|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 11:27 am: |       |
Thank you for seeing my point, CB.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 312
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
Hi Peter,
I know I've suggested Mary may have locked the door when with a client, and at least as far as I know, there is no testimony to that effect. It's just a theory based upon pragmatics of her situation. I would also expect her to lock the door when she went to sleep for the night. My reasoning for these assumptions, and that's what they are, are as follows:
1) the key for her door was lost
2) the lock on her door is described as a spring lock (so if locked it can be opened from the inside without a key but needs a key from the outside; however it can be left unlocked, so you can come and go as you please without a key).
3) the door could be unlocked from the outside if you reached through the broken window; but this might be annoying or awkward to do.
4) she apparently shared her room with other prostitutes, at least for sleeping but that means possibly for "work" as well
Now, given that Mary has to come and go from her room, and that she has little of value worth stealing, I would assume she's more likely to leave the door unlocked when she's not at home. This is more likely if she were to allow other women to use her room when they have a customer (but there's nothing to back up the claim she did this, I'm speculating here and there are valid objections to this notion. Whether she did or did not, however, is not critical)
Anyway, when she returns with a customer, she's likely to lock the door simply for privacy. Even if she didn't share the room for "work" purposes, she did have friends who would come over. If her door was locked, that may indicate she's with a customer, or simply prevent someone from just walking in. Finally, given the general fear in the area from the JtR killings, I would expect her to lock the door when she's asleep as well.
But, since the door could be opened by reaching through the window anyway, this doesn't rule out her killer comming in when she's asleep.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 313
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Hi CB,
I agree, we don't know for sure what to make of most anything really. But without knowing what Mary's habits were, we are forced to compare the evidence with some general human behaviour. Is someone who is hungover, vomiting, and who just got up and got dressed to go to the pub to have a beer, going to go home, undress, fold their clothes, put on their night clothes, then get back into bed, on the day the Lord Mayor's Parade is on? One of the bit events of the year, where one might find some customers, someone to buy them a drink later in the day, etc? Or are they more likely to just lay down fully dressed? Remove only their outer dress and lay down? etc.
The exact sequence would be important, since it either means her killer is a customer (as I've told it) or her killer enters while she's asleep (certainly a good alternative). I think both, however, work best if the time is night time rather than say 9:30 am after she's been to the pub for a beer which she vomits up later. I would suggest, therefore, that the testimony which suggests she was alive at 9:30 am is not reliable.
The folded clothes are not by themselves very important. But, they do fit into a general story that occurs during the night time hours. By no means do I present this as yet another "final solution", rather it's more along the lines of "one plausible story". What appeals to me is that this story seems to cover a fair amount of time, and it encorporates bits of evidence from various sources. The parts that are used most cautiously are the witness testimonies (the general gist of GH's testimony is used, not the exact words, which are too detailed to know what to use). The rest is a thread that weaves through what appears to be a normal working night for Mary. She's out, looking for customers, finds one (blotchy faced man), he leaves, she goes to the pub and has fish and potatoes for a late supper, later she sees GH and tries to get some money from him, he's broke so she leaves him and finds a customer who seems better off than most, who's willing to pay for an entire night (an inference on my part), takes him back to her room, locks the door, undresses and then puts on her night clothes, she gets into bed and moves closer to the wall expecting him to get in, he gets into bed, possibly he already has his knife hidden somehow? he attacks her, she yells once or twice, he cuts her throat (the blood indicates she was near the wall; it's possible she's in that position because he was getting into bed; there are, of course, other explanations), he pulls her over to the edge of the bed where he mutilates her, cleans up, burns some clothes for some reason, gets dressed, opens the door, closes it, it locks behind him, and walks out into the street (his footsteps being heard as he leaves).
All this is entirely theory. I've tried to keep in touch with the evidence. There are clearly other explanations, for example, if her killer breaks into the room after GH's man has left, then there's no need to fit with GH's testimony at all, gist or no gist. So, GH's man leaves, Mary folds her clothes if they are not folded already, gets into her night clothes, gets into bed and goes to sleep, her killer breaks in, he approaches the bed, Mary wakes, shifts to the wall in fear, he attacks, etc. Again, this story also fits with the data, but changes the MO of victim aquisition from "pose as client" to B&E. On the other hand, the client story I told before changes the attack sequence from immediate blitz attack to waiting around with her. Neither, however, is implausible. Serial killers are known to change their MO, so given the dangers of the street attacks, JtR may have decided to start B&Eing. Also, killers of prostitutes very often also employ the services of prostitutes. So, take your pick. Both stories have changes, both changes are plausible, both changes fit the evidence, etc.
