|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
brad kelley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 12:49 pm: |       |
Simply put if the Ripper was as clever and cunning as we give him credit for being and if the Ripper was Joe B why would he kill Mary Kelly in the place where they had lived automatically making himself the number one suspect not just for this crime but for all the others as well? He knew she walked the streets and I assume he could have easily met her somewhere under a false pretext and killed her outdoors like the other victims thus insuring he would not be grilled as a suspect. The argument that he had to kill indoors due to heightened public awareness makes sense to a point but again if he had been on ok terms with Mary its my opinion it would have been relatively easy to get her to meet him at the time and place of his choosing, especially with the promise of helping with the money she so desperately needed. So Joe killing another prostitute indoors makes sense if he is the Ripper, but not his ex in his former dwelling. So I don't think he was the Ripper...of course he may have been her killer for sure and made it look like a ripper crime but if you are the Ripper why kill your only indoor victim in the place you till recently had resided? Just doesn’t make sense to me. Thanks all I’d like to hear if this theory makes sense to anybody. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1191
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
Brad,
why would he kill Mary Kelly in the place where they had lived automatically making himself the number one suspect
He wasn't living with her at the time of her death. She was also a known prostitute and so her being killed in her room wouldn't make him number one suspect as she would have clients coming and going from that room.
if you are the Ripper why kill your only indoor victim in the place you till recently had resided?
Why not? As I said, she had many other people coming and going from her room and so I don't think they really took Joe as the number one suspect, especially since he supposedly had an alibi.
Just doesn’t make sense to me.
This is always a mistake to say. In all honesty, did anything the Ripper did make any sense to you? We can't know what went through his mind when he killed these women and so to say that something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean the Ripper wouldn't have done it.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 393
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
I don't think Joe killed Mary because I don't think he was the Ripper. He was living with Mary during the other murders. I believe Martha Tabram was the first victim and Mary Kelly was the last. I don't see how he could have hid the previous (4 or 5) murders from her. He would have come home bloody or with a Uterus or Kidney. Probably in a heightened emotional state as well. None of which would be easy to hide. Mary seems to have been intelligent, I think she would have noticed what was going on. I also don't see anything in his past or after the murders life (from what we know, anyway) that makes me think he could have been a ruthless, cold blooded killer. This is, of course, only my humble opinion.
Mikey |
brad kelley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Thanks Sara, you're not really a member of the community here till you have had your theory "ripped", feels good. As for your points they have merit but I still feel:
1) Regardless of clients coming and going he still elevates himself immediately to suspect number 1 by killing her in this location...look at it this way, if she had been killed outdoors would Joe B be the suspect he is on these boards? I think not. Based on the little bit I know Strides ex seems to have more of a documented history of violence then JB but he gets little play (I think Stride is a JTR victim). Joe is elevated in status based on the location of the killing. Furthermore to say he wasn't living with her at her time of death is of course technically true, but he had a key and had been residing there till recently correct? So its not like he isn't very very connected to his prior residence, he is not just another stranger to the place and the police would certainly have taken this into consideration.
2) Why not? Because it immediately elevated his status as a suspect with the police (common concede me that) just like it seems to have elevated his status as a suspect for many on this site.
3) True it is a mistake to say it just doesn't make sense to me. But still...half these boards are dedicated to attributing rationality to the Ripper and half of that conversation probably relates to how he went about avoiding detecting while in the process of murder and how he evaded suspicion following the murders. So I think if we accept that whoever the Ripper was he did not want to get caught and took precautions to avoid detection, its fair to ask why he would put himself in the position of killing his ex in a place he had been living in till quite recently. Again I think JB may have murdered her but if the Ripper was as sly and crafty as many give him credit for I don't think JTR would have done anything to bring added suspicion to himself and I think a murder in his prior residence constitutes unnecessarily adding suspicion to himself. Thanks, and of course i could be totally wrong  .
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 784
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
Hi!
