|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 5:47 pm: |       |
Sorry Suzi but I agree with Dan here unless you mean she was bumped off as part of a conspiracy theory and made to look like a ripper victim.
I have thought about that too but think that I veer towards it not being likely.I think if someone wanted to get rid of her they would simply have bumped her off quietly and made it look like suicide or that she"d OD"d.
Myself I dont find her anymore interesting than the other women.They are all interesting to me in that they were surely all vulnerable and fragile in terms of their need to get intoxicated everyday
but in certain ways they were very strong and tough and resilient given that they were dealt such a perilous deck of cards----to have been born Victorian women into relatively poor conditions and to have developed a predilection for booze!Despite that Kate Eddowes and Polly Nichols in particular seem to have been quite rebellious spirited women Liz Stride seems to have been very bright if she really could speak several languages fluently.Mary Kelly and Ann Chapman seem to have been rather lost souls really-not too happy with themselves at all.Yet they still didnt just bemoan their lot but got out and tried to get their doss money no matter what!And that must have taken some courage.
Natalie |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
Assumtions are fine providing they are built around fact.One cannot know what was in Barnett's mind,and there is no certain information of his true feelings towards Kelly.There are no means of interpreting his feelings towards other unfortunates either,so a presumtion of hate is baseless.His dislike of prostitution may not have extended to those that engaged in it.
Of course it is possible for Hutchinson to have seen another person in Kelly's company,but disbelief is not based solely on the detailed description.If this person did exist and did enter her room,he becomes the principal suspect for her death,and he certainly was not Barnett.
Unless he can,by some means,be shown to have left before the cry of murder was heard,his presence defies a belief in many named suspects.
You believe Hutchinson,you must logically believe in a Jewish person being responsible for Kelly's death.Assumtions and beliefs are baseless in formulating ideas about anyone else.
Only disbelief of Hutchinson allows for a different killer,and there is a basis for disbelief.She may not even have left her room after arriving there at midnight,but at least the midnight visitor might more resemble Barnett. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1401
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 2:21 pm: | |
Beautifully put Nats!
AND I hate to say that I agree with you Dan when you say she (Mary!) is over romantised!
Nats I agree about the girls and will still say that my heart lies with Kate,Annie and Pol in that order! Interesting as Liz is I just cannot include her tho!
Although the lovely(!) Pol Annie and Kate were off out earning enough for the bed on their fateful days ..Mary wasn't! Apart from the 6d line and of course we only have Hutch on that quote!!! Interesting as she is ....she doesn't seem to have been making a deal of effort to get it seeming to think that 'somehow' all would be well....aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh heres the Mc Carthy connection again!
Curiouser and Curiouser! said Alice!
Cheers
Suzi
!
Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do!
Jean Paul Sartre |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 5:08 pm: | |
Hi Suzi and thanks for what you said in your post.Yes I agree that there is something that is
rather curious about the case of Mary Kelly.Particularly where Macarthy comes in.There is a previous link to a Macarthy in her Radcliffe
Way lodgings and the curious and unusual rent arrears for Millers Court[when everyone else had to pay Mrs Macarthy on the day].She is even reputed to have told one of her friends she had a "relative" on the stage-and we know for a fact that John Macarthy had half his family on the stage eventually[through his friendship with Marie Lloyd?].And finally there is the fact that he let the police break the door in when he would surely have had a spare key somewhere?Oh and he and his wife are both buried near to Mary Kelly"s grave.
Doesnt help much but its certainly is curious as you rightly say!
But there are one or two strange things about Kate Eddowes too.Where was she that afternoon when she got so drunk and how did she come by the money for it since she left her lodgings flat broke.Did she seek out someone she knew would help her with money-for example the religious man who a friend of hers said had promised to help her with money if she would mend her ways?That was only the previous week[if it actually happened ofcourse and you can believe what the friend said].Also where was she between the time she left the Bishopsgate police station 1am- and 1.30 when she was seen by Lawende and co?It didnt take her half an hour to get from there to Mitre Square less than 10 minutes I would have thought.Maybe she was busy spinning the ripper some yarn or had she met him elsewhere and they headed back there?
Cheers Suzi
Nats |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Hi Nats
God! Art teachers reunited eh!
Right I hate say it! THERE!There seems to be no doubt however that here is some form of connection between Mary and the Mc Carthy clan!
As to Kate! ooooh God I agree with your story its soooooooooo true!Where did she go that afternoon and get the money for a fire engine!
Some money these days!
The Lawende has a certain charm about it tho the hand on the chest etc etc...feel a painting coming on on that on from the view of Mr Lawende and his chums tho
xx Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1182
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 5:56 pm: | |
Hi Suzi-yes-sounds like a great scenario to capture.I"ve just finished one on Whitechapel High Street-where they have the market stalls [and had them too in 1888].Its a contemporary scene set next to the statue next to the sari centre where they had the wax replicas of the victims[how ghastly!]in 1888.Same shop fronts.
Anyway Suzi really looking forward to seeing
your painting on the above!
Natsxxx |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Hi Nats!
thanks for that...have got some of my modern day pics of Mitre Sq out and want to try and superimpose the image of Kate with the hand on the chest which I think is lovely and so tender.. on top of it in some way hmmmmmmmmam.. thinking about that.
Love the idea of yours! hey! we must get that bhurka shop in Brick lane in somewhere!
Know what you mean theres a lot thats the same if you look closely enough
!
Suzi xxxx failing that we all sit here and have a think about it!!!! x
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 5:58 am: | |
That sounds like something really really good.I have done one of Kate WITH the ripper!!!Trouble is they both look like film stars and as as Dave Flaherty points out its so easy to romanticise them.The ripper is your charming slime-ball[which he may have been if he wasnt mentally ill]and the portrait of Kate is copied from the mortuary photo
which gives her a rather pinched but Audrey Hepburn type face!!!Oh well.I will post both these in a week or two.Once again,this idea of yours sounds very interesting and may even enable us to visualise other possible clues to the murder.
Natsxxxxxx |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3178
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 7:00 am: | |
Suzi and Natalie, I'm looking forward to seeing your paintings.
Robert |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your remarks. I realise that my ideas may not be correct and that claiming something is fact when it can not be proven beyond doubt is dangerouse and may lead some down the wrong path. What are the facts. Was Mary a ripper victim? I believe she was. Can I Prove this beyound all doubt? No, I can not but you can debate almost any theory and discredit almost any witness and who knows for sure how many women the ripper killed or just who were is victims. I doubt that anyone will be able to prove beyound doubt any of this mystery and the debate will go on. The fact that the detectives that work the case believed Kelly to be a ripper victim tends to sway me in that direction. Did they know for certain? Who knows but I have not come across one detective that doubted Kelly was a ripper victim. Mcnaughton was certain she was a victim. Swanson and Anderson as well and Swanson and Anderson claimed to know the identity of the ripper. They did not solve the case so I can believe that maybe they were wrong in some there conclusions. However there is not enough evidence to suggest that Kelly was not a ripper victim. You have suggested that some ripperologist get of the wrong track when they assume that Mary was a ripper victim. This may eventually be proven true by people like yourself but again when turned around and one may suggest that people get of on the wrong track when they assume that Kelly was not a ripper victim. This has led to countless theories from Barnett killed her to she herself staged her own death. I tend to agree that Mary has been more romantisised then the other victims and partly because of the cinima were the royal conspiracy is force fed to the puplic and Mary Kelly is seen as more of a tragic figure rather then what she was an Eastend unfortunate who picked up the wrong man or for the sake of argument was murderd by Jack the ripper.
Take care,CB |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 6:15 am: | |
Hi.
