|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2205
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:55 pm: |       |
Frank,
Regarding your reply to Leanne:
I agree with every word of it! Couldn't have said it better myself.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 41
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, Frank and Leanne,
Thanks for your responses - Glenn, you make some good points. I do, however, still see a sheet partially covering Mary's body, rather than an undergarment. And I'm not convinced (yet!) that her murder was committed by someone she knew. I have to do some more thinking in that area..
Leanne,
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.
I dunno.. If it were me, I'd want to clear my name, but I can't presume to know, or speculate even, on what these two men thought or felt.
Bestest,
Lyn
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 1:57 am: | |
G'day Lyn,
'I dunno.. If it were me, I'd want to clear my name, but I can't presume to know, or speculate even, on what these two men thought or felt.'
The Autumn of Terror was a very frightening time for Londoners. The newspapers said the Hutchinson was a very valuable witness, and that the description he gave of 'Astrakhan' matched the description that the police valued. An innocent 'Astrakhan' would have been too frightened to come forward.
I also remember reading how the police weren't popular at the time and people had little confidence in them after 'Bloody Sunday'. Everyone was frustrated because they were failing to stop the Whitechapel murderer and an innocent 'Astrakhan' wouldn't have felt confident.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1550
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 2:35 am: | |
G'day,
JEFF & GLENN (since you agree with his every word): "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."
Joseph Barnett approached Mary Kelly for the first time in April 1887 as she was walking the streets as a prostitute, so he wasn't too pure to do it!
'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.'
Then why do you think he did it? Do you think he might have wanted her to ask him back some day? Once Mrs. Harvey had gone?
'Like Glenn wrote, it’s very difficult to speculate about what he would have done and why.'
But no one is going to solve this case without using some speculation!
'Suddenly pleading for his return doesn’t fit, but sure, this doesn’t mean that it’s impossible.'
He returned frequently to give her money, and I'd say she kept encouraging him to do it. When I say 'pleading' I don't mean to suggest that he got down on his hands and knees to do it, 'pleading' seemed like an appropriate word to use.
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2206
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
G'day, Leanne,
True, it's hard to know how a person over 100 years ago would think and act, but we can make some assumptions based on what we know about him.
"[Frank:]'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.'
[Leanne:]Then why do you think he did it? Do you think he might have wanted her to ask him back some day? Once Mrs. Harvey had gone?"
Although I agree with Frank in that particular post I would also like to revise a bit, and say -- from what we know and from thinking logically --that I'd say it would be out of character for Mary Kelly.
I do think it's fair to assume that Barnett may have had motives and wanted to to get her back, but I don't think Mary Kelly would go to bed with him, not under those circumstances brought on by their break-up and him leaving.Besides, she is supposed to have said that she couldn't stand the sight of him.
Then, on the other side, he could just have been good-hearted and wanted to give her money because he cared about her, although he couldn't live with her. And that doesen't exclude a building up frustration either. Sometimes it's the quiet and the good-hearted that snaps, when they are treated like dirt for longer period of time.
But I don't think for a minute that Mary Kelly would have jumped into bed with him. After all, even a prostitute can separate a client from a former boyfriend, even if he brings money.
We can't possibly know why Barnett gave her money (although indications say he just felt emotionally attached enough in order to help her a bit), but I don't think he gave her money for sex -- that would give him the position of an ordinary client. I believe their relationship were of a different character, although at this point probably complex.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
John Dow
Police Constable
Username: Johnmdow
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Personally, I suspect the cry of "Oh murder" is either unrelated to Mary Kelly, or an embellishment. The Ripper (if it were he) obviously took his time and I'm not convinced he'd be so relaxed had his victim bellowed "murder" loud enough to wake the neighbours. As far Barnett - I haven't looked into the wounds caused by enraged partners, but wouldn't I be right in assuming they'd be frenzied and vicious but quickly replaced with remorse? Burrowing into her chest cavity to retrieve her heart and paring flesh from her thighs, right down to the bone, seems to me to be more like laborious plodding than the frustrated attack of a jilted lover. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2208
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Hi John,
"Personally, I suspect the cry of "Oh murder" is either unrelated to Mary Kelly, or an embellishment. The Ripper (if it were he) obviously took his time and I'm not convinced he'd be so relaxed had his victim bellowed "murder" loud enough to wake the neighbours."
