|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 6:40 pm: | 
|
A question: I know we have a rough idea of how much time Jack might have spent in Mary's room, but has anyone ever tried to guesstimate how long it would have taken the killer to so extensively mutilate her remains? I have a rough notion, perhaps mistaken, that clothing would burn rather quickly and not provide light for long enough for Jack to do his "work".
Sir Robert
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2642
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
It's a good point. This matter have been discussed and guessed about to some extent and there have been a number of estimations made, if I recall correctly.
My personal estimate (as well as some others) is that the mutilations really didn't take that long to perform. They seem quite "butcher"-like to me, not with any direct carefulness or methodology (beside the placing of the organs) in their approach and probably in my view coudn't have taken that many minutes to perform -- maybe fifteen or twenty minutes at the most.
How long it takes for a bundle of clothes to burn in order to provide light, I have no idea. I'd say it would also depend on how large that bundle of clothing was and which materials we're talking about.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1760
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 7:04 pm: |
|
Glenn
The point was that maybe the damp clothes were used to put OUT a smouldering fire not to light em Know where were coming from tho!
Suzi
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2644
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Suzi,
Well, I don't think that was what Sir Robert question concerned, though... or was I mistaken?
He did ask how long the mutilations may have taken and if the burning of the clothes could have provided enough light...
As for your point... yes, I could believe that's possible, of course. rags and textile is sometimes used in order to smother fires, so that could be a relevant point. I guess damp clothing on a fire in order to put a fire out would have produced a rather great deal of smoke, though (as it usually does, when you're putting out a fire), but don't take my word on this -- I am not into natural science and am useless on these matters.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 9:46 pm: |
|
<<i>>
No, you're correct, Glenn. Sorry if I took the thread in a different direction.
Mind you, there's no way to be sure, but I have seen hunters dressing a deer, and I suspect that what Jack did might take a bit longer to accomplish than 20 minutes. In addition he had to "arrange" the scene...
So...if the clothing would have burned rather quickly, what the ^%$! did he use for a light source? And would burning clothing have resulted in a hot enough fire to melt the spout? My guess is no, and that opens more questions.
Sir Robert
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2646
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
I seriously doubt that the mutilations could have taken longer than 20 minutes to perform. In the cases of the other Ripper victims he only had a few minutes at his disposal, a maximum of ten or fifteen. He would have been caught red handed or discovered otherwise, considering the people on the scene and the police beats.
And even if it wasn't the Ripper who killed Mary Kelly (which I have reasons to suspect), it shows that a methodological mutilation of the kind that the Ripper did could be done in approximately ten minutes and in bad lighting.
In Kelly's case there isn't even a clear method in the mutilations; in my view it's plain butchery, so I think those could have been done in fifteen minutes. Then, how long it took in addition for the murderer to arrange the body parts and the crime scene besides the mutilations themselves is impossible to know, I fear.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 10:47 pm: |
|
"in my view it's plain butchery, so I think those could have been done in fifteen minutes."
At the risk of seeming ghoulish, I do think there is some degree of composition in the scene, some artistry. (NO NO NOT SICKERT!!!!!!!!!)
Back to the spout...perhaps Jack thought it amusing to dress Mary (in the hunting sense) by the light provided by the burning of her own body fat. Would explain the heat issue...then you stuff the clothing in the fireplace to dampen the fire...
Sir Robert |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 105
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 3:42 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn, you have raised some interesting points in this topic, and most I agree with. I do however wish to question you on one point of yours:
"I seriously doubt that the mutilations could have taken longer than 20 minutes to perform. In the cases of the other Ripper victims he only had a few minutes at his disposal, a maximum of ten or fifteen. He would have been caught red handed or discovered otherwise, considering the people on the scene and the police beats."
I agree that it may have only taken 20 minutes or so, but my question is:
Let's assume for the sake of the debate that he left Kelly's room 25 minutes after he first entered. Now, if we are to believe George Hutchinson's statement, he spent 45 minutes standing opposite Miller's Court and Kelly's room. This is supported by another witness who stated that she saw a man on the opposite side who looked like he was waiting for someone.
Now, if the Ripper had left after only 25 minutes, then Hutchinson would surely have seen him. Even if Hutchinson was out in his time range by 10 or even 15 minutes, which surely would have been no more, then he still would have seen him.
So, we are left with a number of choices here:
a.) The Ripper saw Hutchinson following him, which Hutchinson did state that he saw him, and waited for him to leave before he also left.
b.) Hutchinson was wildly out in his time range, was not looking at the right moment, or is lying in his statement.
c.) The Ripper spent more time with Mary.
d.) The Ripper managed to sneak out another way.
e.) It took longer than expected for the mutilations to be carried out.
I think A is the most probable, because it explains why Hutchinson saw nothing. I don't think the mutilations would have taken that long, and I don't think he would have been able to sneak out either.
What do you all think?
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 707
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 4:57 am: |
|
You missed one Adam. How about
f) The man Hutchinson saw with Mary was not her killer.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
My ideas of the events at millers court that evening are as followes.
Kelly arrives home with Blotchy face, and seen by cox, she then gets into a sing song.
I do not believe that she had sexual acts with this man, she purely invited him back [ proberly he was well known to her] and after a hour or so he departed.
Kelly then left her room and a short time later was seen by hutchinson who she spoke to, she then was accosted by a well dressed man[ astracan] who was after no more than a few hours shelter originaly, but seeing Kelly was pleasing to the eye, he had other intentions.
I believe that they had sexual intercourse, and soon after Kelly fell asleep, around 4am she suddenly screamed out 'Oh Murder'she was having a nightmare that she was being murdered , that reoccured from the same one a few weeks earlier.
The man with her reassured her that she was safe and kelly calmed down .
I believe around dawn this man left the room, leaving Kelly asleep.
At 8am Catherine Pickert seeing that it was raining decided to attempt to borrow Kellys Crossover, and knocked her door, kelly did not answer so pickett carried on her journey.
However mary was awaken by the knock, and was blissful aware that she felt hungover, and dresssed herself wrapping the maroon crossover around herself left the room when she was observed by Maurice Lewis, she then ventured into Dorset street and vomited, soon after Mrs Maxwell comes out of the lodging house and the sighting occurs.
After Maxwell departs to fetch her husbands breakfast, kelly goes to get some milk, and returns to her room[ oberved by Lewis].
She ventures out again, and is seen outside ringers with a man dressed as a porter.
She returns to her room for the final time, and her killer who she knew was inside waiting for her, it will not be a shock to those of you who know me that the man was Barnett.
His plan originally was to go to Marys room around 830 am , when he expected her to be sound asleep as was her custom, and kill her whilst she was in bed, however he now was faced with a dilemma, as kelly was dressed.
But Mary told him how bad she felt , and Barnett took this opportunety to intice her back into bed, she was a neat person and proceeded to undress and fold her clothes[wet] on the broken backed chair, it was while she was removing her left stocking and reaching behind her to dangle it over the bundle of clothing that Barnett attacked her on the bed, and swiftly despatched her, he then lit the fire , with the small amount of fuel in the room, and added items of Harveys clothes to keep it burning.
For the only concern he had was kellys clothing, which was damp from the recent outing outside, and by lighting the fire and placing her boots[ wet] by the fireplace , the rising temperature would warm the clothing and disguise evidence that she had only recently been out.
He then left the scene unseen, and returned to his abode, or whatever he planned, for i believe the murder was premeditated, and put on a guise as a poor heartbroken man.