I have to agree with Sarah and Mikey here Dear old Joe wasn't living with Mary of course at the time ...In fact I think he was seriously miffed with her for sub-letting etc IMHO he certainly made his views clear on that point!I think he was far more perturbed by the odd visits of Mr Flemming and had seriously taken his bat home and wasnt about to be over pally with her but did pop in occasionally (unfortunately on that night!) just to check!!!! who was there etc etc........Could explain why he only stayed a short time before going off for his game of whist(!) NO it wasnt Joe .....B at least IMHO!!
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 2:33 am: | |
G'day,
'I think she would have noticed what was going on.' Well maybe she had her suspicions about Joe's behaviour and that's why she told her friend that she could not bear him. Perhaps his buying her gifts of 'meat and other things' gave her a false sense of security.
You know what doesn't make sense to me?.....How Joe could remember exactly where he was and what he was doing on each of the murder mornings, plus have all his alibis checked out and verified, all in a space of four hours, (which was the length of his interrigation.)
MIKEY: Joe was a costermonger (street-seller), of oranges at the time of the murders. He could have returned home from work after each lunch time. He probably bought home his gifts of 'meat and other things', so that he and Mary could enjoy lunch together.
BRAD: how do we know that he consciously planned to kill Mary? How do we know that she didn't confront him with her suspicions that morning?
'but he had a key...' That hasn't been verified. He told Abberline that it had been missing for some time, and seemed to convieniently fail to be more specific.
'It immediately elevated his status as a suspect with the police.' But it didn't. He was never a serious suspect. It was and is standard detective procedure to interigate a victims 'inner-circle' of closest contacts first, then they move to the victims next 'circle', (of friends etc.) and then the next 'circle', (friends of friends etc.) He would have been first interigated even if she had have been murdered on the moon.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 885
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 4:07 am: | |
Hi,
Bias mayby, but I agree with Leanne Barnett would have been in contact with the police regardless where Kelly was killed.
I have always believed that Kelly was the reason, for these murders, and they halted once she was killed, for there was no reason to continue, which in itself points to the killer, being someone who had a direct intrest in her.
I also believe that all the murders, including Kelly were premeditated, they were precise killings , on precise dates, and the mutalations were increased [interupted with Stide] for the purpose of the fear factor.
Barnett is the obvious candidate, his dislike of prostitution is well documented, he even dropped in to room 13, the evening before, to tell kelly , he had no money, yet is playing cards 4 hours later, a sadistic act in itself, why bother coming round , unless it was to find out if she was planning a sleep over.
As for the point often made, how could he clean himself up after that blood bath, and introduce himself to the police a few hours later, well the fact is if this murder was planned in advance, all this would have been thought out.
Whoever the killer was , leaving Barnett out of the picture, he had the same problem, but managed to escape the net,
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 280
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
You wrote: “You know what doesn't make sense to me?.....How Joe could remember exactly where he was and what he was doing on each of the murder mornings, plus have all his alibis checked out and verified, all in a space of four hours, (which was the length of his interrigation.)”
I think you’re doing a rather poor job trying to discredit the police. Other than the fact that Barnett was questioned by the police and that they let him go, not much more is known for sure about this interview. And even this information, I believe, doesn't come from official documents. We don't know what the police did and didn't do during this interview. Perhaps Barnett was a killer or even Jack the Ripper and perhaps the police did do a sloppy job interrogating Barnett, but this is certainly not something that can be based on what little we know about his interrogation.
All the best,
Frank
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 400
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Actually, Joe wouldn't have to have a solid alibi for more than one of the murders. He wouldn't have to remember where he was for all of them. Mary's murder, being only the previous night, is not difficult to see how he could remember where he was for that one. From the press, he gives a brief idea of what his alibi was for that night. We don't know the rest of the details, if any, that he gave during his interegation with the police. But, if he was able to clear his name for Mary, there's no reason to suspect him for the others. If he could clear himself for at least one of the others, however, one could still suspect him as a copycat for Mary - although I would think the police at the time would consider Joe cleared if he could alibi himself for any of the murders, not only for Mary.
