|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:15 pm: |       |
Hi Sarah and Richard
Well, my thought was - as I wrote in my last post - that she already may have been undressed and had gone to bed before Barnett (according to this theory) for some reasons came back; not that she undressed in front of him while he was there.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 26, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 345
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, Richard, Sara, and everyone else!
For this, I'll continue working from the assumption that Joe kills Mary. And, since I'm starting from that "view", it's not necessary to "prove it". That's a different question, we're just trying to see how well that assumption works as a starting point.
I think things work best if Mary is already in bed when Joe arrives. And Glenn, I can see now how Joe being let into the room by Mary (who was already in bed), then could lead to her getting back in bed while Joe sits on the chair, or even on the side of the bed, so they can talk.
Richard tells me that it's no longer Mary despising Joe; maybe "fed up with him" because he's "being annoying" about trying to prevent her from working while they are without money (and, she's in need of drink, etc). Ok, so Mary's just annoyed, but she might take Joe back if he would just drop the pressure? Still, I suspect she's not likely to get fully naked and then put on her night shirt while he's there, but ok, maybe she does.
Glenn, the cry of "Murder" is during the night, and Joe's alibi clears him for a murder at the time the cry of "murder" is reported. I think we would have to consider the cry of murder to be unrelated to the case if we start with Joe as the killer (the murder has to be in the morning, well after the cry of murder that occurred during the night). We have to work with the idea that when Joe does his attack Mary does not have the time to cry out such that anybody notices her. Also, if Joe initially is trying to rape Mary, I think this would qualify as the "pre-murder fight" for which we have no evidence to suggest. I would think Mary would cry for help if Joe first tried to force himself upon her. And, if they were initially "just talking" and something got Joe angry, I still think this suggests some sort of "fight" prior to the attack. We discussed this earlier and decided that it was unlikely there was any such "pre-attack fight".
If Joe kills Mary, I think we have to go with the idea that when Joe sits on the bed he is doing so in order to get close enough to her so that he can attack her, so that she's caught unawares. Meaning, he's come over with the predetermined intention to kill her. For reasons I've mentioned before, because the attack begins while Mary is in bed, this would suggest Joe is not Jack as if he arrives with the intention to kill Mary, he would have strangled her as soon as the door was closed (as Jack, his attacks start with a standing victim, etc). So, I think in this case it would look more like Joe is only the killer of Mary, but of course Joe as Jack would still have to be considered despite this one change in the MO.
Richard, the "defense wounds" are knife cuts, not bruises. This means Mary was defending herself from the knife attack not a physical struggle during smothering. It also suggests she knew there was a knife (even if she couldn't see it, she knows she's being attacked and she could feel it cut her during her defense).
Now, if Mary knows she's being attacked with a knife, and at least one of those attacks is "blocked and it cuts her finger/hand", does it not seem strange that she doesn't cry out enough to attract at least some attention? If the attack is quick and her throat gets cut soon after that, there might not be a lot of screaming but there should be some. Remember, if her throat was cut on the first attack, we would not have the defense wound on her forearm and hand (she would be dead quite quickly and unable to scream I would think). So, when the attack begins and she's defended herself, and then she's quickly killed does seem to fit with the cry of "murder" heard that night. This suggests we should not consider the cry of murder "unrelated" to the case, and we have to consider it unrelated if Joe is the killer. We're developing a problem.
So, looking at things we're developing the idea that she is attacked in bed, that she becomes aware of the attack shortly before being killed (she defends at least one blow and is cut by the knife), and that her killer is Joe. Because she's defended herself, we would expect her to cry for help. We have no reports of such cries in the morning, but we do have a cry reported during the night.
But if this cry of murder is actually from Mary, then that places the time of the murder during the night (which also explains why she's in bed, and fits with the contents of her last meal, fish and potatoes), and Joe's alibi clears him for a murder at night. Joe's alibi only leaves the morning as the time when he would be able to commit the murder. Now we have another problem, and that has to do with Joe as Mary's killer.
So, either we have to suggest that the cry of murder heard during the night is unrelated to the crime, or that Joe is not Mary's killer. Because there are other bits of evidence that fit very easily with the idea of a murder at night (her last meal is of an "evening type", not a breakfast type, she's in bed in her sleeping clothes), and nothing that links Joe directly to the crime (nobody reports seeing him there, no blood or knife was found on him when he was searched by the police, etc), we have to make a decision about what is wrong. Personally, I tend to believe this indicates my starting assumption that Joe is Mary's killer is the error.
