|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 7:22 am: |       |
G'day Sarah,
No we cant prove what hour Joe got out of bed that morning, but I believe he would have been either searching hard for work, or perhaps he had a job lined up for 'Lord Mayor's Day', which was a big drawcard for purchasers. Lots of people would have been out and about early, setting up stalls etc.
Or if he had planned to be out selling oranges on the streets, he would have wanted to be get to the markets early to stock up a cart with the best bargains.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 354
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
Hi all,
Since we don't have the transcript of Joe's interrogation, we do not know what Joe's full alibi consists of. We know he gave a brief description of it to the press (probably to ensure that the media didn't turn him into a John Pizer - doing this fits with both guilty and innocent Joe, so it's not much).
And obviously, we don't know how Buller's Doss house worked. We know that some get locked up from George Hutchinson's account that his normal lodgings were locked for the night and he couldn't get in. We know that some had people on the door to ensure people paid for their rooms (various accounts from people associated with different crimes indicate some such person). And we now know, thanks to Leanne, that some gave out keys, at least in 1850, like a hotel gives out room keys I guess.
What was Buller's like? I don't know, nobody does. Leanne has yet to find any evidence of the place at all so far, at least in terms of official listings and she's been doing the hard yards, so if there's information to be found I'm sure she'll find it. There may simply be no record of it, unfortunately. This is not unusual as there were many "unofficial" Doss houses in the area as I understand it (Leanne would know more about this).
We don't know the full details of Joe's alibi. We don't know what the police did to verifiy it. We don't know what the police found to verifiy it. We don't know anything about Buller's except it's address on New Street. In other words, we know very little.
Evidence tells us that Buller's could be a doss house that 1) locks up 2) has someone to prevent people from sneaking in without paying or 3) gives out keys upon payment. Theory allows that it's "something unlike any other doss house we know of". And since we don't know, what can we do? Based upon the testimony from various cases, number 2 seems the most common; but then the people who are testifying tend to be from the Doss house, or were there before midnight. If "lock up" occurs at say 2am, or 1am, then perhaps this information is under-represented. Given that McCarthy wouldn't even replace the key to #13, and some have reported that keys were fairly expensive, I would want to know more details about the "giving out key" places. These "doss houses" sound much more like cheap hotels, which might have been be far too expensive for the likes of Joe. As this 1850's report is the first I've ever heard of Doss houses giving out keys, I'm a bit hesitant to go with the idea that an "unofficial doss house" is likely to be one giving out keys. But I suppose it's possible, so sure, if one wants to make a specific statement about Bullers take a guess and so far you have a 1 in 3 chance of being correct (1 in 4 if we allow for the theoretical "other" category).
When I was talking about Buller's and "what it was like", I'm suggesting it was one of the apparently more common types. Which either locked up without giving out keys (ala GH's testimony) or there was someone keeping an eye on things to ensure nobody gets a free bed (as per most of the testimony comming from those who get turned out late at night). But in the end, it doesn't matter what Buller's was like. Why?
Because evidence tells us that the police interviewed Joe, during which he claims he was albe to account for himself to the satisfaction of the police. This claim is supported by the subsequent police behaviour with respect to Joe, and with the subsequent behaviour of the questions found in Mary Kellys inquest. (See the reports of the inquest of Alice McKenzie, where Sadler was the #1 police suspect and notice the number of times Sadler's whereabouts and behaviours are being inquired into).
The police, therefore, must have satisfied themselves that Joe was simply not a viable suspect based upon his alibi checking out, regardless of what Bullers was like. I've just given some examples as to what kind of information might have been found, I don't mean to suggest that "was" the information found.
Now, Leanne tells me that the police did not have a time of death estimate when the interregated Joe. I would want to see that statement fully reasoned out and supported before taking it on board though. Because if that statement is true, it means that the police must have satisfied themselves that Joe was nowhere near Miller's Court at any time after midnight up until the body was found, which would clear him entirely of Mary's murder. And, if Joe didn't kill Mary, then the Ripper did, which means Joe is not the Ripper.
But that's a pretty strong claim for me to try and make and I'm not sure why the police wouldn't be seeing this as a nighttime murder. We know the police focus on a TOD between 2 and 4 am by the time of the inquest based upon information they gained from people living in the court. And we know they were interviewing people in the Court before they interviewed Joe. It seems reasonable to me that they could have decided the murder was at night time before the interviewed Joe based upon Mary being in bed, wearing night clothes, being told of cries of murder around 4am from 2 people, etc.
