|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jason
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 8:12 pm: |       |
What do people think?
Regards, Jason |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 369
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
I would have to say yes but I do see why some people may disagree. The fact that her murder was very "over the top" might suggest that someone killed her and tried to make it look like Jack the Ripper was the culprit. The papers did tend to give exaggerated descriptions of the murders and so your average person may have thought that Jack had been more savage than he actually had been. This would be all right except that Kate's death was pretty savage and therefore since Jack most likely killed Kate I believe he also probably killed Mary.
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Hi Jason,
I would attend to agree with Sarah, Kelly was a victim of the Whitechapel murderer, That is almost certain, but Kelly was the end of the killing spree.
I believe that The man nicknamed 'jack' killed six women, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, kelly.
That is my opinion , and is shared by about fifty per cent of board members, some exclude, Tabram, and Stride.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 932
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 7:47 am: | |
I think Richard is absolutely right. Nothing further to add on my part.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:05 am: | |
I often wonder what Jack would have thought of the theory that someone else was responsible for Kelly’s murder.
Would he have laughed or cried – or both?
I think that gives you a rough idea of my own opinion. 
Love,
Caz
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 171
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
Hi All!
Good thread ...I..for what it's worth include Smith,Tabram,Nichols,Chapman,Eddowes and ....Kelly (I know..it is a slightly different KETTLE of fish !!) Need a bit more persuasion about why Hutch may have done for the others but am sure he did for mjk!
Well??
Cheers
Suzi |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 432
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Suzi,
Why do you personally include Smith and why do you think Hutchinson killed Mary then? Just curious as I haven't actually heard your thoughts on who you thought Jack may have been.
Sarah |
Lilith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
When looking at all the evidence I would have to disagree I think that Mary Kelly got away. Look at the witness reports of seeing Mary Kelly alive hours before the murder and that she was looking extremly sick and disgusted I think she saw the murder after that it happened and locked the door and escaped to her freedom. |
James D. Smith
Police Constable
Username: Diomedes
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 3:38 am: | |
Hello All,
I believe that Mary Kelly was the final act of Jack the Ripper. I also believe that she probably knew who he was but didn't know that he was the murderer when she picked him up. I believe that Geo Hutchinson told the story exactly the way he saw it (his statement). I never believed that Joe Barnett was her killer, Joe loved her but couldn't live with her activities so he had to believe. Remember Joe was able to positively identify her and I could only imagine the emotional stress it must have put him through. How would any of us have handled the responsibility of identifying someone that we care about that was butchered in such a manner?
Many Regards
Jim Smith |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1072
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:19 am: | |
James,
Yes, but Joe only identified her by her eyes (or ears) and her hair colour. I don't think that's enough to go on. That was all he could see and he only glimpsed at her for a second.
Lilith,
I agree.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
James D. Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diomedes
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:47 am: | |
Sarah,
Well who ever she was it was truly a shocking site.
Cheers,
call me Jim |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:58 am: | |
Jim,
Yes, with that I agree. If Joe wasn't her killer then he didn't have much to go on with the identification, that's just my point. Lots of prostitutes had henna dyed hair it was a mark of their trade) and so many other prostitutes would probably have had similar hair colour to Mary.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
Hi,
I Sincerly hope it was MJK, otherwise Leanne, and myself have been wasting a lot of time on blaming Barnett as her killer.
The only mystery surrounding her death is the morning sightings, and I can not understand why people doubt the relevant witnesses, none of the other murders, had witnesses state they saw the victim alive hours after they were killed.
Also it was widely believed in the area , by the residents that she was a morning victim.
Richard. |
James D. Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diomedes
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
Hey Sarah,
Let's rent a time machine and solve the matter once and for all. Cheers and God save the Queen! |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 49
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 6:29 am: | |
Richard,
"none of the other murders, had witnesses state they saw the victim alive hours after they were killed."
Most of the victims were wrongly thought to be someone that they weren't, sometimes taking days to be cleared up. Mistakes in identification were quite common.
MJK was the only one found in her own room, so identification was made easier. That meant the mistakes that would happen there would naturally be of a different character from the mistakes made with the other victims.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
kat
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 6:33 pm: | |
yes i believe that he really did kill mary kelly it would have been the perfect ending to his killing spree and the name jack the ripper would live on after the horrible site of mary.
kat |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 175
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
The following series of posts was moved from the 'Question of Motive' thread under Tabram to here, because it was off topic. It's a discussion between Glenn Andersson and Tom Wescott on the candidacy of Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim. To make it easier to follow, I've put the name of the poster before each quote, because both Glenn and myself quote one another before responding.
From Tom Wescott, Sept. 3rd, 2004:
Glenn: I totally disagree with the Kelly murder being so similar to the others. It is not the fact that she was killed indoors that troubles me, but the fact that the approach seems different. I have said it before and I'll say it again; to me it certainly more looks like a very sloppy copy cat attempt by someone who had gained some information about the murders -- probably from the press -- but then just didn't get some details right.
The spray and large amount of blood is one thing: the Ripper was very careful in his approach not to get too much blood on him and there isn't really that much blood on the murder sites (there is some spray of blood on the fence in Hanbury Street, but apart from that very little considering the state of victims). In Miller's Court it is a completely different story; it is practically a blood bath with a lot of blood on the walls and on the floor, indicating that Mary Kelly may have been conscious during the attack and maybe also tried to defend herself.
Tom’s response: Glenn, I believe you're mistaken. In the case of Nichols and Eddowes, the victims were dead or fully unconscious prior to mutilation, so there was no arterial spray. In the case of Chapman and Stride, there was, only in Stride's case her left carotid artery was cut and, because she was turned to her left side, the blood flowed toward the ground, not at the wall. Dr. Philips remarked that there was more blood at the scene than he would have expected. So, Mary Kelly's case is not so different. And the blood at her scene (spray on the wall, run-off on the floor) does not suggest a struggle. The tears in the sheets can be easily explained without assuming a struggle, or that the killer was 'sloppy'.