Eactly. And that is why I am quite doubtful about the Ripper being the perpetrator. The cry was mentioned by two witnesses, and I don't think it was a fabrication or a spell of imagination.
If it derived from Kelly is another question, but I personally think it did.
"As far Barnett - I haven't looked into the wounds caused by enraged partners, but wouldn't I be right in assuming they'd be frenzied and vicious but quickly replaced with remorse? Burrowing into her chest cavity to retrieve her heart and paring flesh from her thighs, right down to the bone, seems to me to be more like laborious plodding than the frustrated attack of a jilted lover."
Absolutely not. This is one of the greatest misconceptions and also where people get it completely wrong.
Looking through crime manuals and looking through numerous case files in crime history, one can see that there exists a great number of cases where similar, rather extreme murders have been committed by a husband/boyfriend, either by frustration/suppressed anger & sexuality or jealousy (not for the same motives like those of a serial killer). These murders are of personal nature.
In some of those cases, the murder has been made in order to stage it like a serial killer crime scene.
I know this sound unbelievable to some -- and also to myself, to tell the truth -- but the world is sometimes twisted, to a level beyond our rational thinking. Unfortunately.
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
G'day John Dow,
'but wouldn't I be right in assuming they'd be frenzied and vicious but quickly replaced with remorse? Burrowing into her chest cavity to retrieve her heart and paring flesh from her thighs, right down to the bone, seems to me to be more like laborious plodding than the frustrated attack of a jilted lover.'
DR. BOND'S REPORT: "....with one breast under the head..."
I've often wondered why Mary's killer gave her a little 'pillow'.
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 341
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
”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 particularly well. This doesen't mean it had to be a long struggle, though. The little damage she received while still alive, would be enough.”
“Agreed. This is what I mean. I've never meant to imply a longer "struggle" than that (1 or 2 seconds), but at least she had enough time to cry out a time of "murder" (if it was her, which I believe).”
We seem to agree on the fact that the ‘struggle’ didn’t take much longer than only a couple of seconds. Hiey! 
”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.”
According to Dr. Bond “the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman’s head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack.” He had come to this notion after actually having seen the crime scene with his own eyes and probably after having exchanged views on the case with his colleagues.
The fact that no blood was found on the floor beside the bed or anywhere else on the floor in her room (except for the pool of blood under the bed), the stabs through the top right hand corner of the sheet, the blood saturated condition of it, the defence wounds and the feasible notion of Dr. Bond to me are indications that MJK was already lying in bed when she was attacked.
“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.”
Agreed.
”Quite possible, but not likely.”
Why isn’t it likely that others could have learned how to open the door through the window? We don’t know whether or not Kelly usually did open the door through the window each time she brought home a client. Hutchinson, for instance, may have been a regular client of hers, “having been in her company a number of times” and, as a result, may have learned how to open the door.
All the best,
Frank
 |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 342
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
”JEFF & GLENN (since you agree with his every word):”
It wasn’t Jeff who wrote, it was Frank.
“Joseph Barnett approached Mary Kelly for the first time in April 1887 as she was walking the streets as a prostitute, so he wasn't too pure to do it!”
Maybe he wasn’t too pure back then, but by the end of October 1888 things had changed so much that he had left her because of her immoral ways and wouldn’t return before she had given up on them.
”'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.'
”Then why do you think he did it? Do you think he might have wanted her to ask him back some day? Once Mrs. Harvey had gone?”
What I meant to say was that she may have invited him in, certainly if she knew he came to give her some money, but I see no reason why she would have undressed to her chemise and then would have hopped into bed in the hope that he was bringing her his winnings. There seems to have been no need for her to entice him into giving her any money.
Why he did it is an entirely different matter. He may have done it because he wanted her back and thought he had a chance, he may also have done it just so he could see her and talk to her, even though on a rational level he knew it was over, while on an emotional level he didn’t want that, or, like Glenn suggested, he may just have been a good-hearted guy who wanted to give her money because he cared about her, although he knew he couldn't live with her.
”But no one is going to solve this case without using some speculation!”
I completely agree with that, but, by using logic and common sense, I think those speculations have to stay as close as possible to the documented information. In other words, the bridge between the gaps (in the info) should be as short as possible and has to be supported (by logic and common sense) as much as possible.
”He returned frequently to give her money, and I'd say she kept encouraging him to do it. When I say 'pleading' I don't mean to suggest that he got down on his hands and knees to do it, 'pleading' seemed like an appropriate word to use.”