And, if I'm allowed to make up stuff because it's possible, perhaps there were people in and out of the court all morning, making a murder sometime after, say 8 am, impossible because the killer would have been spotted going into Mary's room (no proof of this exists, it's just a possibility, just like no proof Joe left and returns to Buller's exists, it's only offered as a possibility).
So, from what little we know, the police would include the nighttime, but we can't be sure they were considering a murder in the morning. So, I make my assumption based upon what we can be pretty sure of (they considered the nighttime as the time of the crime) and I do not assume they included the morning. Although they may have included the moring, I can't be quite sure, by not including it in my "assumption", then that means I can't use Joe's "alibi" to clear him for anything but the night time murder scenerio.
Anyway, even though we don't have the full details of Joe's alibi, what he reveals to the press indicates he accounted for his whereabouts for the night before. So, I feel it's safe to say that Joe's alibi covered, at the very least, the nighttime hours. It's also possible he was able to give account of himself passed the time of when the body was discovered, but without the details of his alibi, we don't know. What we can deduce is that his alibi coverd the time the police were interested in, and we can deduce that the police were interested in at least the nighttime hours.
Because the police let Joe go and never again show any interest in him as a suspect, the evidence suggests that whatever they did to check out Joe's alibi, it was enough to clear him completely for the hours we can be sure they were interested in. It may have cleared him of other hours as well, but we cannot be sure of that (meaning, it may not have). Since the minimum amount of time the police could be looking at is the night, and Joe is dropped by the people doing the investigation at the time and who had access to information we do not, we have no other choice but to accept that Joe is cleared for smallest window of oppertunity that we can reasonably assert, and that's the night time.
That leaves open the possibility that Joe kills Mary in the morning, but as I've suggested that story gets complicated quickly.
The other option is to go with the possibility that Joe's alibi was poorly checked out and in fact, he wasn't where he said he was and the police made a mistake. This is Leanne's stance. And sure, that does happen and there are lots of other cases that could be listed showing just this very thing. But that's using evidence from a different case (a case where it happened) to try and prove something about this specific case (where it may or may not have happened). In other words, the fact that it could happen, and that it has happened in other cases, is not proof that it did happen in this case - it's not evidence it's a theory. It's not even an unreasonable theory, but theories need evidence to support them.
Joe being cleared by the police is supported by the subsequent behaviour of the police and the inquest. That is supporting evidence.
The theory that Joe was incorrectly cleared cannot be considered as well supported until something in the evidence can either 1) place Joe in the vicinity of Miller's Court around the time of the crime (indicating something amiss in the police's check on his location) or 2) something tangable shows up that demonstrates the investigation into Joe's alibi was sub-standard or 3) the murder can be demonstrated to have occured at a time not covered by Joe's alibi (hence my reluctance to accept the notion that the police were not focusing on the night time TOD; if they thought she could have been killed at 9 or 10 am, then Joe's full alibi, which we don't have, would have to be assumed to cover those hours as well and without Joe's full alibi I want to limit the amount of time I make assumptions about).
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on April 28, 2004) |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:59 am: | |
Hi Harry,
There is no doubt about it. The man that cox claimed was with Kelly was not Joe.
1. Joe was in a card game untill 12:00 This was his alibi and I feel the police would be able to confirm this.
2. I believe that Cox would have been able to identify Joe as the man she saw Kelly with. She only lived next door to him for eight months.
I agree with you about the time of death. Two people herd the cry of murder Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis. Lewis claiming the cry sounded like it was comeing from outside her door. I try not to believe in coincidenses and if you here a cry of murder and your neighbor is killed I would tend to believe the cries. The odd thing is that Cox never heaard the cry of murder. I think she dozed off and did not here it. She claimed she was up all night but it is not uncommon to close your eyes and not relized you have slept for a few seconds.
All the best, CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 5:37 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for responding to my post. I am not an expert on victorian dress and the closest I have ever come to seeing a victorian prostitute in her underware was when I saw the movie Shanghi Knights.
I agree that we do not know enough about barnetts alibi and since the police never suspected him we must assume his alibi checked out. Someone may prove diferent.