Both stories happen at night, which pretty much clears Joe. Stories for the morning, have to start with Mary gets up, gets dressed, is hungover so she goes for a beer at the pub, has some fish and potatoes as well, comes out, vomits, goes home, dresses in her night clothes, folds her day clothes, goes to bed, her killer breaks in, etc.
Anyway, as I say, these are all stories, or theories, or whatever one wants to call them. None of them are proven, but we can still compare them in terms of how well they fit the evidence, how plausible they seem, etc. It may be that all we can do is offer some plausible solutions. That's all I'm really trying to do, present a few ideas, a few general frameworks, around which stories can be developed.
I hope that it's clear I'm not basing these stories only on the folded clothes! Rather, I'm trying to figure out a story where folded clothes, locked doors, fish and potatoes, mysterious yells in the night and footsteps in the morning, etc all connect along a "straight line" if you will.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
G'day Domenic,
Welcome to these boards! Joes alibi for the time that Mary Kelly was killed was that he was in bed at Buller's Lodging House, which was just around the corner. How weak is that?
Barnettites are not merely suggesting that he killed 4 women to frighten one. Barnettites berlieve that his hatred of prostitution stemmed deeper than that!
Joseph Barnett's father died when he was 6, and his mother just deserted her 5 children shortly after, leaving him with no authority figure in the wicked East End of London.
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 271
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
In addition to the points you made in your last post, I also think it would certainly have been normal for Mary to keep her door locked at night, as, according to at least Barnett, Mary seems to have truly feared the Ripper (his inquest testimony on here on the Casebook). Another good indication is that Elizabeth Prater barricaded her door with two tables the night Mary was presumably killed and unlike Mary’s door, hers didn’t even directly open onto the court. She was sleeping upstairs and behind a second door (I presume).
All the best,
Frank
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 503
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Uh Leanne...
Considering that MJK was killed sometime after 1 in the morning, where exactly would Barnett be that would be a strong alibi?
Being in bed in the wee hours is not a weak alibi. It's a logical one.
 |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 662
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Yes.I can see these scenarios as viable.What is more difficult is trying to imagine Mary at say 9 am-feeling ill even though she has already vomited
returning home on a day she was looking forward to
because of the Lord Mayor"s show,getting undressed AND neatly folding those clothes,putting nightwear on and getting back into bed.People don"t behave like that usually.
She might have taken off her boots and shawl-even her dress[unlikely] placed them where they wouldnt crease and lain with a blanket of some kind over her the month being November and cold.
Other scenarios are too far fetched.
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 272
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
Hi again Jeff,
Regarding some of your earlier posts today (which were good ones!) I have two remarks and an addition.
You wrote: “If there was some indication that the clothes were bloodstained, as if handled with bloody hands, for example, then that would change things. But, that is not recorded, and without that, the notion that Mary's killer did the folding is something to consider only as an unlikely alternative.”
Based on the facts I agree that that notion is an unlikely alternative. However, assuming for the sake of argument that the Ripper did fold the clothes, this seems to have been done as some sort of compensation for the mess he made of Mary’s body and her bed. So, I think that if the Ripper was the one who did the folding, it seems unlikely that he would have done it with his bloody hands. In this unlikely scenario I think he would have wiped his hands clean before neatly folding the clothes.
Another thing you wrote: “However, the idea of getting fully undressed and then re-dressed in her night clothes seems inconsistent with the behaviour of someone with such a bad hangover that they are vomiting shortly before (the scene that we would have to accept if she folds the clothes in the morning hours).”
In addition I want to say that eating shortly after vomiting as a result of a hangover doesn't seem a likely scenario, and the vomiting and the fact that partially digested food was found on the crime scene also seem inconsistent.
You also wrote: “Finally, since Mary's room key was lost, and the door was found locked, the idea that her killer was a client fits with the notion that she normally kept the room unlocked, and locked it when with a client.”
I agree the idea fits the notion, but did you only mean to say the fact of the locked door fits the scenario involving the Ripper posing as a client? Or did you mean to say more by what you wrote?
All the best,
Frank
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 314
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
That's how I see it as well, which is why I find the "morning stories" more difficult to accept. The caution, however, is that we don't know Mary's habits specifically, we have to base our notions of what she would do upon our notions of what people in general do. This is why our "stories" are not "proofs", unfortunately.
