|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 565
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 3:02 pm: |       |
Hi,
Suzi said a new thread should be started, refering to the letters Kelly received from members of her family, I agree.
It has been stated that M.j k. was a intelligent woman, no mean scholar, spoke fluent welsh, and was a bit of an artist.
Barnett states that he bought newspapers home , to read to her about these horrific murders.
Two points spring to mind, the times that Barnett, obtained these papers, he was unemployed, thus buying papers was not a practical thing to do, also surely word of mouth in the area of whitechapel, would have made her aware of the happenings.
Being such an intelligent person, as we are led to believe, it has been claimed , that her parents were well to do, one would imagine that this good lady could read, so why would she ask Barnett to read to her?.
surely by reading the news herself, she could skip through the gory bits, amd concentrate, on basic happenings. but by Barnett , reading the paper, especially, as he was attempting to scare her , away from the lifestyle , that the killer was concentrating on, would have read the details in its entirety.
What happened to these letters?.
According to McCarthy Mary received several corresondences from her family, yet acording to Barnett, her family had nothing to do with her.
Yet in the last weeks of her life, she started to receive letters that appeared to have been from family.
Therefore she must have either been traced by a family member, who knew her address, and forwarded it on to her parents, or she , or some other person, contacted them , in an effort to make her see sence.[ Barnett?.]
I used to believe , that she may have been an Abigail Kelly, who was seen in London, some months earlier by a Mr John Rees, who claimed after the kelly murder, was the person he saw in London, he was a friend of this womans father, and he may have imformed him of her whereabouts , hense the letters arriving.
I Still have an open mind on that one. the fact that this woman known as Abigail, addressed Rees in welsh[ kelly spoke gaelic] is intresting.
Anyway the point of this thread is, what are the explanations , of m.j.k who acording to Barnett had nothing to do with her family, yet in the last weeks of her life, not only receives a visit from her army brother, but starts to receive mail from her family,
It could be of course, she herself contacted her family , in an effort to make peace, for as she told Lizzie Albrook, she was sick of the life she was leaving , and wanted to return home.
What was Barnetts reaction to this ,if this was the case?.
And finally what happened to the letters, did the police find them , amongst her poccessions, in which case ,they would have known her parents address., or were they burnt, by Kelly or destroyed[ mayby they ended up in the fire on the 9th]
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1808
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Richard, what is so suspicious about a man reading newspapers to his girlfriend, either because she wants him to, or out of concern for her welfare?
As for the expense of the papers, they only had to buy three of them.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 704
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 5:43 pm: | |
Sometimes life intrudes into life. We get letters, we get visits from relatives and others, the dog gets run over, a horse falls down, someone falls down the stairs, we buy newspapers, or someone else buys newspapers and reads them to us, we have egg and bacon instead of cereal, a murder happens in the neighbourhood so we want to know about it, what do we do? Ignore some murders that have happened in our street? Maybe we should because a hundred years later someone will sit down and say it was highly suspicious that we had kippers for breakfast and read the news that day. It is but life, rich tapestry it is, but no cause for accusation, deliberation and great demand.
It does beggar belief that someone in the year 2004 is attempting to convince us that someone in 1888 was acting suspiciously when they either read the local paper or had it read to them.
It does also beggar belief that normal contact through family members through letters and personal contact should also be viewed as either indicative or suspicious of a person being involved with murder most foul.
To credit an accepted common whore from the time period of the LVP with the type of intelligence and intellect that we see here recorded is beyond the realms of fantasy. Dorset Street was the pits, the end result for the scallywags and dossers of the East End, it was not a gentle college of further education for good Catholic ladies.
I’m afraid I just do not understand what is going on here, and fear that someone, somewhere is trying to sell me a line of comforting cocaine that they patently need themselves.
I demand a point.
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 109
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 7:25 pm: | |
Since Kelly's antecedents continue to stymie all the efforts of the acknowledged b/m/d experts on these boards, I really wonder why anyone still puts any credence in what "Mary Jane Kelly" supposedly told Joe Barnett. Surely, names were used with casual indifference in the East End at the time and we know some of the other victims (e.g. Stride) spun elaborate lies about their past. Nonetheless, researchers have still managed to piece together the details of the lives of the other victims even as Kelly's past continues to elude us.
Moreover, it is interesting that most of the Kelly mythos not only came from Joe Barnett, but is often most avidly accepted by those who see Joe as the Ripper. The same cunning, deceitful Joe Barnett who lied to the police, lied to the coroner, lied to his employers, lied to the newspapers, lied to Kelly and doubtless went on to lie to his brothers, his future wife and everyone else is suddenly the epitome of veracity when it comes to Kelly's history.
It is difficult to have it both ways and considering the inability to verify all but a few of the "facts" about Kelly's past I strongly suspect either she or Joe or both were spinning fantasies.