'If it was not for the kelly woman , none of these murders would have happened'
That statement that came from a nun of the holy order, and was told on national TV, by a nun of the holy order.
It is of paramount importance.
If someone was after Mary Kelly, why would they kill five other women before.
Suggestions.
a] the killer wanted her to be scared out of her wits for his sadistic pleasure.
b] it was to create a homicidal maniac scenerio, so that a motive could be hidden.
One of those suggestions i feel is right.
Regards Richard. |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 96
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Richard-
Just because a nun says something doesn't make it true. A nun can be mistaken just like anyone else.
I have a really hard time with the idea that the other victims were killed to scare Kelly and here's why: if someone wanted to scare her by killing other prostitutes, fine. But by killing them in THAT WAY? The man who did that had to have already been a mutilator. You don't just do what was done to Chapman and Eddowes if you're not already "sexually insane".A normal guy who's trying to disuade his girlfriend from prostitution might strangle, cosh, even cut throats, but it's a giant step between that and genital mutilation. See what I mean?
So, positing that the others were killed as a warning to Kelly just doesn't add up for me.
Happy Columbus Day!! ( A big deal for us Italian-Americans)
Mags |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 4:19 am: | |
Hi Maria,
It has proberly been noted on these boards, that i take notice of hearsay, or oral history.
The nuns interview on BBC Television, was obviously encouraged as it gave some credence to the theory of conspiracy.
I Accept people can make mistakes when recollecting the past, however, the discussion in 1915 over the local murders between the nuns did make that strange statement by a sister who was present just yards from the millers court murder at that time.
She must have had cause to form that opinion, mayby it was local opinion after the murder?.
The way i sum it up is 'If the killer was only after Kelly, why did he take so long to trace her, and why kill the others?
It has to be [if the nuns observation is right]one of two answers.
1] The killer wanted to frighten Kelly to death, before finishing her off.
2] The motive was to create a homicidal maniac in the mists of whitechapel, so that her death could look like she fell victim to that person.
That scenerio would therefore hide a more obvious motive, such as jealousy, or contempt for her immoral ways.
The reason i suspect Barnett and made him 'Number one suspect' on these boards is to a point because of hearsay, but it is most likely accurate hearsay.
The Grave spitting incident, the hutchinsons remark'Oh I have lost my hankerchief'[ which kelly was alleged to have spoken]
Maxwells remark 'Her eyes looked queer , as if suffering from a heavy cold'
The amazing coincidences that Barnett left her on the 30th day , and she was killed on the 9th day, and she was killed on the 9th , the same day as he and kelly started to live together, also he started to live with her on the 9th , and left her on the 30th, she had a nightmare whilst in the very bed that she was killed that she was being killed, which Barnett would have known about.
The press cuttings that Barnett was reported to have kept, start from the Tabram murder, yet the actual series did not start for weeks later, how would someone know that the Tabram murder was going to be significant? unless.
A point has been made to discredit that in saying . why did Barnett collect McKensie;s clippings.
Answer .he was fascinated to have another murder refering to the others, exspecially as he was not the killer.
That is why i consider hearsay important, if it sways heavily on common sense.
Regards Richard. |
Marisa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Well, based upon what I know of serial killer psychology, the killer of the victims had to have been out of his mind. I doubt he chose Mary Kelly for any reason other than she was a prostitute -- randomly chosen, as were the others.
One is not born a serial killer. One is made one through years of systematic abuse or trauma. Whatever Jacky's case was, he was clearly made insane, and enough so to kill (and then mutilate the genitals of) his victims. The sexual anger he felt is made clear in the removal or tearing apart of all the aspects that made his victims female or feminine -- breasts, uterus, face, whatever. When a serial killer finally commits his first murder, it is because the fantasies he's had about committing such acts are no longer enough. In order to satisfy themselves, they must actually go through with the killings.
But it doesn't end there. Once realizing the power of their own actions, they must keep doing it in order to quell their lust for blood. As Jack's tearing apart of his victims grew progressively worse, it reflects the increasing amount of mutilation required to satisfy him.
My bet is that no normal human being, regardless of how determined or convicted they are, can bring themselves to inflict so horrifying an amount of harm to another person so that they barely resemble one anymore. Jack The Ripper shows all the signs of typical serial killers in my book, and he didn't need more of a reason than that to do the things he did.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I do not believe that a person who just wanted to kill Kelly would have to invent a homicidal maniac scenario. Why risk it? He could have been caught. Why not just kill Kelly? She was in a dangerous profesion. Why bring so much atention to the crimes? If you intended to kill Mary then you may not want to scare her of the streets.
I agree with Maria. I do not believe the murders were commited because the ripper wanted to scare Kelly of the streets.
I believe the nun story is just one of the thousands of ripper stories that were spread. I do not doubt that the nun believed Kelly was to blame for the murders but I think she was just telling a story she had heard.
If I had to believe a scenario were Kelly was the cause of the ripper murders then I would support the idea that Joe killed the prostitutes not because he wanted to scare Kelly of the streets but because he was crazy and the murders of the women were commited because he was lashing out at Kelly. According to inspector Dew Kelly was planning on leaving and that may have triggerd Joe to just give up and kill her.
The interesting thing about the Kelly murder is it was the first weekend that she was alone after Joe moved out. [I believe.] This may indicate that her killer was aware of her situation and moved when he had the first chance.
Your friend,CB |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 331
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
Hi there Glenn,
Since I went on a holiday for a couple of weeks at the beginning of September and afterwards I still had problems with the internet I haven’t been able to react to some of the comments you made in a discussion you had with Thomas Wescott round that time. Fortunately, my nephew, who has just turned 14, has finally solved that problem for me.
Tom wrote: “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."
You replied: “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.”
I’m not sure if it’s really all there to read. Some of it certainly is, but not all. For instance, no report or post-mortem notes by Dr Philips in Annie Chapman’s case exist today, nor does the official record of the inquest depositions in her case. Furthermore, some of the things we know today have only been established or put forward as ideas in recent years with so many years of hindsight. The other day I read a post by Jon Smyth who wonders why “not one account appears to consider how on earth the killer got them (his victims) on the ground.” To him it seems that many of the officials working on the cases weren’t aware of the sequence of events. I think he’s right and we mustn’t forget such things.
So, just to see what the doctors and police officers actually did state I’ve dug into the sources I have at my disposal, which are The Complete History by Sugden, The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner, JtR An Encyclopaedia by Eddleston and this site and this is what I could find.
In Nichols’ case the quantity of blood near her neck is referred to by Dr Llewellyn as ‘very little blood’ and to constable Thain it appeared to be a large quantity, although he did mention the pool was only about 6 inches in diameter. Some blood had run towards the gutter. The clothes on Nichols’ backside, possibly as far down as her waist had also absorbed blood. Perhaps surprisingly, Dr Llewellyn was inclined to think that the wounds to the abdomen were inflicted before the cut to the throat and that they had caused immediate death, something Coroner Baxter doubted (not the immediate-death part, but the part about the abdominal wounds having been inflicted first).
Although only the neck area of her clothes had absorbed blood, the quantity of blood above Chapman’s left shoulder was referred to by several people as ‘large’, not as ‘small’, and was documented as such. For instance, Coroner Baxter talked about “the great loss of blood”. Unfortunately today, there’s no documented estimation of how large this quantity was. There were also patches of blood on the back wall of the house and patches and smears of it on the wooden fence, all close to her head. The black jacket she wore bore only two or three spots of blood on the left arm.
