|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 7:37 am: |       |
Hi Leanne!
I've mulled this over during my morning cup of coffee and I came to the conclusion that you are being a bit short-sighted here.
This was Whitechapel, a known prostitution district. I highly doubt the only clients the prostitutes had in Whitechapel were from Whitechapel. I'm sure there were a few men who lived elsewhere in London who made regular trips to Whitechapel to solicit a prostitute. Maybe there where even a few who didn't live in London who only came to Whitechapel when they were in town on business. I highly doubt their only business came from poverty stricken Whitechapel. Ease of escape could easily be explained by a coach or perhaps he had rented a room for the night and escaped to it. He need only throw a coat or cape on to cover the bloodstains if there were any. And he could have known the area like the back of his hand without actually living there. Maybe he worked there or grew up there? Or, maybe he was just such a frequent visitor that he learned the area like the back of his hand? As far as the habits of the prostitutes go, I tend to believe that they were either so drunk, so destitute, or both that they weren't very picky about their customers. And if JTR were a regular customer, why worry?
Maybe MJK was suspicious of JTR and refused his advances? Maybe this angered him and he slipped into her room while she was sleeping and attacked her? This might explain why her attack was so much more violent than the others without it actually being someone who had a romantic interest in her.
Valerie |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 8:58 am: | |
G'day Valerie,
How could he have just slipped into her room while she was sleeping, quietly without waking her, when her door had to be opened from the inside by reaching through the broken window? Hey, maybe he just climbed quietly through the tiny window-hole or the keyhole!
WHAT A RISK! Carry on mulling!!!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
There is no way of knowing that Mary's door would have been locked in the case of Jack entering and attacking Mary while she was in bed. I don't believe for a minute that he used the window trick to get in, or that Mary did, if they entered together.
I just think that after the key went missing Mary would have left the door on the latch while the room was empty so that she, and anyone else she had invited to stay there, could get in easily upon their return.
If Jack entered uninvited, my guess is that he saw her enter the room alone and that she failed to lock the door once inside because she was too drunk or hungover to be concerned for her personal safety.
Love,
Caz |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 4:47 am: | |
G'day Caz,
I'm sick of having to type my posts twice, because they fail to show up! I have to try to remember the exact words I used.
If Mary's friend Margaret was telling the truth when she spoke to the press, then she told her that she had no money and intended to make away with herself. That would make the fact that Kelly would risk leaving her door unlocked when she popped out more believable!
Looking at the inquest testimony of Mary Ann Cox: she banged the door shut when she brought home the man who carried the pot of beer - the door that just required banging to lock! She was 'very much intoxicated' at that time, so I don't think she ever 'failed to lock the door once inside because she was too drunk'.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 8:34 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I'm not at all sure the door would just have 'required banging' in order to lock it - if it was on the latch at the time, which it would have been if Mary had left it like that on her way out to avoid having to reach in through the broken window on her return.
I can bang my front door as hard as I like, but if it is on the latch to begin with it will stay on the latch. I have to take it off the latch then I can close it gently or slam it and it will lock.
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 314
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 6:04 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
The Sourcebook version has Cox saying that the man shut the door. In the "Telegraph" version, she says at first that Mary shut the door, but later says that it was the man.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 4:18 am: | |
G'day Robert and Caz,
I was reading the 'Telegraph' version when I suggested what Cox said, and I noticed that the person she saw slamming the door changed, but that wasn't relevant to the conversation.
Later in her testimony, when she told of the person she heard leaving the court at 6:15a.m., the coroner asked her if she heard a door bang after him. She didn't. Does that suggest to you that all the doors in the court needed just a little slam to lock? Don't forget that locks in 1888 weren't what they are today, so we can't compare.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 5:10 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I've explained why I'm not sure 'banging' or 'slamming' necessarily equates with 'locking'. Bob Hinton is the man we should be asking I think.
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 319
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 7:11 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I mentioned the business of who closed the door, because it seemed to me that you were using it as an argument to suggest that Mary would always have secured her door, even when drunk.