Glenn: To assume that these changes is a result of the more secluded circumstances indoors, is just not good enough -- it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly just the same -- the scream of "murder!" is a sign of that this apparently was not tried succesfully.
Tom’s response: You do not help your case by assuming the cry of 'oh murder' came from Kelly, as there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did.
Glenn: We also have the over-excessive mutilations, that usually are referred to as a result of "his grande finale and his evolution technique reaching its full bloom". That is totally unsupported and just speculations.
Also, the womb strangely didn't seem to be of interest of the Ripper in this case, but rather the heart (if the heart was taken from the scene). There are quite a few question marks to consider, which means we can't just buy the Ripper option straight off.
Tom’s response: I completely agree with you as to your 'finale' statement, however you can't say the Ripper was after only uteri, as Eddowes' missing kidney illustrates. If a copycat were following what he reads in the papers, as you suggest, why would he go to the hellish trouble of removing her heart, when he'd read nothing of the kind? And, if you want to accept Barnett as Kelly's killer, you have to take into consideration the likelihood that he was a first-time murderer, and that he pulled off a helluva show with the police, never once letting on or giving them reason to suspect him. On top of that, he had an alibi. Kelly's murder should definitely be accepted as a Ripper crime. And I believe this fits in well with the context of the Tabram discussion, in compare and contrast and helping determine if Tabram was a Ripper victim.
Simon,
In your discussion of Stride, it appears you're basing your conclusion on pre-murder witness testimony alone, and this is a mistake. Take the following into consideration: When Edward Spooner lifted her chin at approximately 1:03a.m., she was still bleeding to death. Dr. Blackwell estimated it took her about 90 seconds to succumb to her neck wound. As Dr. Blackwell based this conclusion in part on the assumption she'd been conscious when cut (which would have escalated the bleeding), and in all likelihood, she was not conscious, it could have taken as long as four minutes to bleed to death, but certainly NOT 18 minutes! Also, when Dr. Blackwell examined her at 1:16, he found her face still warm. This was a moderately nourished woman, exposed to open air, who'd been bled to death. Do you think her face would still be warm a full half-hour after death? I don't. Spooner's testimony tells me she was knifed at approximately 1a.m..
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
From Glenn Andersson, Sept. 3rd, 2004:
Hi Tom,
Tom:"Glenn, I believe you're mistaken. In the case of Nichols and Eddowes, the victims were dead or fully unconscious prior to mutilation, so there was no arterial spray."
Glenn’s response: I don't know if you have misunderstood me, but this is exactly my point and this is also what I intended to point out. And this contradicts the Kelly murder scene, which is full of blood, so I must say that point in your argument seriously eludes me.
(However, as I wrote in Chapman's case there were some spray of blood ion the fence -- not that it makes me change my mind, but nevertheless.)
As for Stride, I am ruling out her from this discussion, since I am not sure of her inclusion as a Ripper victim.
Furthermore, I didn't intend to imply that it is proven that Kelly defended herself, because it certainly isn't (although there are cuts on her arms, which could be from defense, but as you say such details could derive from sloppiness -- which I think in that case would show yet another contradiction against the Ripper's methodical approach). it is mere speculation. However, the large quantity of blood on the Kelly scene does suggest that Kelly was alive and probably conscious when she was attacked with the knife -- in contrast to the canonical Ripper victims). I really can't see how you can claim that there are similarities on this point. Are we looking at the same crime scene photo?
Tom: "You do not help your case by assuming the cry of 'oh murder' came from Kelly, as there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Glenn’s response: Once again, I didn't mean to imply that the "Oh murder!" cry with certainty came from Kelly (I should have put an "if" in there somewhere) -- we can't really know that, but I think there is a possibility that it may have. I see no reason to state with certainty that "there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Besides, my main point was that it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly regardless if he was killing indoors or outdoors. Judging from the blood on the scene, the murderer in this case were not as careful at getting blood and gore on himself or the environment, which I would say the Ripper was. The fact that it in Kelly's case occurred indoors doesen't matter.
Tom: "however you can't say the Ripper was after only uteri, as Eddowes' missing kidney illustrates."
Glenn’s response: I didn't say "only" (that's your interpretation), but in both Chapman's and Eddowes case the womb was removed and taken (in Eddowes' case both half of the kidney and the womb).
Tom: "If a copycat were following what he reads in the papers, as you suggest, why would he go to the hellish trouble of removing her heart, when he'd read nothing of the kind?"
Glenn’s response: No, but he may have misunderstood the whole point of the removal of the organs and maybe just picked anything (if he did take the heart -- it was never found, we don't know what happened to it). Fact remains -- whatever one wants to make of it -- that no organs from the productive and sexual area was taken from Kelly's body, while the Ripper seem to have found these items of certain importance as thropees.
Tom: "And, if you want to accept Barnett as Kelly's killer, you have to take into consideration the likelihood that he was a first-time murderer, and that he pulled off a helluva show with the police, never once letting on or giving them reason to suspect him."
Glenn’s response: You didn't hear what I just said in my previous post, Tom. I said, I could present to you a number of crimes of similar character (or worse) throughout crime history, that are performed by perpetrators (all husbands or boyfriends to the victim) that have no prior criminal record.
You can't just rule that out on basis of that "it couldn't happen" when we have recorded facts saying that it does.
Glenn’s response: Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a prime suspect in such a case fools the police or manages to get himself through and pass an interrogation. Furthermore, there are signs of that he may have been quite nervous during this process. We simply don't have enough information telling us how he acted psychologically in these situations.
But the fact that he was released and also impressed at the coroner's inquest means nothing. If he did the Kelly murder, we could also expect him to handle an interrogation.
Tom: "On top of that, he had an alibi."
Glenn’s response: Not a very impressive one, I might add.
It is impossible for us over hundred years later to check up on it and confirm how effective it really was, since we don't have enough information.
