|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 282
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:43 pm: |       |
Hi All Thankyou CB for your comments about my thinking!Its good to know when people agree with you.
Michael.Apparently the way in which the ripper disembowelled his victims and laid their organs
around their necks etc had a degree of pattern to it as did the direction and movement of the knife around their throats.He also positioned their legs the same way each time even down to the angle of the knee and he then made sure others would be able to see the horrible sight in the case of Mary he positioned her so that others would immediately see his work when they looked through her window,
Best Natalie |
Chris Michetti
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
If it wasn't MJK in the room then why would she have taken her clothes off and made herself at home? And why would Hutchinson be waiting around outside her place all day... he most likely would have known that she was in there or not in there at most times of that night, since he was standing there the whole time. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
I agree, it's an interesting conversation.
"Ps How on earth can this be "off topic" anyway?"
Well, this thread is, as far as I understand, about whether it was Mary Kelly or not in that room. Since the rules regarding being on topic has become more harsh here recently, I just wanted to point that out. I don't want to be the one accused of turning this thread off the wrong path. I agree with what you say on this point, but I have not made the rules for this board.
"Glenn, with all respect I would like to know who made these records at the turn of the century and before?If I am correct it would have been the police who would not have been the most sympathetic of interviewers of prostitutes..."
That is indeed a good point, and I actually just waited for you to deliver that one. 
However, I am not talking about information in a police report here -- I am referring to witness statements from people who knew each of these women and from relatives, and -- not least -- statements from the women themselves. I know that the authorities didn't approve much of theses women's occupation, but to disregard the information just on such grounds is a fallacy and all too easy.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 17, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I Can not see how the kelly murder was botched.
Imagine this scenerio.
The killer intended to murder kelly , around 8.30 am, he knowing her well, knew that she was always in bed at that hour, He would assume that if the police found a victim , undressed and in her bed, that they would asssume , that like the other victims, she was killed during the night hours, and if the murderer had a alibi , for that period, he had a good chance of escaping the net.
The scene in kellys room, looked like, the body had been there, since the night time, as she was laying in the bed with only a undergarment on.
The only thing, that went wrong , was when the murderer arrived at her room, she was not there, but she soon returned,and he encouraged her to get back into bed, in the position , he wanted her to be found.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2110
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Re whether or not the body was Kelly's :
Barnett identified it as Kelly's.
McCarthy identified it as Kelly's.
So far as we know, Hutchinson identified it as Kelly's.
I believe there are also newspaper reports of women looking into the room.
And as Brian Schoeneman would say, the body was found in Kelly's room on Kelly's bed wearing Kelly's chemise...
Kelly was not seen or heard of after November 9th.
I feel quietly confident that Kelly died on November 9th.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Robert,
We certainly agree on that point, i would consider it 99.9 , that the body found in that sordid room, was the woman known as Mary jane
The only dispute, is the time of death?.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2111
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Hi Richard
But what about the defensive wounds, the stabs through the sheet, the shrinking away of the victim towards the corner of the bed, the apparent lack of strangulation?
You say he was trying to make it look like a night time murder, but Barnett of all people would have been aware that at any moment Bowyer might knock for the rent, or one of Kelly's friends might knock and then peer through the window. Unless like Shannon you think that the mutilation was the work of only five minutes or so?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Richard, Robert
I agree with Robert here.
To much indicates that Kelly's murderer wasn't someone she knew that well. Like Robert points out, if the murderer knew about the arrangements and the people connected with that room, would he really indulge in such extensive post mortem activity?
Furthermore, I'll keep saying what I've always said. Looking at the crime scene photo indicates to me someone who is completely disturbed and out of his mind. I don't care how many problems Barnett had, but a loonie such as this, he was not.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
Robert,
Holding a sheet over someones mouth to silence, any cries, would have had to been the killers approach on kelly, for any shouting or screaming, whether, night or day, would have not been wise, in the case of Chapman, and Eddowes, I would have imagined, as there was no aid like a sheet, he simply placed a firm hand over their mouths.
Regarding being disturbed, everybody who knew kelly knew she was a late riser, even Bowyer,was not send to her room until 1045am,Catherine pickett, was proberly just being selfish, in knocking her door at 8am, in a effort to borrow her shawl. it is possible that she may have seen a light in her room[ a fire?] and assumed kelly was up and about.
Barnett having lived in that room with Kelly, would have known not only her habits, but also that of her friends and neighbours, and could have taken a calculated risk, that nobody would disturb him.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 285
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
Just a quickie[for the umpteenth time today]:
Really doesnt match the murder scene and the state the body was in.
