 3 am he must have passed by Dorset at least 2x.,and must have seen Hutch once at least.At least according to their initial belief that Hutch was trustworthy.


It's not established that it was Morton,just a possibilty.The name Henry Morton in the IPS illustration was randomly chosen?
I agree, as I wrote, since it's possible that he wasn't in place.

However, his absence at the inquest is not a valid argument, since there are equally convincing arguments explaining why he wasn't called. In fact, since his statement in IPN was more or less:"I was on duty all night and didn't see anything", why would they call him?

So to repeat, yes it's possible he wasn't there, but there's really no source stating he wasn't, so why should we think so?

You didn't just say that it was possible, you said it was your "contention" that he wasn't. I just don't think there's anything to support that idea?

And the name Henry Morton is not in the illustration? Just "L 63", which has been interpreted as PC 63L Henry Morton, who, however, served as PC already 1849.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-27-2017, 05:54 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Stop pedaling this nonsense wick and misleading people. Sarah Lewis never saw couple go in the court. She saw them go up the street.
Quite correct. She saw the couple "further on" - almost certainly "further on in Dorset Street" - as she spotted Mr Wideawake standing in Dorset Street at the point she herself entered Miller's Court.

"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake... The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the latter being in drink. There was nobody in the court." (Lewis's inquest testimony, Daily Telegraph, 14th November)

"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the lodging house... another young man with a woman passed along - the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out" (Lewis's inquest testimony, official record)

Against those, we have one (?) report in the Daily News that says the couple entered the court, but this is almost certainly a garbled version. It was Lewis herself who was entering the court at the time, as the above two versions clearly indicate. Wideawake and the couple she saw "further on" were undoubtedly in Dorset Street.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 07-27-2017 at 05:56 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-27-2017, 07:19 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Stop pedaling this nonsense wick and misleading people. Sarah Lewis never saw couple go in the court. She saw them go up the street.
Read it Abby, slowly...it's in plain English.

" I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."


Obviously there was no-one in the court when Lewis got there, the couple went indoors.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-27-2017, 07:29 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
I understand it was an inquest and a different coroner too.The PC should have seen Hutch or a man standing across the court once, if a man was there they
would not have dismissed Hutchinson,.....
Yes, but this was after the inquest, and the point you seem to be missing is that the press were still reporting, as far as on the 19th Nov. that the authorities were pursuing the Hutchinson suspect seven days after he gave them his story.

This idea of him being dismissed (on the 15th) does not stand up to scrutiny, it's bogus.

Lawende was the only witness who had a permanent residence and ran a business, so he was easy to locate years after the fact.

Any 'mystery' is the creation of the posters themselves in pushing this theory.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-27-2017, 07:35 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Read it Abby, slowly...it's in plain English.

" I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."


Obviously there was no-one in the court when Lewis got there, the couple went indoors.
read it slowly wick:

its obviously a garbled press version that one paper got wrong. probably confusing it with cox statement.

Lewis official inquest testimony:

"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the court in Dorset Street standing alone by the lodging house... another young man with a woman passed along - the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out"


nothing about entering the court.

get over it.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-27-2017, 08:03 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
In the same newspaper report, a mere two sentences before that one, we find that there was a man standing in Mary Kell's doorway:

"In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man"

Why haven't we heard more about this guy? He's either the most overlooked prime suspect of all time, or the Daily News screwed up Sarah Lewis's testimony. I wonder which of those options has the most chance of being true?
Quote:
Obviously there was no-one in the court when Lewis got there, the couple went indoors.
Apart from yer man, standing in Kelly's doorway.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.