All specualation, and a long post, but they are my thoughts.
Regards Richard, |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 250
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
For what it's worth, although the mutilations could have taken 20 minutes or so, that idea supposes that JTR was in a hurry.He may well have been in a rush when he was killing outdoors and certainly must have worked fast as hell at Mitre Square but in Kelly's room I think he slowed down.
He enjoyed doing this.In Miller's Court he finally had the luxury of privacy . I think he took his sweet time and explored the body to his heart's content.
Mags
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2647
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
Interesting alternatives and indeed an interesting discussion, although it has to remain mainly theoretical, unfortunately.
Mind you, I didn't say how long the killer was in there as a whole, I only talked about how long the mutilations might have taken -- not including the arranging of the organs and the scene, or other circumstances.
Besides the mutilations, it is impossible to say how long he might have stayed in there. He could have been there for hours, for all we know.
However, looking at the nature of the mutilations, I'd say they would be possible to perform within fifteen or twenty minutes, since they are not especially methodologically (God I hate to spell that word...) performed. That does not by itself prove that's how long it took, but I think it would be possible from a pure practical point of view, if we are talking about the Ripper as the perpetrator here.
As I said, the mutilations as such seems more butcher-like to me, then we have to add the time for the arranging of the scene and the additional time he may have stayed there, for different unknown reasons (which is impossible to know how long that took or in which speed he worked with that).
Now, since I very much doubt that Kelly was a Ripper victim it is hard for me to compare her with other victims of JtR and the circumstances around their murder, but the very tight time span in for example the Eddowes murder, tells us that those mutilations must have been done within ten minutes if he wouldn't be spotted or caught in the act (regardless if he knew the police beats or not). If the Ripper was a former butcher, for example, they are used to work rather quick and on routine, in contrast to surgeons who have a completely different and careful approach. So if the Ripper did it (and maybe was a butcher or something similar), I'd say he wouldn't need more than fifteen or twenty minutes.
As for your alternatives, this is rather impossible to say. We can only guess completely out of the blue here.
Naturally I rule out alternative d) since there was no other way out of the room and the court (as far as I know).
I would lean more towards alternatives b.) or c.);
I don't trust Hutchinson's statement for a minute regarding the man he spotted and his timing could also be either wrong or made up. But I think we can say for sure that he did stay outside the court, since a man was seen standing there by a witness, where Hutchinson himself had described. So at least that part of his statement seem to be correct. The rest of his statement seems like more or less garbage to me, but I can't prove it. It is also possible that the murderer stayed much longer in there -- before or after the killing and the mutilations were done; the fact that the mutilations as such only might have taken a few minutes doesen't rule out this possibility.
The problem is, that we can't say for sure how long Hutchinson stayed outside the court (unless we want to totally take his words for it).
I see a possibility (if we discount the Ripper) that the murderer was so inexperienced that they took quite along time to perform, maybe an hour or more. I for my part, if I compare the mutilations to those methodologically done on the other JtR victims, interpret the Kelly mutilations as being done by an inexperienced and rather sloppy character (but definitely more or less wacko one). If this was the case, I would say he could have been in there all night, for all we know.
There is course also another alternative:
That Hutchinson himself was the murderer (and that he stood outside the court waiting for a customer to leave) and that the rest of his statement is a total cover-up.
Not that I stress this, but it is an alternative to keep in mind.
I think it's a dangerous mistake to rely too much on Hutchinson, since I personally believe that large parts of his story is a lie (only the part about him standing there is supported by other evidence), regardless of the reasons why.
Well, those are my views. 
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 02, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
"c.) The Ripper spent more time with Mary. "
Adam, I believe that there is some evidence pointing to the fact that Mary was attacked while asleep. Weren't there slash marks on the bed covers, indicating an attack commencing on her while the covers were up? That would also point to a longer period of time spent with the victim.
Which, naturally, leads back to the question of light source, which further leads back to the question of whether said light source was hot enough (and used long enough) to melt the spout.
Sir Robert
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3730
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert
I think we were having a discussion like this about the time you took your break.
I'm with you on Mary being attacked in her sleep. But I just don't see Jack as Hutchinson's man, or as anyone who would allow her to get undressed and into bed first. I tend to think he just walked in (i.e. Bob Hinton's scenario). But whether it was Hutchinson who walked in, or someone else.....can you give me a few minutes to work that one out? 
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1764
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
I have to agree here I feel that Mary was attacked in her sleep with her face away from the door,whoever(!!!) came in and maybe got into bed and then......a few defence wounds later.....the rest is history (or legend!)
Whoever walked in(i.e Bob's theory) was someone who Mary may have known or there again if she was asleep it could have been anyone!!!
Gimme a few minutes too! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3734
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi
Why would he get into bed?
Yes, it could have been GH. Shame that "Hutchinson" is such a common name. Do you know if Bob's any closer to tracking him down? I asked him once, but he seems to appear for the odd day and then you don't hear from him for a month or so. Bit like Jack!
Robert |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:46 pm: |
|
"I have to agree here I feel that Mary was attacked in her sleep with her face away from the door,whoever(!!!) came in and maybe got into bed and then......a few defence wounds later.....the rest is history (or legend!) "
Or, Suzi, she felt comfortable enough with the killer to fall asleep with him in bed. That starts to winnow the suspect list down considerably.
Sir Robert |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 113
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
Hi all,
Alan, you wrote:
"f) The man Hutchinson saw with Mary was not her killer."
I didn't think of that one. But since Hutchinson said he followed them, I think that's pretty much out of the question, because I doubt a change in men with Kelly would have gone un-noticed by Hutchinson. Or else he wasn't very observant.
Richard, you wrote:
"I believe that they had sexual intercourse, and soon after Kelly fell asleep, around 4am she suddenly screamed out 'Oh Murder'she was having a nightmare that she was being murdered , that reoccured from the same one a few weeks earlier."
But loud enough for several people to say they had heard her call it out? And based on doctor reports of the time, it would seem that this was around the time that Mary was killed. I don't really trust the testimony of Mrs. Maxwell. I think Mary Kelly called out 'Oh Murder' due to the attack on here. There was signs of resistance by her. As I pointed out in another thread, Liz Stride and Mary Kelly were perhaps the best 2 suited to defend themselves at the time of their murders - the rest were either drunk, sick or both, and both of them showed signs of resistance. And since it has come to light in recent times that the Ripper most likely struck from the front, not behind them, I think it supports the theory of resistance on the part of Liz and Mary. Liz screamed. So did Mary. It seems as though pieces of the puzzle fall into place quite simply here.
"He then left the scene unseen, and returned to his abode, or whatever he planned, for i believe the murder was premeditated, and put on a guise as a poor heartbroken man."
Well he was interrogated for 4 full hours by the police, and they were satisfied. If he was guilty of it, I think he would have acted suspiciously or broken out into some kind of abusive talking during that time. It can't have been easy questions the whole time.
Plus that, if this was Barnett's first time killing and he killed and mutilated her in such a vicious way, which I find unlikely in itself, he lived on until 1926, another 38 years, and managed to abstain from killing for all of that time despite his awful attack on Mary Kelly.
Not very likely, I don't think. I believe something happened to the Ripper shortly after the murders ended. Maybe he died, maybe he was locked up in prison or an asylum, or maybe he became incapable of doing anything. I can't imagine him killing and mutilating 5 women in 3 months and then living for a matter of decades longer without a hitch.
Glenn, you wrote:
"Besides the mutilations, it is impossible to say how long he might have stayed in there. He could have been there for hours, for all we know."
