|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 6:56 am: |       |
G'day Sarah,
Where did you get the information that Mary stayed at a cheaper lodging house while she let her room out? I understood that she let 2 other prostitutes stay there, (not both at once but one straight after the other), while she and Joseph slept there too! That's what the fight was about!
LEANNE! |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 537
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:10 am: | |
Leanne,
Good question. I can't find where I got it from now. I think in the above dissertation it mentions her subletting her room which would mean that she wasn't in the room at the time or at least it does in my mind. I know she used to share the room but if the person she was subletting it to other prostitutes she could get more money if she could guarantee the person's privacy. I don't know, I may have made that up unintentionally, if that's the case I'm sorry but I'll keep looking.
Sarah |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 428
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Hi Leanne and Sarah
Ok there's obviosly something to think about here!!
Am quite sure that mary was letting out her room at some point and maybe to some people..maybe for money or a share of the ubiquitous back rent!!don't think that mary stayed anywhere else during this 'occupancy' but probably just went up the road to Ringers or out with Danny et al!! or maybe just wandered about in the hope of a good time! (or a bit more towards the'rent'!)
Still have a lot of thoughts as to the 'body' not being Mary..but that's another thread!!
All the best
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 629
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hi,
I feel that there is absolutely no doubt , that the victim, found in room 13, was Mary, all we have to decide upon, is when she was killed.
all the evidence points to her having been killed around 9am on the morning of the 9th.
The 4am scream , can be explained, by her having a nightmare, the fact that she had a horrid nightmare was verified by her friend lottie, who Kitty intervied a couple of years later.
Nightmares of that magnitude, can repeat themselves, on a recurring bases .
The man Hutchinson saw, I believe was nothing more than a gent she took in for financial gain, for a few hours till daybreak, she proberly slept most of the time he was in the room, mayby he used her services, mayby not, but in any case ,i believe, he was the person heard leaving her room, around 6 am.
I feel we should debate, the possible time of death for this victim, for us to get anywhere.
Richard. |
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
You all have very good points, but what about Mary's hair and the crime scene picture? If her hair reached to her waist it should be visible on the picture, but I don't see anything that indicates her hair is that long.
What do you make of that then?
Birgitte |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 552
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:36 am: | |
Birgitte,
I'm not sure about her hair. I haven't been able to work out where her hair ends as the body is in a bit of a mess (understatement). I'll have another look though.
Richard,
all we have to decide upon, is when she was killed.
Maybe all YOU wish to decide upon is when she was killed but I don't think it's fair of you to suggest that others can't try to decide for themselves. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the body wasn't Mary and I feel that people who ignore all that without looking into it at all are just taking the easy way out. That is just my opinion of course.
Sarah |
Luxy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 7:02 am: | |
Hi Richard
You say :"all the evidence points to her having been killed around 9am on the morning of the 9th".
What exactly makes you feeling so sure it was Mary's corpse lying on the bed in number 13?
Regards
Luxy
|
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:44 pm: | |
The Ripper could have cut Mary's hair while he was cutting up the rest of her too. I mean nobody ask about the hair on the rest of her body. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:28 pm: | |
Hi Luxy,
I cannot see how it could have been anyone else but her, if it were not , we would have a conspiracy on a mammonth scale
Kelly herself , would have been involved, Barnett , mcCarthy, possible Bowyer,
Her clothes were found piled next to the bed, she was lying on the bed in her room.
In my mind the only explanation is that Kelly was killed much later, then was assumed.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 559
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 6:27 am: | |
Richard,
I don't see how the body not being Mary's would indicate a conspiracy at all. Barnett only glimpsed through the window, Bowyer didn't know her that well and once he had seen a dead body he wouldn't have hung around to try to determine who it was and McCarthy also only glimpsed through the window.
Why do you think it is not possible that Mary had subletted her room to get extra rent money, as she was known for doing apparently, and planned to get back before the rent man? If this had happened and she had come back to the room and saw the mess in her room would do you think she would have done? Remember that she was in a lot of debt and wanted desperately to get away. Why do you find it so impossible that Mary could have exchanged her clothes for the victims and then left. This would explain why she left the room and vomited and then why she looked ill to Mrs Maxwell who also noted that she was wearing clothes that she had never seen her in before.