In the scenario of Richards above where we are given the graphic detail of Joe leaping up on the bed etc I cant see Mary not trying to fight him off very vigourously indeed and she sounds as though at 5ft 7ins and"rather stout"[which by the way they depicted their fleshy women seems to have meant just that "stout"] --she would have been some match for him.When people fight for their lives they can often summon up tremendous strength and you bet Mary would have given half a chance.To me it seems like she was asleep when he struck.
Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
Natalie,
Regarding Kellys stature, we have contrasting reports on this,
If one looks at the contents on the bed, even allowing for missing flesh, she was hardly built like a tank.
She has been described as a woman of fiery temper, also a pleasant LITTLE woman.
Also regardless of her stature, if one is deprived of air, and one is being stabbed in a ferocious manner, resistance soon becomes weakened.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 287
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
Richard,I always thought the police gave out her height as 5ft 7ins and the pictures in the papers all show a well built tallish woman.[drawings but done from desciptions of those who knew her no doubt.In certain areas "little" implies "young" and isnt connected to height.
There is no record of Joe ever having lifted a finger to Mary---rowed with her but not hit her.
As I understand it was Mary who had the edge on Joe for temper and who was responsible for breaking the window in Millers Court.To some extent Joe comes across as a bit of a ninny compared with other Victorian men even let alone the murderers like Chapman and Kelly.
Best Natalie. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 288
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
Richard,I always thought the police gave out her height as 5ft 7ins and the pictures in the papers all show a well built tallish woman.[drawings but done from desciptions of those who knew her no doubt.In certain areas "little" implies "young" and isnt connected to height.
There is no record of Joe ever having lifted a finger to Mary---rowed with her but not hit her.
As I understand it was Mary who had the edge on Joe for temper and who was responsible for breaking the window in Millers Court.To some extent Joe comes across as a bit of a ninny compared with other Victorian men even let alone the murderers like Chapman and Kelly.
Best Natalie. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Natalie,
I am not accusing Barnett , of hitting her, but Killing her.
She proberly did have a temper, and could have well broken a window pane in a disagreement, but regardless of size, for eg. I am two hundred and thirty pounds, but even if a frail youth, stuck a knive, in my frame, my obvious strength, would soon evaporate.
Refering to Barnett, coming across as a bit of a ninny, I Agree, but so did Crippen, or Christie.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 549
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Hi all
Great conversation going on here!!!! Cannot believe the chemise thig....look at that photo....that's a rucked up sheet I swear it!!!!! Come in Dr Bond!!!!! the body was naked blah blah blah....looks like that to me
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
Hi Suzi.
The body was naked apart from a chemise, was the opinion, most women keep a certain amount of modesty, except of course, for men they feel comftable with.
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
Hi Jfripper and everyone else,
I was going to go down your list JF to explain some of your points away but what is the point. People who think that it was not Mary have very strong feelings on the subject and anything I have to post will not change there mind. So how about changeing mind by answering one question. Why would Mary KELLY LET PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS DEAD? WHY NOT COME FORWARD AND TELL THE POLICE THAT THEY HAVE MADE A MISTAKE? This question has to be answerd by those who support the theory that Mary was not the victim found at 13 Millers Court.
ALL the best, CB |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Richard,
I agree with Natalie here. You don't have to be strongly built in order get a large amount of strength in a desperate situation. That is a strength that comes from within, not from physical attributes. Like Natalie says, from what we know, Kelly was the one who had a temper of the two. Then add to it, that Barnett probably still had feelings for her; is it credible that he would be able to perform it? I know that you think so, but to me it's questionable.
Regarding someone walking in in the middle of the scene, why would Barnett take such a "calculated" risk? I don't get it.
It doesen't add up.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 290
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
It is my honest view that whoever killed Mary Kelly was by this stage as mad and dangerous
as they ever come.I dont believe anyone would have been safe with such a killer about.When Catharine Eddowes was murdered it was clear that whoever did it had something dangerously disturbed about him but quite possible too that the control over theway the body was mutilated and the organs then "arranged" around her neck
was some indication that the murderer was pretty sick but not completely stark staring bonkers.
Its only when we understand the crazed nature of the destruction with flesh piled up here there and everywhere and Mary"s face and body almost shredded that we somehow know this fellow is certifiably insane and highly dangerous.
I dont believe any of the people who gave evidence to the police were mad in this way.Thats why I have such doubts about Hutchinson and Barnett who if Mary had been killed but not mutilated the way she was I too would have at the very top of a suspects list.