That unfortunately is a possibility. It took the longest for Mary to be discovered, so we really can't be sure. But we know from Hutchinson's statement, that if it is accurate, he spent atleast 45 minutes in there. That's probably as close as we will ever get.
The rest of your views are an interesting read, but unfortunately it's very difficult to proove or disprove much of that, so not much comment can be added to it, unfortunately.
SirRobertAnderson, you wrote:
"Adam, I believe that there is some evidence pointing to the fact that Mary was attacked while asleep. Weren't there slash marks on the bed covers, indicating an attack commencing on her while the covers were up? That would also point to a longer period of time spent with the victim."
I don't believe Mary Kelly was attacked in her sleep, based simply on the fact that several witnesses heard her cry out 'Oh Murder!' around the time she was killed. If she was asleep, and was woken up by the sudden attack, she would not have had the instant alertness to realise what was going on and cry out. I believe she was attacked standing up and then fought down onto the bed. There was also evidence of resistance, which she would not have been capable of had she been asleep at the time. The knife marks on the sheets could have happened just while the Ripper was attacking with his knife, if he was moving fast with it.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2654
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Adam,
"Well he was interrogated for 4 full hours by the police, and they were satisfied. If he was guilty of it, I think he would have acted suspiciously or broken out into some kind of abusive talking during that time. It can't have been easy questions the whole time."
Well, this does not in itself prove anything. The police were on the lookout for Jack the Ripper and it is probable that he could deliver accounts for where he's been during the other Ripper murders, and that this was enough. The police clearly saw this as a Ripper murder, and I suspect that they may not have taken the possibility as him being responsible for the Kelly murder (from a domestic point of view) seriously enough, which is otherwise what the police usually does first hand.
If Kelly's murder was a domestic one, he probably never killed again anyway and it doesen't make him a serial killer. We have a large number of cases where people without prior records have done this one time and never again, and always in domestic situations, and with mutilations far worse than they on Kelly. Nothing can be ruled out.
To see Barnett as the Ripper, though, I feel is a mistake. I believe the police might have questioned him about his whereabouts for at least the murders on Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes and he might have provided alibis for at least some of those and therefore they let him go.
Unfortunately we have no exact transcripts from the interviews with him, but I think this would be a reasonable approach on the police's part.
Furthermore, several killers have managed to fool the police during an interview. We can't take for granted, that just because Abberline & Company believed in him, he had to be innocent. That is not quite how things necessarily work.
"I don't believe Mary Kelly was attacked in her sleep, based simply on the fact that several witnesses heard her cry out 'Oh Murder!' around the time she was killed. If she was asleep, and was woken up by the sudden attack, she would not have had the instant alertness to realise what was going on and cry out. I believe she was attacked standing up and then fought down onto the bed. There was also evidence of resistance, which she would not have been capable of had she been asleep at the time. The knife marks on the sheets could have happened just while the Ripper was attacking with his knife, if he was moving fast with it."
I completely agree with Adam here.
This is how I read the crime scene as well.
No further comments necessary.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
I'm not sure it's the right board for this question, but, you have set out your time line here as pertaining to Barnett.
He expected her to be in bed asleep at 08:30 and she wasn't.
He patiently waits until her return and then waits for her to undress and get back into bed and then despatches her.
The issue I have is why wait? It was a planned attack as opposed to a spur of the moment attack, or was there some specific reason she had to be killed on that specific day?
His plan was already going wrong so if I were he I'd simply abandon it and try again another day. (you may think number 39 may mean she _had_ to die that day?)
08:30 on the day of the lord mayors parade would possibly/probably have been a busy day; he didn't know where she had been and how many people had just seen her.
If she was already up and about why go with the charade of drying her clothes to try and make it seem it could have been a night time attack.
For all Barnett knew she could have been talking to, or been noticed by, the local bobbies just a few minutes earlier. She went out to buy milk(?) so someone served her and could possibly remember seeing her at 08:30 very much alive.
Even without the lord mayors parade it seems people were already up and about at that time.
When the victim has already been out that morning and potentially noticed, then any pre-arranged alibi he had for the previous evening would have been useless as they'd look for Joe's alibi for 08:30 onwards and not be fooled into thinking about a night time murder.
I don't necessarily think it couldn't be so, but, the ruse of drying her clothes when she'd only just come in does seem a bit strange.
If anything, a better ruse would simply be to throw her clothes into the pool of blood by the bed and so no-one would know whether they were damp with rain or not?
Alternatively why not hang parts of her flesh on top of her clothes on the chair (a grisly thought I know but I do have some ghoulish thoughts sometimes) for the same reason to disguise their dampmess.
Just some idle thoughts anyway.
Cheerio,
ian -- Keeping one eye open and the other one closed.
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 713
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Adam
I didn't think of that one. But since Hutchinson said he followed them, I think that's pretty much out of the question, because I doubt a change in men with Kelly would have gone un-noticed by Hutchinson. Or else he wasn't very observant.
None of this has to be the case. Hutchinson stood outside Kelly's room approximately between 2.00am and 2.45am. The cry of "Oh Murder" occurred approximately 3.30am to 4.00am. There's a fairly big time gap there when Hutchinson was not present.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Richard,
An interesting reconstruction of events. Thank you.
Leaving aside the fact that I do not believe that Barnett was the killer, i find the reconstruction unbelievable for at least two reasons.
these are:
a) sentimentality. I really don't understand the rather "romantic" concept of at least two men coming to the room, one not having sex at all, the other only deciding to when there. MJK was a whore, and one short of money. I don't see her wasting time on men who weren't paying, and the men paying not wanting sex with a notably attractive member of her profession for those parts. To me then, the assumption has to be that she was working.
b) that the well-dressed man seen by Hutchinson should have gone with her initially at least "for shelter". Pubs were open, why use a hovel like Miller's Court to shelter? If a man like that went home with her, IMHO, it was always with the intention of sex.
I might add that I continue to believe that the early morning sightings were mistakes by Mrs M and other witnesses.
But your imagination does you credit.
Regards,
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
A few points to make.
The reason I dismissed Mr Blotchy face as a sexual encounter, was simply throughout the hour she was with him in the room she constantly sang, which did not point to sexual activity.
Hutchinsons man however i believe quite possibly to have been the footsteps heard leaving the court around dawn.
I still maintain that the over dress implies that he was dressed for the lord mayors show, as in some civic duties, wasnt he wearing spats [ strictly day time wear, which implies he was going on to the the event in the morning.
But on Kelly offering him the shelter of a room, and kelly not being to unpleasing to the eye, he decided mayby he could conduct some business, note the hand on her shoulder as they walked away, and the kiss planted on him by Mary.
Mrs cox may have infact seen the same man as hutchinson whilst standing by her door, her description to her neice tallys with Hutchinsons somewhat, she told her neice that she was waiting for her man to come back from the pub and that she was at her door, yet her police statement regarding Blotchy face has her following them into the court.
I am of the opinion that she saw two people that night and the police issued the first sighting for reasons known to them.
I believe that Cox , saw Mr astracan as the couple reached kellys door, but simply did not see hutchinson.
Regarding the witnesses that saw [ or claimed ] kelly that morning notably Maurice Lewis , and Maxwell, there are several factors which must be discussed.
Maurice lewis claimed that he saw her leave her room and return with some milk.
That would surely have been investigated by the police, and Mr Lewis a well known local figure would have been interviewed, the first thing the police would have searched for was remains of some milk.there was a pail by the fireplace, whether or not there was milk in it we have no idea, surely the police would have warned Mr lewis that they took a dim view of him giving false infomation to the press in such a serious crime, if no milk was present.