The time of Kelly's death is not at all condirmed or stated with certianty, and since there are question marks regarding this quite important point, it is pointless to dive into discussions about his alleged alibi.
Tom: "Kelly's murder should definitely be accepted as a Ripper crime."
Glenn’s terse response: I am happy for you, that you are so sure of yourself on this matter and I offer you my deepest congratulations. Even if it means that you are dismissing several important factual details. But have it your way; I prefer to keep an open mind about it as an alternative option -- in contrast to you I'd say it is not at all a clear-cut thing.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 03, 2004)
________________________________________
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
From Tom Wescott, Sept. 4th, 2004:
Glenn: "Glenn, I believe you're mistaken. In the case of Nichols and Eddowes, the victims were dead or fully unconscious prior to mutilation, so there was no arterial spray."
I don't know if you have misunderstood me, but this is exactly my point and this is also what I intended to point out. And this contradicts the Kelly murder scene, which is full of blood, so I must say that point in your argument seriously eludes me.
(However, as I wrote in Chapman's case there were some spray of blood ion the fence -- not that it makes me change my mind, but nevertheless.)
Tom’s response: My point was simple - prior to Kelly, the Ripper DID cut the throats of victims prior to their death. As for blood, there was blood on Kelly's wall and the floor and bed around her. Nothing to suggest a struggle. In this respect, it's no different than the other crime scenes.
Glenn: As for Stride, I am ruling out her from this discussion, since I am not sure of her inclusion as a Ripper victim.
Tom’s response: Well, that's not responsible investigation. She's been ruled INTO the case by the original investigators, and no solid argument to exclude (that supercedes the argument to include her) has since been put forward.
Glenn: Furthermore, I didn't intend to imply that it is proven that Kelly defended herself, because it certainly isn't (although there are cuts on her arms, which could be from defense, but as you say such details could derive from sloppiness -- which I think in that case would show yet another contradiction against the Ripper's methodical approach). it is mere speculation. However, the large quantity of blood on the Kelly scene does suggest that Kelly was alive and probably conscious when she was attacked with the knife -- in contrast to the canonical Ripper victims). I really can't see how you can claim that there are similarities on this point. Are we looking at the same crime scene photo?
Tom’s response: I've already pointed out that the fact that Kelly was attacked with the knife while alive is not at all without precedent in the Ripper murders. Are we looking at the same photo? Yes, but keep in mind that we don't have photos of the other crime scenes to look at, so naturally Kelly's stands out. And I'm glad you state that there's no proof Kelly defended herself. The doctor's certainly found no proof on her hands or under her nails. I was concerned, because earlier you stated quite confidently that her killer was sloppy and let himself be attacked. Even if that's the case, you must keep in mind that JTR was not a perfect killing machine.
Glenn: "You do not help your case by assuming the cry of 'oh murder' came from Kelly, as there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Once again, I didn't mean to imply that the "Oh murder!" cry with certainty came from Kelly (I should have put an "if" in there somewhere) -- we can't really know that, but I think there is a possibility that it may have. I see no reason to state with certainty that "there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Besides, my main point was that it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly regardless if he was killing indoors or outdoors. Judging from the blood on the scene, the murderer in this case were not as careful at getting blood and gore on himself or the environment, which I would say the Ripper was. The fact that it in Kelly's case occurred indoors doesen't matter.
Tom’s Response: I'd say the Ripper was careful, because no one reported see a blood-covered man leaving Miller's Court. There is a good reason to doubt the cry of 'oh murder', but that's for a different thread. But even if we accept that as having come from Mary, I'd say that's a prett quick subdue, as that's the only cry she got out before he silenced her, and no one came a'knockin'. I'm afraid I don't understand the importance you place on the blood at the Kelly scene. Stop looking at the photo. Chapman's scene was a mess and quite similar. Eddowes had a pool of blood around her.
Glenn: "however you can't say the Ripper was after only uteri, as Eddowes' missing kidney illustrates."
I didn't say "only" (that's your interpretation), but in both Chapman's and Eddowes case the womb was removed and taken (in Eddowes' case both half of the kidney and the womb).
Tom’s response: No, a whole kidney was taken. A half of a kidney was sent to Lusk (of course, it may not have been Eddowes').
Glenn: "If a copycat were following what he reads in the papers, as you suggest, why would he go to the hellish trouble of removing her heart, when he'd read nothing of the kind?"
No, but he may have misunderstood the whole point of the removal of the organs and maybe just picked anything (if he did take the heart -- it was never found, we don't know what happened to it). Fact remains -- whatever one wants to make of it -- that no organs from the productive and sexual area was taken from Kelly's body, while the Ripper seem to have found these items of certain importance as thropees.
Tom’s response: You don't find a heart just by 'grabbing anything'. Cutting out her uterus, or taking any of the organs he came in contact with first would have been easy. He sought the heart. As for the Ripper's need, we don't know. He took 4 organs, 2 of which were uteruses. That's half. And it's doubtful they were mere 'trophies'. That's profiler talk.
Glenn: "And, if you want to accept Barnett as Kelly's killer, you have to take into consideration the likelihood that he was a first-time murderer, and that he pulled off a helluva show with the police, never once letting on or giving them reason to suspect him."
You didn't hear what I just said in my previous post, Tom. I said, I could present to you a number of crimes of similar character (or worse) throughout crime history, that are performed by perpetrators (all husbands or boyfriends to the victim) that have no prior criminal record.
You can't just rule that out on basis of that "it couldn't happen" when we have recorded facts saying that it does.
Tom’s response: And you didn't hear what I said...Yes, you could name a lot of cases. So could I... all of men who got caught. Most because they confessed. Barnett didn't confess, didn't attract undue attention, and provided an alibi. He didn't kill Mary, Jack the Ripper did.