There is always the possibility that the cry of murder is unrelated. That Mary was let's say "shocked" when Joe attacked her and didn't get a chance to yell out, etc. Sure, but now I'm starting to make assumptions to explain why the data does not appear to fit the story rather than let the data guide the story. I'm making assumptions to get rid of "predicted events" (a cry for help that occurs during the struggle which resulted in Mary's defense wounds) because that data does not fit my suspect (in this case Joe) and if I can make that "go away" I can then place the time of death at a point in time for which we have no evidence for cries of help (the morning). And that's what makes me worry that maybe I'm not being objective, but rather now I'm trying to fit my belief onto the evidence rather than that other way round.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 347
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 8:00 pm: | |
Hi CB,
The stumbling block, as I see it, for the notion that Joe comes over at 4am, is that the police did check on his alibi for the night in question. Joe claims he was playing whist (cards) with friends and then went to bed. If the police were satisfied with this claim, they must have been able to verify this claim. This means, someone saw him go to bed and then he was seen when got up in the morning. The doss houses were either locked at night (see GH's claim that his usual lodgings were closed and he couldn't sneak in), so if Joe were able to sneak out he can't get back in (which blows his alibi and so the police would not be satisfied with it), or someone worked "the door" (as with Annie Chapman, Polly Nichols, etc, where late at night they are turned out by the fellow on watch).
If Joe can sneak in and out of such a place with such ease, then it stands to reason that people would do this all the time in order to avoid paying for the room in the first place. And, if people were doing this all the time, it also stands to reason that the establishments would increase their "security" to avoid losing income!
Although we don't know the exact steps the police took to verify Joe's night time alibi, barring complete incompetence, the fact that they satisfied themselves that his alibi was sound puts us in a situation where we have to accept that his nighttime alibi clears him of the murder if the murder occurs at night. We can't say it clears him of the murder entirely, because it's possible Mary was killed in the morning. Because the police believed the murder to have occurred at night, then without knowing more about Joe's alibi and what was done to verify it, all we can be sure of is that the police were able to verify that Joe could not have committed the murder at the time they (the police) believed it to have occurred. My, that's a long sentence! ha!
You are correct in that Mary was not completely nude, but all she was wearing was her night clothes. If Joe came over while Mary was wearing her "outside clothes", then she has to remove all of these (get nude) then put on her night clothes (no longer completely nude). If they are having relationship problems, which they were, I find it unlikely that she's going to do this. This is why I would suggest that if Joe came over and killed Mary in the morning, it makes more sense if Mary is already wearing her night clothes. But then, the only evidence to suggest a morning murder are the sightings of her when she's wearing "daytime clothes". That means she would have to return to her room and change back into her night clothes. If she's sick (cold/flu/hungover), I would think she would want to wear something warmer than just the light night shirt when she got back into bed. That would make much more sense to me, but obviously she wasn't as we know what she was wearing from the reports, and obviously it's not necessary that she wear what I think she would have.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 2:44 am: | |
G'day,
I've been away and am trying to get back into this conversation:
SARAH: Of course Mary would have undressed in front of Joe! She was desperate for her rent money and all Barnett had to do was say that he won some money while playing whist!
I think she did more than just 'appreciate his kindness'. I think she bled Joe for whatever she could get from him and the realization of this was part of what fuelled the Ripper murders!
She told her close friend that she 'couldn't bear' him, and was instead fond of the another Joe.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 831
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
What I was implying, about the attack on kelly was, her killer grapped the sheet and with his left hand placed it firmly over her mouth, to prevent any screams, then cut her throat , and began wildly hacking her, she would while life existed raise her arms in a vain attempt.
The corner of the sheet was cut through.
If Kelly was the killers main reason for the murders, he would have wanted to attack her with the knife, not kill her by a more humane strangulation.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 4:03 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Joe probably was playing whist until midnight and was seen retiring to bed, and may have even been seen at Buller's for breakfast the next morning not long before the descovery of Kelly's body. There were no strict meal times.
Police may have found two sources to verify he was there at both times and were then satisfied with his given alibi, but did he remain there all night?
