Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack the Ripper's address - 14 Dorset Street!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Nice find Chris

    By this date, I think Annie Chapman had been reported as living in a Dorset St lodging house and Catherine Eddowes as having lived in a shed on Dorset St, so the choice of address is maybe not so unusual

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Chris Scott View Post
      There are two sources for that address for Caroline Maxwell and her husband.
      1) The witness statement made by Maxwell on the day of the murder (9 November) starts as follows:-
      "Statement of Caroline Maxwell, 14 Dorset Street Spitalfields, the wife of Henry Maxwell, a lodging house deputy..."
      2) The testimony of Maxwell at the Kelly inquest on 12 November starts as follows:-
      "Caroline Maxwell, having been sworn, deposed as follows: I live at 14 Dorset Street, my husband's name is Henry Maxwell, he is a lodging house deputy."
      I've just come on here after reading the CB thread on the same subject but coincidentally, just today when I was reading up on Dorset St. I came across an account in the Manchester Times from Caroline Maxwell where she claims her and her husband live at 25 Dorset Street, next door to Kelly and gives the impression that her husband only worked at #14 Dorset Street as deputy.
      I didn't save the snip as I didn't realise it was under discussion on here.

      Comment


      • #18
        Debs:

        This article mentions #26 Dorset Street...

        Manchester Times
        November 17, 1888
        ***************


        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

        Comment


        • #19
          That will be why it came up in my search toady then!
          I assumed it said 25 as they mention 'next door' which I thought was in the context that they lived next door to where the murder was committed. 26 wasn't next door to 14 was it? So what does she mean by 'next door?'

          Comment


          • #20
            In one paper there's a point in Caroline Maxwell's reported testimony where she says she has only spoken to Mary twice before, she is then asked why they addressed each other by first name if they had only spoken twice and weren't that familiar and Maxwell says she knew Mary well by sight from seeing her in and around 'the lodging house.'
            So, is Maxwell talking about the lodging house at #14 or #26?
            Was Mary actually known at #14 where Mr. Maxwell was deputy and hung around there sometimes, or did Maxwell really live at #26 and knew Mary from there?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
              That will be why it came up in my search toady then!
              I assumed it said 25 as they mention 'next door' which I thought was in the context that they lived next door to where the murder was committed. 26 wasn't next door to 14 was it? So what does she mean by 'next door?'
              Hi Debs
              I agree that the comment about "next door" is baffling. My initial reaction was that as it was Kelly being discussed she meant she lived next door to Kelly but that also is not feasible as by saying she lived at 26 she is saying she is living in the SAME BUILDING as Kelly. The only logical - but rather far fetched - explanation I can come up with is, that as this is an article about the Kelly murder the chances are high that the address 26 Dorset Street would be mentioned somewhere so in this instance with Maxwell it is either a reporter's or typographical error and 14 Dorset Street was intended.
              The article as you posted it is saying quite categorically that Maxwell lived in the same building as Mary which no other source even hints at. It has to be an error in the article.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Chris Scott View Post
                Hi Debs
                I agree that the comment about "next door" is baffling. My initial reaction was that as it was Kelly being discussed she meant she lived next door to Kelly but that also is not feasible as by saying she lived at 26 she is saying she is living in the SAME BUILDING as Kelly. The only logical - but rather far fetched - explanation I can come up with is, that as this is an article about the Kelly murder the chances are high that the address 26 Dorset Street would be mentioned somewhere so in this instance with Maxwell it is either a reporter's or typographical error and 14 Dorset Street was intended.
                The article as you posted it is saying quite categorically that Maxwell lived in the same building as Mary which no other source even hints at. It has to be an error in the article.
                Hi Chris, yes, I think it was probably some sort of error but its hard to imagine a straight forward mix up of addresses between where the Maxwell's lived and where Mary lived-the wording is odd in that case? " I assist my husband in his duties but we live next door at 26 Dorset Street, so, in effect she's saying in this particular report that wherever she assisted her husband (which we know was as night deputy at #14) she didn't actually live there (regardless of the address given)?
                At a push, I suppose room 13 was technically 'next door' to #26 as 26 and room 13 had separate access doors and were separate units?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                  Chris:

                  That someone, the author of the missive, would randomly ( ? ) pick out Dorset Street as their address and only be 12 street numbers off the location of the actual murder is a little alarming, isn't it ?

                  Out of all the streets in the East End, this fellow chose Dorset Street.
                  Not only that, but a week before a next murder was committed, and on that very street.

                  What are the odds on this ?

                  I agree with you, Howard. The address, which had been written by the author on top of the letter, was ď14 Dorset Street, Spitalfields, LondonĒ.

                  The letter to the police in Yarmouth, which was also published in the press, guaranteed that the Metropolitan Police visited the specific address, given in the letter, on the day of the murder.

                  When the police arrived at 14 Dorset Street they found a wife who told them that she was married to Henry Maxwell. Her own name was Caroline.

                  However, it soon became clear that Henry's wife Caroline had a story to tell which differed from the statements of other people.

                  The author of the letter told the police to look out for the killer on either of the piers on Thursday night, where he intended to do for two Norwich women.

                  In Victorian times, a Norwicher was another word for an unfair drinker. It was a person who was drinking too much from a shared glass. Consequently, a Norwich woman was an unfair drinker.

                  In the letter to the Yarmouth police, the use of the expression gave the motive for the intention described in the letter. Women who took more than their fair share had to be destroyed.

                  Henry Maxwell Reily was accused of desertion by Caroline, and she filed the petition for judicial separation against him in June 1888.

                  Henry had been ordered by Judge Hannen at The Royal Courts of Justice to pay a large sum of money monthly to his wife Caroline, and Henry perceived of this as most unfair and utterly humiliating.