Dr Brown’s sketch of Eddowes on the crime scene shows pools of blood on each side of her neck and supports his written statement as well as Inspector Collard’s. From these statements combined with the official list of her clothes it can be safely concluded that the two pools were actually only one as they were connected by blood under the head and neck. There was no spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. If the sketch is any accurate, it certainly doesn’t seem like a particularly small pool compared to the 2 feet square pool found at Kelly’s crime scene. In addition, the clothes on Eddowes’ backside as far down as her waist had absorbed what appears to be quite a deal of blood.
In Kelly’s case the palliasse, pillow and sheet at the top right hand corner of the bed were saturated with blood, blood had hit the wall close to where Kelly’s head had lain in several splashes and there was a 2 ft square pool under her bed. I’m not saying this wasn’t a great deal of blood, but what I am saying is that the spillage of blood on Mitre Square can hardly be qualified as ‘little’, let alone ‘very little’, compared to Kelly’s case. Furthermore, the Kelly crime scene wasn’t a blood bath in the sense that blood was everywhere. No bloody foot, finger or palm prints, streams or smears of blood were reported to have been found anywhere.
According to Dr Bond’s profile Kelly’s killer “must have attacked from in front or from the left, as there would be no room for him between the wall and the part of the bed on which the woman was lying”. Dr Philips deposed that he was “sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition,…”
It wasn’t until Eddowes’ case that the doctors involved stated that they were of the opinion that there shouldn’t necessarily be much blood on the murderer. This was also the view held by Dr Bond, who ‘profiled’ the murderer after Mary Jane Kelly was killed and after he had read the notes of the 4 (canonical) cases prior to Kelly. In other words, the (recorded and surviving) medical view on this wasn’t changed because of Kelly.
All in all, based on the sources I have at my disposal I wouldn’t say that 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. Things are not as clear-cut like you seem to be saying, to say the least. What was only indirectly stated is that in all of the canonical cases except for perhaps Nichols the killer had cut the throats of his victims in such a way that the flow or spray of blood was directed away from him and that (except of course in Stride’s case) the mutilations were done after death. Like I said, according to the surviving documentation there were doubts about Nichols in this regard. Only between the lines it can be read that this is why the murderer didn’t necessarily get much blood on him.
What I think is important in this regard, is that according to Dr Bond in Kelly’s case the murderer cut her throat in such a way that he would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood. Furthermore, the fact that he moved his victim away from the bloody corner of the bed after he had cut her throat may have been exactly for the purpose of not getting blood on him.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2170
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
Hi CB,
"I do not believe that a person who just wanted to kill Kelly would have to invent a homicidal maniac scenario. Why risk it? He could have been caught. Why not just kill Kelly?"
The answer is simple:
In practically all domestic murder cases, the first number one suspect -- that the police focuses their investigation on -- is the closest male relative. This is the first person to be suspected and to be investigated.
If he murdered Kelly -- I said if -- and not was Jack the Ripper, the Ripper murders would be very convenient for him, in order for them not to lay to much focus on himself, but on the Ripper instead.
If he hadn't performed this mutilation act a la the Ripper, he would most certainly have got caught, considering their quarrel and the nature of their relation. So it would actually have been more risky for him NOT to do so.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2171
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
I know all this, but I interpret it completely differently, and I can't say I agree with you.
According to the documents, there is no account whatsoever -- maybe except from Chapman -- that mentions any spray of blood on the premises. Take a look at the photo again from Miller's Court, Frank; this is hundred miles away from the nature of the descriptions of the other crime scenes.
Furthermore, we're not talking just amount of blood here, but also the nature of the mutilations themselves. From the descriptions, the mutilations on the other victims seem to be performed in a deliberate fashion, after a certain scheme, while the mutilations in Miller's Court has more of a butcher character, where she's practically sliced all over the place. Some explain this by saying, that it was done indoors and he had more time, or that it is a result of progression.
I'm sorry but I don't buy it. What we see in Miller's Court is not in my view a serial killer that has gotten more daring, but a mutilating killer that is sloppy and inexperienced.
Although there are similarities in the body pose and some placings of some of the organs, the scene in Miller's Court shows a killer with a different kind of approach, not only in terms of the mutilations, but also in the way he attacked his victim.
Now, I have said thousand times over, that I am not sure of anything -- therefore I think remarks like "clear-cut" is unnecessary -- but I do have my doubts about the whole thing as a Ripper work, and I am entitled to express it. I could be wrong, though, and I can accept that -- this is an old case, where we have very few evidence to consider and practically no physical evidence at all, and it would be stupid to claim that this and that is certain and cler-cut. That would be suicide.
But I am not the first person to suggest this, and I just can't rest with the thought of accepting this a Ripper murder straight off, where other people seem totally dismissive of considering other alternatives (in a very pragmatic way, to say the least).
In Mary Jane Kelly's case we actually have a true and credible suspect, and it would NOT be the first and last time these kind of domestic murders involving massive mutilations have occurred.
All the best
Glenn L. Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2172
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 6:07 pm: | |
Now, let me just add:
The reasons why I am suggesting Barnett in this context, is based on three things:
-- The stormy nature of their relationship. True, most witnesses indicated that they he and Kelly had sorted things out at the time of the murder, but I think it would be a mistake to rely too heavily on other people's opinions in this situation. In cases of domestic violence, most people have no idea what really goes on indoors.
It was also said by one person (I don't remember who) that she loathed Barnett and couldn't stand the sight of him. I think that should be taken into account, true or not, since it shows that things may not have been all bed of roses after all.
-- Barnett knew the premises and how to get into it and how the door etc. worked. He had access to the place and no one would be particulary suspicious if they saw him hanging about or came out of the room.
-- The things I said in the previous post, namely the fact that these types of crimes quite often reveal that they were performed by someone who was close to the victim. The police knows this very well, and that is the reason why they always investigate and question these individuals first.
THEN:
There are also problems. One such problem is, for example, Barnetts alleged alibi. In other threads good attempts and great arguments have been made in order to clarify it, and of course this must be considered. The so called alibi can't be overlooked or totally dismissed, although it remains a grey area.
On the other hand, it is not bullet-proof and totally satisfactory either, and the fact that it's practically impossible today to straighten it out and look at its true validity, creates a problem in both directions.
Another problem is Barnett's mental state and the lack of accounts ever showing he had a violent history. This must of course also be considered. If Barnett was completely sane, could he actually manage to perform these kind of mutilations on someone who was close to him?
Well, unfortunately it has happened in crime history, also in cases just as old or older than Jack the Ripper. The problem here is that we know too little about Barnett in order to draw any conclusions in either direction.
Since both his alibi and his psychology very much remains question marks, I prefer to keep an open mind about his role in the whole thing, and consider him a possible suspect in Mary jane Kelly's murder.
If Barnett could be ruled out completely, I would be less inclined to hesitate about Jack's involvement (although Hutchinson will always remain a dark horse in this story).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 333
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 6:54 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
“Now, I have said thousand times over, that I am not sure of anything -- therefore I think remarks like "clear-cut" is unnecessary -- but I do have my doubts about the whole thing as a Ripper work, and I am entitled to express it.”
When I was talking about ‘clear-cut’, I was only referring to your reply to Tom Wescott, not to your complete view on the matter, that’s all. And you’re certainly entitled to your opinion and to express it - I never said you weren’t and I never will. It’s just that you sometimes have a very strong opinion, which you express in a rather ‘black and white’ fashion, if you will, that makes me react.
Although I do agree the murderer had a different kind of approach (he killed indoors and only started his attack when his victim was already lying down), which may well have been the result of someone other than the Ripper having killed Kelly, to me – at the moment – it seems more likely that the Ripper did the deed than Barnett. Of course, this depends on how you interpret the available info and we seem to be a 'hundred miles' apart in that department, so we’ll just leave it at that.