For example, although most people might behave as we've both suggested, some people would not. Some people would simply not go to bed in their clothes, and are always very neat in their habits. If Mary was one of these kind of people then she specifically might behave unlike most others.
However, since we have no information about Mary in this respect, we have to play the probability game. If Mary is like most people, it would be odd for her to undress completely, fold her clothes neatly, when she's suffering from a hangover, etc. If our intial assumption is wrong (and she's not like most people; at least most people I know who suffer hangovers), the rest does not follow.
I'm not saying I believe Mary was a "neat freak", but I don't want to give the mistaken impression that I think what I've presented is anything more than it is, a story that includes assumptions that Mary was not unusual in her hangover habits and I've tried to connect as many "dots" as possible without having to make any great detours along the way.
Also, an underlying assumption is that Mary was killed by JtR, which is why I prefer the "pose as a client" scenerio over the B&E. This is more in line with the previous victims, although I admit the waiting for her to undress and get into bed is not a minor deviation from his previous killings. The B&E, however, is a different deviation that also could work, but I personally would place it as the "next best alternative".
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 315
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
I agree, that if Mary just vomited, she had to then go somewhere and eat the fish and potatoes, then go back home to go to bed. Or, she had so much to eat, or ate before and vomited only a little (more of a burp-and-blow than a full-power-spew).
And yes, if JtR folded the clothes, he must have cleaned up his hands first (or put on gloves?). The problem, though, is that we are now starting to fit the evidence to fit the assumption that JtR folded the clothes in the first place. Without some direct evidence to tie JtR to the clothes (like blood stains), the possibility that JtR did the folding must remain a distant 2nd; well at least as I see it anyway.
The locked door aspect is all very speculative stuff. There is no testimony as to when Mary kept her door locked and unlocked. I just figure, for reasons I posted earlier, that it's likely she locked it when sleeping or with a client, and left it unlocked when she was out. So, if she brought a client back with her (her killer), once they entered the room, she would lock the door. Or, if her killer breaks in while she's asleep, he had to unlock the door by reaching in, or in her drunken state, she failed to set the lock when she went to sleep for the night and the door was accidently left open.
The last two options are not impossible, they are not even that implausible. However, I prefer the first option simply because it seems to flow better, the door locks in the normal series of events. The other options require that her killer figure out how to open the lock (not impossible if her killer knows her, or has done a bit of burglery) or that Mary do something unusual (leave her door unlocked by accident). Given the first option has a flow which gets a bit rougher with the other options, I go for the first. But to be clear, any of them work, none of them are huge stretches, and none of them should be entirely discounted.
- Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 663
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 6:42 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,I somehow doubt Mary was a neatness freak.The floor of her room was reported as dirty
which means that as she got in and out of bed in her bare feet particles of dirt would have adhered to them.I think someone who was excessively neat and clean would have kept the floor of their room cleaner than reported.
Best Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 316
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 8:30 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Good point. I wasn't aware of this point (the dirty floor). And yes, I agree that this makes the "neat freak" arguement even less likely. Could you point me to the report indicating her floor was dirty? Thanks.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 792
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 3:52 am: | |
Hi,
Marys floor was just floor boards, so one would imagine , she would clean them daily, as a lot of mud and other substances, would enter the room on her boots, and other visitors footware.
So the fact that her floor was somewhat dirty is not surprising.
However we have it on good authority from Inspector Dew, that she was a smart woman , that always wore a spotlessly clean white apron , during daytime, therefore she was hardly shoddy.
so one can imagine that she took a pride in her appearance, even tho her clothes had seen better days, and I for one would expect her to fold her clothes up before bedtime.
Refering to another point..Hangover.
Time events suggest that she had not been drinking since shortly after 11pm, she appeared to be just merry, between 12-1am, and according to Hutchinson, just slighty tipsy at 2am.
I would therefore suggest, that kelly was hardly in a state of drunkeness, and any hangover, would not have been severe.
It is a great shame , we do not have records of Barnetts interrogation, a lot of unanswered questions would be revealed.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
I haven't been on here for a while so I have to ask. What is supposed to be the significance of the folded clothes? I believe Mary folded them whether it was her murdered or not (another thread). I also believe she was very neat and proud of her appearance as reports of her clothing and how she presented herself shows.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to.  |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 666
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
Hi Jeff ,the following quote is fromJack the Ripper[complete history]by Philip Sudgen.:
page 314 "....the only other furnishings were another old table,a chair or two,a cupboard, a disused washstand and a fireplace.......There was little attempt at decoration...A cheap print,"The Fisherman"s Widow hung over the fireplace.But the floorboards were bare and filthy and although the walls themselves were papered the pattern was barely discernible beneath the dirt."