I thought you did mean ‘pleading’ in the sense of getting down on his hands and knees and begging her to take him back. I reacted to it because I think that doesn’t fit. He may have hoped she would’ve asked him to return, but pleading would be much too strong a notion for me.
All the best,
Frank
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2212
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 6:39 pm: | |
Hey Frank,
"According to Dr. Bond “the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman’s head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack.” He had come to this notion after actually having seen the crime scene with his own eyes and probably after having exchanged views on the case with his colleagues."
Yes, but here you are talking about where the actual knife work began. This doesen't say anything whatsoever about what happened before the knife got to work, and therefore it is not possible to deduce that this occurred on the bed from the beginning.
I have never questioned that the cut on the throat and the mutilations were done on the bed. My concern is what happened at the very beginning of the attack, before the blood hit the sheets and the walls.
An attack starts before this.
As I said earlier, it could just as well have started with them both sitting on the bed or standing beside the bed. There is no proof whatsoever that says that Mary Kelly lay on the bed before the attack, if Dr Bond says so, he is completely in error.
"Why isn’t it likely that others could have learned how to open the door through the window? We don’t know whether or not Kelly usually did open the door through the window each time she brought home a client. Hutchinson, for instance, may have been a regular client of hers, “having been in her company a number of times” and, as a result, may have learned how to open the door."
Technically it is possible, but in lack of sufficient facts on this matter, I prefer to rely on the statistics and concentrate on the one she had lived there with her and knew the premises maybe more than anyone in her circle of friends. As far as Barnett is concerned, we know that this is the case, but unfortunately we have no clue of Hutchinson or others in this respect.
I would recommend that one studies the persons that we know of first hand before speculating about others we practically know nothing about.
All the best, old friend.
S, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 12:22 am: | |
G'day,
"I'm not convinced he'd be so relaxed had his victim bellowed "murder" loud enough to wake the neighbours."
"Eactly. And that is why I am quite doubtful about the Ripper being the perpetrator."
Why do people expect killers to use exactly the same MO for each victim, under every circumstance?
If it was Mary Kelly that yelled "MURDER", she must have been facing the Ripper at the time he drew out his knife, as opposed to facing the other way like the other victims.
That's why I believe Mary's murder wasn't premeditated. Her killer, (Joseph Barnett), didn't WANT to kill her, that's why we think we can detect differences in his MO. I believe the distress he displayed on the morning her body was found WAS genuine. That's why the detectives felt sorry for him and failed to investigate him further and may not have even thoroughly checked his alibi.
GLENN: I know what you mean by saying that there have been a number of cases throughout history where extreme murders were committed by lovers. I read about a man who tortured his wife with acid after cutting her up! I don't see that fact as proof that Mary Kelly's lover didn't murder the others.
It's the fact that he loved Mary Kelly and didn't want to do what he did, that makes her murder slightly different to the others, (who were low women that meant nothing to him).
He missed a perfect chance of slicing her throat while she was undressing, perhaps had her back turned and her hands busy.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 12:39 am: | |
G'day,
"I don't think Mary would go to bed...."
Mary was a prostitute!!!!! She would have been used to loveless sex in order to gain what she wanted.
"She is supposed to have said..."
Yeah, but she still lived with him didn't she? Why? Because he gave her gifts and kept on giving her money! She willingly allowed herself to be bought! Then she desided that he was of no use to her anymore!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 2:54 am: | |
G'day,
"What I meant to say was that she may have invited him in, certainly if she knew he came to give her some money, but I see no reason why she would have undressed to her chemise and then would have hopped into bed in the hope that he was bringing her his winnings. There seems to have been no need for her to entice him into giving her any money."
But Frank, remember I suggested Barnett may have been dressed as 'Astrakhan Man', to be sure to be invited into her room as a customer! Mary at first may have thought she was undressing to service a customer!
"He may have done it because he wanted her back and thought he had a chance, he may also have done it just so he could see her and talk to her,"
All he had to do to see her and talk to her was wait until the following day and visit her as he was known to do!
Then why didn't he just wait until the next day to give her his winnings? Because she urgently needed the cash to pay the rent collector, who was due to call on Friday mornings and they both knew this!
"I thought you did mean ‘pleading’ in the sense of getting down on his hands and knees and begging her to take him back."
Wasn't that a scene that was created by writers and cartoonists in the twentieth century?