Take care,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 334
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 7:50 pm: | |
Hi again Glenn,
Just so you know, I hadn’t read your post on Barnett yet before I wrote and posted my previous post. Good post.
Some additional things I think are a bit problematic are:
- I don’t know if Mary Jane Kelly would have presented herself naked to Barnett again given the situation (he probably wanted her back, while she didn’t seem to want him back)
- If they were intimate, it seems strange that he would have wanted to kill her. There seems to have been no reason anymore.
- If he did kill her, something must have happened that night that made him decide to do so. If this was during his visit the evening before her death, why didn’t he kill her then?
- If he killed her, it’s more likely that he did it premeditatedly than in a rush, for why else would he have gone over to her somewhere during the late hours of the night? Besides, killing her on impulse, during a fight, would probably have caused a struggle and probably would have awakened at least Elisabeth Prater.
- The only time he could have snuck in without anybody seeing him would be after Hutchinson had left his vigil and – if he really existed - after the man he saw in Kelly’s company had left her room. How would Barnett have known when to find Mary alone?
All these things don’t mean that Barnett couldn’t have done it, but for now I think they don’t make it any easier to believe that he did.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 335
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 7:59 pm: | |
By the way, Glenn, if I don’t ‘see’ you again until after Tuesday: congrats and have a good one!
Frank
|
Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 25
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 9:06 pm: | |
Hi all,
I guess this is where I ought to start my rethinking about Mary Kelly..
As I mentioned on the Catherine Eddowes thread, Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim has always been a 'grey' area for me. However, I am beginning to see some similarities in the mutilations that both suffered to their faces. I just hadn't connected the two before.
I'm hoping that some of you good people out there will help me to get things into perspective.
Just out of curiosity, what is the general concensus about Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim?
Having disregarded, for many years, the "Jack was behind closed doors, had more time.." thought, I am now finding myself wondering whether that might in fact be the case.
(God, I hope I'm not boring you with my rambling thoughts! Forgive me!)
Well, eager to hear other thoughts..
Bestest,
Lyn |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2173
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 9:51 pm: | |
Hi again, Frank,
and thank you very much (I'm assuming you're referring to my birthday on Tuesday)
Now some comments:
-- I don’t know if Mary Jane Kelly would have presented herself naked to Barnett again given the situation (he probably wanted her back, while she didn’t seem to want him back)
Well, I don't see this as too much of a problem; Firstly, as I understand she wasn't naked, but wore a chemise
Secondly, she was a prostitute -- if she could show herself naked to known or unknown customers, why couldn't she show herself half-dressed or naked to Barnett? I fail to see why the situation would be significant, taking this in consideration. Furthermore, the perpetrator was probably surprising her, either by waking her up or while she was undressing (the latter, though, would point more to a customer than Barnett).
Besides, even though they had fallen out, Barnett obviously would bring her money on occasion, so it wouldn't be that strange for her to let him in; she had done so earlier.
"-- If they were intimate, it seems strange that he would have wanted to kill her."
Well, firstly: they were NOT intimate anymore at this point, as I understand from the witness testimony.
Secondly: No, it wouldn't be strange at all. He could have killed her for a number of reasons; I could give you several cases where husbands or boyfriends have committed this act anyway.
But since they probably weren't intimate at this point, and it's possible Barnett may have been angry and frustrated, this is really not a problematic point. But here we're talking wide speculations of course.
"-- If he did kill her, something must have happened that night that made him decide to do so. If this was during his visit the evening before her death, why didn’t he kill her then?"
Well, wasn't there a third person in the room as well (one of Mary Kelly's friends) at that particular time, or am I mistaken...?
But if it was Barnett, I suspect something happened that night when the murder occurred; I don't think it would have been built up or planned. (once again: speculation, of course)
"- If he killed her, it’s more likely that he did it premeditatedly than in a rush, for why else would he have gone over to her somewhere during the late hours of the night? Besides, killing her on impulse, during a fight, would probably have caused a struggle and probably would have awakened at least Elisabeth Prater."
The first part of your question is a good point and could be a valid reason for why it could be premeditated. Although it's hard to tell. We can't possibly know why Barnett went there in the middle of the night. Maybe just to talk to her and desperately persuade her one more time to scrap the life of a prostitute or her plans of letting out the room to her collegues? Once again, speculation... but there could be a million of reasons.
Besides, I think there are some possible indications of a struggle. The wounds on her arms and hands COULD be defense wounds, but once again we can't say for sure. Furthermore, there is the cry of "Murder!", and apparently Prater didn't take much notice in that.
"-- The only time he could have snuck in without anybody seeing him would be after Hutchinson had left his vigil and – if he really existed - after the man he saw in Kelly’s company had left her room. How would Barnett have known when to find Mary alone?"
Beats the hell out of me, Frank. That is probably the trickiest part, as far as I am concerned. But that goes for any killer, not just Barnett. The only client she was seen with was Mr Beer Can. We know (well, at least it is fair to assume) that Hutchinson really was there, but can we be sure of exactly how long he was there and who really entered the court and when, based on witness interviews over a hundred years ago? I am not sure. The time lines and the movements of people in the court that night seems a bit uncertain. Note also that one of the witnesses heard foot-steps in the yard at some point.
Of course, Barnett would have been lucky to fit in there between all the traffic, that's true, but stranger things have happened.
So what does it mean? That Hutchinson might in fact be the perpetrator of Kelly? Hm. I actually don't know.
Best to you as well, my friend.
Glenn L Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2174
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:00 pm: | |
Hi Lindsey,
"I guess this is where I ought to start my rethinking about Mary Kelly.."
Tell me about it. Although I am occasionally stressing the point that she may not have been a Ripper victim, my own feelings and opinions about this swings back and forth now and then.
But I still think her murder is a grey area, although I am not convinced either way.
"However, I am beginning to see some similarities in the mutilations that both suffered to their faces. I just hadn't connected the two before."
Well, I don't see that much of similarities in this and never have. The kind of mutilations that were done on Kelly is -- based on other similar cases -- generally performed to depersonalise the victim and hide her identity.
In Eddowes I only see some occasional carving with the knife, but hardly depersonalisation.
Many see this connection as the facial mutilations on Kelly representing the next stage in a progressing mutilation method, but I am not prepared to buy this first hand.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 5:46 am: | |
Happy Birthday Glenn!!!!
Some great points being made here....some serious reading and re-thinking going on here too!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3345
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
Blimey, is it Glenn's birthday? Enjoy yourself Glenn.
I see from your profile you'll be 39. I should watch out, Glenn - Richard will have you in the frame for the murders. 
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2175
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 6:35 am: | |
Hey guys!
Thank you so much, guys -- you are so nice -- but save the cakes and the fanfares a bit longer. It's not until tomorrow, really.
Aaaaaah, Robert. 
Does this mean I have to go into hiding?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
One bit of evidence which seems to create a tie between Eddowes and Kelly is the hacking away at Eddowes liver. Kelly was the only one who had her heart removed, and it was done by tunnelling upward from the abdominal cavity. He had to get the liver out of the way and portions of the stomach. Then he had to remove or cut through (I don't think we are told) the diaphragm. Then the parietal pericardium, moving some of the lungs out of his way, although being off to the side they would have created only a partial obstruction. Nevertheless we are told there was some damage to one lung. The damage to the stomach, the removal of the liver and the damage to one lung all had only one objective: access to the heart. The fact that Eddowes liver was stabbed and hacked at shows that he was already thinking about how he would accomplish this. I think it was a progression. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2177
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
Good point, Diana.
Although I am doubtful.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
My dear Glenn
I would - as an admirer - strongly recommend that you remove the little quote you have taken to placing under your posts.