Richard,the exact quote by Walter Dew is as follows[from Paul Begg Jtr a Definitive History.
"She was usually in the company of two or three of her kind,fairly neatly dressed and invariably wearing a clean white apron,but no hat....a pretty buxom woman."
Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 317
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
It appears from Natalie's source quote that Mary was not a house-keeper and did not clean her room on any kind of basis, let alone a daily one. But, as you've pointed out, and as Natalie's quote suggests as well, she did take some care of her own appearances. Fairly neat, however, does not suggest she was a "neat freak". Still, folding her clothes before going to bed would not be out of character, but nor would sleeping in just her underclothes if she was only going have a lay down for a bit.
As you indicate, she does not appear to have been severely intoxicated, which makes the notion that she's vomiting the next day even less believable. So, her state of intoxication in the evening suggests the morning story is either wrong or she continued to drink after being spotted by GH (the last person to report seeing her that night).
The problem, as I see it, with the continuing to drink idea would be that the pubs were closed at that time; so she couldn't get any more unless she gets up at 5 am? But again, if she was drinking in her local, then murdered shortly there after, the bartender at least would have been found and indicated she was there. There would be another witness to back up the details contained in "morning sighting" testimony, and there isn't. There's only the story of her on the street and vomiting. The missing witness by itself isn't enough, to totally dismiss the possiblity she was sighted though. The real problem is that the morning story doesn't fit with anything else we have, and predicts evidence we do not have.
As I've mentioned earlier, her folded clothes and her wearing of bed clothes suggests she got into bed for the night, not for a morning lay down. The lack of witnesses of her in the pub don't give her the opertunity to get intoxicated enough to be sick the next day, moreover the claim she "had a beer" isn't cooberated. She's got food in her stomach, which suggests she hadn't vomited, or at least not much, and the contents is more like an evening meal than a morning one (it's not eggs and potatoes, for example).
I admit it's not impossible for her to have been killed in the morning, but when the evidence points away from that time and points towards a time of death in the night, I would suggest that it's a better working hypothesis to suggest she was killed in the night. If some new evidence were to turn up that doesn't fit with this hypothesis, then we would want to remember our "unlikely alternative" and see if that has become the preferred one. But until or unless new evidence shows up, the current evidence does not support a time of death in the morning, rather, it supports a time of death in the night.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 318
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for the Sudgen quote! And the one from Begg. It's been awhile since I've read Sudgen, so it looks like it's time for me to do so again.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 2:54 am: | |
hi,
Kellys vomiting may not have been because of excessive alcohol, it simply could have been as a result of feeling unwell.
'Oh I have lost my hankerchief' could be the answer.
'Her eyes looked queer as if suffering with a cold' could be significant.
As i have always maintained, I believe kelly was suffering from a bad cold at the time of her death, and hutchinsons statement, and Mrs maxwells statement[ part of which has gone missing]indicates that both of these two important observers were telling the truth.
That is why I am sure kelly died in daylight hours.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 670
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 5:02 am: | |
Hi Richard,
The only thing that makes me question what Mrs Maxwell saw [because I can accept the differences of stages in rigor mortis etc] is why she describes Mary as "dark" and "little".If a young woman in Victorian times is described by several sources as being tall [in her case 5ft 7ins]and "buxom" [by our friend Walter Dew]and "fair"[and her black and white photograph makes it look like she has dark "blonde" hair or reddish "blonde" hair] then Mrs Maxwell"s description doesn"t fit."Buxom" almost certainly meant then what it does today which is BOTH tall and "stout" compared to the average woman of that time and this fits with a height of 5ft 7ins and the describing words stout and tall which were used to describe her on several occasions.