As for the other murders? Hard to say what he might or might not have remembered, or how it could have been verified. But, as a totally fictional example (meaning, I'm making this up as there is absoultely nothing to suggest this), if Joe were working on the morning that Annie Chapman was killed, he may have remembered talking about it with his workmates. Someone comes into the market, tells them of it, they all talk, etc. That kind of thing might be something he remembered because it would be different from the normal day to day activity. And that could be verified by talking to any of the people he worked with on that day. If Joe had something like this for any of the other murders, and his alibi for Mary was solid (even if not air tight), then the police would probably lose interest in him as a suspect. And, rightly so.
However, we have no idea what Joe actually told the police. All we know is that after talking with him, they were satisified that he was not the killer of Mary, or any of the other victims. Why they drew this conclusion? Until something new comes up, we may never know. So until we know, we either have to accept they did a good job even though we lack the details, or consider them incompetent because we lack the details.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 1:58 am: | |
G'day,
FRANK: I'm not trying to discredit the police! I think it can be a very big mistake to believe that the police were super-human and couldn't possibly overlook something, or fail to take a record of a very important interview.
JEFF: Barnett told the press that he was at Buller's until midnight before he went to bed. That may have been the truth but what about the hours of 1:00a.m., 2:00a.m., 3:00a.m.?
What extra details could he have given to the police?: "I was in bed and snored loudly so everyone heard me."?
Joe may have been able to verify the fact that he was working at the times in question, but so what? His job was to wonder the streets with a barrow searching for customers. He had no boss. A street-seller of fruit who stayed within talking distance of another street-seller of fruit, wasn't a very good street-seller of fruit!
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 284
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
G’day Leanne,
OK, I guess to say that you tried to discredit the police is a bit too strong, but you at least clearly doubt if the police could have done a thorough investigation into Barnett, one that after ‘only’ four hours seems to have cleared him of suspicion. You even seem to cautiously imply that they couldn’t have.
I think nobody here believes “that the police were super-human and couldn’t possibly overlook something, or fail to take a record of a very important interview.” At least I don’t. Perhaps they did take a record, but it went missing, like so many others.
But anyway, my point was that from the info that has survived we can’t draw the conclusion that the police did a bad job (or a good one) questioning Barnett, simply because there isn’t enough info – which is frustrating, by the way. All we can do is speculate.
All the best,
Frank
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 8:00 am: | |
G'day Frank,
Ok, lets put ourselves in the mind of the police at the time of Mary Kelly's murder: Most of them would have already had their own personal views of where to look for the guilty party,
what he looked like,
what nationality he was etc.
No one had heard of the name Joseph Barnett before. No one had any past examples of apparently motiveless murders to show them the signs to look out for, and what questions to ask when searching for a possible motive.
I tried in my last post to get you or anyone who'd rather assume that the police were thorough with their interrigation, to suggest what information they could have obtained to eliminate him as a suspect. The only way he could have proven that he remained in bed, was to produce a person who was with him all night. A person that could be trusted.
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 286
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
G’day Leanne,
First off, let me be clear: I don’t rather assume that the police were thorough. I don’t know if they were or weren’t.
Secondly, I don’t know if there was a night watchman working at the lodging house at New Street where Barnett stayed the night Mary Kelly was killed. If there was, the police could have asked him if anybody had left the lodging house during the night or not. If there wasn’t that probably meant that Barnett, had he sneaked out during the night, could only have come in again after the lodging house had opened again in the morning. In that case the police could have asked the deputy or someone alike if someone had come in very early and if so, who that was. So, I don’t think that a trustworthy person who had spent the night with Barnett would have been the only person to verify his alibi - perhaps the best person, but not the only one.
All the best,
Frank
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 401
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 8:02 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Perhaps I'm not being clear. What I'm trying to say is simply that we do not know what Joe's full alibi to the police was. Depending upon what the full details were, he may have been 100% cleared or, some periods of time may have been left unaccounted for, leading to the possibility that the police dismissed him in error.