Glenn: Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a prime suspect in such a case fools the police or manages to get himself through and pass an interrogation. Furthermore, there are signs of that he may have been quite nervous during this process. We simply don't have enough information telling us how he acted psychologically in these situations.
But the fact that he was released and also impressed at the coroner's inquest means nothing. If he did the Kelly murder, we could also expect him to handle an interrogation.
Tom’s response: We could? You described him as sloppy? Why do you suppose a man who could so completey annhialate the girl he loves could show up the next morning and give the police, including Abberline, such a believable performance AND a good alibi?
Glenn: "On top of that, he had an alibi."
Not a very impressive one, I might add.
It is impossible for us over hundred years later to check up on it and confirm how effective it really was, since we don't have enough information.
The time of Kelly's death is not at all condirmed or stated with certianty, and since there are question marks regarding this quite important point, it is pointless to dive into discussions about his alleged alibi.
Tom’s response: That's a valid point.
Glenn: "Kelly's murder should definitely be accepted as a Ripper crime."
I am happy for you, that you are so sure of yourself on this matter and I offer you my deepest congratulations. Even if it means that you are dismissing several important factual details. But have it your way; I prefer to keep an open mind about it as an alternative option -- in contrast to you I'd say it is not at all a clear-cut thing.
Tom’s response: You've yet to point out any factual details that show Kelly to have been anything other than a Ripper victim. I've looked at it from both perspectives, and share the perspective of Scotland Yard - Kelly was a Ripper victim. It's not a matter of an 'open-minded', it's simply a matter of aptly applied logic.
Glenn: All the best
Tom’s response: Ditto
From Glenn Andersson, Sept. 4th, 2004:
Tom: "My point was simple - prior to Kelly, the Ripper DID cut the throats of victims prior to their death. As for blood, there was blood on Kelly's wall and the floor and bed around her. Nothing to suggest a struggle. In this respect, it's no different than the other crime scenes. [...] I'm afraid I don't understand the importance you place on the blood at the Kelly scene. Stop looking at the photo. Chapman's scene was a mess and quite similar. Eddowes had a pool of blood around her."
Glenn’s response: Oh come on, Tom. Here you really make no sense and you are also distorting the evidence. Even the doctors and the police at the time stated that the crimes (apart from Kelly) were performed in a way that it would create as less blood-mess as possible. On the Ripper's crimes scenes there were very little blood considering the type of crimes we are dealing with here and the mutilations. It's all there to read. This is also quite natural, since he had managed to kill them and cut their throats (or strangle them) prior to their death. Let's consult Dr Brown's own words regarding the Eddowes murder scene: "No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body."
Still, there were quite extensive mutilations.
In Miller's Court it is very different. Not only are the mutilations even more extensive, but also a large quantity of blood.
It doesen't matter that we don't have crime scene photos from the other killings. It is all there in the written documentation, saying that quite little blood was shed in the other Ripper murders considering the circumstances, and certainly not those kinds of splashes as we see in the Kelly scene. This strongly suggests a killer with another approach and who is not as experienced in taking his victims by surprise.
I really don't see your reasoning; there are vast dissimilarities as far as the crime scenes are concerned.
Tom: "I've already pointed out that the fact that Kelly was attacked with the knife while alive is not at all without precedent in the Ripper murders."
Glenn’s response: News flash for you. The Ripper victims were (if not strangled first) killed quickly by getting their throats cut, decreasing the amount of blood. Furthermore he performed this in a way that it should spray as little as possible.
If the killer had had the same approach in Miller's Court we wouldn't see that large amount of blood. I'd say Kelly bled a lot before she died -- so there is certainly a difference in approach.
In my mind we are talking about a less experienced killer in Kelly's case, that didn't manage to overcome his victim quickly. The Ripper was fast, he was silent and the mutilations were performed quite neatly after a deliberate, careful scheme sceme. Kelly's murder is a blood-bath and over-excessive in its mutilations.
Tom: "I'd say the Ripper was careful, because no one reported see a blood-covered man leaving Miller's Court."
Glenn’s response: No, beacuse the crime scene evidence say so.
Tom: "But even if we accept that as having come from Mary, I'd say that's a prett quick subdue, as that's the only cry she got out before he silenced her, and no one came a'knockin'. I'm afraid I don't understand the importance you place on the blood at the Kelly scene."
Glenn’s response: The importance lies in that it shows a killer with a less distinguished approach and who failed to take his victim by surprise. One of the Ripper's trade-marks was to kill his victims quickly and silently and to create as little blood as possible on the scene. The amount of blood in Miller's Court shows:
a) she had bled and probably had been attacked several times by the knife before she died (inconsistent with the Ripper murders)
b) that she certainly was surprised but not killed quickly and probably not silently (considering the crime scene evidence it is not all unreasonable to imagine that the cry could have come from Kelly).
Tom:"And you didn't hear what I said...Yes, you could name a lot of cases. So could I... all of men who got caught."
Glenn’s response: That is of no relevancy. You argued that Barnett couldn't have done it as a first time offense. I simply stated that there are cases where this has happened.
Glad to hear that you at least acknowledge that Barnett's alibi is hard to put forward as an argument, since Kelly's time of death is not fully established.
Tom: "Why do you suppose a man who could so completey annhialate the girl he loves could show up the next morning and give the police, including Abberline, such a believable performance AND a good alibi?"
Glenn’s response: Once again, Tom, it has happened before.
As I said, if he managed to do the stuff in Miller's Court, I could very much expect him to handle a police interrogation as well. And secondly, don't over-rate the abilities of the police. They are human, and even the best get fooled. You seem to assume that Annerline was some kind of Superman.
And no, Barnett's alibi isn't the best I've heard.
Tom: "I've looked at it from both perspectives"
Glenn’s response: No, you have not. You have already in your mind decided that Kelly was a Ripper victim and seem desperately frightened of the possibility that she may not have been.
I have said it once and I'll say it again: there is a 50--50 chance that Kelly may have been murdered and mutilated by someone else than the Ripper. I have no preconceptions of how things should be.
