Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mrs Rees 1888

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

  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by How Brown
    On the point of Anderson ( the one from 1888,not 2007) remarking that the handwriting found on the Wentworth building was similar to a "suspect's"...
    Oh, I doubt it really did, but that's not the point. The point is that it was taken seriously and either a comparison was done, or one of the officers at the scene who saw it personally thought he recognized it as one of the people they were already investigating. Of course, Anderson may have just meant that it resembled the 'Dear Boss' letter, which one of the people present thought it did.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    Agreed gentlemen
    the idea of Mary Kelly being an abortionist is somewhat alien to my good self as well. However there does appear to be a linkage here, somewhere along the well-trodden line.
    If one looks at the mysterious death of Eliza Schummacher in 1888, murdered by an unknown abortionist when she wasn't even pregnant; and then the 'Mysterious Death at Walthamstow' - a case I'm about to post - then it was not really unusual for London women in 1888 to die at the hands of abortionists... even when they were not pregnant.
    My suggestion is that, based on the as yet gentle connection between Mary Jane Kelly, prostitute, and Mary Jane Rees, abortionist; and the fact that Mary Jane Kelly was supposedly murdered in November of 1888; and the fact that Mary Jane Rees was sentenced to ten years in December of 1888... are in fact facts too fat to ignore.
    I should point out that the connection between Mary Jane Kelly and Mary Jane Rees was featured in several newspapers of the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    AP, not too sure about this abortion business. Given that an abortionist can't advertise, she'll need to rely on word of mouth. We hear of no rumours touching on Kelly in this connection. Further, there were no tools of her trade found in the room.

    Robert

    Leave a comment:


  • SirRobertAnderson
    replied
    Originally posted by A.P. Wolf
    M'Carthy's largesse with Kelly's rent could be explained by his knowledge of her 'medical' practise, and on him taking a cut of the earnings.
    Very very interesting concept, A.P.

    Well, we know how much McCarthy was charging for rent; do we have any idea what the going rates for a back alley abortion were ?

    My initial thought would be that an abortionist could have afforded better housing than Miller's Court.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    Actually the idea of Mary Kelly as an abortionist would clear up a lot of points that have always picked away at my brain.
    Like why did she have contained and private accommodation whilst all the other unfortunates had to rough it in the doss houses?
    It would also explain why Kelly frequently had women visitors, and that they stayed overnight.
    M'Carthy's largesse with Kelly's rent could be explained by his knowledge of her 'medical' practise, and on him taking a cut of the earnings.
    It would also explain why Kelly and Barnett appeared to have income when neither were working; and could have been the very reason for their disagreement over women 'staying' in Kelly's room overnight.
    But the best I think is that it gives a rational explanation for the fierce fire that burnt in the room that night... for we have had a clear demonstration from the Old Bailey case that it was entirely possible to dispose of the body of even a full term baby, over night in such a small domestic fireplace. One just had to ensure that the bones were removed and hidden afterwards, and one had indeed got away with murder.
    Given Mary Jane Kelly's connection to a family of famous abortionists since she was a young girl of 17 in Swansea - where I would suggest she probably went to have an abortion herself - it is entirely possible that she herself was taught the unwholesome craft by her mentor Mary Jane Rees.
    It is, I feel, an avenue well worthy of further exploration, for it could give some very credible ground to the almost incredible tale of Mary Kelly being seen alive on the morning following her supposed murder.
    As incredible as that might seem.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Tom:

    Actually,its not absurd to consider that the police didn't look closely inside the teapot. Not that they didn't,but its not like this is a good stash spot in the first place. Often times,things go uninvestigated,because someone expected the "other guy" to have checked it out. Passing the pot,so to speak...or passing the buck.

    Lets remain on track on this thread and keep all options available and remarks germane.

    On the point of Anderson ( the one from 1888,not 2007) remarking that the handwriting found on the Wentworth building was similar to a "suspect's"...one could easily dismiss that,since chalk writing and pen writing are virtually incomparable and Anderson was not an experienced graphologist. But for the sake of open discussion,lets keep it optional as well.

    Thanks in advance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Please be so kind as to cite the post in which I stated that a post existed in which you specifically stated the Victorians were imbeciles, drooling or otherwise. When you're done with your game of semantics, I'll be anxious to read your thoughtful reply.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • SirRobertAnderson
    replied
    I'm sorry, I don't buy into the idea that just because they were Victorian that they were dribbling imbeciles.

    Please be so kind as to cite the post where I have ever said the Victorians were imbeciles, drooling or otherwise, then we can discuss your other contentions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson
    Believe what you wish. I think it is likely they looked, but in the absence of a positive statement to that effect, I don't assume it.
    Well, you should. These are the same people who opened up Eddowes' tin match box and found it 'empty'. I think they could manage to take a peak inside a teapot, don't you? And it's hardly their fault that the descriptive inventory of Kelly's room got lost to purloiners. I'm sorry, I don't buy into the idea that just because they were Victorian that they were dribbling imbeciles.

    Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson
    It's important for one reason and one reason only: there was a raging fire in that room that night, and no one has yet come up with an explanation for why the killer wanted that.
    Are you kidding? I must have seen a few dozen different explanations by this point, including your cannibalism idea which has been around for years. Of course, despite your unwillingness to assume the obvious in the case of the teapot, you're quite ready to assume that the Ripper and not Kelly started the fire. I wonder why that is?

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • SirRobertAnderson
    replied
    Sir Robert,

    It's absurd to suggest they noted the condition of the teapot, but didn't take a second to look inside of it when the victim's heart was missing. Of course they looked inside it. They tore the room apart.
    Believe what you wish. I think it is likely they looked, but in the absence of a positive statement to that effect, I don't assume it.

    Not to mention that the killer may have used the kettle in ways that didn't leave a noticeable residue. We're not talking CSI Whitechapel here.

    It's important for one reason and one reason only: there was a raging fire in that room that night, and no one has yet come up with an explanation for why the killer wanted that.

    Cooking and/or brewing are possible explanations for the inexplicable, especially if you believe that Jack may have indulged in cannibalism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Sir Robert,

    It's absurd to suggest they noted the condition of the teapot, but didn't take a second to look inside of it when the victim's heart was missing. Of course they looked inside it. They tore the room apart.

    AP,

    You know how critical I am of Simon Wood's whole thing about there being a million items in the Kelly pic. Nevertheless, there's one thing that irks me, and MIGHT lend support to a PORTION of his idea, and that's Anderson's quote about a doctor finding a pipe and throwing it in the fireplace. It's always been assumed that Anderson had Coles (with the broken pipe) and Kelly confused. But if so, where did the 'throw it in the fireplace' come from? So, if Anderson was correct, ask yourself why a doctor would have need to pick up a pipe and why he'd feel moved to discard it. Only explanation I can think of is that it was somewhere on the bed with Kelly and was covered in grue.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    P.S. I'm also intrigued by Anderson's always-overlooked comment that the Goulston Street Graffiti resembled a suspect's handwriting, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    Sam
    I've been wary of that zinc bath almost since before I was born.

    Leave a comment:


  • SirRobertAnderson
    replied
    A few doctors spent a good amount of time sifting through the fire. Had there been bone (or heart) remnants, they would have found them. Same with the tea pot and anything else in the room.
    t
    The fireplace was undoubtedly searched thoroughly.

    The tea kettle, however, is an assumption, especially for residue.

    And we do have the Cutbush connection to tea.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    But maybe Tom they should have had a go at the flower pots?
    Just leave it to Bond, 007.
    The 'New York Herald', London Edition, 11 September 1889:

    A reperusal of the circumstances of former atrocities of this nature only serves to confuse the reader's mind as to the possible origin of this last crime. It differs from the Whitechapel series in the facts that the head and lower limbs were amputated, and in the other fact that the hands were left undisturbed; but it resembles them in the infliction of the deep longitudinal cut along the lower half of the trunk. It will be remembered that last year, while the Whitechapel miscreant was in the full living of unchecked crime, a horribly mutilated human body was discovered in the basement storey of the building on the Embankment once intended for a national opera house. Here, too, the head and legs were missing, as in the case of the unfortunate woman found yesterday morning, but in this case the incomplete mutilation of the trunk had been completed in a fashion absolutely similar to that which marked the bodies of the Whitechapel victims. Nearly a month previously the right arm of a woman had been found floating in the Thames near Bridge, and several indications justified the belief that it formed part of the body found later on in the basement of the opera house. The case of the girl whose mutilated remains were enveloped in a fragment of under garment marked in black ink in a clear and clerkly hand with the name "L.E. Fisher," equally fails to offer any analogy to the other cases, as Dr. Bond, chief surgeon of the Metropolitan Police, declared death to have resulted from an operation intended to procure abortion; a motive which could not have determined any of the Whitechapel series, and certainly did not exist in the present instance, as the medical testimony declares this last victim never to have been pregnant. '

    Now if I had a fast Aston Martin, and a much faster Martini, and an ejector seat that shot me fifty foot in the air I think, just, that I could get on the same level as 007 Bond.
    Someone, somewhere, in 1888 and 1889 were botching abortions and slinging their victims in the streets or Thames.
    That much is obvious.
    And no I don't believe the police or doctors even bothered to investigate the room at Miller's Court in the way we would expect, because they already had their victim and looked no further.
    Anyways this is moving away from the heart of this thread, the connection between a 17 year old Mary Jane Kelly in Swansea in 1880 and the abortionist family by the name of Rees in Swansea in 1880.
    Stick with that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    A potentially important finding, AP, for which many thanks.

    I have scanned the census returns, but trying to find a specific "Rees" in Wales will be something of a challenge. A pity the newspaper didn't report her age, or her husband's for that matter, but I'll keep trying.

    BTW, I find the idea that the Miller's Court fire was to provide hot water for an abortion slightly beyond the pale - or should that be "pail"? Fires can be used for a plethora of other purposes, of course. On the other hand, I'm surprised you haven't picked up on the presence of the zinc bath under Kelly's bed

    Thanks once again.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X