One point on Kelly when she arrived home with the man that Cox saw kelly with. The light was already on in her room. This may suggest that Kelly left a light on when she was out as a percaution. The light was out around 3:00 when Cox came home. This may suggest that Kelly was in for the night. It may have been the fact the GH saw the light go out in Kelly's room that is why he left. Assumeing that the room was dark when Cox arrived home and assumeing that GH was telling the truth and he left around 3:00 He did not mention that he saw someone leave Kelly's room. I think that it is possible that Kelly was planning to sleep with the man she went home with along with her state of dress when the body was found. I assume Kelly would not turn tricks in complete darkness.
If the cries of murder are to believe and I believe there is a strong possibility they are since they were herd by both Prater and Lewis. Lewis claiming it sounded like it was right outside her door. The window of opertunity is slim. Cox returns home the lights are out. GH watches Kelly's room untill 3:00 Niether GH or Cox report seeing anyone leaveing or going into Kelly's room. The cries of murder are reported around 3:30 or 3:45 Say Kelly's client doese not leave right away. I believe Joe would have had to been lurking around Kelly's place to make it work.
Hi Leanne,
I assume that joe did not tell the police that after the card game he went over and killed Kelly. He had to tell them that he went someware after the card game. Maybe he said he went to sleep at the lodging house. No matter what he told the police if you believe he killed Kelly before breakfast he must have lied about his were he was. Makeing his alibi a lie. I am sure if the police questioned him for hours and checked his cloths for blood he had to submitt a alibi. Like Jeff said the only way he could have killed Kelly and his alibi not have been a lie he would have to had killed her dureing the day.
I think you are right if Joe killed Kelly I feel he had to do it between 3:30 and dawn. I would suggest that the murder had to had happend between 3:30 and 5:00 There was alot of people out and about after 5:00 men harnessing horses, Prater going and returning from the pub.
All the best,CB |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 357
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 11:54 pm: | |
Hi CB,
I also think the idea of Mary being killed by a client who was "staying the night" is a possibility. You're noting the state of the light in her room (a candle I presume) being on/off etc does fit with that idea. If GH was hanging around hoping to crash at Mary's, let's say, and then saw her light go out but the client hadn't left, he then wanders off. However, such a detail is missing from his report and I would think for one who claims to notice a man's eyelashes such a detail would not have escaped him! ha!
Anyway, that general notion does seem to fit what we have. So does the idea of her killer breaking in while she sleeps. Her room was not exactly secure. Now, if her killer breaks in while she's sleeping, that would suggest either someone with burgler skills, or someone who knows about the window trick; i.e. Joe Barnett.
Now, although there is nothing to suggest Joe did manage to sneak out in of Buller's in the middle of the night, let's accept the possibility that he did. Well, since he knows how to get into the room without a key, then he obviously would have the knowledge about how to get in. And, since it's not really that tricky a thing to figure out if you're someone who regularly enters people's houses without permission (a burgler), then it's just as easy to imagin someone other than Joe being able to do this. However, Joe's "special knowledge" could be pointed at as a weak indication that Joe might have been there. I find it strange, though, that if Joe did this why he offered up the information pertaining to how to open the door through the window in the first place since it would make him look suspicious. A guilty person who knows they entered by reaching through the window would want to keep that secret, well, a secret. But again, since we don't know how the police got this information from Joe (we don't have a transcript of the interview with him), it may be that he mentioned it to avoid looking guilty. I don't know, if it was me I would think I would try something like "We normally just left the door unlocked since we lost the key, and only locked it at night when we went to bed" and not mentioned the window trick at all.
Anyway, if we were police in 1888, then I would really want to interview Joe and check on his alibi. Because it's 2004, I can't do any follow up stuff like that and have to work with the evidence we have. And, since following up on Joe's alibi isn't really rocket science (find out if anyone verifies his story and that there are no important time windows when his alibi is based only on his word), I figure this wasn't really beyond the police of the days abilities. I do wish I knew what they did and what they found. The evidence looks like they were certain Joe was innocent, and although it's possible they got it wrong, that doesn't mean they did get it wrong. Without something to indicate they got it wrong, we have to accept that the evidence suggests that whatever they did find was sufficient to clear Joe of the nighttime murder of Mary Kelly. As I've said in an earlier post, doors are open for a morning murder.