I'd have no problem believing that a drunken Mary failed to secure her door in the early hours of 9th, if it wasn't for the neatly folded clothes, which I find a bit of a puzzle.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 7:44 am: | |
G'day Robert,
What is it about the neatly folded clothes?
Do you believe that Kelly couldn't have folded her clothes neatly, if she was too drunk to lock her door?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 322
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 3:33 pm: | |
Yes, Leanne, I'm trying to imagine just how badly drunk Kelly would have been at 3 or 4 AM, if her clothes were neatly folded and her boots in front of the fire.
Look at the list of things Eddowes had on!If anything, I should think that Kelly was wearing even more, as it was late autumn/winter. To take that lot off and fold it neatly on a chair would have required a certain amount of coordination, wouldn't it?
I don't know, maybe I'm letting personal experience colour the way I view the clothes. On the (extremely rare!!!) occasions that I am...mildly merry, I don't manage to climb out of my clothes at all.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 6:30 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
It all depends on what Mary Ann Cox considered: "very much intoxicated", doesn't it?
I very much doubt that the short stout man carrying the pot of ale was her killer, but if he payed for her services with the alcohol, then she would have gotten more intoxicated betweem 3a.m. and her time of death.....then how did she fold her clothes so neatly?.....could she have? Maybe she was too sloshed and Jack folded them for her, thinking "You won't be needing these anymore." What do you think?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 6:42 pm: | |
G'day,
If Joe returned after ale-man had left to plead with her to have him back, and she was too drunk to talk about it and said: "Let's worry about this tommorrow I'm too tired!", maybe he folded her clothes, wouldn't leave, kept whining, and then 'shut her up', in a fit of rage?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 323
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 7:31 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I try not to have any set in stone opinions on this case. I don't even rule out Joe, though in the course of a discussion things tend to get a bit polarised. I think there are better suspects than Joe, though.
Just leaving aside Joe for a moment : if I had to pick a scenario to save my life, so that I was forced to place a bet, I'd say that Jack was someone who either 1. Saw Kelly saying goodbye to a client, and so knew that it would be safe to enter the room once she'd retired, as no man was in there. Or 2. Was a lunatic who was so far gone that he entered Kelly's room without thinking of the possible consequences if she wasn't alone. Or 3.Was someone who entered the room by mistake, thinking it was a back entrance to the (apparently recently defunct) shed. All these depend on her not locking her door.
I tend to think he wasn't a client she'd brought home. I can't see him waiting while she undressed, serenading him about her mum's grave. I just feel that if he was a client, he'd have attacked the instant the door was closed, throttling her in the dark as he'd done with the others. Then I guess he'd have laid her on the bed with her head to the foot end, so that he could come at her from the side he was apparently used to. He'd have ripped her up through her clothes - I can't see him undressing her and neatly folding her clothes.
That's just my gut feeling. It's probably wrong, but there you go.
Maybe she'd sobered up enough to fold her clothes when she brought back Hutchinson's man, but when he left she put off getting up to properly close the door, and nodded off?
Another thing I don't understand about the clothes, is why the boots were in front of the fire to dry, but the clothes were apparently a little distance away from the fire, at the end of her bed. Perhaps when she took them off she knew she wouldn't be going out again that night, and didn't want to leave them right in front of the fire in case they scorched and caught fire while she was asleep?
It's all a mystery to me!
Robert
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Your gut feelings make a lot of sense! Here's my thoughts after reading them:
* I strongly believe that Mary's killer was waiting for her to be alone. This had to be someone who knew that Barnett had moved out. If someone had been spying on her for days before her murder, and Barnett was still visiting her frequently to give her money, how could he be certain that Joe wasn't going to walk in on them?
* The killer of Elizabeth Stride was smart enough to avoid being caught in the act. The killer of Nichols almost got caught.
* If he was a client that Kelly had brought home, he could have attacked her from behind, while she was undressing. Why did he wait for her to undress, fold her clothes, and hop into bed?
* I love your point about laying her with her head at the foot of the bed! That shows that he did wait and felt comfortable in taking his time (i.e. knew that someone wasn't going to walk in.)