For this is exactly the phrase commonly used by the tired old whores at Frankfurt Bahnhof when dealing with an auslander customer.
alles gut zum geburtstag. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2179
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
AP, I'm almost afraid to ask... but how do you know?
Nah, it'll be up there for a while, and then I'm planning to swap it with some other crazy stuff.
You know what they say... interpretation is a subjective process...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 01, 2004)
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 527
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hi Dianna,
Interesting idea, and one I've not seen before. Certainly something to consider.
OH, and by the way,
Happy Birthday Glenn! It's tomorrow where I am!
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2180
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Thanks, Jeff!
It's tomorrow also where I am; here it is still only November 1st, 10:00 p.m.
But thanks anyway -- very nice of you indeed.
All the best
Glenn
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 528
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Sorry Glenn,
I meant it is your tomorrow here in New Zealand today! Today, for me, it's Nov. 2nd, 10:15 am.
- Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Glenn!!!!!!!!!
Hold the Herr Lipp for a bit at least!....after that theres a lot more League of Gentlemen ones to substitute!!!!!..After all this is 'A Local thread for Local people!' heeeeeeehee last time I looked it was still 1.11.04 here too!!!!!!
Have a good one eh!
Cheers
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2182
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Uuuuh... "a local thread for local people".
Rats, Suzi, why didn't I think of that? Good one.
Jeff,
Aha OK. It is so incredibly confusing with all these global time warps.
All the best
Glenn
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Glenn!
I LOVE THAT PHRASE! and soooooo pertinant here too!!!!!!! he he! Have a good one 'eh!
Cheers
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 336
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2004 - 7:44 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yes, I was referring to your birthday in my last post. I see a whole thread is devoted to it now! I hope you had a great day and wish you the best for the 40th year of your life!
Late last Sunday I penned down those ‘probable restrictions’ in quite a rush and it seems that I’ve not been able to really make a point. So now, with a clearer mind, I’m going to try again.
I don’t think it’s likely that Joe and Mary Jane would have ended up together in her bed, neither as a result of her profession, nor as a result of them having decided to give their relationship another try, even if that was just for the moment. However, in the unlikely event that they did decide to get back together again, Barnett’s reason for being angry and frustrated would have been gone and consequently, he would have had no reason for killing her anymore, not at that point at least.
In case Barnett did murder Kelly, I think it’s unlikely too that he killed her on impulse, as a result of something suddenly snapping inside his head. Because why would he have wanted to visit her in the middle of the night after having gone to bed already at about 12:30 a.m.? If he did, he must not have gotten out until about 2 a.m. at the earliest (I’m assuming here that Hutchinson did see Kelly at about that time), at which time the common lodging he was staying at may already well have been closed. Besides probably just seeing her, the main reason for his visits to Kelly seems to have been to give her money. If he wanted to give her some money that night, which he might have won in the game of whist, why didn’t he go visit her right after his card game? If the reason for visiting her was so important that it couldn’t wait until the next morning, then why waste time playing a game of whist at all? If he didn’t plan killing her, this just doesn’t make sense at all.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2193
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2004 - 8:42 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
Thank you for the greetings.
Now, if I may retort, I think you're make a mistake when you take for granted that people think and act in a way that "makes sense". Because that is unfortunately not the case; people are more unpredictable than we sometimes realise.
We can't possibly analyse Barnett's (or any other person's) state of mind or which actions he may or may not have done in a case that's over 100 years old, where we only have more or less credible witness testimonies to rely on. It is just plain impossible and leads only to speculations.
I can't with all the will in the world understand why Kelly couldn't have shown herself in a chemise in front of Barnett. Why not? She had known him for a long time, they had been intimate in the past, she was probably not prudish (she was after all a prostitute) etc. I simply don't get this point.
I have never suggested that Kelly and Barnett may have ended up in bed together or been intimate at this point -- there is nothing at the crime scene that proves that the victim had or was about to have sex with her killer.
As can be clearly seen on the photo, Mary Kelly was not naked, but was wearing a chemise. Either she was murdered by a customer while half undressed (and possibly about to have sex or already had had sex, although there really is no evidence of neither), or she was simply murdered by someone she knew, who might have woken her up after she had gone to bed.
Although I can't rule any option out, I personally believe in the latter. The room was incredibly small, so the fact that she found on the bed doesen't automatically mean that the attack started in bed. She could just simply have fallen on the bed during the struggle and then the actual throat-cutting and mutilations began.
Of course we don't know what kind of undergarments she wore when she had clients, but the chemise is probably one of the best indicators on that she knew her killer, which on the other hand doesen't necessarily imply that she was involved in a sexual act. She could have just simply worn it because she had gone to sleep!
The cuts on her arms and hands are typical of those we see as defense marks on other knife victims of similar domestic character, and the cry "Oh murder!" (if it did derive from Mary Kelly) also supports the theory that a short struggle may have occurred before she was killed -- she was at least not taken by such quick surprise and made unconcious before death as the other Ripper victims. I don't think the Ripper would have had the guts to confront and attack her in a way that made it possible for her to defend herself (based on the knowledge we have of the type of killer I think he was). Therefore she could just as well have had a visitor, who had woken her up and then murdered her when she let her guard down.
This is what the crime scene tells and the crime scene also tells me that she trusted and knew her offender. And this is usually the case in other similar mutilation murders taking place on domestic scenes. Miller's Court is a perfect example of this type of crime scene and almost identical to some cases of this nature.
But to speculate why the perpetrator went there in the middle of the night or how he acted (besides what we can read from the evidence) is totally impossible after over 100 years. Just as impossible to value the relevancy of Barnett's "alibi".
All the best
Glenn L. Andersson, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 337
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
You wrote: ”Now, if I may retort, I think you're make a mistake when you take for granted that people think and act in a way that "makes sense”. … It is just plain impossible and leads only to speculations.”
I don’t take anything for granted. Even if something seems likely or unlikely to me, that doesn’t make it true or untrue and I’m aware of that. But as at present we don’t have enough information at our disposal and consequently there are too many gaps in every aspect of this whole case, speculations are all we have to try and fill these gaps.
“I can't with all the will in the world understand why Kelly couldn't have shown herself in a chemise in front of Barnett. Why not? She had known him for a long time, they had been intimate in the past, she was probably not prudish (she was after all a prostitute) etc. I simply don't get this point.”
In my last post I’ve done no attempt whatsoever to make this point. In fact, I didn’t even say anything about Kelly not having wanted to show herself nearly naked to her former lover. Whether she did or didn’t doesn’t matter because my point is that even if Kelly would not have minded undressing herself in Barnett’s presence just like that, it seems quite unlikely that Barnett would have wanted to pay her in exchange for sex in the first place, and as a result would have ended up in bed with her. This would certainly seem unlikely when he didn’t plan killing her - if he did. Speculations? Sure, however, they are based on what we know about him on the subject.
Likewise, it seems unlikely that this couple would have gone to bed together as a result of them having decided to get back together again. Kelly was still living the immoral life Barnett left her for and besides, according to Julia Venturney Kelly had told her she was fond of another man.
”I have never suggested that Kelly and Barnett may have ended up in bed together or been intimate at this point -- there is nothing at the crime scene that proves that the victim had or was about to have sex with her killer.”
I never said you did. You made a list of pros and cons for Barnett as a suspect for Kelly’s murder and I added some points that I see as ‘restrictions’, if you will, regarding Barnett.
My point has absolutely nothing to do with trying to prove or disprove that Kelly had or was about to have sex, but everything with the fact that she was lying in bed with only her chemise on when she was attacked, and on the fact that the defence wounds (incision in right thumb and abrasions on same hand) and the possible (single) cry of murder imply that Mary Jane realized what was going to happen only (split) seconds before she was actually attacked. As, other than the defence wounds and the possible cry, there appeared to be no signs of a struggle according to the documentation, she had to be in bed when his attack started and he had to be very close to her, at striking distance.