Please remember that I am not saying this is fact as I do not know but it is merely a suggestion. You cannot say that she wouldn't have done this as you did not know her and therefore do not know what she would or wouldn't have done. I realise that you want the body to be Mary's otherwise it would throw your Barnett theory into disaray but I see it as an option and I don't think I'm alone here.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 7:40 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
OK, where did she go? Do you think she may have let her room for the price of a journey to Ireland?
Mary never subletted her room in the past!! Where did you hear that? She let her prostitute friends sleep there, while her and Barnett were there! That's why he moved out!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 563
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Leanne,
I read in that dissertation on here that I mentioned above, but I already always knew that she did before I even read that. I can't remember why now though. I'll have a look around and see where else I got it from.
The quote from the above dissertation is:-
"For the past several nights she took herself off to a neighbouring room to shelter the night and returned about 8.00am to regain possession of her own bed and sleep the late morning and afternoon away. She would charge the occupant who used it more than she paid for her alternative accommodation, and by saving this might hope to stave off her own uncouth eviction."
I never said she went to Ireland, although she may have, but I think she would rather have gone anywhere then where she was.
Why do you say she never subletted her room anyway? Do you have some sort of evidence for it.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
G'day Sarah,
Who on earth wrote the paragraph you quote above???? Read the 'Times' November 10:
Bruce Paley explained that Mary took in Julia Venturney, then as soon as she left Maria Harvey was invited to stay. The above mentioned newspaper stated: 'The young woman Harvey, who had slept with the deceased on several occasions has made a statement to the effect that she had been on good terms with the deceased...'
Later the report says about Barnett:'They were very happy and comfortable together [obviously his words], until another woman came to sleep in the room, to which he strongly objected.'...'After the woman had been there two or three nights he quarrelled with the woman he called his wife and left her.'
SHE NEVER SUBLETTED HER ROOM!
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 471
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
Leanne
Exactly!!I don't believe that Mary ever sub-letted her room..ok she had her 'friends' to stay ,obviously she valued their friendship and probably thier own lack of sleeping space more than the possibilty of getting some money towards her back rent..hardly likely that they would have been able to provide it anyway..if not they'd have had their own 'lodgings'.Am still very suspicious about Barnett's words..just think that Mary had got totally p***** off with joe and preferred the girls company rather than a domestic situation in a 10'x12' room!!
Agree?? |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
Well if Mary charged her friends a little bit of money to share her room, none of it went towards her rent arrears. Her over-due rent amount equalled the weeks between her murder and the week that Barnett lost his job. She obviously just wanted their company.
Julia Venturney left as soon as she found her own lodgings nearby, so Mary probably let her save. And then Maria Harvey was invited in the next night. Maria Harvey found her own room, and returned to it as soon as Barnett visited her the evening before her death.
So if he wasn't invited back, he would have finally realized that the relationship was over, and Mary was just accepting his gifts of money!
Then Mary was killed, and so the 'Jack the Ripper' saga concluded!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on January 29, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 565
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 6:00 am: | |
Leanne,
What you have quoted above merely states that she let some women stay with her whilst she was with Joe but it doesn't mention anywhere that she never subletted her room or how she chose to live after Joe left her. The quote I mentioned above from the dissertation indicates that she did sublet her room after Joe had left her, unless you can show me evidence that she didn't do this then I can't really except your own opinion that she didn't. You asked me where I got the information that she subletted her room, I was just telling you.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 6:14 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
Joe left on the 30th of October 1888, Mary Kelly was murdered a week later. Joe kept visiting her at that room, nearly everyday to give her money, and I'd say to see if she wanted him back.
Just before her murder, Joe visited her at that room as Maria Harvey was leaving to go to her new lodgings.
The dissertation you quoted above does not indicate what really happened! I'll ask again: Who wrote it? Is it here in Casebook?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 567
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 6:22 am: | |
Leanne,
Yes, sorry, I missed that. It's here on the Casebook. I can't remember who wrote it but it's called "Did Mary Kelly Survive?" and I personally think it makes some good points as to why it might not have been her. This is just my own opinion though although I'm sure the person who wrote it wouldn't have gone about making up his facts. With regards to the above quote, he didn't say that it was his opinion but stated it as fact.
Sarah |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 485
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 1:53 pm: | |
Leanne
I agree with you.............I can understand that mary wanted to spend time with her 'chums'..come on who wouldn't rather spend time with their girl 'friends' rather than having Joe coming round at the prospect of an 'unpleasantness'..When he turned up and found Mary with "a female who lived in the same court,who's name he apparently did not know" I bet his humour didn't improve..said he had no money..whether or not he did.. and went off into the night to his 'game of whist'!!