Now, we are certainly losing Tabram here. Kelly do have her own thread.
All the best
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2126
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
Quite entertaining, actually. Sounds almost like a movie script. 
That must have took some time.
But where are your response, by the way?
Or have I missed something in all the dialogue?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Hi,
The Identity of 'Jack' to this date is unknown, if we take all the facts circumstancial or not, they all point to the kelly murder being connected to the others ie.. Tabram -Kelly.
I would doubt that this person committed another crime against prostitutes.
We have circumstancial evidence about a possible grave spitting, we have circumstancial evidence about a man seen rushing through Mitre square at 1010am on the morning of the 9th November, Ihr-25 minutes after Maxwells sighting, with a noticable amount of blood splashes on his face.
This alone gives a lot of credence to a possible morning murder ie. after 845am.
The removal of the heart is significant as it implies personal involvement with the victim.
It is not my intention to turn this in to a Barnett conclusion, but if one takes all that is known concerning Kelly/ Barnett/ millers court etc, one has to be rational about this and state that Kelly was killed because of her prostitution habits, and somebody killed her and persumably the other victims because of it.
The Nun summed it up on Barlow/ Watt Tv excellent Tv Production in the early seventies, when she stated as quoted.' If it were not for the Kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened '
This was not the words of a Tv company, but a authentic woman of the order.
We are such a suspicious lot on this website , that we tend to dismiss history, when related to us, with a 'Its second hand' or heresay.
If one decifers all the evidence we have avaliable, it is simply this, Barnett is the number one suspect of these hidious crimes, although i freely admit being number one does not mean 116 years later he was the killer.
But Unless I have concrete evidence dismissing his guilt I will feel confident that my intrest in this case since 1957 is somewhere on the right track.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2127
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
As you may know I can't exclude Barnett either as Mary Kelly's murderer; the only difference is... you believe he's Jack the Ripper, I am more doubtful regarding that particular point.
I don't agree on that "all facts point to the Kelly murder being connected to the others".
By the way, dismissing hearsay and "grave spitting incidents" is not being suspicious, it's being careful with facts.
There is a difference...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 04, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1171
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 5:39 pm: | |
Hi Glenn/Richard
I too cannot totally dismiss Mr B in the 'event' BUT the trouble is we have to stick to the few and they are FEW
FACTS we have!....Hearsay ...ok it may be interesting and the stuff of the Press but it AINT facts and that'll be the thing that suddenly out of the blue gives us a clue!Actually 'Out of the Blue' may be an idea! am sure theres a secret or seven lurking within those portals!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 7:46 pm: | |
..Response to Glenn, from t'other thread.
"The reason why I think Barnett may be considered as the prime suspect, is just for the things you point out."
Glenn, but Barnett was not the only one in her life.
"If Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, then it would be natural to assume that it was the one male who knew her most intimitaly and who had access to the apartment in Miller's Court."
Agreed.
"Several similar cases have shown that it's generally the boyfriend or husband that perform these types of crimes"
Agreed.
"If she wasn't a Ripper victim, who else would it be besides Barnett?"
The only other male who was known to be violent with her.
"Who else had quarreled with the woman some short time before and felt forced to leave the residence? Who else had access to the premises? Who else were so emotionally attached to her?"
All those points *could* be equally applicable to the other man, one who lived in the roughest part of town, who she had co-habited with and I believe, knew where she lived, and with whom she lived.
I would have wanted to have Joe Flemming in the interview room, for some considerable time.
We have nothing to accuse him of directly, but his presence, and their past relationship make him equally suspect as Barnett. Only from slim hints Joe Flemming was known to have a bad predisposition, he is the unknown factor for me.
"Not to mention the fact that he seemed obsessed with the Ripper murders and read about them in the papers."
That could be equally true of 90% of the residents, and 100% of the prostitutes, of Whitechapel.
Regards, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on September 04, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2130
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 9:05 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
All good points, of course.
Still, I wonder if we know enough about Joe Flemming in order to draw such conclusions. At least I don't. I could have missed this, but I am not at all familiar with his exact relations to Mary Kelly.
She seemed to have been more attached to Flemming than to Barnett (according some witness testimonies), so in my book Barnett has a better motive (not least if we also consider the famous quarrel -- maybe it had nothing to do with Kelly's prostitution at all, but her relations with Flemming...?), while it is quite hard to find such in the case of Flemming. Jealousy? Maybe. But still I think we know too little about Joe Flemming in order to establish that. From what we know about Barnett so far, I would say we got more to go on.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if Kelly's relationship with Flemming could act as a credible motive for Barnett. It is a bit more problematic for me to find a motive on Flemming's behalf.
But I am of course open to the possibility (and it's indeed an interesting twist to the story), especially if he was known to have a bad predisposition (which I must admit, I didn't know -- where on earth is this stated?).
And I agree, I would have liked to see Mr Flemming in the interview room as well -- he is indeed something of a Black Peter, even though I feel Barnett had greater opportunity and had better, natural access to the room than Flemming. And at least one or two possible motives to kill her. As far as Barnett's own mental disposition, this is very much a question mark as well. How do we know that he was the nice guy he claimed himself to be?
Well, I better go over the material and check Flemming up a bit more; after all, I am a bit dusty on him.
Typical, Jon. Now you made me scratch my head and rethink again...
I just hate that.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 04, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 177
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 10:48 pm: | |
Hello all,
I moved these posts from the Tabram thread because they were off-topic, so let's not make that same mistake here. This is not a thread to discuss Barnett as the Ripper. There's plenty of those threads as it is. This thread is purely for the discussion of Mary Kelly's candidacy as a Ripper victim, with discussion of the facts as they apply to her case.