From this starting point (Kelly lying in bed with him very close to her) I tried to look for situations in which Barnett could have been in bed with her and found the two situations I mentioned unlikely ones to have occurred.
“Either she was murdered by a customer while half undressed (and possibly about to have sex or already had had sex, although there really is no evidence of neither), or she was simply murdered by someone she knew, who might have woken her up after she had gone to bed. Although I can't rule any option out, I personally believe in the latter.”
Now this is something I can agree with, although I do think that the person in the latter situation needn’t have been Barnett, it could also have been the Ripper. In Chapman’s case the Ripper accompanied his victim into the back yard of a house crowded with 17 people, who - like the sun - were just about to rise. Albert Cadosch even walked by twice behind the fence when he was probably in the process of killing her. These things didn’t stop him. Regardless of whether this was cool and daring or plain mad, entering Kelly’s room while she was asleep doesn’t seem to be out of character with this behaviour shown in Chapman’s case.
”The room was incredibly small, so the fact that she was found on the bed doesn't automatically mean that the attack started in bed. She could just simply have fallen on the bed during the struggle and then the actual throat-cutting and mutilations began.”
Possible? Yes. Likely? No, not in my view. I would at least have expected more and more distinct defence wounds.
”Of course we don't know what kind of undergarments she wore when she had clients, but the chemise is probably one of the best indicators on that she knew her killer…”
I don’t see how the chemise would indicate that she knew her killer. The chemise may show that she had been with a customer, who killed her, or that her killer entered her room while she was already in bed and probably asleep. It isn’t impossible at all that the Ripper was either this customer or the one who entered her room while she was asleep (regarding the last part, the same goes for Barnett).
“The cuts on her arms and hands are typical of those we see as defense marks on other knife victims of similar domestic character,…”
Just some information: according to a co-poster on these boards, Candy Morgan, who seems to have some medical back ground, the only defence wounds would have been the incision in the right thumb and the abrasions on the back of her right hand, because – despite the massive number of other injuries - Dr Bond specifically mentioned these wounds to have shown extravasation, which means that these wounds were inflicted when Kelly was still alive.
This is one of the things that lead me to believe, like I said above, that Kelly’s killer must have been very close to her when he started his knife attack.
“I don't think the Ripper would have had the guts to confront and attack her in a way that made it possible for her to defend herself (based on the knowledge we have of the type of killer I think he was).”
I don’t know what the Ripper would or wouldn’t have the guts to do. That is simply impossible to determine. If he killed her, it may also have been the result of him being confronted with a situation that is new to him: she’s already lying down when he still has to attack, but she isn’t unconscious or dead already.
”This is what the crime scene tells and the crime scene also tells me that she trusted and knew her offender.”
This is your interpretation of what the crime scene might tell and that’s fine. I agree that it’s possible that Barnett killed Kelly, but I don’t see clear signs of her having known and trusted her assailant, which by the way doesn’t mean that she didn’t know and trust him.
“And this is usually the case in other similar mutilation murders taking place on domestic scenes. Miller's Court is a perfect example of this type of crime scene and almost identical to some cases of this nature.”
I believe what you’re saying, but to my eyes Kelly’s crime scene is an evenly perfect example of what a mutilating serial killer’ crime scenes would look like.
”But to speculate why the perpetrator went there in the middle of the night or how he acted (besides what we can read from the evidence) is totally impossible after over 100 years.”
I didn’t speculate about how perpetrator Barnett acted at all. As for the ‘why’, I simply said it seems unlikely to me and doesn’t make sense at all that he would have done that in case he didn’t kill her premeditatedly. I didn’t say that he couldn’t have. What I only meant to say is that when we look at Barnett as a suspect I think we cannot disregard this and other such ‘restrictions’.
“Just as impossible to value the relevancy of Barnett's "alibi".
I completely agree that it’s impossible for us to determine if his alibi was really sound or not.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2198
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
OK, here we go.
(And I thought the Boards had become dull...)
"my point is that even if Kelly would not have minded undressing herself in Barnett’s presence just like that, it seems quite unlikely that Barnett would have wanted to pay her in exchange for sex in the first place, and as a result would have ended up in bed with her. This would certainly seem unlikely when he didn’t plan killing her - if he did.
Likewise, it seems unlikely that this couple would have gone to bed together as a result of them having decided to get back together again. Kelly was still living the immoral life Barnett left her for and besides, according to Julia Venturney Kelly had told her she was fond of another man."
But once again, you're assuming and totally bases your views on the fact that the one who killed Mary Kelly, Barnett or not, engaged in sex with her or was about to.
I don't! And certainly not if we're talking about Barnett. So we can leave that discussion. I have never taken this scenario you describe into account.
"You made a list of pros and cons for Barnett as a suspect for Kelly’s murder and I added some points that I see as ‘restrictions’, if you will, regarding Barnett."
Yes, but you based them on that they should have been in bed together. I never have.
"... everything with the fact that she was lying in bed with only her chemise on when she was attacked, and on the fact that the defence wounds (incision in right thumb and abrasions on same hand) and the possible (single) cry of murder imply that Mary Jane realized what was going to happen only (split) seconds before she was actually attacked. As, other than the defence wounds and the possible cry, there appeared to be no signs of a struggle according to the documentation, she had to be in bed when his attack started and he had to be very close to her, at striking distance.
[...]
I would at least have expected more and more distinct defence wounds."
I really don't understand this.
It's not like I'm suggesting a wrestling match lasting 30 minutes. How much damage or how long do you mean it has to be in order to be reckoned as a "struggle"?
It would be enough for her to spot the knife, give up a cry of murder, trying to shield herself from the knife a couple of seconds and then falling on the bed while he's attacking forward over her.
This is what I mean by a struggle.
OK, I have looked also at the cuts on her arm, and some of them look totally identical to the ones we can see on other similar victims that has been defending themselves. But OK, I'll trust the medical opinions on this, since I am not a medical expert myself.
In any case, the incision on the thumb and the abrasion (defense wounds doesne't have to be more than this if the attack has been made in sheer surprise)you mention yourself indicate that she was aware of the knife, and I fail to fit this into the scenario of the other Ripper killings.
"This is one of the things that lead me to believe, like I said above, that Kelly’s killer must have been very close to her when he started his knife attack."
This reasoning I just simply can't understand. Naturally he must have been close to her, but why does that leave her lying in bed as the only option?
As far as I know, you can sit and stand close to another person.
If the killer was someone she knew, they could just as well have been standing close to each other near the bed, or sitting close to each other on the bed.
I just don't get this.
"If he killed her, it may also have been the result of him being confronted with a situation that is new to him: she’s already lying down when he still has to attack, but she isn’t unconscious or dead already."
Why? There is really nothing that clearly implies that she was lying down when the attack started. I am not so sure she was attacked in her sleep; but if she was, that would actually be an even stronger indication on that she knew her killer, because that would mean that he knew how to get in there without her noticing.
"I agree that it’s possible that Barnett killed Kelly, but I don’t see clear signs of her having known and trusted her assailant"
No, maybe not clear signs, but there are indications.
"...to my eyes Kelly’s crime scene is an evenly perfect example of what a mutilating serial killer’ crime scenes would look like."
Well, some types of mutilating serial killings, at least, yes. But since this type of crime scene is just as frequent in domestic mutilating murders -- if not more -- we can't that easily disregard that this might be case here, just because Jack the Ripper was on the loose.