Still can't help but feel that GH and MJK were more than just chums...come on Sarah!!!
Love
Suzi |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 8:05 pm: | |
Hi all,
I think it is possible that she let other women stay with her and she may have taken money from them. However, I think the eyewitness acounts from Cox and GH make it clear that Mary was useing her room that night.
The time of her death is debatable and there is a good argument to be made that she was killed after 8:30 in the morning. I still think she was killed between 2:30 and 4:00 AM.
Sarah, I am rooting for you and your theory to be right. I think we all would like to believe that Mary escaped the clutches of JTR and moved to sea side cottage and lived a long happy life. I am afraid that does not ring true. I have to ask myself why she would let people believe that she had been murderd? Why not step forward and clear the situation up? I know you claim she desperately wanted to get away but why could she not have just left? There was no need for her to let people think she was dead in order for her to leave. I tend to agree with Richard. Once you go down the path that Mary really did not die you open up all the cospiracy theories.
Wish you all the best CB
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
I am reading through that dissertsation, and here are my comments:
Mary's missing key and locked door has been argued and argued on the boards in the past and it was decided that Mary had a door that locked automatically when it was shut. If she was lucky enough to have this recent invention, why did everyone assume that the killer locked the door when he left?
Saying that Barnett: 'would not work to support them', was a bit harsh!!!! He tried! Then Des McKenna implies that Mary wanted him to go and he refused to leave. That's rubbish too! She told her close friend that she was really 'fond' of Joseph flemming, but Barnett was good to her (ie., she was bleeding him of his money!)
I'd love to know where that guy got the information that Mary was fined six weeks before her murder. If she was she was still with Barnett, so would have left it up to him to pay!
She did NOT have a ten year old boy living with her. That newspaper lie was explained to me by Paul Begg, and will be detailed in my book and his next book.
She was NOT 'heavy' with child and there was no 'mysterious stranger'!
John McCarthy did NOT 'took [take] her key back'. He was the one who pried Mary's door open with a pickaxe, when they found her body!
How is Mr. McKenna sure that Mary found her key?
Mr. McKenna wrote: 'I BELIEVE she sub-let the premises and evicted him. For the past several nights she took herself off to a neighbouring room...' I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE!
I will read more of this dissertation tomorrow because it's quite entertaining FICTION!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
G'day,
OK 'My Comments About That Dissertation' - part 2:
'The clothes that Maria Harvey (the laundress) left':
It is strongly believed that she left them there for Mary to sell on 'Lord Mayor's Day'. Mary covered the hole in her window with the man's black jacket. Harvey needn't have stole them, they may have been unclaimed goods....NO MYSTERY!
I do believe her killer could have swaped his bloody shirt with one of the men's shirts Harvey left, or even wiped his knife before throwing it in the fire.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:48 pm: | |
G'day,
Ahhhhh, now I see something forming.....Mary had one single bed, right?, and Joseph Barnett had to be up and at the markets to fill his orange cart, when the markets opened at 5:00a.m. He probably got up at 3:00a.m. Most prostitutes were still working from the night before, until about 2:00a.m. Then with Barnett out of Mary's bed, she had room to offer one of her friends.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 504
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
Leanne G'Day..
I may be wrong but I thought that Joe had lost his job by this point..he may have been doing casual work at the orange market I guess ,but I can't find any reference to that.Mind you if he took lodgings at Bullers Boarding House after splitting from Mary,how was he paying his way?? I reckon that the barge coat hanging up at the window was courtesy of either Maria Harvey or Lizzie Albrook,Winifred Collis etc..certainly not Mary's..could have been Joe's thought I suppose
What do you think?
Cheers
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 5:09 am: | |
G'day Suzi,
Joseph Barnett opened his inquest testimony with: 'I was was fish porter, and I work as a labourer and fruit porter." The 'Illustrated Police News' described him as 'a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields Markets'. Two other newspapers described him as a man who sold oranges in the street. Costermongers, (street sellers), mainly baught oranges to load their barrows at St. James Fruit market, (which was near Mitre Square). They had to get there as soon as the market opened to get the best bargains.
I'd say that Buller's Boarding House was very cheap.
The large black coat hanging over Mary's window was listed in the clothes that Maria Harvey left, and it was returned to her by the police. It probably wasn't burnt in the fire, or use by the killer for his escape because it provided a little coverage of the view of the corpse. It also would have helped to identify the killer.
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