You are correct when you assume I don't think Joe is likely Jack the Ripper or even the murderer of Mary Kelly. I admit there is a possibility of either or both, but the evidence we have so far is towards his innocence. Unless some new evidence turns up, it's probably going to stay that way.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:06 am: | |
G'day,
Why is it that you believe a lack of evidence is proof of innocence? If the police were so thorough and Barnett's alibi checked out perfectly, they would have made sure that his alibi was clear to the public and the Coroner at the inquest.
If the police were thinking of a nightime murder, (meaning committed while it was still dark), at the time of Barnett's interrigation, a mere verification from someone trustworthy seeing him go to his room at midnight, may have been enough to dismiss him in the minds of the police.
He could have been there for 'lock-up' and out again afterwards. Buller's was next to St. Catherine's Dock and used by many dock-labourers who often had but a few hours sleep between shifts. If they bothered to count heads before 'lock-up', would they bother to note the time each lodger left in the morning?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 840
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:28 am: | |
Hi.
We should remember , that on the day of the murder the 9th, Mrs Cox was considered the last person to have seen Mary alive, and as Barnett had a alibi, for that time[ playing whist] and he was not the person seen by cox, the police would not have suspected him to much.
Also did he not by his own admission state at the inquest, 'I called on Mary , to tell her 'I could give her no money'.
Yet 4 hours later, he admits to playing cards, which amongst working men , would have been for stakes.Therefore money was available somewhere...
Calling on Kelly to tell her he was skint, was no help, why bother come round, other reasons?.
The fact is until Hutchinsons visit to the police on the following monday evening, they would have considered the man seen by Mrs cox was proberly her killer, and as Barnett had a tight alibi for that period, and he was not reconized by the witness, there would be no reason to persue that enquiry, once his clothes were checked etc,
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Hi Jeff, All,
A very interesting thread, which I have spent ages finally catching up with!
I have a few observations, which may or may not be of any use to the discussion.
It was a damp November night in London. Mary was heard singing and appeared drunk before she got into bed for the last time, wearing nothing but a light chemise. Her clothes were found folded neatly on a chair.
Now, if she was alone and quite drunk when she finally decided to get into a cold bed on a cold night, I'd have expected her not to bother to undress fully, let alone undress fully, put on something else that was very skimpy and then stand there folding her clothes. I'd have expected her to keep on as many layers as poss, dive beneath the covers and fall into a deep and drunken slumber - unless the clothes she had been wearing were quite damp.
But I've never known a woman who would fold clothes that were even ever so slightly damp, and ones she knew she would have to put straight on again upon waking. I'd have expected Mary to spread damp clothes out (especially if she lit a fire for her boots to dry in front of), to give them the best chance of drying out and airing a bit.
Given the above, a scenario that makes much more sense to me is one touched on again and again by you, Jeff, with added suggestions from earlier posts by Frank and Monty, among others.
Pure speculation of course, but here goes:
Mary and Jack meet up, he offers her a drink (possibly laced with some drug to quickly remove any last minute ripper scare inhibitions), treats her to some fish and potatoes and she takes him back to her own room, under the impression that he poses no obvious threat to her safety. He is very much aware of the age difference between this woman and those he encountered in August and September. This one hardly makes the grade as a ‘mother’ figure, if that’s what drove him to attack on previous occasions. So he doesn’t know at this point exactly how things will develop, but is happy to play things by ear. She will do nicely anyway, whether she wows him as a simple whore this time, or he ends up falling for the potential charms of a victim of tender years to play with.
So he waits while Marie Jeanette sings and slowly does her striptease for him, leaving her damp clothes strewn over the chair. She leaves on the little dry chemise (or maybe puts it on at his request) and slips giggling into bed, sliding over and patting the narrow space beside her for him to join her, expecting their body heat to keep them both comfortable for the duration.
But October was painfully long for him this year, and suddenly he is overwhelmed by the realisation that he is alone at last with another vulnerable female – this time indoors, with the promise of an all-night session, in return for a promise to pay very well for the privilege. Temptation is a bastard, and the vision of this young woman as a grasping lover or wife takes over, robbing him of any lingering intentions of paying up and leaving her alive to smirk.
So his knife takes over his thinking and does its worst work yet. What a monster his knife has become, what an awful bloody mess it has made – so unlike him. As the blood stops pooling on the floor, the flesh starts to pile up on the table and the organs appear around the stripped thing on the bed, the heart of the treacherous female figure is finally out and ready - for instant cooking or burning, or taking away to savour later.