Now, without having his full recorded statement to the police that includes his full reported alibi, we can't decide for ourselves whether or not his alibi is solid or weak because we do not know what it was.
What we can do, however, is look at the actions of the police subsequent to his interview and decide what their decision was. And, we're all in agreement (I would think), that the police at the time were completely convinced that Joe was not responsible.
Since the police had access to the information that we do not, it becomes very risky for us to build a case up on the foundation of 2nd guessing the police decision. They had the critical information and we do not.
I fully agree that it's possible they made a mistake for the very same reason. We do not have the information so we cannot be 100% sure that the police weren't biased in the manner you suggest. Perhaps Joe's alibi wasn't all that strong, perhaps there were lots of hours left unaccounted for, perhaps the police didn't realise that being seen going to bed at midnight doesn't clear Joe of a murder at 4 am.
Or perhaps Joe had a lady friend that night, who knew very well where he was all evening and she verified he was with her. Perhaps Joe's alibi was very solid, but in this case was something that he's not going to tell the press. Perhaps he awoke a few times during the night to go to the toilet and was spotted once or twice. Who knows, we can make up all sorts of things that would clear him nicely just like we can make up all sorts of things that leave him the available time.
I'm sure you could come up with just as many "events" that could have happened and which would clear Joe 100% if you tried. Just like we both could come up with all sorts of events that would still give Joe the oppertunity to kill Mary so long as we either discredit the police to some extent, or attribute some exceptional ability to deceive to Joe.
I'm not willing to do either, I don't want to make any assumptions about what Joe's exact alibi was. What I do is look at the police behaviour, from that it's apparent they were satisfied of Joe's innocence. Until something indicates they were so biased that they became sloppy, then the evidence points to Joe being cleared of Mary's murder. Something about his full alibi appears to have fully cleared him and the police behaviour indicates that. If that was a mistake, then some evidence of this incompentence, or this bias (to dismiss non-Jewish suspects let's say), must be shown.
But to say that they were so focused on the "poor Polish Jew" suspect, however, makes the fact that they appeared to call in Lawende to identify Sadler a bit odd. Although they didn't think Sadler was the Ripper, they wanted to make sure and were willing to keep an open mind and test the possibility out. I fail to see why, at the height of the Ripper scare, one would expect them to be less inclinde to check out all reasonable suspects. Also, listing of Druitt clearly indicates that not everyone thought the Ripper was Jewish, etc. Even Anderson asked for information about whether or not Alice McKenzie was a Ripper victim after his prime suspect was locked away, which indicates he was willing to continue to test his idea in case he was wrong.
In other words, it seems to me that the police were willing to check out avenues pretty closely before dismissing any suspect or victim. No, this doesn't tell us what Joe's alibi was, but it does suggest that it was a pretty good one; whatever it was.
- Jeff |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 50
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 11:46 pm: | |
Hi All,
Brad, going back to your original point I think it's time I threw my hat in on the Barnett subject. I am going to generalise here and am aware that what I say may not agree with Brian and Leanne's theory but for what it's worth: A lot of people suspect Barnett of killing MJK but not of beint JtR. This is a theory worth considering although I personally am not convinced of it. Nevertheless I think it is worth considering because we know that today most murders are commited by people known to or related to the deceased, and generally either in the home or within a short distance of it. Serial killers don't conform to this mould but most murderers are not serial killers. It's also worth noting that many of the indicators are that Barnett may have been emotionally unsettled over the relationship with Kelly, this is often the sort of recipe required for someone to kill their partner or former partner. I also don't think we can place too much significance on the murder location by arguing that it would be illogical for Barnett to kill Kelly in the house in which they had lived together. As I expressed above most murders do happen in the home. It is also illogical to think that someone in that moment of murder thinks clearly about the ramifications. Most killers don't plan to murder, rather it happens and then they try to cover it up.