* If he didn't fold her clothes for her, then she wasn't too drunk to do it herself.
* The point you make about the folded clothes and the boots near the fire, indicates that she had no intentions of going back out to find another customer.
* I'm not sure about your idea that someone could have thought her room was the back entrance to the shed.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 7:16 am: | |
G'day Robert,
The Ripper managed to escape after the other cases attributed to 'Jack', so I think he would have considered the risk of being caught in MJKs room.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 333
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2003 - 4:23 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Interesting post, and there's a lot I'd like to say in reply, which I'll try to do tomorrow. In the meantime, could you please clarify your second paragraph, about Stride and Nichols? I don't quite follow you there.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 3:52 am: | |
G'day Robert,
To explain how the Ripper avoided being caught in the act of killing Elizabeth Stride, I'll give a quote from 'The Jack the Ripper A-Z': 'Newspapers at the time, and senior police then and subsequently (Abberline, Anderson, Macnaughten, Smith, Swanson), accepted without question that Stride was a Ripper victim, assuming that the murderer was alarmed by Diemschutz's approaching vehicle, and either hid or made his escape, thereupon proceeding to Mitre Square to murder Catharine Eddowes and satisfy his frustrated lust.' Providing that Stride was a Ripper victim, (and I have little doubt that she was}, the killer had the sense and knowhow to pull this off. I don't know why I included Nichols in that paragraph!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 3:57 am: | |
G'day Robert,
I mean he wasn't such a raving lunatic if he managed to pull that trick off successfully!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 336
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 4:12 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Thanks for clarification. Sorry about this, but I'll have to crave your indulgence a short while. This computer keeps crashing, and I need to do a long reply. Why can't they make the Star Trek ones you just order about?
As soon as the new one's installed I'll be back.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 341
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 2:07 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Phew! I hope this computer works better than the last one.
If I understand you right, you're saying that the extensive and time-consuming mutilations of Kelly indicate that the murderer was someone who knew he wasn't going to be interrupted by a man walking in. Who was in prime position to know this? Joe Barnett!
Against this it can be said that 3 or 4 AM would have been an odd time for someone to walk in. However, people in that area did come and go at odd hours.
Another point against, would be the suggestion that the Ripper may have completely lost control of himself, and become oblivious to danger - after all, this was a feast beyond his expectations. It could also be said that by Nov 9th the Ripper may have been in the process of imploding psychologically - as David Cohen seems to have been.
On the other hand there is the fact that he interrupted what he was doing to burn the clothes, which seems to imply some sense of self-awareness.
On the whole I think I agree with you, inasmuch as the lengthy mutilations do tend to point to Barnett more than any other person.
I am taking this point in isolation, without mentioning the alibi, motivation etc etc which we've been through before (and probably will go through again!)
Another factor which I think tends to point more to Barnett than to anyone else, is the clothes : why on earth did Jack burn them? Surely the light or heat they would have provided would only have lasted a couple of minutes. By burning the clothes, he was taking a risk - creating a bright light that might have attracted attention.
If he wanted light, I don't see why he couldn't have used the candle. After all, a farthing dip in a bottle was good enough to conduct the jurors round the room on the day of the inquest, when it would have been quite dark in the room owing to the windows being boarded up. So why couldn't a candle have given Jack enough light?
I've always thought that the burning of the clothes looked a bit like spite. Barnett would have known they were Harvey's cothes, and he may have regarded Harvey as an interfering busybody.
Against this is the fact that Barnett was in prime position to know that the Court wasn't totally quiet at night, so a bright light from the fire would possibly be noticed. But on the whole, I think that the burnt clothes are a plus for the Barnett theory.
I've seen it suggested that Kelly may have felt cold and sick, and burnt the clothes herself for warmth. But if she was so cold and sick that she would risk losing Harvey's friendship by burning her clothes, why didn't she put on the pilot coat? Admittedly it was covering a gap in the window, which was letting in the cold, but surely Kelly would have been warmer with the coat wrapped around herself than with it over the window. Yet that's where it was found.