Buller's Lodging House was very likely one of those run-down places that were closed by the government to make way for better housing. I can't find reference to it and it wasn't on the list of registered doss houses. Such places housed theives and hoods and wouldn't have had any security.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 4:33 am: | |
Leanne,
I hadn't thought about it that way. I suppose if he had won money at his card game she may well have undressed in front of him if he told her that he would give her some money. After all, I guess she'd rather undress in front of Joe than some guy she didn't know.
Jeff,
I can only imagine that the police would check whether he was there playing whist and if he had been seen retiring to bed as no-one would have sat there and watched him all night sleeping so he cannot possibly have a very strong alibi at all. The police checked it all they could but I can't imagine them being 100% certain of his story.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 348
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
Hi Sara,
I didn't mean to imply that someone watched Joe all night. However, if all the police could do was determine Joe's location at midnight, and then again at say 7 am for breakfast, I think they would have realised that doesn't do much in the way of clearing him for a 4 am murder. They must have been able to rule out the possibility of him leaving and re-entering without being seen.
We know that doss houses either locked up after a certain hour (so Joe would not be able to get back in), or they had someone watch the door (to prevent people from sneaking in without paying). I'm sure we could come up with some stories that get Joe in and out of the house. Since we can not check them out (meaning, we can't investigate the possibilities), all they can be is unverified assumptions. And these unverified assumptions have to be weighed against the known fact that the police satisfied themselves that Joe was where he said he was.
Now, I would really be pleased if the information pertaining to exactly what the police did to satisfy themselves would turn up. And over the moon if the transcript of Joe's interegation also showed up. These two missing bits of evidence would then allow us to be more specific, and this would either support what I've been suggesting (they checked his story carefully) or prove me wrong and provide the evidnence needed to suggest the investigation into Joe was incomplete. But without any evidence to suggest it was incomplete, and some evidence to suggest it was actually complete, we're left in the situation where we have to go with what the evidence suggests. And, without anything else suggesting Joe was anywhere near Miller's Court between 2 and 4 am, or even in the morning at 9-10 am, that indirectly leads to the same conclusion. Joe probably wasn't there.
In fact, I seem to recall someone indicating that people had to get to the markets around 5:30 am to find work. If my memory is correct, Joe's alibi might be something like 1) went to bed at midnight. 2) Got up at 4 am, had breakfast. 3) went to the market to find work. Etc. Each of these points in the story line could be confirmed by 1) ask his card friends when he went to bed 2) who had breakfast with him and 3) where did he look for work and find someone who remembers him there. If he did get work that day, then that would cover the hours of the "morning murder" as well.
So did all that happen? I don't have the foggiest idea. It's just a story I made up (so it's a theory) that includes some things we know about Joe. And for every story someone can make up that gets Joe to Miller's Court, I could probably make one up that gets him away, and that won't get us very far because there's no way to tell who's got it right or which of their stories is right.
That's why I advocate sticking to the story that emerges from the evidence, and at the moment that story is that Joe has an alibi for the night of the murder, but not if the murder occurs in the morning. So, if Joe killed Mary, we have to assume he killed her in the morning. And that, as far as I can see, doesn't work very well because most of the evidence also points to Mary being murdered during the night.
Without much more complelling evidence against Joe, the case against Joe all hinges on a lot of low probablity events occuring. But that's also why I try and make it clear that Joe is not completely off the hook. The evidence we have is incomplete, so we have to keep the options open in case we are missing something crucial. We must not assume we are missing something crucial, but we also must not assume we are not. Until the case is convincingly solved, we have to be prepared to change our minds as new information comes in.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 349
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Ok, I see what you're getting at now. So yes, if her killer was able to prevent her from screaming then obviously no screams could be heard. The positioning of the left arm over the mouth would then require the right arm to go under the left for the throat cut, which seems a bit awkward. The pulling of the sheet up by the killer would also create a sort of "tent" over Mary, making it hard to do the throat cutting I would think. But, ok. We're still simply looking for a way to explain why the expected scream was not heard in the morning, while the scream heard at night is being dismissed as "not the one expected". That makes me nervous, but at least there's something in the evidence that might be linked to this.
