|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 900
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 7:54 am: |       |
Hi Leanne
Joe burning Maria's clothes I guess has to be considered... Right as to Maria's overcoat and the pilot jacket.....after some research here have had my suspicions confirmed that a pilot jacket is one and the same as a pea/reefer jacket.Heavy serge jacket as worn by seamen,U boat men etc
..but ending about top thigh level....hardly an overcoat....suppose it could be construed as an OVER (everything else!) coat tho!
Also found that theres a PILOT JACK!!!! a flag hoisted at the fore by a vessel needing a pilot!
Pilot cloth is also described as ' a course stout (carrotty!) cloth used for overcoats!!!
Interesting!!! must get out more!!!
Cheers
Suzi
 |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 20
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
If Joe burnt the clothes, this would have no doubt led to an argument. From what we know of Joe's visit to Miller's Court in the early evening of Thursday 8th Nov,he left on good terms. The last argument they had was when MJK smashed the side window, and that was heard by neighbours of the court. There is very small chance that Mary burnt the clothes herself, mayby acting on something that Joe said to her which may have went "Look if you agree not to take any more friends in and get yourself together, I'll come back, by the way this place looks like a pawn shop with all these clothes lying about." So she thinks about what he said, lights a fire and just throws the clothes on. BEcause it's getting cold and starting to rain, she just leaves the fire to smoulder and the rest is up to us to piece together.
Busy Beaver |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 902
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
BB-
Pretty scenario,no really.... but I dunno it all seems a bit extended...Joe was probably used to Mary's room and it's attendant horrors.....a few extra clothes would have been nothing!!!, although, I guess if they were related to MH or whoever then maybe he'd have had something to say......still cant see that our Mary would have burnt them!!!! rather more lucrative to 'pop' them and put that towards the 'rent' or a slurp at Mrs Ringers!
Just a thought!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 3:50 am: | |
Hi,
To repeat, I find it almost unthinkable that Kelly burnt items of clothing belonging to her friend Mrs Harvey, these items would have been assets to Harvey, they obviously belonged to her, as she states the only item returned to her was the overcoat.
There are two possible solutions.
a] The killer burnt the petticoat shirts and bonnet, and left Kellys clothes intact.
b] kelly was not the person found, and she could not care less about burning someones elses clothing, as she intended to leave the area.
That possibility does not appeal.
The burning of Harveys assets may have been intentionly done by Barnett in a form of revenge, although , i have my doubts, and believe he simply wished to keep kellys clothes intact, for his own safety, ie.. to make it appear that kelly had retired for the night, and was killed during that period.
One thing i am certain on is, Kelly did not light the fire using valuable items as fuel.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 910
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
Hi Rich
Exactly I feel that Mary as we 'know' her (!) ........would never have dreamt of burning clothes a) they burn slowly and smellily!
and b) there was the option of 'popping' the clothes to add something to the 4/6 owing!!! or a gin or ten!
I still ally myself to the fact that the creature on the bed wasn't Mary........but there's a lot of 'stuff' there.....
No way would MJK have burnt anything worth anything!
Cheers
Suzi |
Carlo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
Hi all,
What I have been wondering about is why the killer would at all need extra light.
He has done more accurate mutilations before with less light.
As the killer took organ(s) with him, could it have been he used some of the clothes present to pack them in? I do recollect that the heart was missing from MJK.
The killer himself must have been covered in blood including his clothes, could he have burned some of his bloodstained clothes?
When I read all this, the killer must have come out of it clean as a whistle.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Hi Busy,
The whole Joe burnt the cloths idea is pure speculation and Kelly could have burnt the cloths. Scott makes the point and a good one I feel, Mary would have been hesitant to burn cloths. I think she may have been planning to sell them. The only evidence we have regarding on the terms of there last meeting comes from Joe. We are not sure what time Joe left or if they left on good terms. The window breaking was the last noted fight but I doubt it was there last argument. There is indication that Kelly may have been depressed after Joe's visit.
I personally do not think the fire in the fire place, the burnt kettle or the cloths have anything to do with the murder.
All the best,CB |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 920
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Kayleigh
Good luck with your A level....there were no coins,top hats or Gladstone Bags though!! ..remember that! Still think that Maria's clothes were just there in the room and that Mary's 'carefully folded' clothes are a tad worrying...........