As far as the victim knowing her killer is concerned, there are some reasons for why I mainly have focused on Barnett:
-- in domestic cases similar to this it is normally almost without exception the closest male that is the perpetrator;
-- his situation with Kelly; she being determined to continue to prostitute against his will, he having to move out of the room, because she let other prostitute women live there as well etc. etc.
Now, these kind of crimes are usually originating from frustration and a twisted need of controlling the woman. I think Barnett fits quite well.
Then of course, besides that one can't automatically rule out other persons in her immediate circle of aquaintaces, like Hutchinson or Joe Flemming.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
Hi
This is getting a tad convuluted here I think we need to take one thing at a time..
OK
Point One (ish) I dont think that Mary was wearing a 'chemise' ..maybe at some point in her chequered career.. but not at that moment.
That has to be the sheet on that unspeakable bed wrapped around her...but theres another possibly well worn thread here!
Point two (ish)
The man that either Mary let into her room ..or let himself in..assuming Mary was awake was obviously known to her..someone she felt even remotely comfortable(!) with would have sufficed...Now lets assume that they intended to sleep together that night for whatever reason whether for pleasure or gain...Considering the coldness of the night and no doubt the room I doubt Mary would have stripped off!!!! seems a tad unlikely!
Under those rather hideous circumstances I suspect that Mary just lay down with someone she felt easy with and then....it was too late hence the defence wounds which seem to be indefensible!
Just thoughts
Suzi
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2199
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 8:33 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
Dr Bond does state that the body was naked, but I think I agree with Philip Sugden, that a puffed sleeve from an at least undergarment is clearly visible on the shoulder closest to the camera.
Of course, both I and Sugden could be wrong on this point, and if that's the case, it could be significant indeed.
"Under those rather hideous circumstances I suspect that Mary just lay down with someone she felt easy with and then....it was too late hence the defence wounds which seem to be indefensible!"
Yes, but there is still no evidence or reasons to take for granted, that the attack started when she was in bed. Unless she really was naked. If it could firmly verified that she was naked -- yes, then I would find it most likely that the attack initially started in bed as well.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 40
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 11:04 pm: | |
Glenn, Frank and Suzi,
I've looked and looked at that dreadful photo, and simply cannot see a chemise.. if you follow the sheet up from underneath her left thigh, it seems to follow on around her left shoulder. It looks too puffed up to be the sleeve of a chemise.
Anyway, for what it's worth... say Mary picked up her killer that night. She was after money, after all. As a prostitute, I'm guessing that she wouldn't have any inhibitions about getting naked. That 'client' just happened to be Jack.
He attacked her, and she fought him off - defence wounds. He went totally ape - therefore the hidious mutilations.
Guys, I am probably way off the wall with this scenario, but it's what comes to me with my 'rethinking'. Thank you for your understanding
Bestest,
Lyn
(I do however wonder why Carroty and Astrakan didn't come forward to clear themselves - or maybe they did, and I've just been in the dark) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2201
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 11:29 pm: | |
Hi Lyn,
It's quite all right.
I am stressing my points here because I like to play devil's advocate with myself and my earlier views, like the ones you express here (which I regard to be the traditional ones).
I am still not sure either way, but I refuse to give up the idea totally, since I think it's worth exploring further.
I am not so sure about the blanket thing. To me it definitely looks like some kind of undergarment; I have to agree with Sugden on this. But I admit that it's a bit problematic that Dr Bond doesen't mention it.
"He attacked her, and she fought him off - defence wounds. He went totally ape - therefore the hidious mutilations."
That is my main problem with the "traditional" scenario. It just doesen't sound like the approach of Jack the Ripper to me.
As I said, looking through all my crime manual books on the shelf -- with more or less gruesome, disturbing pictures -- the scene in Miller's Court resembles a perfect example of numerous known cases of domestic mutilation murders, all committed by the victim's husband or boyfriend -- not an unknown attacker.
On the other hand, the fact that Mary Kelly was a prostitute -- with all that comes with this dangerous profession -- indeed does its best to challenge this idea, I can't disregard from that, and that is also one of the reasons I am not sure either way.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 07, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 1:38 am: | |
G'day,
Forgive me for going way back here:
FRANK: 'I don’t think it’s likely that Joe and Mary Jane would have ended up together in her bed, neither as a result of her profession, nor as a result of them having decided to give their relationship another try, even if that was just for the moment. However, in the unlikely event that they did decide to get back together again, Barnett’s reason for being angry and frustrated would have been gone and consequently, he would have had no reason for killing her anymore, not at that point at least.'
Mary was desperate for the rent money and the rent was being collected as soon as the sun was up. If Barnett was picked up on the streets and brought back to her room, or if he knocked on her door once 'astrakhan' man had left and told Mary that he'd just been playing whist at Buller's, why wouldn't she have invited him in, undress to her chemise, hopped into bed in the hope that he was bringing her his winnings?
I don't think her murder was premeditated. When Barnett woke up to the fact that she was just using him once again, (whether he had any to give her or not), he just went berserk.
'Why didn't he go visit her right after his card game?'
He may have walked the staircase to go to bed, (not as a premeditated act to fool people into believing he was retiring for the night), but to genuinely try to go to sleep.
He may not have been able to relax, dressed up in his second hand clothes and fake jewellery, (that he bought in Petticoat Lane previously), so that he would be sure to be invited back to Room 13, and went to Dorset Street to plead for his return.
GLENN: It would have been the sort of behaviour that I expect from Mary Kelly to strip down to her chemise in front of Barnett, if she thought he may have returned to give her his whist money.
'Either she was murdered by a customer while half undressed (and possibly about to have sex or already had had sex, although there really is no evidence of neither), or she was simply murdered by someone she knew, who might have woken her up after she had gone to bed.'
In a previous discussion here about Mary's chemise, someone said that it was common for prostitutes in those days to stay fully clothed whilst servicing a client outside. I don't think that her being found wearing a chemise in her bed is indicative she was either half dressed or half undressed.
LYN: 'I do however wonder why Carroty and Astrakan didn't come forward to clear themselves - or maybe they did, and I've just been in the dark.'
Any innocent man seen with the victims would have been too frightened to come forward to clear his name as that would inject his name into the hunt. Hey, but Hutchinson did!....there's something to think about!
LEANNE
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 338
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
”(And I thought the Boards had become dull...)”
Glad to oblige you, my friend.
”But once again, you're assuming and totally bases your views on the fact that the one who killed Mary Kelly, Barnett or not, engaged in sex with her or was about to.
I don't!”
I don’t either! So, let’s shake hands on that and move on  . You never considered this scenario anyway.
“Yes, but you based them on that they should have been in bed together. I never have.”
I know. And that’s where our views differ.
”I really don't understand this.
It's not like I'm suggesting a wrestling match lasting 30 minutes. How much damage or how long do you mean it has to be in order to be reckoned as a "struggle"?
It would be enough for her to spot the knife, give up a cry of murder, trying to shield herself from the knife a couple of seconds and then falling on the bed while he's attacking forward over her.
This is what I mean by a struggle.”
I didn’t mean to imply there was no struggle at all, but judging from the defence wounds I simply think that the actual struggle didn’t last much more than 1 or 2 seconds. There were only the defence wounds I described earlier and if she would have had more time, even if it were only 5 or 10 seconds more, I think there would have at least been some more cuts in her hand(s) or arms. I know that the struggle you see possible didn’t take forever, perhaps not even much more than those 5 or 10 seconds, but in my view it would leave room enough for more defence wounds and other audible and physical signs of a struggle.