A couple of other points which i'm unsure of. Firstly, I thought Barnett could not be found for some time after the body had been found. If this is true he may have had time to think about his alibi. Secondly, I can't remember who, but one of the Police Officers complained at the time that most suspects only had to prove who they were and that if a respectable character could be established they were released. I doubt this happened for Barnett but it is worth considering.
Scotty. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 2:11 am: | |
G'day,
Joe told the newspaper reporter that he was playing whist until midnight and went to bed. If there was any more to his alibi like: "Whatsisname saw me there at 7:00 for breakfast." I'm sure he would have told the press that too, to erase all public suspicion.
I've researched into Victorian lodging houses for the poor for my book, (which may never see the light of day), and ones like Buller's had rooms with a bed and private locker for dock labourers who left and returned at all hours of the day. There were no set meal times either. They weren't like prisons. I have reason to believe it was one of those houses closed when improvements to housing were sought.
Plus at the time that police took Barnett for that interrigation, Mary's most likely time of death wasn't established.
SCOTTY: Author Bruce Paley put Barnett's arrival at Miller's court as: 'Sometime in the early afternoon.' He turned up voluntarily and apparently he was at a pub when someone told him that there was a murder at Miller's Court and it was Marie. That tells us nothing about his guilt or innocence, because he had to turn up or the police would have hunted for him anyway.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 800
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Hi all
Right this is getting very involved here...OK Joe visited Mary and whoever,in that room, at some point during the afternoon and or evening..this seems to be some sort of fact.Now Our Joe leaves and the rest is a bit misty here!......but he's playing whist....or is he , later that night.......no record of that though is there....only maybe Joe's word for it!Who was Joe's exact alibi?
Suzi |
brad kelley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
scott, thanks for the follow up on my first post, the point I am trying to make is not that joe didnt kill mary or even that he wasn't jack..just that whomever the ripper was if we give him some credit for taking precautions not to get caught, i think it takes away from joe (certainly it does not eliminate him) as a suspect that Jack (Joe) The Ripper who did so well in evading capture now kills his ex in a location that imop will immediately draw even more attention to him as a suspect, this on top of the usual suspicion that would be cast on an ex boyfriend. again jack knew how to kill silently on the street and i think if joe was jack he could have enticed mary to meet him perhaps to give her money at the time and place of his choosing. unless of course if she suspected him which then turns the throry on its head and makes it more likely he would have had no chance of her meeting him on the streets...anyway it was just a thought and interesting how these threads take on a life of their own. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
I believe he was at Buller's playing whist until midnight and may have been able to prove that, making him seem like an honest man. Someone may have seen him go up the stairs to bed, but did he remain there all night?
Given the amount of early morning activity in the neighbourhood, and knowing how he must have felt about how his relationship with Mary was going, it's hard to imagine him remaining in bed and sleeping soundly.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
G'day,
Lizzie Albrook told the press that the last time she saw Mary Kelly alive: 'was on Thursday night, (the night before her body was found), at about 8:00 when I left her in the room with Joe Barnett.'
Barnett said that he told her during this visit that he was very sorry, he had no work and could not give her any money. Kelly's rent was 4s 6d per week, she was behind in her payments and faced the possibility of eviction.
Barnett left that evening and went to Buller's Lodging House, which charged about 3s for a bed. What more did he have to play whist with? Wouldn't it have made more sense to give Mary the 3s and spend the night at Miller's Court?
Perhaps he was going to steel, beg or sell something to play whist with, and if he didn't win anything return to Miller's Court.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 402
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Leanne,
Are you sure Buller's charged 3s for a bed for one night? That would be one of the most expensive doss houses in the area, where most were charging about 4p for a bed. 3s sounds more like a weeks rent; or did you mean 3p?
