Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Henry Maxwell Reily

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

  • Here’s another example:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	F0B520BA-B0FA-476B-A521-C62B48AE3E4E.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	84.4 KB
ID:	561288

    The faint number 18 is against the 18th entry on the page and two entries later there is a 2. 18 + 2 = 20.

    The 2 is unrelated to the inquest notes it sits alongside.

    Personally, I think the note against Henry Maxwell’s entry looks like a B, but even if it is a 73, it could mean anything.

    Comment


    • And here’s Chris’s explanation for why there are scribbled 20s in the margins of pages with 20 entries on them:

      Death register pages 599, 600, 601. Code 70 in Report of the Medical officer in Whitechapel, page 30: Violent death, Accident, Otherwise.

      They recieved inquests and verdicts where violent deaths by accident or otherwise were suspected. They often had natural causes.


      Sorry, Chris, it’s not 70 (the code for violent death) it’s 20 (entries on the page).

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kristina Nordqvist View Post
        Hi,

        I am an historian and I have found the man called "Jack the Ripper". This book is the result of 4 years of research.

        Henry Maxwell Reily was born in Bengal in India. In 1888, he was called to the Royal Courts of Justice in London, when his wife Caroline had filed a petition for judicial separation against him.

        Before the judicial process started in London in June 1888, Henry Maxwell Reily was working as an uncovenanted servant of the Civil Service in British India. He had been employed as a deputy magistrate and collector for a few years before he had joined the police force, where he became a high police official in the Bengal Constabulary.

        9th November 1888 the names of a man and his wife were written down in a police report in Whitechapel, when the wife was interrogated by the police. A woman had been found murdered and mutilated in a room in Spitalfields by the killer called Jack the Ripper.

        10th November, their names were published in many newspapers. Few people in London recognized their names in the police report or press reports.

        Among those who were able to do so were a few solicitors at the Inns of The Temple in London, a couple of judges at the Royal Courts of Justice and a former Inspector-General of Police by the name of James Monro.

        Friday 24th May 1889, the name of the man was written down in the Admission and Discharge Register of the Whitechapel Union Infirmary. He was recorded as dead by pneumonia.

        Monday 27th May a coffin was lowered down into a grave in Square 389, together with 16 other coffins, at the London City Cemetery at Little Ilford.

        When the name of the man was registered in the Admission and Discharge Register in the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, it was a formal guarantee that he was never again going to return to Whitechapel.

        But there was something wrong with the death recording and the death certificate, and on the day of the recording in the Admission and Discharge Register, a journey back to London had just begun.

        Jack the Ripper Uncovenanted
        Produced in PDF-format
        Delivery to you by e-mail
        £6.99. Use this link:
        https://paypal.me/JTRUncovenanted?locale.x=sv_SE

        Best wishes to all
        Chris
        Hello Chris, all,

        Please excuse me for going back to basics, as it were.
        You see, Ive noticed the not unnatural occurrence that when the community start to delve into this sort of thing, that details are discussed to the minutest level. So.. I will with respect to all just go back to the basics.

        In the very first paragraph of the 1st post in this thread, the author states..

        " I am an historian and I have found the man called "Jack the Ripper". This book is the result of 4 years of research. "

        Well dear author. I've a, few simple questions for you. Easy to answer, yes or no.

        In order for me, or anyone else for that matter, to seriously consider the claim made in the first paragraph of the first posting, I will need to know a few things ascertained as certain facts. Because, dear author, your claim is presented as a certain fact.. So...

        1) Where was the suspect at the time of, and on the night of, the murder of Mary Nichols in Bucks Row?

        2) Was the suspect seen by anyone in the vicinity of Bucks Row on the night, and tr the time in question?

        3) Where was the suspect at the time of, and on the night of, the murder of Annie Chapman in Hanbury Street?

        4) Was the suspect seen by anyone in the vicinity of Hanbury Street on the night, and at the time in question?