By the way, I can perfectly accept the scenario in which Barnett let himself in, sat on the bed, (which) woke MJK up, after which some conversation began that eventually infuriated him so that he attacked and killed her. Another feasible scenario for me would be one in which she let him in, after which some conversation began, one that quickly bored MJK because she had already spoken to him earlier, she was jolted out of her sleep, it was late, she was cold, tired and perhaps still under the influence of alcohol, as a result of which she got into bed and lay down, maybe even with her back to him, something that he felt as yet another slap in the face, so he got on the bed too and attacked and killed her.
“In any case, the incision on the thumb and the abrasion (defense wounds doesne't have to be more than this if the attack has been made in sheer surprise) you mention yourself indicate that she was aware of the knife, and I fail to fit this into the scenario of the other Ripper killings.”
Like I have been saying for some time now, if MJK was murdered by the Ripper, regardless of whether he entered her room as a client or let himself in while she was asleep, unlike the previous cases, in this case his victim was already lying down when he had not done anything yet. So, he was confronted with something he wasn’t familiar with and had no control over like in the previous cases. That was an important difference and resulted in MJK having some time to struggle, but, again, in my view it was just a very short-lived struggle.
So, in short, I think the situation was responsible for the defence wounds and although it would be speculating again, I can think of a couple of good reasons why he got into that situation. The increased police activity may have forced him to kill indoors, he may have wanted more time with his victims and less stress, or he simply may have gotten in MJK’s room by chance, as a client.
“This reasoning I just simply can't understand. Naturally he must have been close to her, but why does that leave her lying in bed as the only option?
As far as I know, you can sit and stand close to another person.
If the killer was someone she knew, they could just as well have been standing close to each other near the bed, or sitting close to each other on the bed.
I just don't get this.”
Because – for the reasons described above – I don’t think the (complete) struggle would have lasted more than 1 or 2 seconds and she was killed on the bed, I think he must have been on the bed when he launched his initial attack. If you don’t have any trouble with a struggle that took longer than those 1 or 2 seconds, then of course the attack could have commenced anywhere in the room (not being cynical here).
”I am not so sure she was attacked in her sleep; but if she was, that would actually be an even stronger indication on that she knew her killer, because that would mean that he knew how to get in there without her noticing.”
I don’t think Barnett was the only one who knew her and who knew how to open the door through the window. Even clients who needn’t have been in her room more than once would obviously have known she had lodgings of her own and could have known how to open the door through the window.
”Now, these kind of crimes are usually originating from frustration and a twisted need of controlling the woman. I think Barnett fits quite well.”
I do see where the frustration would have been coming from, although there’s nothing in the information that even suggests it. Of course, we know far too little about Barnett and his relationship with MJK to draw any conclusions about him, but I for one don’t see any signs of Barnett’s need to control MJK at all. He rather seems to me to be someone who couldn’t or didn’t want to let go of her that easily, probably because he still loved her and someone who would rather walk away from a fight than seek confrontation. I don’t know if that’s worth something, but it is how I see it – at the moment.
All the best
F, Holland
 |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 339
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:27 pm: | |
G’day Leanne,
You wrote: “If Barnett was picked up on the streets and brought back to her room, or if he knocked on her door once 'astrakhan' man had left and told Mary that he'd just been playing whist at Buller's, why wouldn't she have invited him in, undress to her chemise, hopped into bed in the hope that he was bringing her his winnings?”
Not that’s impossible, but I think it would be out of character for Barnett to do that. The documentation says that he left her because of her immoral ways and wasn’t prepared to live with her while she lived that course of life. Furthermore, when Barnett gave MJK money she doesn’t seem to have needed to give something in return, so one might wonder why this time would’ve been any different. But of course, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened.
“He may have walked the staircase to go to bed, (not as a premeditated act to fool people into believing he was retiring for the night), but to genuinely try to go to sleep.
He may not have been able to relax, dressed up in his second hand clothes and fake jewellery, (that he bought in Petticoat Lane previously), so that he would be sure to be invited back to Room 13, and went to Dorset Street to plead for his return.”
Like Glenn wrote, it’s very difficult to speculate about what he would have done and why. Not having been able to sleep sounds feasible of course, but suddenly deciding to visit her for the purpose of pleading for his return while dressed up, however, doesn’t seem in line with what we know about Barnett. Again, he’s documented to have said that he left her because of her resorting to prostitution and that he wouldn’t live with her while she lead such a life. Suddenly pleading for his return doesn’t fit, but sure, this doesn’t mean that it’s impossible.
All the best,
Frank
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2204
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:51 pm: | |
Hello, F.
"...but in my view it would leave room enough for more defence wounds and other audible and physical signs of a struggle."
What leads to confusion here may be the word "struggle", now that I come to think of it. I just think the perpetrator drew the knife, she noticed it and tried to shield herself automatically, but had no chance. We must remember, that if the cry "Oh murder" did derive from Kelly, it would indicate that the perpetrator at least didn't manage to surprise her particulary well. This doesen't mean it had to be a long struggle, though. The little damage she received while still alive, would be enough.
"if MJK was murdered by the Ripper, regardless of whether he entered her room as a client or let himself in while she was asleep, unlike the previous cases, in this case his victim was already lying down when he had not done anything yet."
And once again, there is no reason to assume that. Nothing at all on the crime scene indicates that. The actual throat cutting and the mutilations occurred apparently on the bed, judging from the blood, but that is another matter. What I am interested in is what happened prior to that, and there is no indications whatsoever that Mary Kelly was surprised while lying in bed -- she could have sat down on the bed, talking to the culprit when the attack started, or been standing next to it. The room was small.
"... and she was killed on the bed, I think he must have been on the bed when he launched his initial attack."
Nope -- not necessarily. Can't see why. See my comment above and below.
"If you don’t have any trouble with a struggle that took longer than those 1 or 2 seconds, then of course the attack could have commenced anywhere in the room."
Agreed. This is what I mean. I've never meant to imply a longer "struggle" than that, but at least she had enough time to cry out a time of "murder" (if it was her, which I believe). This doesen't mean she had to indulge in a physical fight of larger proportions, though -- she just simply could have been paralysed in sheer surprise -- this does happen.
"I don’t think Barnett was the only one who knew her and who knew how to open the door through the window. Even clients who needn’t have been in her room more than once would obviously have known she had lodgings of her own and could have known how to open the door through the window."
Quite possible, but not likely.
"I do see where the frustration would have been coming from, although there’s nothing in the information that even suggests it. Of course, we know far too little about Barnett and his relationship with MJK to draw any conclusions about him, but I for one don’t see any signs of Barnett’s need to control MJK at all. He rather seems to me to be someone who couldn’t or didn’t want to let go of her that easily, probably because he still loved her and someone who would rather walk away from a fight than seek confrontation."
To me it's very much the same thing. Call it control, call it obsession. But when I mean control, I don't refer to aggressive control, but a NEED to control, which when it don't succeed ends up in frustration.
That's true, we can't know much about Barnett, although we do know some things about their relationship.
But that is also why I wrote: "these kind of crimes" -- I am basing this more on how the perpetrators on similar cases have acted (but of course considering the facts in the case), more than trying to analyse Barnett as such.
"By the way, I can perfectly accept the scenario in which Barnett let himself in, sat on the bed, (which) woke MJK up, after which some conversation began that eventually infuriated him so that he attacked and killed her. Another feasible scenario for me would be one in which she let him in, after which some conversation began, one that quickly bored MJK because she had already spoken to him earlier, she was jolted out of her sleep, it was late, she was cold, tired and perhaps still under the influence of alcohol, as a result of which she got into bed and lay down, maybe even with her back to him, something that he felt as yet another slap in the face, so he got on the bed too and attacked and killed her."
OK, I can accept both scenarios, although the first one feels more realistic. But I can't rule out number two either, it could work.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