We also have the other indications of a probable night time murder, such as the food she last ate, she is dressed for the night and the simplest explanation is that it was night when she last changed her clothes, etc. Finally, there is nothing about what you propose that requires this event to have occurred in the morning; it's very possible what you are describing occured at night and is part of the reason why so few cries of "murder" were heard. She defended against the first attack, starts to scream, and her killer then covers/muffles her cries for help, etc. So, in the end, this bit of detail doesn't differentiate the time of death and works just as well for night as morning as far as I can see. In the morning, we assume Mary never gets a chance to yell, in the night her cries are stopped. The later links the cries heard to the murder, the former dismisses them as coincedence. Since people report such cries are not uncommon, coincidence is not entirely implausible.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 833
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
I was attempting to make a suggestion , that as the reports state the sheet at the partition side was cut through, then this part of the sheet was covering the victim when the attack commenced, this would obviously help the murderer silience any cries /screams.
I am not suggesting that he covered her face with the entire sheet, just enough to cover her mouth with the sheet and clench his left hand over her mouth.
mjk,was clearly laying on the side of the bed nearest the partition, when attacked, which would indicate that that she was not alone, and was in the presence of someone, who she expected to follow her into bed on the side nearest the door.
This has nothing to do with naming suspects, just a observation.
it would be intresting to know what side of the bed Mary slept on normally.
I appreciate that her room was small, but for two people to share a bed, i would have imagined, it would have been logical to allow space , on the side nearest the partition to gain access to a prefered side.
I would assume that if the bed was right up against the partition then kelly , would have slept on that side, and Barnett on her left, as he was obviously the one who would rise early , to go to market, and to rise without climbing over Mary would be practical.
A bit of this/ that in this post, but I am writing as my thoughts occur.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 7:24 pm: | |
G'day,
JEFF: The great police interrigation of Joseph Barnett took place on the morning that her body was discovered. At the time, her most likely time of death hadn't been established, and Abberline would have been eager to get back to Miller's Court to catch the foreign looking suspect they favoured. Police were probably sick of waisting time!
To show how police weren't concerned enough to hear an official alibi from Barnett, take a look at the inquest notes. He wasn't formally asked to give an official alibi! He just said were he resided.
As I've said, I haven't been able to find a description of Buller's, but in 1850 Henry Mayhew wrote an article describing cheap lodging houses: 'All doors to these houses were secured with spring hatches of which each lodger had his own key.....and there congregated the most wretched and demoralized of all characters.'
The average time of work for these characters was 5a.m. till 9a.m: "I often gets up at two and three in the morning...".
These are not unverified assumptions! The research I made into these lodging houses, was taken from first-hand accounts. More in my 
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 351
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I understand you were making a suggestion, and in fact, I agree that what you were suggesting is plausible. I was thinking through the implications of this suggestion as I was replying as well. It dawned on me that the events you suggest could have happened at either time, and I thought that something worthy of consideration, that's all.
I tend to agree that Mary's position at the time of the initial attack does fit with the idea that someone else was in/getting into bed with her at that time. I think I've mentioned such a notion in some earlier posts. It's not the only explanation for her position near the wall though, but almost any single data can be explained in a million different ways. Just like there are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn through a single point.
That's all, I was just trying to tie in what you suggested with some of the other issues we've been talking about.
- Jeff |
brad kelley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Hi all quick question, i read Joe's pipe was found at the sceen, where exactly was it found? The resaon i ask is if it was in plain view I would think it a bit strange that Mary given her profession would leave a mans pipe where her customers could see it. That certaily does not strike me as something that would help to put the clients at ease. Small point but thought I'd get boards opinion, sorry if the pipe issue has been played out, im new to the case. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Sarah,
I am of the opinion that the time of death was early that morning,when the cry of 'murder'was reported as being heard.
I did not say the midnight visitor waited untill that time before beginning his assault,but left and came back later.
I did not mention the person alledgedly seen by Hutchinson,as being the midnight visitor or the killer.
Killers, as well as robbers and rapists and other kinds of criminals,have been known to act in this manner.Survey the area of the crime,before attemting the crime.
AS regards Joe,I said he was unlikely to have been the midnight visitor.THerefore,according to my opinion,he could neither be the killer.
It is conjecture based on possibilities,as is most of ripperoligy,but it could have happened.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I agree I think that Kelly would have undressed in front of Joe for lots of reasons. He would not even have to offer her money. They did stay together for over a year. I have 5 sisters and when I was groing up they used to say they did not like someone and they would end up going with them. I mean wifes complain about there husbands, girlfriends complain about boyfriends. So I dont know how much stock we can put in that statement.