In an effort to compensate for the bloody chaos his knife has caused, he cleans his hands as best he can and folds each garment that she removed just for him, placing them all back on the chair before leaving the scene and pulling the door to.
Ironically, I might now have to consider young Monty as a possible suspect for composing the Maybrick diary that he so hates the idea of getting to grips with! They say great minds think alike, but boy, I bet Monty never thought anyone would read his thoughts on neatness and poor Rose Mylett and so on, and immediately relate them to what the diary author has written about his very own ‘Sir Jim’. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for responding to my post. I guess people can debate this forever. I guess Barnett could have killed her but I lean twards a nighttime killing rather then a daylight murder.
I have read the chapter by Inspector Walter Dew. It is called The Hunt for Jack the Ripper. Spryder has posted the chapter on the boards and it is interesting it gives you a chance to read what a detective on the case was thinking and Dew was the first detective too arrive at the Kelly scene. You cover the boards well Jeff so you have probably already read the chapter.
All the best, CB
Caz, Interesting.
 |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 361
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
The examples you give are the kind of things that would be possible to claim as evidence if we had the information that's missing. I agree, if ever the transcript of Barnett's interegation shows up, and better, if we found the police notes concerning what they found to verify his alibi then we could start basing things upon that new evidence. And I would be the first to agree with you that if all they did was go to Bullers, ask if anyone saw Joe go to bed around midnight, and then went "Well, guess that's that", then yes, our interpretation should and must change.
But until such evidence proves they didn't check out the most obvious things we have to assume the police weren't the keystone cops and that they realised to verfiy his alibi they had to account for his whereabouts over the entire period.
I guess the difference is that much of what you suggest would be exactly the kind of things that we would want to do if we were police in 1888. Where we could test our theories by going and doing the interviews ourselves. What I'm saying is that we are not in 1888, but 2004, so we have to work with the evidence we have and build our theories from the evidence we have. The evidence we have suggests that the police were entirely satisfied that Joe could not have killed Mary. Because we don't know what time period they though he was cleared for (we don't know what hours they were considering), we have to try and figure that out; that means make a deduction, an inference, or an assumption (each is slightly different). We can be sure they were at least interested in the nighttime hours, so if they cleared him then we can draw the deduction that those hours must have been satisfied. We can be sure this must be true (remember, all I'm saying here is that we can be sure the police were satisfied, not that the police were correct to dismiss him. I'll get to that shortly).
We can't be so sure that the morning hours were of interest to them, but if we looked at other cases and found the police generally covered a large range that would include the morning, we might infer the morning was cleared as well, but this is not necessarily true. This is why an inference is less strong than a deduction, a deduction must be true if the premises are true, while an inference may still be false even if the premises are true.
If we couldn't make an inference, we would just have to guess based upon no information. That's an "assumption", and this has a snowball's chance of being true. These we must try and avoid as much as possible.
Now, were the police correct in clearing Joe at least for the night time hours? Well, given that checking out an alibi is pretty much bread and butter work for the police, and given that in 1888 it was probably one of the most common things the detectives had to do, I would suggest they would be able to do it properly. However, we know sometimes this will be false (people do make mistakes, etc), so this part of my claim is an inference. It could be false, they may have got it wrong. To evaluate an inference, we would need to weigh the likelihood of them being able to properly check out an alibi against the likelihood of them doing it badly. Joe's alibi doesn't sound like a hard one to check out, it's not complicated, and given that he claims he's in a location where there would be lots of potential witnesses, it shouldn't have been hard to verify. Therefore, I agrue that the probability of them messing this simple task up is very low. So, even though I'm making an inference that they got it right and Joe is cleared, in the absense of evidence to the contrary, it's going with the more probable interpretation.
But (and there's always a but), but to say they got it wrong and build an entire case on that means the entire case is built upon a weak foundation. It's building upon the lower probability outcome of the inference; meaning you have to argue that despite the ease of the task, the police still get it wrong. Then, you end up with more hurdles because we know Joe gave the police information that a guilty person would try and cover up. He mentions they had fights, he mentions the window trick, he mentions all the things that a guilty person would not want to tell the police because he would worry about how this would make him look guilty, which he knows he is. An innocent person doesn't worry as much because the "suspect" knows they are not guilty. This is why innocent people sometimes end up looking suspicious to the police, they give up information that appears "guilty" simply because they are not thinking about the implications of their statements by the virtue that they themselves know they didn't do it. In other words, once you go with the lower probability inference, the case doesn't suddenly get easy to explain, it still is awkward in a lot of places. That also suggests that maybe we took a wrong turn, and looking back in our reasoning, we realise we could have made the other inference, which is that Joe is cleared, and properly so.