Assuming the 3s is correct though, that would suggest that Buller's rented rooms on a week by week basis, so Joe would have paid for his week in advance. If work was easier to get on the weekends, Joe probably rented his room at Bullers the previous Saturday or Sunday, so his lodging was paid up until the next Sat/Sun, and he may have had very little money by the time Thursday came round. If he was just trying to get through to the weekend, when he might get another bit of work, it would make no sense to give Mary his last cash as she would probably just spend it at the pub. Staying in Miller's Court would not help him at all, as his room was already paid for and he's unlikely to be able to get a refund from Buller's. And, although he and Mary are on good terms, that doesn't mean he was desperate to spend the night with her. Especially if she's likely to go to the pub, spend the last of his money, and then return with a friend to share the room with yet again. This was, after all, his stated reason for leaving. In otherwords, giving Mary the money wasn't likely to help with her rent, wasn't likely to allow him to get some sleep in order to find work the next day, and would mean he's paying twice for a room that night.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
Thanks for pointing that out. I just checked the notes in my book and the part about Joe's alibi. Although I wasn't able to find a description of 'Buller's Lodging House' specifically, I researched contemporary documents about cheap lodging houses for the labouring classes.
Henry Mayhew wrote an article in 1850 describing these lodging houses which charged 3 shillings per week and provided each inmate with a seperated sleeping compartment, a bed, a chair, a clothes box and his own locker with a unique key.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 807
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Wow!! a clothes box and a unique key eh!!!! Hey I agree with you here..How long had Joe been staying at Bullers then on and off since moving out of M/Ct ?
Cheers
Suzi |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 404
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
No problem. I wanted to double check with you on the 3s, because shillings leads to a weeks rent idea (so Joe may have next to no money at all by Thursday), while pence sounds like a one night thing.
Although it's tempting to suggest that if Joe is able to afford a 3s/week room on his causual work, then he should have been able to pay for Miller's Court (only 1.5s/week more). But, that's half again in terms of rent, so it would be a huge increase, and his casual work is not a sure thing. However, a regular doss bed appears to be 4p/night, which is 28p/week. It's 12p/s, so that means a regular doss bed is only 2s 4p/week. Joe still seems to be able to afford slightly better than the lowest of the Doss Houses.
So, even if Joe wasn't making 3 pounds a week when a full time fish porter, renting a room for 4s 6p/week certainly appears likely to be within his affordability. The back-rent appears to have started building up after he lost his job (I think that's right anyway), suggesting they hadn't really much in the way of savings. It seems hard to believe that Mary could have drunk away all of Joe's money herself, though. It's possible that Joe and Mary both drank away the extra money, and Joe lost his job for showing up drunk and/or hungover, or some other drink related problem. They had left a previous room after drinking away their rent, which doesn't suggest Joe to be an abstainer.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 895
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 3:01 am: | |
Hi,
Barnett liked a drink, he was obviously a regular user of the dorset street pubs, Maurice lewis claimed to have seen him with kelly in one of them.
It appears Kelly liked her gin, which incidently is well known as a depressant, a tearful tipple.
I am more intrested in why Barnett moved out, and why Mary had middle aged women as stayovers.
It is abundantly clear that she was petrified of the murders, if Lotties remarks were correct, she had a nightmare that someone was killing her, which occured between the murder of eddowes and her own,
I believe the only reason she brought home the stayovers, was because of her fear of being alone at nights in that hovel of a room.
I Feel that Barnett showed a lack of understanding of her plight, and was quite prepeared to leave her alone at nights, I believe on purpose,to increase her fear.
I Cannot understand why he stayed at Bullers, when he could have stayed with his sister[ he did after marys death]
I think the truth of the matter is, Barnett tried everything to put kelly off prostitution, he preached to her, he read papers to her, he was proberly responsible for her nightmare, he left her alone at nights to increase her panic, but when she brought home sleep-overs, he realized that all his efforts were in vain, and he finally killed her, thus bringing a end to the Whitechapel murders.