Glenn,
I DID respond to your post, but it looks like I forgot to hit the 'Post This' button after previewing the message. I do that a lot, because this is the only forum I visit that requires two clicks. Anyway, I wrote something to the effect that although I believe Abberline was a very capable investigator, he was far from perfect, as the Hutchinson debacle illustrates. Also, I have considered the possibility that Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, but seeing the whole thing in perspective, that's quite a long shot.
I believe I now understand why you place so much importance upon the preponderance of blood. It's because you feel that points to a less sophisticated killer than the man who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and (possibly) Stride. Is that a fair estimation of your argument? Please let me know and then I'll respond to that.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2131
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 11:08 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
Well, if we are discussing whether or not Kelly is a Ripper victim, it is quite hard to disregard discussions concerning who might have done it instead (barnett or whoever) -- the one somehow goes with the other, so I think that can't be helped.
"I DID respond to your post, but it looks like I forgot to hit the 'Post This' button after previewing the message. I do that a lot, because this is the only forum I visit that requires two clicks."
Tell me about it. I've done that as well. It is a real pain.
"Anyway, I wrote something to the effect that although I believe Abberline was a very capable investigator, he was far from perfect, as the Hutchinson debacle illustrates."
I absolutely agree. Few detectives are anyway.
"It's because you feel that points to a less sophisticated killer than the man who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and (possibly) Stride. Is that a fair estimation of your argument?"
To play it simple -- yes. That is correct. Plus the fact that it also points at a slightly different manner in how the victim was approached and attacked (although one of course could state that those two points go hand in hand with each other).
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 3:22 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I agree that Joe Flemming comes into the reckoning, simply because he illused her for her involvement with Barnett.
All Barnett said was he used to call on her, but it would imply that he was a angry man at times.
Also the mysterious Lawrence that called on Kelly a drover, that was considered her husband.
There was certainly more then one man intrested in Mary Kelly, not to mention her past life , before she moved to London, who knows what she got up to then, her friends have given the impression that she was unreliable sort, that let them down.[ from a few years back].
I Wish police records were avaliable, surely they would have interviewed Flemming, also traced the man Lawrence which should not have been hard if he was expecting a summons to be delivered.
I have a suspicion that all they did was briefly interrogate Barnett, and then proceed on trying to trace a well dressed man.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2946
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 4:57 am: | |
Hi all
I do tend to believe that Mary was a JTR victim. I tend not to believe that Mary was a Barnett victim.
I don't want this thread to get bogged down in psychology/profiling discussions, but I think that it makes a difference what kind of person we think Jack was. If he was a cunning psychopath, then it's less likely that he killed Mary. If he was a paranoid schizophrenic, then it's more likely.
I suppose the Eddowes killing was his "masterpiece". But as to his efficiency, there's the "No" that Cadosch heard, that appeared to come from No. 29. IF we think this was Annie's last utterance, just before being attacked, then I ask, what if you replace a very ill middle-aged woman with a healthy young one. Does "No" become "Oh murder!"?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2132
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
Richard,
Interesting points. I don't know about Lawrence but I agree on that Flemming seems worth investigating.
I don't think we should focus too much on the men from her past life, though. What is mainly if interest here in this stage are the ones that she interacted with during the time of her murder.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2133
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 7:22 am: | |
Hi Robert,
It's a good point, I really don't lay that much weight upon the "Oh murder" cry, since we can't be sure of that it really originated from her.
There are still differences in the killer's approach, though.
The amount of blood in the Kelly scene indicates to me that she bled a lot before she died and therefore might have been savagely attacked in another way then the other Ripper victims. Yes, Annie managed to utter "No!", but apart from that we see practically the same professionalism in her murder as we do in Nichols' and Eddowes'.
And I must admit I don't really understand what the killer's mind or psychological state can prove at this point regarding this particular issue.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2948
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 9:43 am: | |
Hi Glenn
Well, I've never gone for the scenario where Kelly brings back a customer and he patiently waits while she undresses, or even has sexual activity with her before killing her. I think Jack would have despatched her as soon as the door was closed.
That's why I tend to see Jack as blundering into the room. The stabs in the sheets, the defensive wounds, the pool of blood under the far corner of the bed and, for what it's worth, the murder cry all seem to indicate a struggle. The amount of blood on the walls seems to indicate that she wasn't strangled before her throat was cut.
If Jack was a paranoid schizophrenic, his behaviour could have deteriorated in the weeks since the Double Event.
Re Barnett, if you've found examples of husbands/partners who've committed this kind of butchery as a first effort, as it were, without leading up to it through a series of earlier murders, then that's fine. But how many of these committed the murders before the time of Jack? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this kind of extensive butchery was very uncommon before 1888.
If on the other hand the argument is that Joe killed Mary, but the mutilations were mechanical, i.e. purely to fool the police into thinking that Mary had been killed by the Ripper, then I feel he'd have underdone the mutilations rather than overdone them - something more like the McKenzie murder.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2134
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Robert,
"The stabs in the sheets, the defensive wounds, the pool of blood under the far corner of the bed and, for what it's worth, the murder cry all seem to indicate a struggle. The amount of blood on the walls seems to indicate that she wasn't strangled before her throat was cut."
I agree, but the point is that none of these features are consistent with the Ripper killings, so why are you assuming that Jack is "blundering into the room"?
"Re Barnett, if you've found examples of husbands/partners who've committed this kind of butchery as a first effort, as it were, without leading up to it through a series of earlier murders, then that's fine. But how many of these committed the murders before the time of Jack? Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this kind of extensive butchery was very uncommon before 1888."
I can't remember straight off hand at the moment, but I think a couple of them actually were earlier than the Ripper murders.
Still, besides that, the Kelly murder did occur towards the end of the Ripper's reign, not in the beginning or before.
"If on the other hand the argument is that Joe killed Mary, but the mutilations were mechanical, i.e. purely to fool the police into thinking that Mary had been killed by the Ripper, then I feel he'd have underdone the mutilations rather than overdone them - something more like the McKenzie murder."