        5)) Where was the suspect at the time of, and on the night of, the murder of Elizabeth Stride in Dutfields Yard?

        6) Was the suspect seen by anyone in the vicinity of Dutfields Yard on the night, and at the time in question?

        7) Where was the suspect at the time of, and on the night of, the murder of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square?

        8) Was the suspect seen by anyone in the vicinity of Mitre Square on the night, and at the time in question?

        9) Where was the suspect at the time of, and on the night of, the murder of Mary Kelly in Millers Court?

        10) Was the suspect seen by anyone in the vicinity of Millers Court on the night, and at the time in question?

        All basic questions with a yes or no answer...or a known place if being.

        If your claim is true.. Then the answers to most of, if not all of the above questions, must be yes, and the exact whereabouts will be given.
        If so, I'm sure that you'll have no problem providing bona fide evidence to the affirmative.

        However. Stupidly simple fact that it is, if the answers to the questions are "no", then like hundreds of other suspects before this one, not a single piece of factual proof connects the suspects to the act of murder, or multiple murder.

        And it doesn't matter how much linkage to the Indian ritual killings is produced, nor the suspects connection to such killings... If you cannot provide evidence that the oerson you call "Jack the Ripper" actually "killed"any of these poor women, then your claim, simply, is false, based on supposition, like all others.

        My apologies for being direct. But I've found long ago that labelling a oerson to be a murderer is common all garden stuff, especially without a jot of proof. And I'm sure that any person living, connected by family name, isn't likely to be very enamoured by an innocent persons name being dragged through the mud.. However many years you've been researching. That consideration should be high on the list before making your claim.

        Best regards

        Phil
        from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
          Here’s another example:


          The faint number 18 is against the 18th entry on the page and two entries later there is a 2. 18 + 2 = 20.

          The 2 is unrelated to the inquest notes it sits alongside.

          Personally, I think the note against Henry Maxwell’s entry looks like a B, but even if it is a 73, it could mean anything.
          Thanks Gary. It appears the number is summarizing the number of entries in each page pr. month, 18 at month’s end, then 2 more. For an easy total tally pr month, for instance.
          Perhaps Henry Maxwells 73 is a similar tally, perhaps his is the 23rd entry that month or the 73rd that quarter or something?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
            Thanks Gary. It appears the number is summarizing the number of entries in each page pr. month, 18 at month’s end, then 2 more. For an easy total tally pr month, for instance.
            Perhaps Henry Maxwells 73 is a similar tally, perhaps his is the 23rd entry that month or the 73rd that quarter or something?
            Well spotted, Kattrup.

            I did attempt to find something that fitted 23/73 by counting back, totting up the number of cases of pneumonia etc, but didn’t get anywhere. It’s possibly the sort of mystery that if you ponder it long enough it will suddenly become blindingly obvious.

            What this shows us is Chris leaping to an incorrect conclusion that conveniently fits her theory. We had already pointed out that the single code 70 couldn’t sensibly be applied to all the various inquest cases in question, and that in fact the code 70 seemed to have gone out of use before these notes were made. But she clung desperately to her reading of the notes - because they provided corroboration of her reading of the B/73/23 by Henry Maxwell’s entry.

            What that note means remains a mystery, but my instincts tell me it is far more likely to have had a mundane clerical purpose than to be a cryptic clue to a serious crime.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
              Thanks, but I'm still not really clear what details of the theory it is useful to discuss if HMR has an alibi.



              Perhaps I should read the book, but in the absence of pressing evidence I think life's too short. Maybe someone could start a thread on the new insights in the book independent of HMR's candidacy. I am sceptical about the "history of separation" as a significant common factor for the victims. I think the common factor was their vulnerability, and that brought a host of other common factors in its train.
              Hi Chris P,

              Chris N puts forward reasons for ignoring the alibi, but none of them are strong enough to overrule the evidence that HMR was en route to India when MJK was killed, at least IMO.