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 2:00 am: | |
Hi all,
I thought Maria Harvey testified at the inquest that she was with Kelly when Joe showed up and she had left several articles of cloths. Before she left she told Kelly that she would not see her again that night. She also mentioned she had spent Monday and Tuesday night with Kelly and all day Thursday with her before leaving that night when Joe showed up. I only mention this because I have never read that Albrook ever stated she was in the room with Kelly and Joe. Leanne, if you ment to say Maria instead of Albrook that is understandable. I only mention this because it doese support what Inspector Dew wrote in his book He said that Albrook did spend some time with Kelly that evening and that Kelly was very upset and she mentioned being afraid of Jack the ripper. It is possible that Dew got a date wrong or misidentified the woman who was with Kelly that night. He had been 50 years since the ripper murders and he was getting up there in age.
I believe it is possible if Albrook did have the conversation with Kelly then Kelly and Joe may have argued that night. If Joe stoped by and saw Maria with Kelly then that may have upset him. I thought it was funny the words that Maria spoke to Kelly when she was leaving she said I will not be seeing you again tonight. this may have been Maria's way of telling Joe she was not going to stay over. Ater Maria left Joe may have let of some steam. They had just broken up because Kelly was letting unforunates stay over. Maybe that is why he did not give her any money. Maybe she told him to get out so he had to go spend the money for lodging. He may have told her to go make her money on the sreets and he may have tried to scare her by mentioning the ripper. I think it was odd that he only wanted to visit for just a few minutes. I mean he did love her and if he thought that Kelly was going to spend the night alone without having another ufortunate sleeping over then he may have wanted to stay over and save some money. If the conversation with Albrook did take place and she was cring and so scared of the ripper? One reason could be she had to go earn her money on the streets because the rent was due or Joe may have mentioned the ripper and tried to scare her that night. Remember it had been 40 days since the double event and her natural fears may have abatted a little. She may have let it slip to Joe that she was planning to move back with her mother again this is something she told Albrook that night. In my oppinion that is a motive and if Joe thought he was loosing he for ever he then may have snapped and killed her. This is pure speculation and it all hinges on the conversation Kelly had with Albrook. I feel the story has some meritt and if anything Dew may have just got the names mixed up.
All the best,CB |
brad kelley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
poor joe...apart from him being the ex which automatically makes him a worth a look (a look i'd bet the police didn't gloss over)...there is really nothing but speculation and grasping at straws in the theories putting him forth as jtr. snuck around murdering and mutilating women to scare his girl off the streets? i'm from nyc and i'll buy that bridge connecting manhattan with brooklyn before i'll buy that as a viable theory for jtr's actions. "ahh got that out of my system think i'll go live a normal non violent life" nah...there are better suspects with proven acts of violence in their history that for some reason never get any play on ths site (bury comes to mind for one). again poor joe...it will take more than stuttering, spitting and pipe smoking to make him a viable suspect in my eyes. in fact as i see it chances are much greater he was a victim (indirectly of course) of jtr and not jtr himself. now if somebody could lay out not specutation and extrapolation of flimsy profiles and theories but some real facts that point to this man being a serial killer (the fbi profile is really stretching it imop)...well then i will move him into the viable suspects catagory. but till then i can only say again...poor joe. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 2:32 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I just read the word press in your post. I guess I skipped over it by accident. It is two in the morning hear and my eyes are getting tired. Sorry I thought you wrere talking about the inquest.
The interesting thing is Joe never mentions seeing two woman at Kelly's. He said there was one woman there who lived in the court and he left shortly after she did. He doese not mention the woman by name but I would assume he was talking about Harvey because of her testimony at the inquest. If the woman was Lizzie it sheds some doubt on Dew's story because the last time she claimed to see Kelly was around 8:oo unless the conveersation happend earlier. or maybe Dew got the date wrong or the womans name wrong.