Regarding Mrs Maxwell she could not have mistaken kelly for someone else as the shawl she described her as wearing was found in the room.
she also could not have mistaken the day as two people verified that it was on the morning of the 9th november she fetched some milk , and returned some plates, and Maxwell was definate that she was in the process of these acts when she encountered Mjk.
She also swore on oath at the inquest after the coroner warned her that her evidence was in contrast to what was believed, when she had been given every chance to opt out.
The main evidence is the following.
I should say that like the Radio programme on another thread i appear to be the only one who has read this.
Let me give you a scenerio.
Hutchinson sees kelly around 215am on the morning of the 9th, around that time he hears Kelly make the comment 'Oh I have lost my hankerchief'
Kelly is killed around 4am.
Mrs maxwell completetly independant of hutchinson makes a comment to the police when discussing the clothing she saw the deseased wearing Quote.. 'Her eyes looked queer as if she was suffering with a heavy cold' unquote.
My point is if kelly made that hankerchief comment to Mr Astracan around 215am, and she was handed one, she obviously required the use of that item.
one hour and a half later she is persumed killed, yet along comes maxwell some 4 hours later and observed that she appeared heavy with cold.
A very strong point to make i feel.
Regarding this part of the statement which appears to have disapeared, i read it some 30 years ago , i have asked many times on this site for some varification of its exsistence[ to no avail] the nearest confirmation came from i believe Donald Mccormacks 1959 publication, in which a similar point was made ie.'All muffed up like a cold'
That is my views.
Regards Richard.
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 118
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:14 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"Well, this does not in itself prove anything. The police were on the lookout for Jack the Ripper and it is probable that he could deliver accounts for where he's been during the other Ripper murders, and that this was enough. The police clearly saw this as a Ripper murder, and I suspect that they may not have taken the possibility as him being responsible for the Kelly murder (from a domestic point of view) seriously enough, which is otherwise what the police usually does first hand."
Well I suppose they may have thought, as I also think, that nobody could have just jumped out of nowhere and ripped somebody to pieces like they did to Mary Kelly, especially in the days of the Ripper and the Victorian era. That does not apply to today, it happens often, so the cases can't really be compared. She, like the other victims excluding Stride, once again mark a scale of escalating brutality.
I don't rule it out, but I think it is highly unlikely that Barnett killed Kelly. If we use the same "lover rule" with Joe Barnett killing Kelly, we can also say that Michael Kidney killed Elizabeth Stride, James Kelly killed Catherine Eddowes, and Eliza Cooper, still saw from the fight, killed Annie Chapman. So who does that leave? Just poor old Polly!
Really, I don't think the "jealous lover/person" theory is legitimate in regards to any of the Ripper victims.
"Furthermore, several killers have managed to fool the police during an interview. We can't take for granted, that just because Abberline & Company believed in him, he had to be innocent. That is not quite how things necessarily work."
Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen would most likely have got away with killing his wife, had he not got cold feet after being questioned and then fled the country. He may have got away with being interviewed, but somehow he fled after that, and thus his wife's body was found, and he was captured. Even if Barnett managed to breeze through the questioning, if he had been acting suspiciously afterwards, because he was the lover of MJK, then the police would still have been wary of him.
And it doesn't exactly help the case against Barnett either, the fact that the police believed him and let him go after being questioned.
"I completely agree with Adam here.
This is how I read the crime scene as well.
No further comments necessary."
Well, thank you Glenn. That's good.
Alan, you wrote:
"None of this has to be the case. Hutchinson stood outside Kelly's room approximately between 2.00am and 2.45am. The cry of "Oh Murder" occurred approximately 3.30am to 4.00am. There's a fairly big time gap there when Hutchinson was not present."
Actually, if you want to get technical, Hutchinson was really outside Miller's Court between 2:15 and 3:00 AM, not 2:00 and 2:45. From Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" on page 336:
"The man in the black wideawake hat, whom Sarah saw about 2:30 looking up Miller's Court 'as if waiting for someone to come out', was probably Hutchinson since by his account he stood outside the court from about 2:15 to 3:00 for precisely that purpose."
And it being said that 'Oh Murder!' was cried out between 3:30 and 4:00 AM, is largely reliant on the testimony of Elizabeth Prater. She had only just woken up when she heard it cried out, she changed her story at the inquest to say it was probably after 4 when it occurred, and she was drunk on that night. I don't think we can rely on her for accuracy in the times.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 720
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Adam
In fact if you want to get really accurate, Hutchinson in his own statement (and lets face it that's the only piece of information anybody including Sugden is going on) said he met Mary at 2.00am and he stood outside the room for 45 minutes. Assuming the business in the street and walking back to Dorset Street took some time, but probably not as long as 15 minutes, the time would be somewhere in between the two.
However that is irrelevant. All I am saying is that you cannot possibly assume that Hutchinson was stood outside the room when Mary was killed. He may have been, but we have no information to decide that for a certainty. Therefore you cannot rule out the possibility that the man he saw enter the room left it again after he departed and another entered, whether as a customer or through stealth.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1776
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Robert
Yes maybe the bed thing was a tad off track!!!!! Will email you
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1777
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
SIR Robert
I feel she did,and as you say we're probaly down to one or two (or a seriously rich one!) here....
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2684
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
"I don't rule it out, but I think it is highly unlikely that Barnett killed Kelly. If we use the same "lover rule" with Joe Barnett killing Kelly, we can also say that Michael Kidney killed Elizabeth Stride..."
Absolutely. Although there could be other explanations as well. But yes.
"...James Kelly killed Catherine Eddowes, and Eliza Cooper, still saw from the fight, killed Annie Chapman. So who does that leave? Just poor old Polly!"
No, because there are no indications on that James Kelly and Eddowes had a bad relationship -- on the contrary. Unlike Barnett or Kidney he would have no motive or emotional reason for killing his female companion. Furthermore, there is nothing in James Kelly's witness statements that arouses suspicions in my view.
And no, I think we can fairly assume that no woman was responsible for the Ripper murders. Eliza Copper didn't have any personal relationship with Chapman, and there is of course nothing that ties her to the other Ripper murders -- Chapman's murder is undoubtably a part of a series.
So you see, one can't just use this reasoning that loosely. At least three of the women were Ripper victims.
But domestic murders, involving mutilations of the kind shown on Mary Kelly -- and where the spouse is the perpetrator -- does happen, and I believe the Kelly murder is an example of that.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 123
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Hi all,
Alan, you wrote:
"In fact if you want to get really accurate, Hutchinson in his own statement (and lets face it that's the only piece of information anybody including Sugden is going on) said he met Mary at 2.00am and he stood outside the room for 45 minutes. Assuming the business in the street and walking back to Dorset Street took some time, but probably not as long as 15 minutes, the time would be somewhere in between the two."
Well OK, but by the time he got there and was in position watching, it's safe to assume that it was around 2:10 AM. That means that he was still around there until basically 3 AM. Besides that, Mrs. Cox said that she saw the man standing opposite Miller's Court watching at around 2:30 AM, IIRC, which means that Hutchinson's timeline isn't too far out anyway. If it wasn't for Mrs. Cox, his statement would be a little more unbelievable.
"However that is irrelevant. All I am saying is that you cannot possibly assume that Hutchinson was stood outside the room when Mary was killed. He may have been, but we have no information to decide that for a certainty. Therefore you cannot rule out the possibility that the man he saw enter the room left it again after he departed and another entered, whether as a customer or through stealth."