Good luck again
Suzi |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 102
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:35 pm: | |
Hi all,
Maria's clothes are an interesting side issue. If all she got back was the coat are we to assume that this was the coat which was stuck up over one of the windows, held in place by forks? Seems a strange thing to do to damage the coat in such a way if it were to be returned. I personally don't believe that Kelly was going to do anything other than return the clothes to Maria but it's an interesting question. Could the killer have hung the coat? Do we know from any witnesses that the coat was hung over the window prior to the murder? Just thinking out loud.
Suzi,
Why are the folded clothes a tad worrying? As Maria's clothes were burnt we have no evidence that they were not also folded prior to the murder. It seems likely to me that Maria's clothes were simply not in the same pile as Mary's. Let's say for example that Maria's clothes were on the table next to Mary's bed, the one we know he put parts of MJK on. He may have moved the clothes from the table, to get them out of his way. Perhaps Mary's clothes were not in his way.
I'm sorry but I still fail to see what is even remotely suspicious about someone putting their boots in front of the fire. My mum and Dad have a wood burning stove and in winter if people have wet shoes they often take them off and put them in front of it to dry the out.
Scotty. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 921
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 4:30 am: | |
Hi Scotty,
The overcoat is a intresting issue, it seems to have been placed over the window as a kind of curtain, as the clothes were left there by Harvey only recent to the murder, that idea must have been only been put into practise during that period.
I would suggest that the coat was placed to cover the broken pane, to stop the draught.
The boots are still intresting to me, as i have suggested kelly would have not started a fire using the clothes belonging to Harvey, therefore someone[ the killer] must have lit it, one would imagine if this was the case, then he lit it after killing kelly, for surely she would objected to someone in her room using the clothes for fuel , if in the position to do so.
Therefore my point is if the killer lit the fire once kelly was dead, why would kelly place her wet boots in front of the fireplace when no fire was burning, i appreciate that it was a small room , but the boots were positioned in a spot that would get drying results from a burning fire.
My scenerio of lewis seeing kelly returning to her room with milk, gives me the impression that the fire had only just been started, or was about to be lit by the killer in her room, and the kettle was about to be used for the purpose of boiling water, which was left to melt during the act of murder.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 7:29 am: | |
G'day,
Maria Harvey was a laundress/occasional prostitute and the most likely reason she left the clothes was to give the woman who once gave her a bed something to sell during 'Lord Mayor's Day'. One item was a pawn ticket in Mary Kelly's name. But all that's pure speculation too! One has to speculate a bit in order to solve the case!
RICHARD: Can it be proven that Maria Harvey's clothes were used to START the fire?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
We know that the only items returned to Mrs Harvey was the overcoat, and as the bonnet had been burnt along with some clothing, it is almost certain that the clothing burnt belonged to Harvey.
Regarding the pawn ticket , I do not believe that it was in Kellys name, for in the A-Z it clearly states that harvey left clothing and a pawn ticket in her room, therefore the ticket would have been in the name of Harvey, persumably the ticket was either taken,or burnt by the killer.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
G'day Richard,
I have very little doubt that the burnt clothes were those left by Harvey, but what was it proven that they were used to START the fire? Your scenario above says: 'Kelly would not have STARTED a fire using the clothes belonging to Harvey therefore someone [the killer] must have lit it.' I am having trouble trying to understand the 'picture' in your mind.
Couldn't the fire have been already lit, (as normal to warm the room up before a cold evening)? Couldn't an angry Barnett have thrown Harvey's clothes on the fire during his 7:30 visit, (failing to include the coat that Mary placed over the window to block the draft), yelling something like: "You won't need to sell those! I'll provide you with enough money before the sun's up."
About the pawn ticket: I must have read the 'A-Z' wrong: 'a man's overcoat and a pawn ticket in Kelly's room, none of which except the overcoat...' I read it as: 'a pawn ticket in Kelly's name...' Sorry!
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 922
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 6:55 pm: | |
Hi all
God a lot of clothes and boots going on here ! I agree with scott that theres not a lot of anything to be achieved by putting boots in front of a dead fire but what if Mary had lit some sort of small fire before going out which smouldered away and then when she came in found some odds and sods to throw on it to dry the boots.