Thats why I have held on to the few suspects who ended up in the loony bin or died or were in some way "detained" after the murder of Mary Kelly.I really do think whoever it was was finished after her murder---had gone down the route of no return
like death itself.You can still see ghost like people from whom the essence of themselves has been extracted by mental illness and this is how I see the ripper post Mary Kelly.And I know Richard that Joe didnt present like this after her death.
Best Natalie. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
G'day Natalie,
What do we know for sure about Joseph Barnett immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly? He 'evidently laboured' when testifying at her inquest. He most likely 'stuttered' and 'repeated the last words of every question asked'. Most people then and now just considered this the normal reaction of a man who just lost his lover.
He probably went back to 'Bullers Lodging House', until he packed up and went to stay with his sister.
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 291
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 6:05 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,well yes you have a good point there in that we know nothing about him after the inquest much although I did think I had read about him getting married and having children.If this was so then for me that would be enough to show he couldnt have been the ripper.However if we hear that he was detained in some way[asylum or prison say then I would certainly consider him a very serious suspect.
I have enjoyed this discussion today and its a pity I have to go to Wales for a few days but hope to be back to pick up the thread again in a few days.
Take care Best Natalie. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1162
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 6:13 pm: | |
Natalie,
In all respects, that last one [5:14] was one of the best posts I have ever read from you.
Leanne,
We have been over this before.
Just because he seemed to "labour" while giving the testimony at the inquest and "stuttered", doesen't turn him into a mad butcher. That is to twist psychology in the most incredible fashion.
To me it is obvious that the man who committed the murder on Kelly, had finally lost it. Such a person would NOT have been able to deliver a testimony to anyone, I believe he even would be unable to communicate at all.
The crime scene photo says it pretty clear.
"Most people then and now just considered this the normal reaction of a man who just lost his lover."
Possibly, but is it beyond doubt a normal reaction from a man who just have murdered and mutilated his former girlfriend beyond recognition?
I must say, I find it very hard to picture the personality type you and Richard are trying to describe. Because he seems constructed to me. What is your "profile" on Barnett, really? How mad was he? Oh I am sorry, I don't want to give away things in your book...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 17, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:52 pm: | |
Hey Leanne/Glenn,
I'm going to have to agree with Glenn here regarding Barnett's speech impediment, but Glenn, if the Ripper was cool and collective like Bond had described, then he could have easily communicated with the police. I'm sure there have been and are serial killers who get in interviews with the police and are all calm without drawing suspicion.
But, I don't think Barnett was calm at all. It was reported that he was nervous. Or if he was the killer-scared.
Peter
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2113
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:28 am: | |
Hi Richard
If Joe planned Kelly's murder he'd have done it the same way that he (allegedly) did the others. He'd have throttled her while she was still standing and then laid her down and cut her throat. And when he laid her down on the bed wouldn't he have laid her down with her head to the foot end of the bed, so that he could cut her throat from the usual side?
Kelly seems to have resisted. The police would have been very interested in any fresh scratch marks on Joe's face. I can only assume there were none.
You say that Kelly was a late riser, which may be true. But Leanne has been dinning it into us that Kelly told her friends that she wanted to be up early that morning for the Lord Mayor's show.
I agree with Glenn that the murder of Kelly seems to show that someone with a different personality from Joe's was at work. But if Joe was really as cunning and organised as you say he was, then I think he'd have simply left Kelly alone as being too risky a proposition, and killed someone else instead.
I think it's trying to have the best of both worlds to say that Joe cunningly killed several women, then cold-bloodedly planned Kelly's murder (while being simultaneously maddened by unrequited love).
Robert |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 8:27 pm: | |
Hi CB, et al.
Having read through todays posts, I realise my post was "off topic" slightly and should probably have been posted on a different thread.
Today I will try to keep "on topic", though I may tend to deviate somewhat throughout this post.
First however, in keeping with the issue debated on this thread, I truly believe that the body of the young female found murdered on the morning of 9/11/88, at No.13 Millars Court, Dorset Street, Whitechapel, was the woman known in the district as Mary Kelly. To state otherwise is foolhardy without contempary evidence to back up any reasons for not believing this to be true.
Whether she was a victim of JTR is another issue. This idea is open for debate, but not the fact that it was Mary Kelly that was murdered.
Regardless of what theories some may have for deciding this was not Mary Kelly, they have to truly explain away the insurmountable amount of evidence indicating that it was Mary Kelly. Evidence of identification alone would be the hardest to explain away.
I am now going to go slightly "off topic", but it is a reply to an observation made by Natalie on this thread.
Natalie's Observation.