Well we cannot know for sure, no. I don't think he was standing outside the room when she was actually killed, but I just have the feeling that he did see the Ripper, and it was the same man who stayed in there with Mary the whole time. He knew Hutchinson had watched and followed him, and probably wanted to wait a while after he had gone to make it seem less obvious. There is only about 30 minutes or so in between when Hutchinson left the area and the cry of 'Oh Murder!' was heard. Elizabeth Prater changed her story anyway. And the police seemed to believe that Hutch had seen the Ripper, too. It appears to fit into place.
Glenn, you wrote:
"No, because there are no indications on that James Kelly and Eddowes had a bad relationship -- on the contrary. Unlike Barnett or Kidney he would have no motive or emotional reason for killing his female companion."
James Kelly had attacked before. Even if he only got slightly mad, he would probably have still attacked her. He was committed to an asylum later on, you know.
Besides that, Michael Kidney would not have known where Liz was at the time, though their relationship had clearly ran into some trouble, yes. But Barnett had been around to visit Kelly not too long before she had been killed, and it appears that their relationship may have just begun a reconciliation. They were only apart for a week. Why would Barnett kill her if things were going on the right track?
It makes no sense at all to say Kidney killed Stride, Barnett killed Kelly, and yet Kelly (James) didn't kill Eddowes, and Eliza Cooper didn't kill Annie just because she was a woman. She was clearly violent. It's a simple matter of making the evidence fit into what you believe.
My opinion? Jack the Ripper killed them all. Why? Because the 'lover' argument can be used on everyone except Polly, but that doesn't mean it's right. In my view, it's not.
"But domestic murders, involving mutilations of the kind shown on Mary Kelly -- and where the spouse is the perpetrator -- does happen, and I believe the Kelly murder is an example of that."
As I said above, Barnett and Kelly were just beginning to reconcile, he had no reason to kill her. Same with James Kelly and Eddowes.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 676
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
I think you're mixing up James Kelly, the wife-murdering Ripper suspect with John Kelly, the common-law husband of Kate Eddowes. They're two different men.
Cheers,
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2693
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Adam,
"James Kelly had attacked before. Even if he only got slightly mad, he would probably have still attacked her. He was committed to an asylum later on, you know."
Yes, I know. But unfortunately I think you are mixing people up her (and dragging me along with you in the confusion).
You are speaking about James Kelly (one of the more unknown suspects -- see Alan Sharp's piece on the Suspects area on this website), a murderer, madman and a violent character.
This is not the man Eddowes lived with -- his name was John Kelly, and was clearly a man without any especially violent character traits. On the contrary, Kelly seemed very concerned about Eddowes and he was quite broken down over the murder. There is nothing whatsoever that indicates that their relationship was of a violent nature.
"Besides that, Michael Kidney would not have known where Liz was at the time, though their relationship had clearly ran into some trouble, yes."
We simply cant know that. We have been over this before. Since prostitutes mainly preferred certain spots where they knew certain customers or regular clients could find them, it is quite probable that Stride had placed herself on that spot earlier and there is no reason for why Kidney shouldn't have known this.
"But Barnett had been around to visit Kelly not too long before she had been killed, and it appears that their relationship may have just begun a reconciliation."
No, we don't know that. We have mostly only Barnett's word on this, and we can't know what and how Barnett felt. We don't even know the true nature of their relationship, but we do know from a couple of sources that they had been quarreling and that Barnett disliked her prostituting herself. Barnett had also previously been forced to leave Miller's Court, since he himself admitted he coudn't take this or that prostitutes visited the room.
Domestic mutilation murders have certainly been committed on far lamer grounds of passion than those.
And once again, Eliza Cooper was a woman and NOT in personal relation to Chapman, unless Chapman was a lesbian (since we were speaking about passion-related murders, not solely on violence), so she shouldn't even be in this discussion; I have no idea why you bring her into this.
And once again, the police were looking for the male Jack the Ripper -- there would hardly be any point in them nailing Eliza Cooper in a murder they realised was a part of a series anyway.
Sorry, but your "comparisons" doesen't add up.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
AIR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Perhaps Barnett and Kelly weren't beginning to reconcile. Perhaps he was trying to persuade her to have him back and she totally rejected him. Who knows? |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2694
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
AIR,
"Perhaps Barnett and Kelly weren't beginning to reconcile. Perhaps he was trying to persuade her to have him back and she totally rejected him. Who knows?"
Exactly. Who knows? Such things must be taken in consideration. This could naturally be a just as valid possibility as them being "reconciled".
We can't just simply buy all points in barnett's testimony straight off without questioning.
After all, he did live with her for 18 months, and visited her after her break-up (although one witness even is supposed to have uttered -- for what it's worth -- that Mary had said "she couldn'}t stand the sight of him").
The notion that Barnett may have been frustrated can not be totally dismissed.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
Richard, I find all your points interesting, but a bit too "Miss Marple"-like for me. It assumes taking almost all evidence at face value. I am not sure I can.
The alternative to the spats being worn for an event next morning, is that they were a detail fo "Toffs" dress that Hutchinson was aware of, but without knowing the precise etiquette. he thus includes it in his invented/embellished picture. After all, why should a reasonably prosperousman like "Mr Astrakan" (as you call him), go up the night before and just wander around, rather than travel to the Show in the morning. Ok he might be "slumming" etc, but there would be a BIG risk he turned up at the event dishevelled.
Personally i doubt the connection to the Lord Mayor's Show AND the description.
Sorry to continue to disagree,
Phil |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 400
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Adam,
Ah, that cyber sleuth Andersson beat me to the post with the James/John Kelly misidentification and he is also right that we have nothing but Barnett's word for the state of his relationship with the third Kelly, Mary Jane.
I think it goes even deeper, though. That is, even if we accept every word Barnett said about the last few days of MJK's life as gospel, that hardly suggests a reconcilliation. Whether they had sex or not, it suggests a meretricious response on the part of MJK -- "bring me a little bit of money every time you visit and sure I'll welcome you." If hapless Joe had fallen into a pool of money I'm sure MJK would have reconciled quicker than you can say "Joe Flemming," but lacking that Mary Jane was busy looking for someone with a larger and steadier income.
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls."
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2697
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Don,
"Ah, that cyber sleuth Andersson beat me to the post with the James/John Kelly misidentification..."
Ah, but yes, Dave was the one that actually managed to beat me to it with a few minutes, without me knowing it.
All the best
The cyber sleuth
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 131
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
Hi all,
David, you wrote:
"I think you're mixing up James Kelly, the wife-murdering Ripper suspect with John Kelly, the common-law husband of Kate Eddowes. They're two different men."
Whoops, my mistake!
Yes I see that now, my apologies everyone - for some reason I thought James and John Kelly were one and the same person. Or perhaps it's just because I made that post late at night, but their names are extremely similar. But, yes, my mistake there, sorry!
Glenn, you wrote:
"We simply cant know that. We have been over this before. Since prostitutes mainly preferred certain spots where they knew certain customers or regular clients could find them, it is quite probable that Stride had placed herself on that spot earlier and there is no reason for why Kidney shouldn't have known this."
Why would Kidney have known this?
If he had split up with Liz, and she had gone to a certain place, how could Kidney have known this? And even if he did, how would he know she would still be there?