I do think she used him what he was worth Just like she used most men in her life. I would suggest this. If what Jeff said is true and she had to fully undress to get into some sort of night cloths. It doese not sound to me like it was a client. It sounds to me like someone like Joe or at least someone she knew well enough to spend the night with. Unless someone broke in while she was sleeping.
All the best, CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I was looking at the colorized picture that Stephen provided under the Kelly boards. I cant tell what side of the bed she was intending too sleep on. Its not like she had a King or a queen side bed as a matter of fact I think her bed was small. It looks more like her head is resting more twords the door with her legs at a slight angle twords the wall.
ALL THE BEST,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
HI Jeff,
Thanks for your response. I dont think you believe that Joe was the ripper nor do I think you believe Joe killed Kelly. I feel you are trying too have an open mind and come to a reasonable scenario that Joe could have killed Kelly. I am trying to do the same. so here we go.
I dont believe that Joe killed Kelly. You make a great argument that he could not have killed her at night. The problem is the only way I can rationalize Joe being her killer is if his alibi is false and he went back to Kelly's around 4:00. The cries of murder could have been heard. You make such a good argument against this. I hesitate to go on but I will play Watson to your Holmes and ask this question. Doese anyone know were Joe claimed to have slept? Did he claim to have slept in a house such as you have suggested?
I dont think that Joe would have taken the risk of killing Kelly in daylight. I feel if just one person saw him going in or out of Kelly's room his alibi would have been shot and he would have hung. I feel he would have been a reconisable person in the area because he lived there. There were alot of people up and about that morning judging by the number of people who claimed to have seen Kelly. People can argue all night claiming Joe could have gone to Kelly's without being spotted or not. I feel that the question that people have to ask them self is would Joe have taken that chance.
I assume that Joe would have known that the rent was due. So I figure he would have known the rent man was comeing over to collect the next morning. If he waited untill nine to kill kelly how did he know when the rent man would show up. I imagine he would of had some sort of idea but how would he had known that the rent man would not have come early. I mean say he killed her at nine and at least it takes 30 minutes to mutilate the body. That puts the time of death around 9:30. He cleans up makes his escape around 9:45. He would have been takeing an awful risk. We are talking about murder and I assume he would have been a little scared of being caught. Do you think he would have taken that risk? In the words of the great actor Michael Cain from the movie Jack the ripper, " Would you risk it? "
Jeff I think the most interesting point you make and to me a very important one. Is the fact that she changed out of her night cloths and into a special night time outfit. I had never heard that. I had always thought that she had just sripped down to that particular under garment to sleep. If you are right then that puts a whole new twist on things. I feel that means that there is no way the man that Cox saw Kelly with or the man that Hutchinson saw Kelly with killed her. I dont think that the ripper would have let her undress and put on night time cloths before strikeing. There is always the abortion theory. I think if you are right it gives more creadence to the ripper crept in after she fell ssleep theory.
I dont know if Kelly was sick. Hungover I think she would have been. Alcohol raises your tempature. I know when I am hungover I turn the AC. down low. Then we have the whole fire issue was there a fire going that morning?
Jeff,Glenn That leads me to a question that maybe one of you can answer? Why did the unforunate I believe her name was Maria leave cloths at Mary's? Do you think that it was some sort of rent and Kelly was supposed to sell them to get money or did she leave them there for save keeping or was it common to burn cloths as fuel for the fire and she was worried about Kelly keeping warm or maybe some other reason? This question doese have something to do with Barnett in around about way.
Your friend, CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 12:14 am: | |
Hi all,
Glenn,Jeff
You have started me thinking. Say Kelly was alive at nine. Knowing that the rent man was comeing would she had undressed and got prepared to go to sleep when he was going to be comeing around soon? It is not like she could ignore him when he came to the door. Knowing his pention for peeping in her window. You may think that she would of planned to be away when he stoped by or at the veryleast be dressed.
Your friend, CB |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 352
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Are you saying that when the police interviewed Barnett that the police were working on the possibility that Mary was killed at anytime between 2am and the time her body was first discovered?
I thought by the time they interviewed him the police had focused upon a time of death around 4am ish already based upon witness statements gathered at the crime scene (i.e., shouts of murder at about 4am, blotchy faced man, etc?)
Since the transcript of Joe's interview is lost, you must have some other reason for suggesting the police were considering the possibility that death occured anytime after 2am up until the body was found.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 353
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 10:35 pm: | |
Hi CB,
Very good points about the rent collection and risking a killing time near that. Also, if Mary has no money it does make one wonder why she would stick around in the morning when rent was due (unless she was already dead).