Not necessarily. Not if he had read about Eddowes' murder and the facial mutilations. Not that many had seen the photos, and to read about the mutilations is one thing. If he wasn't sure about the actual extent of those, he had to be over-excessive.
There would be no reason for the killer to just do a throat job, if he wanted to convince everybody that the Ripper had done it.
It is a misconception that a copy-cat killing must be less brutal than the original. They can actually be just as bad or even worse.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2949
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
Hi Glenn
But this was quite a bit worse. I can't believe that a copycat killer would have imagined that Eddowes's flesh had been stripped to the bone, with all her organs scattered in various positions about her body - not unless Shannon is right, and the whole business of what Jack did to Kelly was accomplished in five or ten minutes.
I think we can see a kind of pattern to the crimes. With Nichols, he made off as soon as he heard someone approaching, and pulled the dress down a little to cover the wounds. With Chapman, he continues to operate even though he can hear Cadosch moving around next door. The mutilations are worse and the dress is left up. With Eddowes, he wastes precious seconds performing the facial mutilations (even though they're not part of his signature)and he has also attacked her thighs. He seems to me to be getting increasingly abandoned. Kelly - whole body mutilated - seems to fall into the pattern.
I do see your point about the struggle thing - not very efficient, not very Ripper-like. It depends on how we see the murderer. As far as the police and doctors were concerned, this was a Ripper killing. Sure, they could have been mistaken, so their opinion isn't conclusive - but it is a factor on the side of Mary being a Ripper victim.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Jack only had three victims : Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. That would mean that in a small area of London, and in the space of three months, three ferocious murderers were at work (Tabram's murderer, Jack, Kelly's murderer) and all three ceased operating suddenly.
I've heard of three coins in a fountain but three Druitts in the river is too much! 
Robert
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2135
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
"Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Jack only had three victims : Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. That would mean that in a small area of London, and in the space of three months, three ferocious murderers were at work (Tabram's murderer, Jack, Kelly's murderer) and all three ceased operating suddenly.
I've heard of three coins in a fountain but three Druitts in the river is too much!"
Hehe... Oh, let poor Druitt rest, Robert. He's been through enough
Well, yes actually. You also forgot the torsos in Pinchin Street and Whitehall.
But that doesen't mean that they couldn't have been related.
The Ripper may have been triggered off by the Emma Smith and Tabram killings. And Kelly murder (as well as the torsos) could have been influenced by the Ripper in turn, along with McKenzie and Coles.
"But this was quite a bit worse. I can't believe that a copycat killer would have imagined that Eddowes's flesh had been stripped to the bone, with all her organs scattered in various positions about her body"
Oh but I can, Robert. The over-excessive mutilations may also -- in combination with the Ripper influence -- derive from a rather desperate (and of course stupid) attempt to hide the victim's identity (especially the facial ones). This has been a common reason for other domestic mutilations, besides blaming it on a serial killer. Of course, that seldom works, but in 1888 -- with no advanced forensics developed -- it could.
And if it was that much "worse", as you imply, how can you defend it being similar to the Ripper's crimes?
I know... I can hear you; that it all sounds like something from a bad script for ITV, but stranger things have happened.
I am basing my views on this possibility, on the lack of efficency and a different approach from the killer. To me it all looks rather crude and inexperienced compared to the neatness displayed in the other murders.
I can see your point about the Ripper's alleged increasing illness, but I am not prepared to base my assumptions on whether he may be a paranoid schizofrenic or not.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 05, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2950
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
Well can we agree that if the mutilations were a clumsy attempt to hide Kelly's identity, then that lets Joe out - he identified her.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2136
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Absolutely.
That is why I see a possibility where they were made in desperation and as a very sloppy, crude attempt to copy the Ripper, either by Barnett or someone else who had a relation to her.
If Barnett did it, I would say his identification of her makes the mutilation performed in a purpose to make her harder to identify quite redundant, to say the least.
Or else she just was murdered by someone else who were in close relation to her (Flemming?), and here the attempt to disfigure in order to hide her identity is more plausible. Although the fact that she was found in her own room, also makes this a bit over the top.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 05, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2951
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
OK Glenn. It's an interesting subject. Not as tricky as Stride, thank goodness.
PS Jeremy Brett has come up on the Doyle papers thread.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2137
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Robert,
"PS Jeremy Brett has come up on the Doyle papers thread."
What!!!???
I better check it out, then.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1184
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi Glenn Robert et al
Gosh! getting complicated here! Joseph Flemming is I must admit a worry..The only concrete (sorry about the pun) evidence we appear to have on him is from Barnett's testimony at the inquest ,when he said that after Morganstone(!) she lived with the famously 'fond of' Flemming,the mason's plasterer of Bethnal Green Rd.The fact that Flemming used to visit her often is interesting of course but doesn't seem to be backed up by the other 'inmates' of Millers Court purely by Barnett
Altogether a rather one sided story about JF do we have anything else on Mr Flemming?
Cheers
Suzi
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2140
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
"The fact that Flemming used to visit her often is interesting of course but doesn't seem to be backed up by the other 'inmates' of Millers Court purely by Barnett
Altogether a rather one sided story about JF do we have anything else on Mr Flemming?"
I agree. I mean, should we just take Barnett's words for it?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Hi Glenn!!!
Exactly! Ive been trawling the books and can't find any other ref. to Joseph Flemming (Fleming?) except for the statement made by JB Surely some of the others such as Maria ,Julia,Mrs Prater etc etc would have mentioned the ubiquitous Mr Flemming if indeed a)he existed or b) he visited on a fairly regular basis.
Cheers
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2957
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Hi all
We do have Venturney's police statement, that Mary had told her that another man called Joe had often ill-used her for cohabiting with Barnett.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2141
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
Hi Robert et. al.,
Aha! Could this be it? The famous statement about the man that is supposed to have misused her for hanging out with Barnett? I've been looking for that.
Could this "Joe" be the aforementioned Flemming? Hmmm... interesting.