Would like to know when the 'coat' was first reported on covering the window though.......
Pawn ticket in the name of Kelly......Kate had one too!!
Curioser and curioser.....as Lewis Carroll would or may have said!
Cheers
Suzi
Smile!! and if all else fails....REALLY smile |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2635
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 7:14 pm: | |
I'm not a Barnett man, but I must say that the burning of the clothes seems to fit in well with the Barnett theory, as it looks a bit like spite to burn them.
On the other hand, suppose the murderer was somebody completely unacquainted with Kelly : would he not, on finding children's clothes in the room, assume that Kelly was a mother? Imagine how someone with a Dr Barnardo mentality would react to that! There'd have been quite a lot of hatred heading Kelly's way.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 1:15 am: | |
G'day Robert,
If he was unacquainted with Kelly and found children's clothes in her room, yes I s'pose he could have thought she was a mother.
If he was unacquainted with Kelly and found two men's shirts and a man's black overcoat over the window, I s'pose he could have thought that her husband could come home at any moment!
Answer: Mary Kelly's killer was acquainted with Mary Kelly!
LEANNE |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 105
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 1:16 am: | |
Hi All,
Leanne I am in complete agreement, as I have said earlier, I have always assumed (and I could be wrong) that a fire was already burning prior to the murder. I would also say that the fire had possibly burned quite low before the clothes were thrown on, a raging fire would surely have completely consumed the clothes. The theories regarding the clothes and the kettle seem mutually exclusive to me. Either the fire was hot enough to melt the solder and therefore would have completely burnt the clothes, or the fire was not hot enough to burn the clothes away and therefore would not have melted the kettle. If we assume that when the clothes were thrown on the fire it was not hot enough to damage the kettle but we still believe the damage was caused next to Mary's fire, then the only possible solution is that the fire was burning very hot at some previous time. This could have been hours or days before the murder but it at least tells us that MJK had the means to have a fire and therefore no reason to suspect that anyone other than MJK put her boots next to the fire. It also points to the idea that she lit the fire and that the killer probably put the clothes on.
Scotty. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2636
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
Good point, Leanne. But then if Kelly's killer knew her, we're back to the business of Joe walking over there in the middle of the night, not knowing whether he'd find a male or female visitor there.
What's your opinion on Barnett's clothes at the inquest? He was, apparently, quite dapper. If he really had no money, and Kelly was desperate to stave off eviction, would he not have pawned these, to help her out?
Maybe these clothes were un-pawned especially for the inquest, or maybe they were hired, but I still wonder where Joe got the money. Maybe a relative lent it to him? Or maybe they were the relative's clothes, borrowed for the occasion?
I think that if Joe was going to visit Kelly at all, the logical time would have been in the morning, to be there when the rent collector came round, because if Kelly was evicted that very morning, Joe could have lost track of her completely - she'd have disappeared into the crowd of homeless/lodging house dwellers, and he might have taken a long time to find her again. She might even have gone back to Wales/Ireland, as she's reported to have suggested doing. If Joe was there when she was evicted, at least he could have kept tabs on her.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 923
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 4:47 am: | |
Hi,
All good points relating to Joes clothing, and times he may have visited.
We should remember that according to the police Barnett had a alibi for the night hours, and if he was the killer of Mary[ or Jack] he could only have killed her after the apparent sightings in the morning.
The following scenerio is possible.
Kelly is awaken by Catherine Pickett trying her door she is not awake enough, and fails to respond, on getting out of bed she dresses, and leaves the room to get some milk, on returning to her room, she lights the fire with fuel [ not clothes] that she had availiable and boils some water which was her intention,she has a cuppa, then leaves her room leaving the kettle over the fireplace, on returning to her room around 9am, she finds Barnett in there, she takes of her wet boots and places them near the fire, makes a remark to Barnett thatt she feels unwell and Barnett tells her to get back into bed.
I Should stress that i believe Barnett expected her to be in bed when he called [ as it was her habit] and in order for him to give the impression that Kelly was killed during the hours of darkness, which suited his alibi, it would be necessary for him to get her back into bed, luckily kellys health at that time worked in his favour.