Now, I will grant you, that everything I'm saying could change completely if some new information were to surface. Where would I expect my error? I would expect my error to be at the point I made the inference. The deduction would still hold, the police had decided he was innocent, the inference is that they were correct in their decision. New evidence, however, could either strengthen the arguement for Joe's innocence (turning that into a deduction, meaning it must be true), or strengthen the case that the police made an error, changing the weighting of the inference.
But until that new evidence becomes something more tangible that us making assumptions about what that evidence is, we should not make any assumptions about what it is. We have to make our theories fit the evidence we actually have. I fully agree with you that it's important to know the things you suggest. That information might let us make more deductions and fewer inferences.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 362
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Interesting idea. And yes, I think if Mary's killer did the folding we would have to go with the idea that he washed up before so doing. I suppose the kettle and fire could be pointed to as where he got his warm water to clean up with? Then, after washing, he puts the empty/near empty kettle back on the fire where it boils dry and melts.
The other thing to consider is the reports which indicate the floor in 13 Miller's Court was described as "filthy". So, we have to decide if it's more likely for Mary to strip tease and drop her damp cloths on a dirty floor, or say, incorporate the folding of her clothes and placing them on the chair into her strip tease? (Going with the strip tease idea)
It's an interesting way to incorporate her singing, but don't the reports of her singing suggest this would be a very long strip tease; in the order of an hour or so? Sorry, I can't recall the times here.
Anyway, one other question you might be able to help with. Do you know if a "chemise" would be something worn as an undergarment (normally?) or is this something that is normally only worn as bed clothes? I realise it was not uncommon for these women to wear everything they owned, but that might not apply to Mary because she had her own room.
- Jeff |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 11:48 pm: | |
Hey Everybody,
Got a question for the Barnettites. Maria Harvey....Lizzie Albrook. Who was in the room with MJK when Joe arrived? Sugden says Maria.. She testified at the inquest as such. But why do other sources say it was Lizzie? Would someone please explain this?
Paul |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Paul,
As far as I'm aware it was Lizzie Albrook. That was when Lizzie said that Mary told her to "not turn out as she did" or something along those lines.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
We lack the transcript of Barnett's interrigation so to put a time to it I searched through contemporary newspaper reports. One report was interviewing him in a pub near Bullers, which was opposite Bishopsgate Police Station, so I'd say it was just after his interrigation.
It was the report in which he stated that they kept him for two-and-a-half hours. Bruce Paley took it as meaning that he was claiming the police interrigation went for two-and-a-half hours but reading the whole paragraph in which Dorset Street was mentioned, I believe he was referring to being at Miller's Court for two-and-a-half hours before being taken to the police station. This correction of Paley's research will go in my book, if I ever see it in print!
Reading other comments he made in this report, I see what his mind was on following the interrigation. He told the police that the only reason he left Mary Kelly was because she took in her prostitute friends, yet in this report he claimed that he would not have left her but for her violent habits. This bloke was hiding something!
I come up against people who insist that it was proven that the couple lived comfortably together, so we must dismiss him as a suspect. Can you see how I feel that the police may have been deceived and he needs a closer looking at?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Leanne,
I come up against people who insist that it was proven that the couple lived comfortably together
I think they may have lived comfortably together before he lost his job. I'm sure there is evidence of them arguing and fighting and they obviously couldn't have been that comfortable together as he ended up leaving her.
It's a shame we don't have the transcript of Joe's interrogation.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Just because Joe told Kelly he had no money for her doese not mean he had no money. He may have been allowing for his card playing. I am sure he would not have given Kelly his last dime. He may have just wanted to see what she was up to. You do claim he loved her. I dont think that it was uncommaon for a boyfriend to check in on a girlfriend so shortly after a breakup and he may have been keeping a promise that he had made to stop by.
I feel if the police were any kind of detectives at all they would have checked back with Joe. Lets not forget if they suspected that Kelly was a ripper victim they may have asked Joe about a lot of nights. Like Jeff said without a transcript we do not know what took place dureing Joes questioning. You may be right but untill someone proves different I will give the detectives credit.