{Michael.Apparently the way in which the ripper disembowelled his victims and laid their organs
around their necks etc had a degree of pattern to it as did the direction and movement of the knife around their throats.He also positioned their legs the same way each time even down to the angle of the knee and he then made sure others would be able to see the horrible sight in the case of Mary he positioned her so that others would immediately see his work when they looked through her window.}
What you write as merit to a certain point, but you are going upon the words of police reports and have excepted their conclusions without reservations. Let me give you an example of my own, again taken from police reports/investigations. The crimes discussed are those commited by Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper.
On the 22nd May 1981, Peter Sutcliffe was found guilty of thirteen murders and sentenced to life inprisonment. These thirteen murders were considered by the investigating police department, Leeds CID, West Yorkshire Police, to be the murders commited by Peter Sutcliffe, during his killing spree from 1975 - 1980.
It has since emerged, and Sutcliffe has confessed to these, that there were other murders and other attacks upon women commited by him during a longer time frame, 1967 - 1980.
In regards the attacks, the survivors gave strong physical descriptions of their attacker and evidence collected in regards M.O. indicated there were strong similarities that these crimes were the work of the same person as that known as the "Yorksire Ripper". This evidence was shunned by West Yorkshire Police, but ultimately should have been added to their "physcological" database about the Yorkshire Ripper. This evidence would have caught Peter Sutcliffe sooner. The police however were blinkered in their opinions about who and what the person responsible was like. In fact, so mismanaged and misdirected was the overall investigation that the Home Secretary, William Whitelaw requested that an investigation be conducted to analyse the West Yorkshire Police's role in the investigation of the "Ripper Murders". The resulting Byford Report high-lighted a great many errors by the West Yorkshire Police, one of which was:- "The Ripper Squad had crucially failed to be flexible when deciding the criteria for judging which women had been attacked by the Yorkshire Ripper".
In fact Byford's team drew up a list of another THIRTEEN more of his victims, convinced they had been excluded because they did not FIT the Ripper's M.O. Quite a few of these additional victims were later found to be true victims of Peter Sutcliffe.
Another conclusion they reached was the role of the senior investigating officer and his opinions and direction of the overall investigation and the path it took.
This was mirrored in the Whitechapel murders. The senior officer dictating the direction of the investigation.
By the way, the 156 page Byford report has never been made public. It was deemed by politians of the day to be too damning in its conclusions that they feared public opinions and respect of the police force as a whole would disintegrate.
This same situation applies to the investigation conducted by the victorian police in their hunt for JTR. The major difference between the two investigations being that the original "Jack" was never caught so we cannot truly know HOW MANY murders and attacks were commited by him and over what period.
As to the five most commonly regarded as Jack's victims, Nicholls through to Kelly, this is only the opinion of a later Police Commissioner, and one who never took an active role in the investigations.
Okay, I hear you say, this means his opinions are therefore not biased, but let me ask you; If you were in his postion would this be the same conclusion that you would arrive at? I do not.
Also, if you believe that he reached his conclusion after a thorough reading of the evidence about the murders, why was he not just as thorough in his conclusions about his three plausible suspects, each of which as numerous errors of fact about them. If he was less than thorough in this regard, who is to say he was not just as "slack" in his reading of the murder investigations/evidence and the conclusion he drew from this reading. Also, what time frame did he have for researching and writing this report? Days? Weeks? Certainly not months.
Natalie, you use similarity as evidence/reasoning to support your claims of who were Jack's victims, but what about Martha Tabram/Turner? Surely there is great similarity in her murder. Also, Liz Stride? To me there is less similarity in this murder than there is similarity to the others. But as you can see from the information above, regarding the Yorkshire Ripper case, similarity is a very fine line, and where do you draw that line, as to who was a victim and who was not??
In the "Jack" murders we only HAVE murders, but what about attacks during this period. Has anyone seriously and vigorously undertaken a complete and thorough search of reports about attacks upon women in this area from, say, 1887 - 1890??
The greatest mystery to me is not who was "Jack", but;
WHY DID HE CONMENCE HIS KILLING SPREE WITH FULL-BLOWN MUTILATION. WHERE ARE THE TESTER CRIMES? HIS INITIAL EXPERIMENTS UPON THE ROAD TO TOTAL DESTRUCTION? HIS FAILURES? AND THERE MUST BE SOME, AT LEAST ONE!!
Somebody please show me another killer in history that has started his murder/criminal carreer with mutilation, without a single "starter" crime. I have yet to find one!
Once again, I apologise for veering "off topic" but do hope the moderators will allow these indiscretions.
Regards,
Michael |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