It might even be suggested that the Barnett theory explains another little mystery : the cry 'Oh murder!' which if it came from Kelly was a strange thing for her to cry in such a situation - it's more the sort of thing someone would cry if they saw someone else being attacked. But if she cried 'Oh murderer!' - say because Barnett had just told her of the sacrifices he'd made for her - that would make more sense. However, two different people heard the cry as 'oh murder' so that idea's a non-starter.
I think the Barnett theory falls down on the manner of Kelly's death. As far as I can make out, she was killed with her head at the corner of the bed, as if she was trying to get away from her killer. She doesn't seem to have been strangled. She seems to have cried out, and there were stab marks in the sheet as if the killer had flung it over her face to shut her up and then stabbed her through it. All this doesn't seem to indicate Jack's usual efficiency. I can square it with a killer who'd just walked into a dark room which he didn't know the layout of, and who was dealing with a victim who was unexpectedly young and vigorous compared with the women he'd been used to. It doesn't square with Barnett who knew Kelly and the room, and who would have been in a position to choreograph the whole thing.
I still don't go for Barnett as a suspect, for lots of reasons, including the problems of why would he visit her at such an hour, why was no row heard etc etc. Just leaving all that to one side, and because I want to visualise this step by step, could you tell me how you envisage the murder happening? E.g. was Barnett intending to kill her all the while she undressed, or did he flip at the very last moment? Was Barnett naked at the time? Was the candle alight?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 4:45 pm: | |
Hi Everyone,
I started this topic , as soon as these new boards got established, ' Joseph Barnett Number one suspect' and I hundreds of posts later, am still totally convinced he is...
He had a motive , a recorded fact that he disliked immoral women, he had lost the effections of the woman he had shared his life with for eighteen months, because of her involvement, with that class, there is some evidence that Kelly may even had been supporting a child , more then likely with Barnetts income , until they split, even allowing the child to beg on the streets for food, there is now a strong posibility that Barnett was infact a married man who may have split with his responsibilitys, to shack up with Mary Jane.
All the above points could possibly have led to Barnett, building up a hatred of Kelly, that finally exploded.
Also there is strong circumstancial Hearsay. that some man spat on her grave at her funeral service, and as Barnett was the only male present at the time of the service apart from the priest, I would consider him a likely candidate.
I could go on , and on mentioning further pointers to his guilt, but i feel that some peoples minds are made up to his non involvement in these murders, And while I except that as fair play, I can only state that until I can find a better suspect, taking all the relevant facts into consideration, I am sticking to Mr Barnett.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 3:43 am: | |
G'day Robert, Richard,
Robert that's exactly what I mean!
Barnett admitted to visiting Kelly between 7:30 ans 8:00. At that time, Maria Harvey was there and left immediately. He would have been sure that she had found herself another home, and Mary could have explained that she hadn't yet took anyone else in. If a mere client had have been spying on Kelly, how could he have been certain?
I agree that the Ripper completely lost control, and the Ripper was Joseph Barnett. He knew that the risk of interuption was minimal!
It could have been him that put the coat up against the broken window, to block the view of Mary's bed from the unexpected passer-by.
Maria Harvey left 2 mens shirts, a man's black overcoat, a black crepe bonnet, and one little girls white peticoat. That's too much to forget to take with you, so I'd say she left them for Mary to sell at the Lord Mayor's Day Event.
The Ripper [Barnett] could have sliced Kelly's throat, after putting the sheet over her face so he couldn't see who he was killing. She could have seen him with a knife in his hand and managed to yell a single "MURDER!" He probably waited to see if anyone heard the cry, smoked his pipe with the mere light from the candle, then fought with his own thoughts before deciding to chop her up and hide behind the monster-myth that he'd created, after putting the black coat over the holey-window. He could have then wiped his hands and knife on one man's shirt before throwing it in the fireplace with the bonnet and little girls petticoat, put the other man's shirt with his bloodstained one in the fireplace too, and lit it with the candle. Then as a sign of hatred for Maria Harvey (who's moving in had something to do with his leaving), set fire to it all just before he left. Why would her killer build such a large fire while he was still there, which could have attracted anyone?