For me the police ruling out of Kidney at the time is enough for me to rule him out in my own mind also. Of course, I have no evidence of it, but to be perfectly honest I think the 'jealous lover' theory when applied to Ripper context is somewhat ridiculous.
We have been over this argument a dozen times before, there's really not much more one can add to it. Our views oppose on this topic, but I do believe wholeheartedly that Kidney was not a murderer, and Liz Stride was a victim of Jack the Ripper. She has always been part of the 'canonical five', she was thought to have been a victim at the time, and the 2 interruptions around the time of her attack seems to obviously signify that the Ripper could not have done to Liz what he would have liked to, and he took his revenge on Cathy. Michael Kidney being Liz's killer is an outlandish theory at best, when you weigh up both sides of the argument.
"No, we don't know that. We have mostly only Barnett's word on this, and we can't know what and how Barnett felt. We don't even know the true nature of their relationship, but we do know from a couple of sources that they had been quarreling and that Barnett disliked her prostituting herself. Barnett had also previously been forced to leave Miller's Court, since he himself admitted he coudn't take this or that prostitutes visited the room."
Once again, it may have only been Barnett's word, but the police believed it.
If Barnett had left Mary for a week, then came back, what other reason would he have for coming back to her? And no more windows were broken like the previous time, so I think we can assume that no more brawls took place. The neighbours would also have heard something if there was any loud quarreling.
Barnett didn't like Mary being a prostitute or allowing her friends to stay in the room with her, no, but that by no means warrants Barnett's killing her. And if he did kill her, to go to such lengths to mutilate her beyond recognition, and then identify her later on.
Joe Barnett is an even more outlandish theory than Michael Kidney. I would believe the latter any day before the former. And Barnett lived another 38 years without so much as a scratch to his name, though he somehow managed to rip a girl to pieces out of nowhere. I very, very much doubt it. I give Barnett about 10% chance of having killed Kelly, and that 10% is based simply on lack of evidence, no more.
"And once again, Eliza Cooper was a woman and NOT in personal relation to Chapman, unless Chapman was a lesbian (since we were speaking about passion-related murders, not solely on violence), so she shouldn't even be in this discussion; I have no idea why you bring her into this."
I brought her into this because it was proved that she had been in a fairly serious fight only a few days before her murder. Kind of reminiscent of Mary Kelly and Joe Barnett, isn't it? All of these theories come from the same base. Inspector Abberline himself supposedly questioned whether a woman might be responsible. I consider that to be near impossible, and I don't consider Eliza Cooper as having killed Annie Chapman, not at all, but my point simply is that if one rule is applied to 1 or 2 victims, they can be applied to basically all of them. It doesn't work.
"Sorry, but your "comparisons" doesen't add up."
Sorry, but neither does Joe Barnett killing Kelly and Michael Kidney killing Stride. It wasn't believed that way then, and, IMO, it shouldn't be looked upon that way now. I think we've got more chance of getting to the bottom of some things if we go on what was said in 1888, when it happened, not new theories surfacing so frequently. That's how I would study it, anyway, whether it's a popular way or not.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2705
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
OK, we seem to be on a roll here...
"for some reason I thought James and John Kelly were one and the same person. Or perhaps it's just because I made that post late at night, but their names are extremely similar. But, yes, my mistake there, sorry"
To tell you the truth, I really can't blame you; there are too many "Kellys" in this case -- Eddowes (who called herself Mary Jane Kelley), James Kelly, Mary jane Kelly and John Kelly... Hehe... I can admit it's confusing.
"Why would Kidney have known this?
If he had split up with Liz, and she had gone to a certain place, how could Kidney have known this? And even if he did, how would he know she would still be there?"
Well, why not? Liz seems to have been fairly well known on the streets.
She disappeared for longer periods to drink herself pissed, but we can also assume that she may have been prostituting herself during those periods or at other times. I would be quite fair to assume that Kidney would know this (which could be why their relationship was a stormy one, among other things) and that he in such cases also would know where she used to hang out during prostitution. As I said, prostitutes usually prefer to stick to one certain spot -- or "territory" -- for practical reasons, so that their regular customers can find them. And if she preferred one place, it would also be quite possible for Kidney or others who knew her to know where.
And if not, Kidney could only have asked around and people would have told him where she was -- I believe she was fairly well known, since people had a lot of nicknames for her, like "Long Liz" etc. It is really not that big a problem and certainly not strange at all.
Now, note that I am NOT stressing Kidney as her killer. I have also mentioned other alternatives I believe are just as likely: that she was attacked by a drunken and abusive customer or that she was attacked by a member of a gang of ruffians/pimps that had Berner Street as their territory and that targeted prostitutes (and who didn't like her presence there), which could be supported by the presence of the Pipeman.
But a Ripper victim, I think she was not, although I can't say it for sure or prove it.
"She has always been part of the 'canonical five'..."
No, she has not. Only in the beginning of Ripperology. She has always in later times been subject to a large debate, and especially in recent years.
When I started out here, I was convinced of her candidacy, and I had to take a lot of heat for that. She is NOT a sure thing.
"...seems to obviously signify that the Ripper could not have done to Liz what he would have liked to, and he took his revenge on Cathy."
That is absolutely a possibility -- that used to be my initial position and I still can't rule that option out completely.
"For me the police ruling out of Kidney at the time is enough for me to rule him out in my own mind also.
[...]
Once again, it may have only been Barnett's word, but the police believed it."
Yes, I know that you think this is enough, but unfortunately, basing your views on that every decision the police took was the right one, is a complete fallacy and a great mistake. I believe they made a lot of mistakes and it is also evident that they did.
"If Barnett had left Mary for a week, then came back, what other reason would he have for coming back to her?"
Exactly. Why do you think? Could it have been because he wanted her back? Or can you truly without doubt rule that out completely?
"And no more windows were broken like the previous time, so I think we can assume that no more brawls took place. The neighbours would also have heard something if there was any loud quarreling."
That is a strange notion, Adam. One cant just assume that disagreements or emotional problems never occurred just because the neighbours and friends never saw evidence of it. As I said, we cant know how or what Barnett felt about the situation and we have no true knowledge about the real nature of their relationship.
In many domestic murders, the surrounding environment never have had an idea that there were problems in the relationship. One can't just make such easy assumptions.
"Barnett didn't like Mary being a prostitute or allowing her friends to stay in the room with her, no, but that by no means warrants Barnett's killing her."
No, but it gives him valid reasons enough for being frustrated, and if he was unstable it would provide him with enough motive.
As I said earlier, gruesome domestic mutilation murders have been performed on far thinner motivation grounds than those. If you don't believe this is possible, then you have to believe them to be impossible also, in spite of the fact that such things happen on occasion.
"And if he did kill her, to go to such lengths to mutilate her beyond recognition, and then identify her later on."
That is a conception of human behaviour that is based on that every person acts from logic and is only capable of that and then not on other things (like you prefer to point out to me when we are discussing Klosowski). That is completely wrong. If a person is capable of mutilating his spouse, he is not of sound and reasonable mind anyway. People are capable of more than you think, and once again, I can give you several examples of where this has happened. Just because you don't believe it, my friend, doesen't mean that it doesen't happen.
"And Barnett lived another 38 years without so much as a scratch to his name, though he somehow managed to rip a girl to pieces out of nowhere."
And again, so have others.
You are speaking of serial killers; but a person who mutilates once cant be pressed into the same frames of behaviour as a serial killer. There does in fact exist persons that only does this kind of thing once. I have never said that Barnett was a serial killer, and certainly not Jack the Ripper -- now, that would be ridiculous and groundless.