Finally there is a picture of her in newspapers and in Donald Rumbelows book---not the one of her in the doorway of Millers Ct but the one that introduces the chapter on her.I admit this gives no indication of height as its of her head and shoulders but it definitely shows a "stout" person and not someone who would be descibed as a "liitle woman"-[Maxwell].This MAY be a true likeness as well taken from an etching and transferred onto a printing press which could distort her image through darkening shadow too much on the face giving her the deep lines or folds either side of her mouth you see in the picture ditto the set of the eyes may be in too much shadow, but it may still have been taken from a photograph.It says underneath that it is a "true Likeness" so even if its not taken from a photograph it IS an attempt to portray her as she looked which is "heavy" or "stout" and not like the little lady Mrs Maxwell says she saw.[hHer hair too would have looked darker than it was through the same process with over emphasised shadow.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 671
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 5:18 am: | |
Richard,My other point is ofcourse that if Mrs Maxwell and the man who says he saw her that morning were mistaken about what she looked like
then it wasnt Mary she/they saw th at day.
If this is the case the question then is who was it they saw?Well I suppose it could have been anyone who lived in Millers Ct and they didnt actually exchange words using theis names at all.They simply greeted one another and the "little dark woman" said she had drunk too much and "Carrie" added her bit and later thought it was Mary.It all happened that day after all when there would have been the most shocking scenes of police/onlookers etcas well as the shock of hearing about the killing and its nature.
Also if women had been coming and going from Mary"s room the previous weeks Mrs Maxwell could be excused for getting confused about who actually lived there.I dont know everyone in my road by sight let alone by name so I think it would be quite easy to get muddled up about it.
Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 795
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
If Inspector Dew, had reason to know Kelly by sight, it would asume that she struck an imposing figure, she seemed extremely popular with the local prostitutes, and evidence points that she would aid them in any way she could.
She was a frequent visitor to Crossinghams Lodging house, and Maxwell knew her as the woman , that was killed.
I find it most unlikely also , that she would not have been taken to view the body, before she gave her evidence at the inquest , exspecially as her evidence was the opposite to medical reports.
The fact that she swore on oath , having been warned that her evidence, was contractictory, to police reports, suggests to me that there was little doubt, she was telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Richard.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 321
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I could by the cold idea, but Mary is supposed to have said "I have the horrors of drink upon me", which means she's supposed to be very hungover. This leads to the suggestion of getting a beer, and the reply that she just had one and vomitted. The entire exchange is describing someone who is suffering from too much drinking the night before. If we accept the morning notion, we have to go with the notion that Mary tied one on, and was now suffereing from the after effects.
And, as you yourself pointed out, she doesn't appear to have had enough to drink the night before to induce the hangover we would have to assume she had. The "cold" idea doesn't work so well because there's no indication she had a cold the night before, and the alledged exchange is not about a cold but about a hangover.
As for testifying under oath, all that matters is that she believes what she testified too. Not that what she testified to was actually true. If she's mistaken, and it was not Mary she spoke to, then she's only made a mistake, not told a lie under oath. Remember, Stride was identified as someone's sister, and she saw the body! This was shown to be false when the sister later showed up, very much alive and well.
- Jeff |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Hi all
Thanks for takeing the time to respond toomy post.
Glenn, I see your point on alot of things. I think we agree on alot except suspects.
Jeff, What makes you think she was hungover when she took off her cloths. I dont believe Maxwell saw Kelly the next morning. I think she was haveing a good time and never got the chance to be hungover. you make a good point however if she was hungover and vomiting when maxwell saw her that morning and if she did want to go to the parade she might not get undressed. I believe that she was out the night before and she was still in a festive mood when jack picked her up. I dont think she ever had the time to be hung over.
Just an interesting fact, I am hungover
now
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I respect you and what you are doing. Joe is a viable suspect. He lived in the area. He knew one of the victims. He fits the profile. I do not buy the motive. However, like you said if we knew what motivated a serial killer that whould be scary. .
If Joe had a deep rooted hattred of prostitutes like you say then why was he with Kelly in the first place? She was a prostitute when he saw her and if his hatred ran so deep why did he just stop killing.
I also have a problem with the fact the police never considerd him a suspect. I think they would have checked him out.
I am with you on your efforts too put forth a suspect who lived in the area. I AWAIT YOUR BOOK WITH GREAT ANTICIPATION.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 6:10 am: | |
Hi Natalie,
I guess there would be know chance of mistaking Mary Ann Cox for Mary Kelly since Maxwell probably saw here at the inquest? Anyway Mary was a very common name and it could have been anyone. I think you are right the description that Maxwell gives of the women she knew as Mary doese not match any known description I have heard of Marry Jane. I have a picture of her that is in Shannons book the unfortunates. Were she has high cheekbones and full lips. She looks very distictive and young.
All the best,CB |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