On the night that he walked out on her he said he would return once Maria Harvey had found lodgings elsewhere. Harvey had gone yet he wasn't welcomed back!
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2214
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
"I don't see that fact as proof that Mary Kelly's lover didn't murder the others."
Proof? Who's talked about proof?
Besides, there is nothing whatsoever indicating that he was Jack the Ripper.
"Mary was a prostitute!!!!! She would have been used to loveless sex in order to gain what she wanted."
Oh please come on, Leanne. It is not the same thing. Barnett was a former boyfriend, not a client. I believe Barnett possibly gave her money in order to maybe patch things up, in the long run, but since he had been in a relationship with her, I don't think he would pay her for sex. Why on Earth would he be treated as a client?
You're views on psychology is puzzling, to say the least.
"But Frank, remember I suggested Barnett may have been dressed as 'Astrakhan Man', to be sure to be invited into her room as a customer! Mary at first may have thought she was undressing to service a customer!"
Firstly, forget Hutchinson's testimony. The Astrakhan man probably never existed.
Secondly, where would Barnett get his hands on such clothes and a thick gold chain? He was an unemployed fish porter, for God's sake!
And third, Hutchinson followed them and he studied them closely (if we now for a moment assume that his testimony is true) and he knew Mary Kelly rather well, probably. He got a good look. I would think that he would recognise Barnett. And Mary Kelly certainly would!
You're hallucinating.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
"Barnett was a former boyfriend, not a client...."
Barnett was Mary Kelly's boyfriend 8 days before her murder! Do you believe that Mary wouldn't have striped down in order to save her reputation?
"I believe Barnett possibly gave her money in order to maybe patch things up,..."
Patch things up?...to persuade her to want him back? He was losing that battle!
"Secondly, where would Barnett get his hands on such clothes and a thick gold chain? He was an unemployed fish porter, for God's sake!"
Peticoat Lane, at the second hand clothing exchange. (Look it up!) And in his fish porting days Barnett would have been earning a top wage!
Hutchinson's appearance into the case and his testimony should be looked at with a great deal of caution.
If 'Astrakhan Man' was a complete lie, why was he invented?
Why did Hutchinson come forward at all?
"..They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes.." WHY? If 'Astrakhan' was just Hutchinson's invention, why bother mentioning that at all?
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2219
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
"Patch things up?...to persuade her to want him back? He was losing that battle!"
Yes, he probably was. But again... why on earth would he accept to be reduced as playing the part of a client when he once had had a relationship with her? I can't even in the darkest corners of my Scandinavian mind figure out how you think.
"Peticoat Lane, at the second hand clothing exchange. (Look it up!) And in his fish porting days Barnett would have been earning a top wage!"
Oh come on. A watch with a thick gold chain... an unemployed fish porter... sure, dream on.
Yes, top wage, but hardly rich. And he had been unemployed for a period of time. Why do you think Mary Kelly started going back to prostitution? Apparently he could not support them both.
"If 'Astrakhan Man' was a complete lie, why was he invented?
Why did Hutchinson come forward at all?"
That has been turned inside out and gone over millions of times on other threads dedicated to Mary Kelly or Hutchinson.
Where have you been?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 344
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
G’day Leanne,
“"..They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes.." WHY? If 'Astrakhan' was just Hutchinson's invention, why bother mentioning that at all?”
We can only guess at why Hutchinson came forward. Taking his account as a whole the reason he gave for being there is way too thin for me, considering all the circumstances and the details of the man he saw with Kelly are way too conspicuous and suspicious that it seems to me that Mary Jane’s well dressed client was created to draw possible suspicion away from Hutchinson and to put it on her client instead. Telling the police and the newspapers ‘Astracan’ hid down his hat with his hat over his eyes would make the well dressed man seem even more suspicious than he perhaps already seemed. If what I say is true, that would obviously have been an important thing to mention.
All the best,
Frank
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 7:05 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
Here's something that a fellow scorpio might appreciate - what do they say about first impressions?
This morning (Friday) a horrible discovery was made in Spitalfields. Upon a person entering a room in one of the lodging-houses in Dorset Street, situated near to Spitalfields Church, a woman was discovered with her head entirely cut off from her body, and lying by her side. Alarm was at once given, and the police appeared on the scene. An arrest has been made; and it is so far satisfactory to learn that this is not supposed to be another of the series of Whitechapel murders which have caused so much sensation in the past. It is reported that the cause of the dreadful crime was jealousy. First reports, however, are always more or less conflicting.