Still, with such little information, Suzi's two questions are no less valid and needs to be repeated:
a) Do we have real proof of that Flem(m)ing did exist?
b) If he did, how well did he -- or the aforementioned "Joe" at least -- know Miller's Court and how often did he visit it?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 05, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 269
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 9:07 pm: | |
Glenn & Robert,
In her witness statement, Jilia Venturney mentioned "another man named Joe, and he had often misused her because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett)."
By the time she got to the inquest she had changed the story to:"...she was fond of another man named Joe who used to come and see her and give her money."
No mention of ill-use, but she goes on to say she thought he was a costermonger. This is at variance with Chris Scott's research that indicated Flemming was a plasterer in 1881 and possibly a boot finisher in 1891.
Of course, if Flemming had switched trades during the decade he might well have working as a costermonger in 1888 before he latched on to the boot finisher job. Or, since Barnett may have been costermongering at the time, Julia could have gotten her Joes confused. Or, this Joe could have been another guy named Joe entirely.
Or, none of the people involved had much of an idea what they were talking about from A- Abberline to Z-Zverieff and we all waste considerable of our time parsing what statements have trickled down after more than a century.
Sorry to sound so negative, but I sometimes get the feeling that those scholastics who argued about how many angels could cha-cha on a pinhead were more constructively engaged.
Happily, that feeling never lasts too long.
Don.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2142
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:06 pm: | |
You're probably right, Don.
What bothers me about Flemming or other relations to Mary Kelly is that they are more or less unverified or comes from one source only, with a credibility rate that is hard to define more than hundred years later.
That is mainly why I've focused on Barnett in this context.
Even though other options may seem interesting, they are more or less guesswork and blank canvases to a large degree.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1188
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
Hi Glenn et al,
Our resident at No 1` Millers Mrs Van Turney is a somewhat shady character..a widow allegedly living with a man called Harry Owen (any info?.. doubt it!)
The 'ill using' mentioned by JVT has still to be verified though I feel...did he just shout at her or knock her about? if he did SURELY others would have been aware of this and these 'visits'and the consequences!
The fact that she (JVT) allegedly slept through the equally alleged 'Oh murders !'does I feel cast some doubt here!
Mind you the clothes left in the room and (more than likely my 'bundle obsession '
may have some interest here I guess)I think that maybe Julia or maybe the ubiquitous Maria H may have been responsible for this (these)
well?
Suzi
|
malcolm macdougall
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
it's quite likely that Jack had sex with her first..dont forget she was wearing only her chemise plus wearing no boots; so it's fair to say she was in bed/lying on bed or undressed ready for sex...i dont know many people that go to bed fully clothed and wearing their boots...do you?
now would you lie on a bed almost naked on a freezing cold night, no way; she was probably in bed with the ripper or getting ready to go to bed with him.
now this doesn't fit with the other ripper murders...yes this is true, but dont forget that the other ripper victims were fairly ugly (understatement) and its quite possible that the ripper was sexually attracted to her....an opportunity too good to miss, then after sex it was time to kill her.
this human behaviour to me is perfectly normal, as for all the blood..this is bound to be the case if your next victim is a more hideous version of Eddowes..and how much blood was at the Eddowes scene? loads of it, but we dont get the full picture...because unlike Kelly we have no crime scene photos.
was the Kelly murder a copycat killing? to me no, this murder was carefully thought out first, like the Eddowes murder; it's the next stage on but the big difference here is that Kelly was young and attractive.
my guess is the ripper spied Kelly talking to Hutchinson while out patrolling his kill zone, as simple as that. And thought ``look at her talking to that bloke, now she's attractive``. he was bound to patrolling his kill zone that time of night on either the previous week, that night or the next week and poor Kelly was in the wrong place at the wrong time...simply asking for trouble.
i'm trying now to rebuild her face with simple graphics and guess what..try as hard as i can; i simply cant make her look ugly...the facial proportions are spot on for an attractive face.
Mal
|
pf arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Couldn't the less clinical killing of Mary be due to the fact that unlike the other victims she was lying down when attacked. Therefore JtR (as i believe) found is usual method of strangulation less effective resulting in a struggle and more blood.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Malcolm!
The image that you portray of Mary is to say the lest a tad worrying!
I am sure that Mary came in on her own and taking her boots OFF went bed sans chemise!!!! just probably curled up and tried to keep warm!
A lot more could be said here but we'll see
Cheers
Suzi
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Glenn.
I suspect you do not have the A-Z handy, edition 3, page 137 summarizes what we knew in 1996 about Joe Fleming.
"Possibly the other 'Joe' known to Julia Venturney as cause of friction between Barnett and Kelly."
"Mrs McCarthy reported that Kelly left her house in late 1886 or early 1887, to live with Fleming in Bethnal Green. The co-habitation ended by April 1887 when Kelly met Barnett in Spitalfields."
"Mark King has discovered that a lunatic described as 'Joseph Fleming otherwise James Evans' died in Claybury Mental Hospital in August 1920 with Fleming's mother Henrietta's name and address on his records as the friend to be informed of any changes in his circumstances"
Since then Chris Scott has unearthed some more details about a possible candidate for this certain 'Joseph Fleming'.
I think the deathbed evidence suggests a certain intimacy between Kelly and her killer which is not reflected elsewhere in the previous Ripper murders.
Regards, Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2143
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
Jon,
Thanks for the info.
I must admit I haven't read the A--Z cover to cover. I've mostly turned to the Ultimate Companion for info when I need it.
It just shows, that there are a tremendous amount of facts to consider in this case. It is practically impossible to keep record of it all, unless you are dealing with the Ripper full-time for a vast number of years.
Once again, thanks.
I'll check up on Scott's info regarding Fleming as well when I can find the time.
"I think the deathbed evidence suggests a certain intimacy between Kelly and her killer which is not reflected elsewhere in the previous Ripper murders."
Absolutely. I perfectly agree on this interpretation.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