He then killed her, and threw Harveys belongings onto the fire in spite, and of course as the kettle had not been removed from over the fire more heat generated by the added fuel melted the solder.
Pure speculation, but possible taking every clue we have into account.
Regards Richard. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 27
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 5:00 am: | |
Leeanne, that's a good thought you have that MJK's killer may have known her. If Barnett did go over during the night, it wouldn't have made any difference who was there- if he is the killer, he probably would come back on another night- after he found out what Mary would be doing in the next day or so, in order to have her alone. A morning murder may also make sense- if Barnett came out in the middle of the night- how would he have gotten back into the lodging house at around 3.00-3.30am in the morning- as Hutchison tried to get into his lodging house at that time, but it was closed. Barnett would have to have waited until 6.00am?, to get back in?, or a little later to go in with the crowd and avoid suspicion, mind you his alibi there would have been to say he was at the markets.
Busy Beaver  |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 110
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 6:38 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Sorry, but for a moment there I thought you were saying that if Mary's killer entered her room and found men's clothes there that he would not have killed her but left instead. You imply that if there were men's clothes in the room then the fact that she was killed means that she knew her killer. I think this is a very tenuous link. The other solution is that if her killer was a client and she brought him to the room, he would have no reason to assume that he would be interrupted, no matter what sort of clothes were in the room.
Scotty. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 7:34 am: | |
G'day,
ROB: Mary could have assured Joe that he wouldn't find her with a male or female at that time, especially if he had promised to return with money. His promise of money would have been enough for her to let him throw the clothes on the fire without screaming.
The fact that Barnett appeared well-presented at the inquest tells me that he earned a good wage as a fish porter, took pride in himself and probably in his ability to provide for himself and his woman. Bruce Paley found that a hard-working fish porter could have earned about 3 pounds a week. With the loss of that job he would have been earning one-nineth of the amount.
If Joe planned to visit Kelly with the money she needed it would have made sense to visit her BEFORE the rent man called. If he didn't want her to go back out to the pub with it, he would have planned to sleep there.
BUSY: 'Buller's Lodging House' was right near the wharehouses of St Katherine's Dock, and dock labourers came and went at all hours. There were no set meal times either. The next day was 'Lord Mayor's Day', and many people would have been out working early, setting up stalls, or looking for work.
LEANNE |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 30
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
I think we're all on the wrong thread 'ere. Should we not take this discussion to "The Fire in Mary's Room" Thread?
Busy Beaver clipart{cute_oops} |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2641
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I don't understand. Joe tells Mary on Thursday night that he can get her some money. Mary agrees to meet him in the middle of the night. Joe goes off, presumably gets the money, checks into Buller's, plays cards and goes to bed, then gets up and goes over to Mary's at three in the morning with the money? What's the idea?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 924
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 2:41 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
As you will obviously know i am in full agreement with Leanne with the guilty party, however i disagree with her reckoning on the time of death, i feel strongly that if Barnett was the killer of kelly , he could only have committed the act in the hours between 845 am and 930am, any earlier would not correspond with maxwells sighting, and any later would not allow him the time frame to commit such an act.
I have always been a staunch believer in Maxwells testomony, her description of her clothing, her observation of her health, and the fact that she had known kelly, and even spoke to her previously, to suggest that she was mistaken, or that she was lying does not ring true, exspecially as she swore on oath, even after she was warned that her evidence was contradictory to medical reports, also the fact that at least two other people claimed to have seen her also.
It is also true to say that residents in the street believed she was killed in the daytime hours,
The fact is the police got it wrong, Dr Bonds report mislead them, and the fact that the victim was discovered in her bed undressed, would imply that she was a night victim.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2644
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Well, it's possible that Kelly was killed during daylight hours. Shannon's blood argument, if valid, would prove that she was. But I don't see Joe as the murderer. Joe of all people would have known that the rent man was likely to be knocking on the door at any moment.