Eastern Post - 10 November, 1888.
Well, apart from the decapitation, first impressions are pretty good, huh?.
regards, Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2220
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 7:35 pm: | |
Hi Jon, old boy.
Yes, very interesting indeed -- especially that they considered it to be domestic and not a serial murder.
It would be interesting to know what they based this on more in detail, and how they came to their conclusions (although I am of course aware of my own).
Yep, first impressions should not be under-estimated, in my experience.
Ha! So you're a Scorpio as well?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 7:48 pm: | |
Glenn.
We might be allowed to read something into that news article, firstly, the reporter is aware of an early arrest which we are not party to.
Unless it refers to the 'interview' with Barnett.
The remark, "it is reported", may be an allusion to a police statement to that effect which has also not come down to us. We tend to think this crime was assumed to be Ripper related from the outset, but possibly this brief article hints that we are not aware of everything.
One thing is for sure, we don't know nearly enough about these murders.
Regards, Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2221
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 8:00 pm: | |
Jon,
I agree completely.
Much in the Ripper context is more or less unclear, but the Miller's Court murder (which I personally prefer to call it) is somewhat of a mystery that points either way. It's a real challenge, as far as I am concerned.
Regarding the "arrest" it is possible that they refer to the police picking up Barnett for questioning, and that the paper interpreted it this way (we must not forget the papers' ability of over-dramatising). Still, it's interesting that it was interpreted this way , and it could tell us something, although the police material really don't give any indications of an arrest as we know it.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2225
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 10:35 pm: | |
Furthermore, Jon,
Let me just add, that during my own research I have seen so many cases of misinformation and more or less constructed stories in the press in the early stages of the covering of murders in this time period, that I am reluctant to give it too much importance.
In the Ripper case, the Fairy Fay phenomenon is one example, but I have all too many examples from my own local home base from the beginning of the 20th century, that gives evidence of sloppy and unreliable journalism in this way, where the first day of covering often reveal confusion and misinterpretations of the journalist's part.
We must keep this in mind.
But it is of course interesting either way.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1556
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 12:11 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
"why on earth would he accept to be reduced as playing the part of a client when he once had had a relationship with her?"
I likened Barnett to a 'client' in response to you saying that Mary Kelly would not have gone to bed with her ex-boyfriend. I don't think any prostitute is/would have had the morals to be that fussy about who she serviced, as long as he had something she wanted - money!
Barnett wouldn't have thought of it as 'payment' for sex, but something he always did - giving her money for the rent.
"Oh come on. A watch with a thick gold chain... an unemployed fish porter... sure, dream on."
Let me quote from a paper written by Richard Rowe in 1881: 'SUNDAY MORNING IN PETTICOAT LANE' '...and then someone passes with a garment or hat in his hand, or a clothes bag on his back. Phil's Buildings and Cutler Street are choked with buyers and sellers of old clothes - male and female, pouring in and out of the old clothes exchanges like very dirty bees at the entrances of very dingy hives.'
And here's a piece by Charles Booth describing 'Victorian London - Markets - Petticoat Lane': '...voices cry their wares, vying with each other in introducing to the surrounding crowd their CHEAP garments, smart braces, SHAM JEWELLERY, or patent medicines.'
Hutchinson told a reporter that he may have seen his suspect there. He only said it was on a Sunday, but didn't say how long ago, and I don't think one had to be really wealthy to shop there!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2229
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
"I likened Barnett to a 'client' in response to you saying that Mary Kelly would not have gone to bed with her ex-boyfriend. I don't think any prostitute is/would have had the morals to be that fussy about who she serviced, as long as he had something she wanted - money!
Barnett wouldn't have thought of it as 'payment' for sex, but something he always did - giving her money for the rent."
Well, what can I say. I totally disagree, but you have probably managed to find that out already.
Furthermore, Hutchinson didn't mention anything about any old clothes, and your assesement that the thick gold chain was a fake and bought on a market is some of strangest attempts to explain Hutchinson's testimony I have heard so far. This is speculation in its most twisted and non-productive form.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Hi Glenn.
I just posted the article for the 'smile-factor', nothing more.
It only goes to show that our speculations are not simply modern theorising, that 'jealousy' has contemporary roots in this particular murder, whereas it does not in the previous ones.
Best Regards, Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2231
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Yes, I know.