              Gary

              Comment


              • What is this?

                Click image for larger version

Name:	2F70A98F-453C-4330-ADA6-EAA49FDBA546.jpeg
Views:	2
Size:	10.7 KB
ID:	561289


                It could be 73, as Chris suggests, but couldn’t it be B? Or how about 75?

                There had been 75 deaths in the three months March to May, 1889 (unless I mis-counted) and the note was added to the margin near the last few entires in May.

                Perhaps we should have a competition where people try to come up with a more implausible explanation than Chris’s.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                  What that note means remains a mystery, but my instincts tell me it is far more likely to have had a mundane clerical purpose than to be a cryptic clue to a serious crime.
                  I completely agree. I find it difficult to accept that a serious historian would ignore the weight of sources attesting to the existence and death of Henry Maxwell in favor of a sordid conspiracy with no empirical basis whatsoever.

                  Comment


                  • The squiggle looks like M/Z...for what it's worth and probably nothing.
                    The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                      The squiggle looks like M/Z...for what it's worth and probably nothing.
                      That’s an excellent suggestion, Anna. Z or maybe 3 - M(onth)/3?

                      If you are writing M/ quickly in a cramped space it might well end up looking like a 7.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                        The squiggle looks like M/Z...for what it's worth and probably nothing.
                        ‘Probably nothing?’ A suggestion from the doyen of Voynich researchers?

                        👍🏻

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                          Kelly(?), Chapman, Stride and McKenzie were widows. As far as we know, Eddowes had never been married. The identities of the two torsos were never established.
                          If you had read the reference for the statement of Coroner Wynne Baxter in my book you would have seen that this statement was published 24 September.

                          And if you had read what I write about these victims you would also have seen the descriptions of who were married and not.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kristina Nordqvist View Post
                            If you had read the reference for the statement of Coroner Wynne Baxter in my book you would have seen that this statement was published 24 September.

                            And if you had read what I write about these victims you would also have seen the descriptions of who were married and not.
                            Was Mackenzie married? Was Mackenzie even Mackenzie?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                              Yes, I know that the victims’ personal histories are known etc. I’m just not aware that it (a history of separating from their husbands/long term boyfriends) has been pointed out as a factor in victimology, i.e. that they were targeted because of it.

                              Of course, this entails a pre-existing relationship between HMR and the victims, an aspect which Chris does not cover in her book, presumably because there are no sources for it either.
                              Hi Kattrup,

                              Well, I do not write that they were targeted exclusively due to their history of separation. However, the history of Tabram, her separation and her husband's payments to her was in the press shortly before the first murder with attempted mutilations, the murder in Buck's Row.

                              The motive was that these women were behaving immorally.

                              I write:

                              Of all the identified victims who were killed in 1888 and 1889, not one was a married woman living in a family with a husband and children at the time of their murder.

                              All of the murdered women had a history of separation, either from a husband or from a man they had been living with.

                              It was remarkably easy for the killer to find women in Whitechapel who had this background.

                              A major reason as to why these women were walking the streets alone at night was that they had separated from their men and husbands, and therefore had to do what they must to survive.

                              When the killer seeked out and murdered immoral women in London 1888-1889, he needed no proof that the women he killed had separated from their men or husbands. No formal evidence for it was required.

                              It was obvious that the women were behaving immorally, due to the simple fact that they were walking the streets alone at night.

                              Kind regards, Chris

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                                [ATTACH]21370[/ATTACH]

                                The names at the bottom are those of deceased persons for whom there was an inquest, and at first glance you might think the ‘20’ referred to them. It doesn’t, it’s just showing the number of entries on the page.

                                There were typically 20 entries on a full page. On another page I saw the number 5 against the 5th entry and 15 against the final, 20th entry (5 + 15 = 20).
                                But the problem for you Gary is that you are not discussing the number close to the name of "Henry Maxwell".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X