I know that Shannon has a scenario where Joe takes just five minutes or so to do what he did to Kelly, but I find that kind of speed difficult to believe. Therefore I think that Joe was taking a terrible risk if he mutilated Kelly during daylight hours. Even if he killed her in a fit of rage, surely he wasn't in a frenzied state during the whole period of the mutilations? If he was, he would surely have given signs, before and after, of suffering mental illness? So, at some point during the mutilations Joe would have thought "This is risky. The rent man's due. The police will certainly want to question me today. I'd better get cleaned up." But no. Apparently Joe carries on mutilating, and walks off with Kelly's heart to boot.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 925
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 3:55 am: | |
Hi Robert,
The question of the Rent man calleth,has been given as an excuse for Barnett not being her killer, i find that not conclusive.
MCcarthy made it clear that obtaining rent from the residents was never a easy task, he got what he could when he could, the fact that it could have been that rounds were always made at 1030am is possible, and lets get the facts right that morning, Mrs MCcarthy and young MCcarthy along with Boyer, were the trio that entered the court.
If Barnett was the killer , he could have known that the landlords visiting times were at that hour.
Another point to consider, one wonders when pay day was back then, was it a daily cash in hand bases, or was a certain day of the week wages day
Regardless of that, he may simply not been expecting any one to call between that hour 830am-930am, and if he killed her he was right...
With Reference to her heart, i believe he took it simply because of satisfaction, and proberly dumped it at the first opportunety, down a drain , sewer, or even fed it to the dogs, or threw it in the thames.
People say 'How could Barnett get away with it?'my answer is somebody did.
If the murder was preplanned, his escape, and quick cleansing of himself would have been thought of in advance, and along with a lot of well known murderers in the past I believe he was as cunning as a fox.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 4:21 am: | |
G'day,
Just reminding you ROBERT, all this is pure speculation. No one will ever know what really went on, but I'm just trying to fill in the gap between Joe's last recorded visit and Thomas Bowyers gruesome discovery. We know that Mary Kelly desperately needed money and Joe took pride in his ability to support her.
It was agreed here that Joe's rent for that night at Buller's was most likely already paid for, (part of a weekly rent), and tennants gambled at whist/poker etc. That could have been how he planned to raise extra cash so quickly. And he could have just told everyone that he was going to bed.
RICH: If you feel so strongly that Mary was killed later, based on what one lady thought she saw, then write it for our book! Please! We can present both opinions and let a reader decide!
I don't think what Maxwell saw proves that she had to have been killed later. Caroline Maxwell was the wife of a lodging house deputy from Dorset Street, which housed many, many people. She had only spoken to Mary Kelly twice before the 9th of November. The woman she spoke to from across the street was probably too drunk to care who she was speaking to. I'm not saying that she was lying...she probably genuinely thought she was speaking to Mary Kelly.
I am interested to read about the residents in the street that believed she was killed later. Are you talking about Maurice Lewis?
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 928
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hi all!
Ok have to go out now but will pick up later....just had a quick scan and still think that Mrs M recognised MJK!.......If the landlords sent the 'collectors' around three times a week' or whaatever... why.or more to the point HOW did Mary elude him for so long unless Mr Mc C was maybe telling him to go else where....or 'Dont bother with Mary...I'll deal with her'
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2651
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 5:25 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I find it difficult to believe that Joe would have planned to kill Kelly in that manner. It would have entailed going in broad daylight to a place where he was well-known, and trying to slip in and out of Kelly's room without anyone noticing. Furthermore, he had no alibi - he couldn't have foreseen the cry of "Murder" or the police bungling over the bloodhounds that wasted precious time and allowed the doctors to get the time of death wrong.
Leanne, are you sure that Joe was as keen to support Kelly as you think he was? One minute he's telling Kelly that he's very sorry for having no money to give her, next he's turning up at the inquest dressed like Patrick MacNee from "The Avengers".
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1360
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 9:08 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Joe Barnett was earning a good wage at Billingsgate Market when he first met Mary in 1887. She was tall, pretty and "fresh looking and well behaved." Her youth and freshness set her apart from other 'unfortunates'.
They moved in together immediately and he "would not let her go on the streets," (Julia Venturney). "He said he would not live with her while she led that course of life."
After he lost his Billingsgate job and began earning one nineth of what he was, plus was forced to move out of Miller's Court, he kept returning to give Mary money. He probably trusted her to be paying the rent with it, but then found out she was wasn't! That would have not only made him furious, but made him realize that he was funding her bad habits!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on June 30, 2004) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 927
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 3:46 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I am not suggesting that Barnett calmly walked to millers court that morning dressed in his normal attire whistling a popular music hall number of the period.