A bit of a shame that there are so many other errors and confusing elements as well in the article, although -- believe it or not -- I have actually seen worse.
Still, an interesting speculation.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
"...and your assesement that the thick gold chain was a fake and bought on a market is some of strangest attempts to explain Hutchinson's testimony I have heard so far. "
Strange to you! It's strange for me to think that a wealthy person would stroll anywhere near Dorsett Street wearing his finest, at that hour of the morning. Even if he was just seeing how the poor lived, (as some people believe the wealthy did), he could have left the jewellery at home where it was safe.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
"Furthermore, Hutchinson didn't mention anything about any old clothes,..."
No one said anything about any OLD clothes. Petticoat Lane was where SECOND HAND clothing was sold cheaply, and SHAM JEWELLERY!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2232
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
"Strange to you! It's strange for me to think that a wealthy person would stroll anywhere near Dorsett Street wearing his finest, at that hour of the morning. Even if he was just seeing how the poor lived, (as some people believe the wealthy did), he could have left the jewellery at home where it was safe."
Yes, exactly. And that is probably one of the main reasons why Hutchinson's testimony (at least that part) was a fabrication, for whatever reasons he had. The man probably never existed, but was created by Hutchinson. No need to jump to far-fetched theories on that one.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
"Hutchinson's testimony (at least that part) was a fabrication,.."
No! It is YOUR BELIEF that that part of Hutchinson's statement, (he didn't testify), was a fabrication!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1560
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
The part of George Hutchinson statement that is hard for me to 'swallow' is that he said he waited outside for three-quarters-of-an-hour because he was concerned for the safety of a prostitute that he'd met on a number of occasions, then gave-up and just walked away without checking, and didn't come forward until after the victim's inquest had concluded.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2233
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
G'day
"No! It is YOUR BELIEF that that part of Hutchinson's statement, (he didn't testify), was a fabrication!"
Yes, sorry. Statement.
And a lot of other people's belief as well, as I understand. It is hardly a controversial theory.
"The part of George Hutchinson statement that is hard for me to 'swallow' is that he said he waited outside for three-quarters-of-an-hour because he was concerned for the safety of a prostitute that he'd met on a number of occasions, then gave-up and just walked away without checking, and didn't come forward until after the victim's inquest had concluded."
Yep, that is just as strange. However, that part -- although the reasons for him being there is a mystery -- seems to be verified, since he obviously WAS seen by someone else. But why he was there, we don't know, unless we want to buy his fairy-tale.
It is therefore my belief that the Astrakhan man was invented to explain why he hung out there, to keep the police's attention off himself. Even though that still makes his whereabouts in the court a bit corny, it may indicate that he had some connection to Mary Kelly no one knew about (although what kind of connection, we can only speculate about). Why else would he be there?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 7:01 pm: | |
Leanne, I believe one witness stated that it started to rain about 3:00am, reasonable justification for Hutch' to move on?.
His motives for standing there in the first place are certainly open for question.
Regards, Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 4:35 am: | |
G'day Jon,
Mary Anne Cox testified: "I came in again at 3 o'clock the light was out and there was no noise. I did not undress at all that night, I heard no noise, it was raining hard..."
I don't think the rain would've persuaded him to leave the shelter of Crossingham's so he could walk the streets all night, as he'd done previously when his lodging house was full.
If we are going to talk about Hutchinson now, let's move to his board, or perhaps start a new one, under his name.
LEANNE |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
Hi all,
I have so many post that should be poping up soon I hope that they are in order when they do post. I believe that George saw a man with Kelly that night. The only thing that bothers me is the time. George's man would of had to spend over an hour with Kelly before killing her. If you believe the time of death was 3:45 [I do.] what would the ripper have been doing with Kelly all that time? I think it is possible that Kelly went back out after three in the morning and met her Killer. Joe could have picked her up then or could have gone over there then. I do not feel Joe killed her but I feel after three would have been his window of chance.
Your friend,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 12:02 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for your responce. Sorry that it took me so long to get back to you but I have been making a mess of the Tumblety and Druitt threads. I agree with you If Joe killed Kelly and if Joe was not the ripper then he may have tried to make the murder look like a ripper murder. I do not know if I would buy into the theory that the ripper killed the other women in order to cover up the fact that his only true target was Kelly. I think it would have been much easier for someone to just Kill Kelly then go through the trouble and great risk of Killing four other women in order to cover up his true desire to kill kelly. I agree if Kelly was killed by someone other then the ripper then they may have tried to make the murder look like a ripper murder in order to take suspicion off themselves.