If anyone still wants to believe in the "cultured Kelly" who nonetheless needed Joe to read to her, well I suppose you might argue her sight was bad (those LVP newspapers are hard to read) or that she was only literate in Irish or Cymric. And as far as unemployed Joe obtaining the newspapers is concerned, if you are willing to believe Joe had been busily stealing fish, fruit, coal and who knows what else, why cavil at the notion he stole a few newspapers?
Don. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 206
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 7:40 pm: | |
Hi Richard and all..
Thanks for picking up on this thread..
o.k IF these letters actually were being deliverd and recieved via McCarthy..why were they not mentioned at the'inquest' why didn't j.b. mention them....Did they actually exist.. the only word (THINK) we have for this is Mr Mc C..am I right??
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 207
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 7:40 pm: | |
Hi Richard and all..
Thanks for picking up on this thread..
o.k IF these letters actually were being deliverd and recieved via McCarthy..why were they not mentioned at the'inquest' why didn't j.b. mention them....Did they actually exist.. the only word (THINK) we have for this is Mr Mc C..am I right??
Suzi
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 110
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 8:51 pm: | |
Here we go with Suzi trying to earn a promotion on the cheap by double posting. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 3:09 am: | |
Hi.
I am amazed at reactions from people on these boards, we are never going to get concrete facts, from 116 years ago, to positively name ' jack'
We have to however, look at every angle, circumstancial or not, every tit-bit of hearsay, every peice of oral history, and use our brains to try and interpret possible meanings.
I Thought it was normal practise, when writing a book on this subject, and fair play ,to suggest everything incriminating, which one can find against the authors suspect.
Every peice of evidence, any author mentions, is known by the vast majority, of ripper folk, but each indervidual interprets it , to put a strong case against their suspect.
In the case of Leanne, and myself , it is well known we are fingering Barnett, therefore the Alleged grave spitting, the reading of the papers , the 39 coincedence, the letters received from relatives, are all relevant in our prosecution.
We all tend to look for some major discovery, wouldnt that be great, but I prefer to use my imagination , and common sence, and try and interpret the possible truth.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 214
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Richard
You're making a lot of sense..tell me more about the book with Leanne
Donald- thats INSPECTOR Suzi to you mate!! sorry about that..must take more water with it and stop clicking twice(!)
Cheers (whoops!)
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 215
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Anyway enough of this banter!!..lets get back to those 'letters' chaps!!
Suzi |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 338
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 5:53 am: | |
Regarding the expense of buying newspapers, firstly we should say that he just said "papers", he didn't say which ones. If he was buying the Times or Telegraph that might be suspicious. The evening papers were not a great expense. Secondly, for those who live in, or regularly visit, a major city - how often do you see a homeless person sitting in a ragged blanket at the side of the pavement begging for loose change in a battered paper coffee cup. And how often does this homeless person have a cigarette in their mouth at something like a fiver a packet. Just because a person does not have much money does not mean that they necessarily spend what they do have wisely.
On the odd occasion that I am dating (very irregularly), if a girlfriend hints to me (you know the way they do  ) that she likes the look of something, I go out of my way to get it for her even if I can't afford it. Barnett very specifically said "I bought newspapers, and I read to her everything about the murders, which she asked me about." I see absolutely nothing strange then in his buying newspapers whether he was in work or not. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Richard wrote:
"We have to however, look at every angle, circumstancial or not, every tit-bit of hearsay, every peice of oral history, and use our brains to try and interpret possible meanings. "
You are using the wrong part of your brain.
Researching and coming up with theories about a topic both require using logic. Inventing up all sorts of bizarre reasons why everyday occurances hold secret meanings uses the superstitious, delusional part of the brain.
"I Thought it was normal practise, when writing a book on this subject, and fair play ,to suggest everything incriminating, which one can find against the authors suspect. "
Incriminating, yes. Joe reading a newspaper or Mary receiving letters from home simply aren't incriminating. The fact that you feel the need to try to promote these mundane experiences as something important just highlights how weak of a case you have. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 240
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Alan..We hint because eventally it just may work!! There's a 'sort' of domesticity though about J.B and Mary in that ghastly room with J.B. reading the papers to Mary who I still don't believe couldn't read them herself!! (probably couldn't afford them though!)
Dan
It's not that these pieces of the story are 'incriminating'..it's just that they're there!! Small,very small little 'insights' into the life being led in Millers court and apparently worthy of comment by others..Am not making a case..weak or not merely commenting..sometimes in these cases it's the minutia that helps to build the bigger picture
Suzi |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 412
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:41 am: | |
Sometimes it's the smallest of things that can point to a person's guilt. I agree with Richard here that we should be looking at all these small things, but I also think that Joe reading her a paper isn't necessarily incriminating against him. Just because Mary could have read them herself why don't people think that maybe she didn't want to. If she was scared about the murders then maybe she didn't want to look at the papers in case her eyes read something she didn't want to see. As Alan pointed out, she only asked Joe to read her information that she asked for so maybe this meant that she didn't want to read all the gory bits.
Also, just a question, how often have all you perfectly literate people have had something read to you? Quite often I'd say. Just because Joe may have read the newspapers to Mary it doesn't mean that she was illiterate in any way.