But let me just add, so there are no misunderstandings:
I believe there are other possible murderers in Kelly's case besides Barnett, namely Joe Flemming and Hutchinson. But I would prefer the former, since I am nearly convinced that Kelly's murder was a murder of passion and that she was killed by someone she knew quite well and whom she liked. According to Barnett's testimony, this would fit Flemming better -- we have no idea if Hutchinson knew kelly to such a degree.
"I brought her [Eliza Cooper] into this because it was proved that she had been in a fairly serious fight only a few days before her murder. Kind of reminiscent of Mary Kelly and Joe Barnett, isn't it?"
No, because we were speaking of violent murders caused by passion or jealousy. Once again, Eliza Cooper were hardly Chapman's girlfriend, right? THAT was the link of your comparisons, not pure violence. Eliza Cooper is not relevant.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
I think the explanation of how Kidney knew how to find stride is quite simple. there are three possibilities:
a) simple coincidence - they bumped into each other and her reaction might even have triggered his rage;
b) my own preference (and one AP will recognise) - Stride had a new man, and Kidney found out and followed them. His jealousy, built up over an evening watching the pair canoodling, drove him over the edge;
c) either he followed her alone; or it was as suggested above, a usual place of business for her. But I don't actually think that Stride did much whoring. Given that she is said to have worked as a cleaner for Jewish families and may have known some Yiddish, she may have been familiar with the International Club and its Jewish members (NO pun intended!!) or have gone their to seek more honest work.
Just my observations,
Phil |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Richard, you wrote:
Regarding this part of the statement which appears to have disapeared, i read it some 30 years ago , i have asked many times on this site for some varification of its exsistence[ to no avail] the nearest confirmation came from i believe Donald Mccormacks 1959 publication, in which a similar point was made ie.'All muffed up like a cold'
Reading this again reminded me of the post I submitted on the Mary Jane Kelly - Conflicting newspaper reports thread in February 2003, in which I offered the following in support of a collaboration to the story that Mary Kelly looked ill that morning:
1) On p90,(1966 pbk edition), Mr Odell writes, with reference to Mrs Maxwell; "Kelly looked ill at the time, and Mrs Maxwell asked her if she would like a drop of rum."
2) On p206, Mr Odell states; "..Mrs Maxwell peered hard enough into 'Kelly's' face to determine that she looked ill, and spoke to her, eliciting a reply."
Since that time I have managed to obtain a few more pre-1960 publications, but still have not come across the quote, 'Her eyes looked queer as if she was suffering with a heavy cold'.
The only pre-1960 book left for me to obtain is the William Stewart - JTR - A New Theory.
If this quote is not in this book then I can only say that maybe the book you were reading was not a book dealing with the JTR murders per se, but maybe anthology of true crime.
Sorry again, that I am unable to help any further, though locating this info would help support the notion that Mary Kelly was alive at 8.30am that morning. Something that I myself believe to be true.
Cheers,
Michael
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2720
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Phil,
I think your three suggestions are all probable and valid -- the first two (since the third lay closest to the one put forward, although there naturally may be other explanations as well) are certainly possibilities.
However, I don't think we should take Stride's word for it too much; she seems to have been something of a mythomaniac, spicing her life's story up with all kinds of tales that has proved to be lies anyway.
The story about her knowing Yiddish, for example, is also totally unproven and was gladly spread by news-papers who wanted to make her look better.
In Sweden the murder was covered in two papers (at least), and in one -- where it was held back that she was a prostitute, and the old lie about her family perishing in the Princess Alice disaster was released as a truth -- she spoke English fluently and also Yiddish, while in another -- who reported a more realistic picture -- she had a strong Swedish accent and didn't speak Yiddish.
So I think we should be a bit cautious about how she presented herself.
Most women in this area had some "common" period work when it was available (like cleaning or seamstress, or working in the sweat shops), but many of them had to find other more "alternative" ways of staying alive in between. And God knows what she did during those weekly periods when she disappeared (and had to get money for food and lodging -- not to mention liquor -- somewhere).
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 06, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 135
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 3:55 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"To tell you the truth, I really can't blame you; there are too many "Kellys" in this case -- Eddowes (who called herself Mary Jane Kelley), James Kelly, Mary jane Kelly and John Kelly... Hehe... I can admit it's confusing."
Well, thanks for understanding. I guess that Kelly was quite a common name in London in 1888. Though it still is quite a common name today. For once, nothing changes.
"As I said, prostitutes usually prefer to stick to one certain spot -- or "territory" -- for practical reasons, so that their regular customers can find them. And if she preferred one place, it would also be quite possible for Kidney or others who knew her to know where."
That's very true, but she wouldn't be patrolling 1 street within a 20 metre radius, obviously. She would still be around different streets and up and down them, whether it was the same "territory" or not. So if Kidney heard that she was in Berner Street through someone else, by the time he got there, since she wouldn't stand in the 1 spot all night, she could have been walking along somewhere like Christian Street or Brunswick Street. It was huge area, and sheer bad luck for Liz if she managed to run into him.
"Now, note that I am NOT stressing Kidney as her killer. I have also mentioned other alternatives I believe are just as likely: that she was attacked by a drunken and abusive customer or that she was attacked by a member of a gang of ruffians/pimps that had Berner Street as their territory and that targeted prostitutes (and who didn't like her presence there), which could be supported by the presence of the Pipeman."
Very true, there is any number of possibilities. But it is important to remember that Liz being attacked is solely reliant on the testimony of Israel Schwartz, who obviously wouldn't know the full story of what was going on, and could have misinterpreted it. Yes, she was certainly attacked, but the reason for it and exact severity of it, we do not know.
"But a Ripper victim, I think she was not, although I can't say it for sure or prove it."
Well I feel pretty sure that she was a Ripper victim, though likewise, I can't prove it either.
"No, she has not. Only in the beginning of Ripperology. She has always in later times been subject to a large debate, and especially in recent years.
When I started out here, I was convinced of her candidacy, and I had to take a lot of heat for that. She is NOT a sure thing."
She was believed by the police of the time to have been a Ripper victim. There has never been any strong evidence that she was not, and she is still part of the 'canonical five', whether she is subjected to debate or not. It's not the 'canonical four' just yet, as you can easily see just by clicking on "Victims" on this very site. If Liz had been more seriously mutilated, then there would be less doubt. But it's vital to remember that he was interrupted - twice. He would have known the danger. And since the differs a bit from the other victims, then the 'jealous lover' theory comes into play. Liz has largely been accepted as a Ripper victim for the past 116 years, and unless good proof is offered to dispell that, I think that it will and should remain so.
"Yes, I know that you think this is enough, but unfortunately, basing your views on that every decision the police took was the right one, is a complete fallacy and a great mistake. I believe they made a lot of mistakes and it is also evident that they did."
I am not saying that every decision the police made was the right one, far from it, but I do believe their decision to include Liz as a victim was indeed the right one.
We cannot properly investigate a 116 year old case these days. All of modern crime solving techniques, DNA, Fingerprinting, Psychological profiling, etc, are next to no use to use today, and therefore the police of the time's records and how they investigated the case are really the only thing that we can build strong information about the case from, I think. Any number of theories can be suggested, but at the end of the day it comes back to what fits into 1888. So, I would believe what was believed in 1888 and when everyone involved was still alive, any day before theories of recent times. But that's just me.
"Exactly. Why do you think? Could it have been because he wanted her back? Or can you truly without doubt rule that out completely?"