From what I understand about what Mary was wearing, it sounds to me like a "special night shirt type thing", not an undergarment. But, I'm no expert on Victorian clothes, perhaps I'm wrong about this.
And yes, I suppose Joe's alibi could have been a lie that gets by the police. The missing transcript of Joe's complete alibi, and the lack of reports indicating what was done to verify it, means we can't evaluate what they did, or what times they checked. All we know is that after Joe was interviewed, and gave his alibi, the police dropped all interest in him. Based upon that evidence, we are forced into the situation where we have to accept the fact he was cleared and build the stories from there. If, however, the previous information were to turn up, we would want to make sure we go back and re-evaluate our original conclusion about Joe being cleared. So far, however, nothing contradicts the assumption that Joe was cleared because nothing actually puts Joe anywhere near Miller's court at any point in time when Mary could have been killed. It's a theory that he was there, not part of the evidence.
That's why I focus on the idea that if Joe killed Mary, he had to do so in the morning hours. I don't want to make the assumption that his "alibi" clears him for any time apart from what the police considered the important hours. Times outside of those would not be necessary for Joe to cover. And, without the transcript, I don't want to make the assumption he did anything more than account for his whearabouts at the times the police were interested in.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 11:22 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
Barnett arrived at the murder scene 'sometime in the early afternoon.' (Bruce Paley). he told 'Lloyd's Newspaper': 'I heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court and on my way there I met my sister's brother-in-law and he told me it was Marie. I went to the Court and there saw the police inspector and told him who I was and where I had been the previous night.'
The police later took Barnett to the station where he was interviewed by Abberline. Bruce Paley doesn't say how much later. Barnett told the Central News Agency: 'they kept me there about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains and finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free.'
Speaking to the 'Star' Barnett said that police kept him for two and a half hours. The 'Star' also reported that Barnett looked through the open window, but that need not have been the official identification.
I don't think the police had any idea of a TOD when Barnett was interrigated. His alibi didn't have to be a lie!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 11:39 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
As I said in a recent post: Barnett's alibi of being at Buller's Lodging House didn't have to be a lie. It was a short walk away, he may have played whist until midnight, went to bed, and even made sure he was seen eating breakfast there the next day. All he had to do was find friends to verify the fact that he was there at both times!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 3:12 am: | |
Hi,
Regarding the rent, we do not know, McCarthys policy on obtaining the cash.
I would assume , it would have been normal policy, for his tennants to bring the rent to him, more considerate then banging doors weekly.
But obviously in the case of kelly more forceful methods would have been used.
We should remember, to committ such a horrific act on a human being, at least during the assault, the killer was not concerned with anything else, if anyone visited the room during the act, he was trapped anyway, he may well have been aware of such a posibility, but the urge to committ that atrocity was to strong to control.
The case against Barnett is full of 'Yes buts' and 'But how could?'
The fact is we will always find it so hard to get the full facts ,but new suggestions to replace the old ones[ which have brought us nowhere] can only be beneficial.
Regards Richard.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 3:15 am: | |
G'day again Jeff,
Please tell everyone where you got proof that all doss houses locked up after a certain hour, and all had someone to guard the door all night and all morning. Even the ones that were closed as the government was improving living conditions for the working class.
I have quoted from a contemporary document that reveals that all lodgers were given their own key to some, plus were about at very early hours in the morning.
The 'evidence' that we have today strongly suggests to me that Joe never had an alibi from the time someone saw him go to bed to the hour he had breakfast.
The 'evidence' we have of what was spoken at Mary Kelly's inquest suggests to me that he wasn't even required to state an alibi for the hours surrounding Mary Kelly's most likely time of death.
LEANNE
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:15 am: | |
Harry,
I think she may have been killed around that time too but no because of the cry of murder. That doesn't sound right to me personally.
By her midnight visitor, who do you mean if not the person seen by GH? I didn't know there was evidence of another person in her room at that time?
Jeff,
We don't know if Joe's lodging house was locked up or guarded. People may have seen Joe leave and come back, but people who barely knew him and therefore didn't take any notice of him anyway.
I don't see how anyone can guarantee that Joe was sleeping around the time of Mary's murder, but then wouldn't he have been up about that time anyway? Do we know when Joe claimed he got up that morning?
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