I would suggest that he would have taken great care in not being seen,at least in his normal appearence, how about false whiskers, a hat pulled down over his face, or a scarf partially restricting some of his features.
The old adage 'where theirs a will , theirs a way' springs to mind.
Regarding the previous evenings visit, I am of the opinion, he only called to find out if she was intending having a sleepover that night, he would have had no intention of giving her money, for he wanted her to be seen soliciting that night, so that she would have opportunety to be selected by the ripper.
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
I believe the rent collector discoverd the body? So obviously they botherd with her. They could have been an arragement with the landlord. However, Joe was with Kelly and the landlord probably did most of his buisness with him. This would have been the first real week that Kelly was alone. Maybe if she had lived such an arrangment would have been made?
All the best,CB |
PF arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 7:29 am: | |
Richard
Surely if Kelly was about to boil the kettle she would of lit the fire for that purpose before the killer arrived/acted and then her boots would have been placed by a burning fire. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I have read that Maxwell's description of Kelly the person is inacurate as far as height and build as well as hair color is this true? Maxwell also claims she saw the woman out side the Britannia puplic house talking to a man. Maxwell sets the time she saw Kelly talking to the man around quarter to nine We can deduse that Kelly was not in her room at 8:45 according to Maxwell. She did not reconise the man that she saw Kelly with "He was a little taller then me and stout" If she knew Kelly then I feel she would have known Joe. She may have not known Joe by name but it is logical to assume that she had seen him around with Kelly before and would have known him as the man Kelly lived with. Abberline guesses the distance to be 25 yards. This is not a long distance and Maxwell should have been able to identify anyone from such a distance. assumeing that the man was not Barnett you would have to allow for the time it would have taken Kelly to dismiss him and then return home, Joe to arrive [unseen?] some sort of small conversation, Kelly to undress get comfortable and then Joe strike. well after nine I would imagine even if the man that Maxwell saw Kelly with was Joe, the murder still would have most likely taken place after nine. In my oppinion the longer you push the time of death back the less likely someone who knew her killed her or anyone else would have taken such a chance.
I am reading Maxwell's inquest testimony now and it strikes me odd that the women she claims to know as Mary Kelly, she describes as someone "Who never associated with any one." We know Kelly took in unfortunates and had a boyfriend for almost a year who lived with her and several friends in the neighborhood. I would suggest that Maxwell was not lieing but she had Kelly confused with someone else. She May have realised this later but was to embarressed to come forward.
All the best,CB
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:54 pm: | |
Hi Scott,
The coat is interesting. At the inquest Maria was asked if she had seen any of the articles of clothing that she gave Kelly since she left them with her. She replied that she saw the coat in another room in the court Friday afternoon. Assuming the police would not let anything from the Kelly crime scene out of there possesion, this might indicate that the coat that Harvey recoverd and the coat that was in the room was not the same. I speculate that perhapes Lizzie Albrook was telling the truth when she claimed to have stoped by that evening. Maybe she took possesion of the coat before the cloths were burned and the room that Maria saw the coat in was Albrooks. I believe that she had a room in the court?
All the best,CB |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 931
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
Hi CB,
Intresting observation it is of course plausible that Harvey, Allbrook were very familiar with each other, and when Lizzie called round the previous evening it was to borrow the overcoat, which she took home with her at the end of the evening, and returned it to Mrs Harvey the following afternoon.
I agree that the police would never release items from that room so quick.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2657
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
You mean, Joe killed Kelly when he discovered she'd been drinking the rent? Hmmm....
Richard, false whiskers!? He's got a lot to get rid of/hide by now! Knife, heart, bloody clothes, false whiskers...
Of course, you can always say "Yes, if Joe was cunning and cool enough he could have done this and that" but surely there's no evidence of a cunning and cool personality in the first place.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 2:54 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Granted we do not know the true personality of the man called Barnett.