                  Caroline was taking a large sum of money from Henry. She was drinking too much from a shared glass. She was an unfair drinker.

                  9th November, Henry had been fighting against Caroline during the whole autumn of 1888, but Caroline had refused to stop her claim for money.

                  By the end of October their case had been put on the list of causes for hearing. Caroline was only waiting for their case to be heard in court and to be granted her judicial separation and the permanent alimony from Henry.

                  Henry now had very few options left. He must stop Caroline from going through with the hearing in court, or Caroline was going to ruin his life and his reputation forever.

                  9th November was the day of the Lord Mayorís Show, when the new Lord Mayor in London, the Right Honourable James Whitehead, was going in the state coach to the Royal Courts of Justice, the very place where Henry had lost his reputation and money, and was soon going to lose his whole future.

                  10th November 1888 was Caroline's birthday. She had to stand and lie to the police and the coroner.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi Kristina,

                    Welcome to the boards.

                    Why would middle class Caroline Reily, who was receiving a monthly alimony payment of £10, choose to slum it in Dorset Street, Spitalfields?

                    Gary

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                      Hi Kristina,

                      Welcome to the boards.

                      Why would middle class Caroline Reily, who was receiving a monthly alimony payment of £10, chose to slum it in Dorset Street, Spitalfields?

                      Gary
                      Because it is a fact that Henry wanted Caroline to stop the claims for separation and money. And it is a fact that wives must obey their husbands.

                      (And it was an alimony pending suit.)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Kristina Nordqvist View Post
                        Because it is a fact that Henry wanted Caroline to stop the claims for separation and money. And it is a fact that wives must obey their husbands.

                        (And it was an alimony pending suit.)
                        That doesnít explain why she would have been living in Dorset Street.

                        Iím sure you wonít want to give away too much, but can you reveal the name of the person you say died in the Whitechapel Infirmary?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                          That doesnít explain why she would have been living in Dorset Street.

                          Iím sure you wonít want to give away too much, but can you reveal the name of the person you say died in the Whitechapel Infirmary?
                          Henry Maxwell.

                          The man who was called Henry Maxwell did not die from pneumonia. He died a violent death.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Hi, Kristina! Welcome!

                            It was reported that witness Caroline Maxwell's husband Henry was in charge of the rooming house. How likely is it that Caroline would have run it on her own? Or is it suggested the 'Henry Maxwell' in charge of the rooming house was another man using that name?

                            As Gary said, I respect your efforts and understand if you do not divulge all details at this time and place.
                            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              In 1881, Caroline Reily was living at 20, Denmark Terrace, Brighton (below) with 2 (grand?) children and 5 servants: a butler, a cook, a housemaid, a nurse and a kitchen maid. I suspect that may have been the home of her father, Francis Baring Kemp - hence the reference to grandchildren.

                              In 1891, Francis Baring Kemp, was living at 15, Denmark Terrace - he was a Sussex man and seems to have retired to the county of his birth after a career in the Indian civil service - with another of his daughters and five servants.

                              They were obviously a well-heeled middle class family. The idea that Caroline was living in one of the worst streets in Spitalfields during the autumn of terror seems highly unlikely.


                              Click image for larger version

Name:	BEF6F72E-8C60-45BF-B7C9-96D65C621BDF.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	175.0 KB
ID:	561246

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                                In 1881, Caroline Reily was living at 20, Denmark Terrace, Brighton (below) with 2 (grand?) children and 5 servants: a butler, a cook, a housemaid, a nurse and a kitchen maid. I suspect that may have been the home of her father, Francis Baring Kemp - hence the reference to grandchildren.

                                In 1891, Francis Baring Kemp, was living at 15, Denmark Terrace - he was a Sussex man and seems to have retired to the county of his birth after a career in the Indian civil service - with another of his daughters and five servants.

                                They were obviously a well-heeled middle class family. The idea that Caroline was living in one of the worst streets in Spitalfields during the autumn of terror seems highly unlikely.


                                [ATTACH]21323[/ATTACH]

                                All this is already in the book Jack the Ripper Uncovenanted if you read it. However, the "grandchildren" were the children of Caroline and Henry. Henry deserted Caroline and she went from India to stay with her father Francis Baring Kemp in 1881. And 1882, Caroline filed her petition for divorce. It was dismissed by the court, and in 1888 Caroline filed her petition for judicial separation against Henry.


                                I do understand that you yourself have personal problems with understanding why Caroline "would" (as you put it) stay in a room at 14 Dorset Street for a few days.



                                But serial killer wives is a very specific category and when you research historical data, you can not exclude people from your research just because you do not understand them.



                                Taking Caroline to a small lodging-house in Whitechapel where nobody knew them was easy for someone like Henry.



                                In Victorian times, husbands had the power over their wives, and wives were expected to obey their husbands.



                                Moreover, Caroline was born in India and had been living there for a long time. As the wife of an uncovenanted servant in Bengal, Caroline was used to following Henry and to living in all sorts of places.



                                As a matter of fact, the living conditions in India were difficult and dangerous, also for women living with the men of the Raj, and the living conditions of every day life had many consequences for the safety of women in India.



                                There were the constant threats from the plethora of diseases and an early death, threats which they had to live with every day. The mortality rates among women and children in India were high. Caroline had also seen two of her own children die.



                                Consequently, for a woman like Caroline, who was married to an uncovenanted servant and was used to move around between different districts in Bengal during her life, staying for a few days at 14 Dorset Street was a small thing compared to all her experience.



                                I recommend that you read the book where you will have all the data and references to all the historical sources.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X