We have hashed over this topic before. I am glad to have this chance to wish you a happy birthday. I wish you all the best and look forward to wishing you a happy 40th birthday next year.
Your friend, CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 7:44 pm: | |
Hi all,
I just saw a picture of George Hutchinson at another site. He doese not look like a killer to me. I do not know if the picture is accurate or not tho.
Your friend,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Hi Glenn and Jon,
I agree with Glenn I feel the scream came from Kelly and that is the reason I put the time of death around 3:45. It has been a long time since I have read any of my Kelly notes. I have been busy with other aspects of the case but I believe that Kelly had several defensive wounds witch indicated a struggle. She may of had time to scream murder. I do not believe the cry of murder is any reason to dismiss Kelly as a ripper victim. Tho odd thing to me about the Kelly murder is that the ripper let her get so comfortable. Why? He let her undress. He let her fold her cloths. He let her get comfortable on the bed. Why? You have to assume he was doing something why she was undressing. Was he undressing? He may not have wanted to get blood on his cloths. Was he starting the alleged fire? Something stopped him from dispatching her right away. I do not believe he strangled her. The defensive wounds would suggest he attacked her straight away with the knife. I believe her throat had been cut from a different direction then the others. I believe this means that Kelly throat was cut from the front [I believe this to be true.] and the others had there throat cut from behind or Kelly's throat was cut from the back and the others from the front. or we have two killers one right handed and one left handed. You can not rule out that the ripper may have been able to use both hands but I feel and it is just my oppinion that a person would favour one hand over another when commiting such a crime. Another thing that I have wonderd about is that it appears that the ripper killed Kelly the first chance he got. The ripper only stuck on weekends and the weekend that Kelly was killed would have been his first real chance to kill her after Barnett moved out. I do not read much into this fact. I feel Kelly was working the streets hard the night she was killed and she was just unfortunate.
Your friend,CB |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2238
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Thank you for the greetings, CB.
You're as nice as always.
I am glad to see that you may consider this possibility, although I can't really be sure of that that is what actually happened -- Kelly's murder is one of the worst challenges in the Ripper context, as far as I am concerned.
God knows it's a controversial theory, but at least I have several cases in crime history and the notions from a couple of experienced Ripper researchers to back it up -- for what it's worth. But it's great that you have an open mind to it.
All the best to you as well,
Your friend
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 12, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2239
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Hi again, CB.
"...but I have been making a mess of the Tumblety and Druitt threads."
Oh, good Lord.
"Tho odd thing to me about the Kelly murder is that the ripper let her get so comfortable. Why? He let her undress. He let her fold her cloths. He let her get comfortable on the bed. Why? You have to assume he was doing something why she was undressing. Was he undressing? He may not have wanted to get blood on his cloths. Was he starting the alleged fire? Something stopped him from dispatching her right away."
Exactly. And this is where I feel the approach doesen't fit the Ripper. Some have explained this with the fact that it was indoors, but I think that's secondary. A serial killer's approach is not that much based on the conditions on the site, but on his personality and his feelings towards addressing other people. From the Ripper's actions, we can possibly state, that he killed them quickly in order not to engage himself in any lengther communication with them It was important for him to kill them quickly so that he could go on with his signature.
The scene in Miller's Court totally contradicts this, if it was a Ripper murder and if the Ripper was a client. It just doesen't add up.
Therefore I feel she was attacked by someone she knew very well (which is often the case), and that she might have been surprised in her sleep or let someone in that's been calling on her after she had gone to bed.
"I do not believe he strangled her. The defensive wounds would suggest he attacked her straight away with the knife. I believe her throat had been cut from a different direction then the others."
This is an interesting problem. On the other hand we have to indications on that she was attacked with the knife right away; namely the large amount of blood and also the small indications on defence marks on the hands.
On the other hand, her fingers appeared to have been clenched, which could indicate strangulation.
So this is a mystery to me.
I have investigated a lot of old murders, but if there is one crime that really makes me want to tear my hair out with the root, it's the one in Miller's Court. 