There are three possible clues to his mental stability.
a] When he moved into Millers court, he gave his name as Kelly.[he obviously had a reason to hide his real name]
b] At the inquest the repeating of the last line before answering a question could show that he was deliberate in his answers[ not nescessarly a disability as often debated]
c] last but not least, IF''' Barnett was seen to spit on Kellys grave, then this would show both self control and cunningness, as only minutes before he along with the six women present was kneeling on the clay in respect.
I appreciate when attempting to speculate what could have happened,everything sounds complicated, and far fetched, but as i have said many times who ever committed this murder, and the others in the series got clean away, so that vital aspect worked in his favour, so some preplanning must have been evident.
Richard. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 37
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 5:29 am: | |
What happened to Barnett after the Ripper murders? Did he continue to live in whitechapel, or did he go elsewhere? I know that he died about 1926.
Busy Beaver |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2659
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Hi Busy
Richard and Leanne will tell you all about what Joe did after 1888 - and some of the things he didn't do during 1888.
Richard, yes, whoever did it did get away (at least, for a time). How organized/disorganized the killer was, I'm not sure. But one of the things that works against Barnett is, ironically, the thing that makes him a suspect in the first place : his closeness to Kelly. Barnett would have known that the police would question him on the day of the murder. And Barnett was questioned on the day of the murder. This is true of no other suspect.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2660
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
In other words, it's "Joe Barnett - different from the rest". |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 40
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
Hello all! I've just been trawling through the old threads on Joe Barnett and he's a quiet sort of a character. I can't believe that he never talked about the murder of MJK, to anyone, not even to his wife Louisa. You would think after the years, he would talk to set the record straight? I'm still not convinced he was the Ripper, but mayby he may have had an idea who was and like everyone else too afraid to say.
Busy Beaver  |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2663
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Hi Busy
I've been checking "The Times" to try and find a mention of Barnett post-murders, and there doesn't seem to be anything so far. No appearances in courts, nothing. Ah, but maybe that was his devilish cunning.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | |
Hi Busy,
If documentation is correct, then Barnett did make one comment to his nephew, that being'I always felt sorry for her killer, for he could never come forward for fear of being topped'
A very strange remark.
It could imply that he was kellys killer, which he regretted however if he come forward he would be assumed to be the killer of the other women ie, 'Jack'.
Pure speculation, however he did dissapear from all records from 1888-1906/7, and Leanne and myself cannot find any trace during that period.
Plus collecting press clippings starting with Tabram, and ending with McKenzie, does point directly to his guilt , as how did he know that Tabram was going to be the start of the series , unless he was the culprit.
He must have cut out the clipping of Tabrams murder, on the day of release, otherwise how come he left clippings refering to that event.
Regards Richard. |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 41
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 4:10 am: | |
If Joe is the Ripper, it would seem like he goes from a really nice guy, friend of everyone by day, to some crazy Jekyl and Hyde character by night. Also the letters if written by the Ripper, particularly the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack, are written in a way that shows cunning intelligence, which I don't associate with Joe. The Lusk letter, however, does look like it could have been written by your average bloke on the street ie Barnett. After all we knew he could read and probably write as well.
Busy Beaver |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 4:45 am: | |
G'day,
HEY? Who described Joseph Barnett as a really nice guy who was everyone's friend? Who said he was the average bloke on the street?
LEANNE |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 42
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2004 - 6:05 am: | |
Total coincidence Leanne!
I've started writing a list FOR and AGAINST Joe being the Ripper. So far he's innocent. If it was a crime of passion, I think he would have flipped and confessed. The remark made to his nephew about being sorry for Mary's killer, who would be pointed at for being Jack the Ripper, could point to his brother Dan being MJK's killer as has been suggested on the boards?
I don't know, I feel I'm now starting to go round and round in circles.
Busy Beaver  |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 11:45 pm: | |
Hi Richard, Thanks for taking the time too respond to my post. Your thoughts are always welcome.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I am interested in the documentation that you mentionen. Were is it documented that Joe made those comments to his nephew? I am not disputing that he did make the comment I am just interested in knowing the source. If he did make such a statement, it would be odd.
I think it would be very strange to save the clippings concerning the murders. I knew that he read about the murders to Kelly but have never heard that he collected the articles. Is it a proven fact that he did collect the articles. If I stay reading the Barnett threads I just may end up being convinced Joe was Jack or at least killed Kelly.
Take care, CB
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