Hi Jeff,
Cox saw Kelly enter her room at 11:45 and I guess she was still singing untill 1:05 when Cox left. So it would have been at least an hour long dance. Good question about the chemise.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:25 am: | |
Hi all,
This is some quotes from Detective Walter Dew. From his book.
" There was no woman more in the Whole of WhiteChapel more frieghtend of Jack the ripper"
" Just the night before, Marie had been fearfully discussing the killer of her kind with Lizzie Albrook a nineteen year old friend "
He quoted Mary as saying to Albrrok.
" This will be my last Lord Mayors show I shall see. I cant stand it any longer. The Jack the ripper buisness is getting on my nerves I have made up my mind to go home to my mother. It is safer there. "
Dew claims that Mary was inconsoleable. I imagine that this is all second hand information but if the quote is true it makes you wonder.
Dew goes on to say that mary was looking forward to the show the next morning.
Leanne and Richard, If the quote is to be believed then maybe she told Joe of her plan to leave and go live with her mother. That could be a motive for murder.
I realize everyone has probably already read the chapter by Inspector Dew but I thought the quotes were relevant.
Hi Paul,
I believe she spent the day with Harvey but apparently she spent the evening with Albrook.
All the best, CB |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Sarah, CB,
The reason I asked is because in Maria's inquest testimony she said that she left as Joe arrived.
I do not have a record of Lizzie even testifying at the inquest. I was just trying to get the record straight. Thanks
Paul |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:22 pm: | |
G'day Sarah,
What do you mean by 'comfortably'? It was the East End and Joe & Mary lived at several addresses within 12 months. We know that they were evicted from one for 'going on a drunk' instead of paying the rent.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
I don't really have much idea about the chemise. But it seems to have been of a rather light and skimpy nature and, if so, I would not have thought it much practical use in a cold bed - hardly the same as flannelette pyjamas!
It just seems to me less likely that Mary would have worn it for her own comfort, and more likely that she did so to please her customer(s).
I don't know why the singing appeared to go on for so long, but maybe she was having to entertain a - shall we say - slow to warm up Jack, who was waiting for George Hutchinson to push off and had no real intention, and perhaps no inclination - in more ways than one - of performing himself.  .
I wonder how long he could have made a quart of ale last, for instance?
Love,
Caz |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 5:52 am: | |
Sarah,
The person I was referring to was George Hutchinson.I do not believe the other person ever existed. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Hi Paul, Thanks for takeing the time too respond to my post.
Lizzie Albrook I dont believe did testifiy at the inquest but as you Know Maria did. She claimed that she spent the afternoon with Kelly and left when Joe Arrived. She claimed she left clotths. I wonder why she left the cloths.
Hi, Caz
I think that the man that Cox saw kelly with was the man she was singing to. I dont know if GH was out side across the way then. So I guess it all depends on who you think killed Kelly. Inspector Dew Describes the man that Cox saw kelly with as haveing a beard. That is the first time I had read that. He could have been mistaken tho seeing how he wrote his book so long after the fact.
All the best,CB |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Hi CB,
it really bemuses me , that Mrs coxs statement is accepted, did she not tell her neice, that the man she saw with kelly was a real toff,a fine looking gent, complete with high hat [not silk].
Does one believe the original statement.[ if that was what she told the police] or the remarks to her neice many years later.
Fact is 'One of them is right'
Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 372
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Maybe, rather than a single dance lasting from 11:45-1:05, we're dealing with two dances? One starting at 11:45, and let's give that 15 min for the dance, 15 min for services rendered, and 15 min to redress. That's only 45 minutes, which puts Mary back on the street at say 12:30 ish, giving her time to find another customer. Now, she goes back to her room, and starts the whole process again. Cox leaves her room, and hears Mary still singing the same song.
Now, let's say this does happen. That means Mary has money from a couple of customers. She may then have gone to the pub, had her meal of fish and potatoes, spent the rest on a few drinks. Then, she goes back onto the streets, meets up with GH, and so on.
Also, I agree about the chemise. I always thought it was a light frilly/poofy kind of thing, which sounded more like a sexy nightie than underwear. Just wanted a 2nd opinion on that.
- Jeff |
Busy Beaver
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
There has been a lot of discussion about the folding of Mary Kelly's clothes- Jack may well have folded them as a "good deed" just as he neatly laid out the posessions of Annie Chapman. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