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Whether Hutchinson created the dandy from whole cloth or not is up for grabs. But I can see where someone from the West End might go down there jewellery and all. If you have a man raised in a pampered upper class home where there is never any violence, he might understand the possibility of being mugged in Whitechapel on a sort of theoretical level without really being able to relate to it. Lots of people live with a naive "It cant happen to me" mentality. I'm sure a lot of crime victims start out that way and that's what gets them in trouble. We have that phenomenon today. On the other hand, if the dandy existed and if the dandy was Jack, we would expect him to be all too aware of what can happen because of his familiarity with Whitechapel and because of his own murderous activities. His only purpose in dressing this way would be to somehow fool people. If the dandy did exist it would be very unlikely on the basis of the timeline alone that he wasn't Jack. So then you're left with explaining why he would dress that way.
Of course there is the arrogance which many SKs have. That illusion of invincibility.
(Message edited by diana on November 12, 2004) |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 12:05 pm: | |
CB wrote..
"I just saw a picture of George Hutchinson at another site. He doese not look like a killer to me."
Well thats a relief, I'm glad there's someone on these boards who knows what a killer looks like
CB again..
"I think it is possible that Kelly went back out after three in the morning and met her Killer."
Agreed, this is why I questioned the source that her clothes appeared wet, I'm not sure it was a reliable source though - it seems to have vaporized, I can't find it anywhere.
And CB again..
"I do not believe he strangled her. The defensive wounds would suggest he attacked her straight away with the knife."
Brilliant!!, yes if correct, that is a very valid point.
Glenn wrote..
"On the other hand, her fingers appeared to have been clenched, which could indicate strangulation."
Aye lad, but lets not forget, Larry Ragle in 'Crime Scene' advises that clenched fingers is also stage of rigor mortis.
Regards, Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2242
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
CB,
"I just saw a picture of George Hutchinson at another site. He doese not look like a killer to me."
Well, as Jon says (why is there three of you, Jon? Maybe I shoudn't have taken that second glass of red wine...), we can't say what a killer can or can not look like -- they could be anybody.
But where did you see this picture? I can't recall ever seeing a picture of Hutchinson.
Jon,
"Aye lad, but lets not forget, Larry Ragle in 'Crime Scene' advises that clenched fingers is also stage of rigor mortis."
What??!! Aha, I actually didn't know that. The medical stuff is not my best field, to say the least.
I'll look it up in my copy of Geberth's Practical Homicide Investigation, and see if it says something about that.
If this is accurate, it could explain a lot of things that's been bothering me.
And I agree, CB has a valid point.
If those cuts in her hand now really are defense wounds (when I have put forward that, it has been questioned to some degree), but I personally think they are.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1563
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
G'day,
"I do not know if I would buy into the theory that the ripper killed the other women in order to cover up the fact that his only true target was Kelly. I think it would have been much easier for someone to just Kill Kelly then go through the trouble and great risk of Killing four other women in order to cover up his true desire to kill Kelly."
Who said that the Ripper's target was to kill Kelly? The Ripper killed to other victims in order to SAVE Kelly. Then his sick mind flipped when it became apparent that he was losing! That's why her murder differs from and 'contradicts' the others in that he gave her time to undress, fold her clothes and get comfortable in bed....for an hour!
"I just saw a picture of George Hutchinson at another site. He doese not look like a killer to me. I do not know if the picture is accurate or not tho."
Tell me C.B. What does a killer look like to you?
Anything like Boris Karloff as Dracula?
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
"I think it is possible that Kelly went back out after three in the morning and met her Killer."
But nothing in the official files suggests this, and we aren't allowed to speculate!
It was "raining hard" by 3:00a.m. according to Mary Ann Cox, and Mary Kelly said she wanted to go to 'The Lord Mayor's Day' show!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3429
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
You say the Ripper's sick mind flipped when he killed Kelly. You don't think he was a tad unstable before then? 
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1565
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
G'day,
"He doese not look like a killer to me."
Well to me James Maybrick looks too thick, I don't think he could have escaped,
Frederick Deeming was too good-looking and so was James Kenneth Stephenson,
Montague John Druitt looks too immature, but Francis Thompson looks like a good bet!
Shall I continue?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 12, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2243
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
Fredrick Deeming... too... good-looking??????
And Druitt... immature?????? 
Now your psychology theories begin to make sense to me...
Good Lord, woman... 
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
I tried to poste something under 'Witness' & 'suspects' for Hutchinson. I couldn't figure out how to do it.
So, here's the pic of Hutch as provided by Melvin Fairclough
(The Ripper and the Royals)
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
