Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC E. Newberry (Retired) in 1911 Claimed To Have Locked up Kelly For Drunkenness

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

  • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
    I'm just going out, I may be some time.
    For God’s sake remember our people.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

      Having just noticed that Jeremiah was shown as a stevedore on his son’s 1886 marriage cert, I’m wondering whether he was the stevedore living at 127, PS in 1887.
      The matter of stevedore's residing at 127 Pennington Street appears to date back to at least 1882..

      127penningtonSt.png

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jurriaan Maessen View Post

        The matter of stevedore's residing at 127 Pennington Street appears to date back to at least 1882..

        127penningtonSt.png
        Yes, I saw that. And there was another one there in 1891. Perhaps that house was owned by the Dock company. Just beyond it was Pennington (Buildings) which was owned by the London Dock Co and housed their employees.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

          Yes, I saw that. And there was another one there in 1891. Perhaps that house was owned by the Dock company. Just beyond it was Pennington (Buildings) which was owned by the London Dock Co and housed their employees.
          Yes, very probably. When I search on 127 Pennington St. via the Electoral registers the only name that keeps popping up, throughout the entire 1880's, is John Foley.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

            Yes, I saw that. And there was another one there in 1891. Perhaps that house was owned by the Dock company. Just beyond it was Pennington (Buildings) which was owned by the London Dock Co and housed their employees.
            It suddenly occurred to me: wasn't Joseph Fleming- either with his birthname or the assumed name of James Evans- recorded on one or more asylum/workhouse records as having been employed as a dock labourer? If so, is there a chance he perhaps lodged at 127 Pennington St where Jeremiah Kirby was also lodging at some time in the mid to late 1880s?
            If so, the "man in the building trade" who used to visit her at Pennington St. could have simply been, at that time at least, just another dock man warming himself to one of the prostitutes of John Morgenstern.

            I have also been contemplating another scenario in regards to Fleming: if I remember rightly the 79 Pennington St address was reported on as being as good as falling apart at the seems. A mason's plasterer might come in handy to fix some of the worst structural problems. He might have come into contact with the likes of Mary Kelly in his capacity as a plasterer.

            This is all conjecture, of course, but I would like to think of it as pulling at some threads of possibility.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jurriaan Maessen View Post

              It suddenly occurred to me: wasn't Joseph Fleming- either with his birthname or the assumed name of James Evans- recorded on one or more asylum/workhouse records as having been employed as a dock labourer? If so, is there a chance he perhaps lodged at 127 Pennington St where Jeremiah Kirby was also lodging at some time in the mid to late 1880s?
              If so, the "man in the building trade" who used to visit her at Pennington St. could have simply been, at that time at least, just another dock man warming himself to one of the prostitutes of John Morgenstern.

              I have also been contemplating another scenario in regards to Fleming: if I remember rightly the 79 Pennington St address was reported on as being as good as falling apart at the seems. A mason's plasterer might come in handy to fix some of the worst structural problems. He might have come into contact with the likes of Mary Kelly in his capacity as a plasterer.

              This is all conjecture, of course, but I would like to think of it as pulling at some threads of possibility.
              Yes, he was a dock labourer. I posted his settlement records on the thread highlighted below in red which gave a few addresses for him. There's also some asylum records on there.
              City of London settlement
              The record of his possessions mentions a hook, which we discussed and was apparently essential kit of a dock or waterside labourer.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

                Yes, he was a dock labourer. I posted his settlement records on the thread highlighted below in red which gave a few addresses for him. There's also some asylum records on there.
                City of London settlement
                The record of his possessions mentions a hook, which we discussed and was apparently essential kit of a dock or waterside labourer.
                Cheers, Debs. And of course I couldn't help reading the entire thread & now I need a drink.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jurriaan Maessen View Post

                  Cheers, Debs. And of course I couldn't help reading the entire thread & now I need a drink.
                  Two aspirins and a lie down in a darkened room helps.

                  Comment


                  • I do find this snippet from the Tower Hamlets Independent and East End Local Advertiser dated 17 November '88 interesting, in so far as it mentions the police having ascertained that Kelly had been walking the streets since Barnett left her a fortnight before the murder. So the police had, according to the article, at some point ascertained that Kelly had been walking the streets in the weeks after Barnett left Miller's Court, i.e. somewhere in the second half of October '88. How would they have ascertained this, I wonder? Just by speaking to Maria Harvey and others? Or did they do a quick search through court records and perhaps consulted with the arresting constables they saw mentioned on the September 19 arrest involving Kelly and Kirby? If so, they would have come to the conclusion Kelly had been walking the streets prior to Barnett leaving her. It would not be unthinkable David Kirby would have been questioned at some point. It would also explain why Newberry, decades after the murders, was still able to remember to have "once locked up Kelly for drunkenness", as he may have been questioned about the arrest in the wake of the Miller's Court murder.
                    The conclusion that Kelly may have "walked the streets" (well) before her seperation from Barnett, may also be derived from the Mrs. Carthy statement that Kelly brought a "strange man" round not too long before the murder, asking for a bed for the night.

                    All these things were previously suspected, of course, but the Newberry claim just gives it some additional weight.

                    walkingthestreets.png

                    Comment


                    • It seems unlikely that the police put any real effort into investigating Kelly’s background. She’d been working as a prostitute in the Highway not long before she moved to Spitalfields, a place where such women were frequently subjected to violence. Is there a whisper of any investigation into her contacts there? Mrs ‘Phoenix’ actually told them who she’d worked for down there. Did they bring Morgenstern, Maywood etc in for questioning? There’s no suggestion that they did. They were looking for a Whitechapel Fiend.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                        It seems unlikely that the police put any real effort into investigating Kelly’s background. She’d been working as a prostitute in the Highway not long before she moved to Spitalfields, a place where such women were frequently subjected to violence. Is there a whisper of any investigation into her contacts there? Mrs ‘Phoenix’ actually told them who she’d worked for down there. Did they bring Morgenstern, Maywood etc in for questioning? There’s no suggestion that they did. They were looking for a Whitechapel Fiend.
                        Good points, although I was thinking that some kind of a quick search may have been conducted in regards to Kelly's more recent exploits as a prostitute, not so much those in her Highway days.
                        The 19 September 1888 arrest may have qualified as "recent", but you're probably right. The only reason I was contemplating the point is because of Newberry's 1911 statement and the likelihood of him having been contacted at some point after November 9 by collegues or superiors about the September 19 incident.

                        Comment



                        • I suspect they asked a few questions in and around Dorset Street and added that to whatever the Commercial Street police already knew about her (if anything). Of course, it’s possible that they carried out an in-depth investigate into the backgrounds of all the victims - and the witnesses - and either didn’t record the fact or those records all disappeared.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                            I suspect they asked a few questions in and around Dorset Street and added that to whatever the Commercial Street police already knew about her (if anything). Of course, it’s possible that they carried out an in-depth investigate into the backgrounds of all the victims - and the witnesses - and either didn’t record the fact or those records all disappeared.
                            It's a shame the police back then wasn't more mindful of future researchers obsessed with finding Mary Kelly.

                            Comment


                            • I'm sure the local police would have been familiar with her as a local street walking prostitute and I am sure I've read memoirs that refer to this knowledge (Dew?).

                              Comment


                              • Dew claimed to have known Mary by sight. It's in his book.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X