I think he felt guilty after he had split up with her, came back to apologise and tried to reconcile their relationship. Beyond that, I don't know.
"That is a strange notion, Adam."
The majority of what I say is, Glenn. 
"One cant just assume that disagreements or emotional problems never occurred just because the neighbours and friends never saw evidence of it."
The last time they had an argument, it resulted in a broken window, and the neighbours certainly knew about it. So I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that the argument next time would not have lessened at all, and would, in fact, become more violent because of the 1 week break-up. But that did not happen. And Barnett visited more than once. One would think that if he intended to kill her if she didn't take him back, then he wouldn't have drawn attention to himself so much first by visiting and re-visiting, before she was killed.
"That is a conception of human behaviour that is based on that every person acts from logic and is only capable of that and then not on other things (like you prefer to point out to me when we are discussing Klosowski). That is completely wrong."
Read my response just above. If he was responsible, then he let himself into the trap by being seen around so much. But did he let himself into the trap? No. Was he remanded? No, not even investigated. And, once again, most important, I think..did the police believe his story in his no-doubt grueling 4 hour interview? Yes.
The police may have been wrong in some respects, yes, but they were very suspicious of everyone. Barnett included, and nothing happened.
"And again, so have others.
You are speaking of serial killers; but a person who mutilates once cant be pressed into the same frames of behaviour as a serial killer. There does in fact exist persons that only does this kind of thing once. I have never said that Barnett was a serial killer, and certainly not Jack the Ripper -- now, that would be ridiculous and groundless."
In modern times, yes, maybe, but in 1888 or before? I doubt it. If there is, name me 1 case where someone has killed only once and mutilated as badly as Mary Kelly - before 1888. Things were different in the criminal world then than they are now, in many respects.
"No, because we were speaking of violent murders caused by passion or jealousy. Once again, Eliza Cooper were hardly Chapman's girlfriend, right? THAT was the link of your comparisons, not pure violence. Eliza Cooper is not relevant."
No, she wasn't Chapman's girlfriend, that's right. It wasn't passion. But as I said before, she may have been saw from the fight (i.e. Jealous, perhaps?). I don't believe that for 1 second, but I believe the same logic used in the cases of Liz Stride and Mary Kelly can be pressed into the suspect frame of any of the women victims. It's simply how you look at the evidence, and what suits your opinions.
Phil, you wrote:
"a) simple coincidence - they bumped into each other and her reaction might even have triggered his rage;"
I doubt it. As I pointed out above, whether she stuck to certain "territory" or not, she still could have been within a several block radius. For Kidney and Stride to run into each other is an unlikely enough event in itself, but since there was an attack on Liz first, witnessed by Schwartz, one would think that Liz would have surely seen or heard Kidney coming, and dashed into the social club or somewhere else safe. It was only a few feet away from her! I think it's improbable that, if she knew what he was capable of, she allowed herself to get close to him. But one thing is that she did resist the attack of who-ever it was.
"b) my own preference (and one AP will recognise) - Stride had a new man, and Kidney found out and followed them. His jealousy, built up over an evening watching the pair canoodling, drove him over the edge;"
Interesting. I just thought of something, what do you all think of this theory:
Schwartz said there was a second man, he wasn't sure if he was a passer-by or involved. Well, what if the man that attacked Liz was someone she had been with, Kidney had indeed been following her to see what she got up to, and he was the second man who left when she got attacked? That demolishes a couple of my own theories, I know, but I just thought of it.
"c) either he followed her alone; or it was as suggested above, a usual place of business for her. But I don't actually think that Stride did much whoring. Given that she is said to have worked as a cleaner for Jewish families and may have known some Yiddish, she may have been familiar with the International Club and its Jewish members (NO pun intended!!) or have gone their to seek more honest work."
Could well be a possibility, interesting. Well, we can't rule that out, anyway.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3794
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Hi all
Re the idea of Stride being well-known in Berner Street, isn't it true that no one who saw her that night - alive or dead - was able to put a name to her, including the PC?
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
I have read over this thread going back to January 1 and am struck by the discrepancy raised regarding the mutilations only needing 15/20 minutes and Hutchinson staying out there 45 minutes.
1) I agree with the 15-20 minute time period based on last summer's dissection of the rat which I am sure you are all sick and tired of hearing about. If JTR did Mary he had some experience under his belt by this time.
2) The discrepancy opens the door to the possibility of the trigger theory which really merits its own thread, but which I have considered for some time now. I will establish a separate thread to explain it. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1791
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Robert
As to Liz..its odd she had no accent of course as all her associates knew her to be swedish....but there again look at Abba!..
It appears she took lodgings at 32 F&D St but hadnt stayed there for 3 months,wonder where she was when spotted by Dr Barnardo?...It seems she was cleaning rooms at the same address on 29th Sept from where she went to the Queens Head and into posterity.This area is though a fair old distance from Berner Street then as now!
sad that Li's funeral was so sparsely attended,unlike the other girls,maybe unlike as the films(!) portray she wasn't so well known!
Diana
The rat's becoming a tad Cornwell- ish here!
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3805
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi
Well, she was supposed to be able to speak Yiddish, but I asked a Swedish woman once how many Jews there were in Sweden at the time, and she said there weren't many. Could Liz have mastered two new languages after she arrived here - English and Yiddish?
By the same token, Mary Kelly was said to be a fluent Welsh speaker, but didn't her life story involve her staying in southern Wales, which isn't as Welsh as the north, apparently.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1795
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Robert
EXACTLY!
The Yiddish thing is a bit of a 'worry'
As to Wales,I had and still have relations in that area,I have it on good info that in the 70's only 1 in 5 of the population of Wales was a fluent Welsh speaker and most of those were in Mid or North Wales..........despite what the road signs may say as soon as youre over the Bridge!
Mary is as unlikely to have been fluent I feel as Liz was fluent in her languages various!! ( about as convincing as
'The Princess Alice' 'eh?
Suzi
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2733
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Robert,
"Well, she was supposed to be able to speak Yiddish, but I asked a Swedish woman once how many Jews there were in Sweden at the time, and she said there weren't many. Could Liz have mastered two new languages after she arrived here - English and Yiddish?"
No, I think she didn't. That was most certainly a hoax, although I am not prepared to swear on it.
In her Swedish records (from her childhood), she has quite good grades -- which at that time mostly referred to knowledge in religion and interpretation of the Bible -- so she was not stupid, on the contrary she was rather intelligent. But I think those stories about her language abilities is as unsupported as everything else she told people in her environment.
Suzi,
"As to Liz..its odd she had no accent of course as all her associates knew her to be swedish....but there again look at Abba!.. "
Well, it is certainly my opinion that ABBA's pronounciation wasn't really high class material. Especially when they talk, they all have a typical Swedish accent. And it is always easier to disguise it while singing.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1802
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
'Gimme Gimme Gimme' an accent 'after midnight '! Oh well just a thought... in the cold grey light of morn may have something more sensible to say (unlikely...but I live in hope!)
Suzi |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 405
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
I would suspect the truth lies somewhere in between in regard to Stride's facility with Yiddish. I seem to recall she did some cleaning work for some Jewish families and may well have been a "Shabbas goy" (lighting fires and doing other tasks forbidden to Orthodox Jews on the Sabbath) and in the process picked up a few phrases (go to college in New York as I did and the same thing happens). Then all she'd have to do is translate a few of these to friends as they hear them on the street and hesto-presto she is "fluent in Yiddish" Isn't there something about a one-eyed man being king in the land of the blind?
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls."
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