Again, just to clarify my point. I think we should be looking at all these small details as looking at the large points haven't seemed to get us anywhere, but also I can see a perfectly acceptable reason for Joe reading to Mary.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
Well, imagine Joe sitting there reading the paper. Maybe he's reading the sports results or something. Mary wants to hear about the murders. Instead of asking him for the paper (which she might not get) she just asks him to read about the murders, so to get a bit of peace, he does.
Again, it would make sense for whoever had the paper to read the paper to the other one, to save time.
And suppose that Joe was reading about the murders, but to himself. It wouldn't have been easy for Mary to sit beside him, and read at the same time, because of the poor quality of the light (farthing dip). So she asks Joe to read out loud.
Anyway, I don't think the newspaper reading is incriminating.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 6:58 am: | |
Hi All,
I see nothing wrong, and everything right, with reporting what Joe claimed, including that he read to Mary about the murders.
But when it comes to making personal observations based on any of Joe’s claims, again, I’d have to say that since Richard is making a case for Joe being a murderer, he has surely to make the point – clearly - that little if anything coming from Joe’s mouth can be accepted (by his accusers) as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
A little common sense should tell us that a guilty Joe would have lied about his private doings with Mary to make himself appear innocent; told the truth only where that too made him look good, or at least couldn’t make him look bad; and didn’t need to volunteer so much as a scrap of privately held information about their life together if he wasn’t sure how it would be received.
An innocent Joe with nothing to hide would therefore IMHO be more likely to volunteer details that no one else may have known, some of which could be regarded with suspicion, depending on all the circumstances and who is doing the regarding.
In short, one might expect a guilty Joe to have kept his trap shut about reading aloud to Mary about his own exploits (or those of the murderer he went on to copy, depending on which Joe theory is flavour of the month). And if asked directly what he and Mary had said or done concerning the recent murders, he could have said anything at all, from a simple “Nothing much, really”, to inventing suspicious characters for Mary to have told him about.
Love,
Caz
|
Holger Haase
Sergeant
Username: Holger
Post Number: 23
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 7:42 am: | |
Oh my, the Blonde and I regularly read out bits and pieces of interesting items in the Sunday papers to each other.... and, yes, both of us can read. Let's hope I'll never get involved in a murder investigation. :-)
Holger |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 254
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Hi all
Holger-
I tend to read the racing while the husband does the crossword and never the twain(Hopefully!) meet!(The blonde??!!!)
Caz- Agree with you about the 'guilty' Joe..is there any evidence re. his later alleged game of whist in Bullers? Was Danny ever interviewed?
And..Maurice Lewis's thing about seeing Mary/Julia in the Horn of Plenty has a sort of ring of truth about it !!..of course no one would ever see two women in the pub these days !!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 3:09 am: | |
Hi ,
I agree, that is nothing wrong with a man reading a newspaper to his woman, of course it would depend on the motive behind doing so.
I would have thought, mary would have heard gossip regarding the murders , every day, in that small area, every pub she frequented,we know she was frightened out of her wits , by comments made to her friends.
Yet dispite all this, we accept do we, that Kelly was desperate to hear of all the gory details, and actually asked Barnett to read the papers to her.
The reading of the papers, is proberly true, but I would suggest , it was of Barnetts doing, to frighten her even more.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1846
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 5:07 am: | |
Richard, sorry to be a pain, but can you show me where it says that Kelly was desperate to hear of the gory details in particular? She wanted the details, and these would inevitably include some gory ones, but I feel the way you've phrased this is a bit loaded.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 420
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 7:25 am: | |
Richard,
Mary only asked Joe to read her the bits she wanted to hear, it doesn't say she asked for the gory details at all, unless your reading something I haven't read.
Even if Joe did want to frighten Mary by reading the papers how does this show that he was the Ripper. If you ask me this sounds like Patsy Cornwall saying Sickert was the Ripper because he probably wrote some the of the letters.
Oh and "his woman"???? Tut tut!! Shame on you!! 
Sarah |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 311
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
Tut! tut too
Suzi!! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Again, if a guilty Joe was reading the papers to frighten Mary, why did he volunteer the information, when he clearly had no need?
If the person being questioned about the murder of a partner doesn't think an answer he gives is incriminating, and if the police don't think it is incriminating, the chances are it isn't incriminating.
The clues are there.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 16, 2004) |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 356
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
So Joe wasn't about to incriminate himself..probably because he had nothing to be incriminated about!(I think..too many incriminations here!!)
Is there any reference to Joe's game of whist at |Bullers..other than his??
Cheers
Suzi |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
If I knew Suzi (I feel a song coming on) I’d tell you.
Joe may have been making tricks while thinking ‘whistfully’ of the tricks Mary was turning…
Seems like he played his cards right, though, if he wasn’t a diamond geezer after all, but the knave who stole the tart’s heart clean away.
Toodle pip – it’s cocktail hour but I’m not going to dress for it.
Love,
Caz
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