The fact that her killer didn't strike as she was undressing, (which would have been an excellent opportunity), suggests that her throat slicing wasn't planned.
RICHARD: I think the possibility that Kelly may have been supporting a child, was illiminated as trash added by the media. Barnett, on the other hand...... Now there's a man that needs exploring, which the police didn't do enough of in 1888! Not much was known then about mental unhealth. The fact that certain newspapers reported that he stammered, or stuttered and repeated words, yet no official files mention this, shows that it was an area that police didn't want to mess-up or delve into.
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 346
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I liked the pipe-smoking joke. You're determined to have him puffing on his pipe! Still, I dare say that's how he first got Kelly into bed - he lit his pipe and gave her a smouldering look.
I don't think Joe could have been by any means sure when he left Kelly on Thursday evening, that she wouldn't have a female room-sharer by the end of the night. After all, she hadn't yet been down the pub! As you said once, hardly had one moved out than another moved in. Kelly was short of money and she may have been charging these women a small fee for sharing the room with them.
Joe is supposed to have got out of his nice warm bed, and walked over to Kelly's in the middle of the night, in the cold and rain, when he'd only seen her a few hours previously. He's supposed to have gone there not knowing whether she'd have a man or a woman with her, or whether she'd be asleep or awake. He is supposed to have gone there to extract a promise that she would take him back, knowing that even if he got his promise, in the morning she probably wouldn't remember what she'd said the night before, because she'd been drunk.
Let's suppose that Joe did turn up in the middle of the night and talked to Kelly before she'd had a chance to go to bed. If Kelly undressed in front of him, that suggests that she was offering him a freebie (he had no money). In other words, he was getting somewhere with her again. So why kill her?
However, let's suppose that at some point during his visit he'd decided to kill her. Once she'd undressed, wouldn't he have blown out the candle and done away with her in his usual efficient manner? Yet he seems to have bungled it, letting her cry out, apparently being unable to strangle her first, and having to throw the sheet over her face to shut her up. (I don't see why he should have thrown the sheet over her face so as to not see who he was killing - when he was apparently perfectly prepared to mutilate her face beyond recognition after he'd cut her throat. He couldn't have done all that with the sheet over her face, could he?)
Perhaps she said something at the very last minute that made him flip, and the rage explains the inefficiency of the killing? Well, it couldn't have been the VERY last minute, if he was naked at the time - he'd have had to rush back to his coat for his knife, and she'd have managed more than just the one scream.
If after killing her he sat...puffed on his pipe of course...and then decided to make it look like a Ripper murder, then why the extensive mutilation? If he was the Ripper, he'd have known that all he had to do was carry out a quick five minute Catherine Eddowes job, and that would be it. I don't suppose he'd have sat there thinking, 'Hm! I have privacy and time, and my previous crimes have shown a progression - so the police will be expecting a real bloodbath this time.' The argument that people sometimes make to support the idea that Barnett killed only Kelly and made it look like a Ripper killing but without having any knowledge of the Ripper mutilations, works against the idea of Barnett trying to make it look like a Ripper job AND being the murderer of the other women - he'd have known how it was done.
Robert
|
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 7:10 pm: | |
We know by an eyewitness report that MJK was seen entering her room the night of her killing with another man. Suppose Barnett saw this, perhaps returning to retrieve his pipe he'd left there earlier, and waited outside on Dorset St. for the man to leave and then entered her room and killed her in a fit of rage. He could have waited for a bit until he thought she was asleep before entering the room. Maybe she undressed and folded her clothes to turn in for the night placing her boots by the fire to dry. She may have been a bit chilled and threw some old clothes she'd been unable to pawn into the fireplace to make a warm fire, there was nothing else to burn. Only she would have thought to place her wet boots by the fire, which leads me to believe she was the one who built the fire. After a bit, Joe put his hand through the window, unlocked the door and killed her.
Valerie |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