All the best,CB |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 405
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I'm not so sure that Mary was any more petrified of the murders than was the usual though. All women, not only those in Whitechappel, and not only those who engaged in prostitution were afraid to various levels. There are all sorts of reports in the papers of women afraid to go home at night from all walks of life. Mary, given her location and trade, would probably be very afraid - but so were all the women who lived similar lives (meaning, Whitechappel prostitutes in particular). To say she was afraid is probably correct, but it's important to remember that this was the norm. All the women who did not get killed by JtR, or anyone else, were also afraid. The police noted how the streets were generally clear of prostitutes after the murders. All of these women were staying off the streets out of fear.
The reason I'm emphasising this is that I think we have to remember the context of fear that was abundant at the time. We shouldn't make too much of Mary being afraid and then actually getting killed. Being afraid was very very common, almost expected, so there's no reason to think that she was afraid because of any special knowledge (I know you don't make such a statement, it's just that some could draw the inference between Mary's fear and your later claim that Joe killed her implies that Mary had knowledge that made her afraid of Joe in particular. That connection is certainly not established by the fact she was afraid of the murders and then gets murdered).
Also, Joe's reading to her of the murders is unsurprising. They were the hot story of the day. This activity sounds much more "pleasantly domestic", despite the fact that the story was morbid. Joe's desire for his lover not to prostitute herself is also not surprising, and does not imply guilt. His leaving her, when she started taking in friends, is not suspicious because the bed in their room was a small one. Three people could not sleep in that bed with any comfort (if at all), so someone had to go. If not Mary's friends, then he himself.
I don't see any reason to conclude that Joe left in order to make Mary panic (although it is one possible reason). Other, just as possible motives include: 1) he was fed up with her bringing in friends 2) he was fed up with her drinking all his money 3) he was fed up with her prostituting herself 4) he was fed up with the fights they had 5) there was no room for 3 to sleep and he needed to be rested to find work 6) he left knowing she couldn't afford the place by herself and so this would force her to listen to him when he returned (i.e. stop taking in people so I can sleep or I'll leave again, etc). I'm sure other motives could be listed, but these are just a few that come to mind at this moment. Oh yah, when I say "fed up", I don't mean he ended up disliking Mary as it is clear from his behaviour that is not true (he does come round her place, apparently gives her money sometimes, and is reported as being on good terms with her). By "fed up", I just mean he moved out because he was annoyed, Mary wouldn't stop doing what annoyed him, so he left to avoid confrontation with her (which does seem to be his typical response when they fought - he would leave).
As for his killing Mary, well, the evidence we have generally points away from that conclusion (as discussed on other threads). At the moment, however, there is insufficient evidence to completely rule him out, but I would still make it clear that such a conclusion should be considered "tenative" and "not well supported by fact". His innocence is "generally implied by the evidence" but hinges on the assumption that the police knew how to check out an alibi.
- Jeff |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:03 pm: | |
Hey CB,
I agree with you about the whole Lizzie Albrook,
Maria Harvey thing. Its confusing. Why people say that Albrook was in the room when Joe showed up is confusing. Dont you think Harvey would have mentioned this little bit of info at the inquest? Albrooks name doesnt even appear in any testimony that was given at the inquest.....Not to my knowledge anyway. I dont think it really matters either way....neither of them are gonna help us to solve the murder. I think they were just hookers that didnt know a damn thing. Peace
Paul |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 170
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
JJJJoe didnt dddddo it, bbbbbygum.
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:39 pm: | |
ROGDFL at Brad!!!!!
Dude, thats hilarious! Now thats the most entertaining post ive seen on here in a while.
Hats off!
Paul |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 2:10 am: | |
G'day,
Of course it was Maria Harvey's visit that Joe walked in on. Relax everyone, I made a mistake. I'll try to find the report I read that lead to that confusion.
CB: Yes it was strange that Maria told Mary that she would not be seeing her again that night, because when people leave their friends they usually mention when they will see them next and not when they wont. I'd say she was really telling Joe Barnett. If she was concerned that an argument might be started behind her, why didn't she mention that at the inquest?
JEFF: The reasons why the murders may have placed a greater concern in Mary Kelly's heart include:
* Emma Smith had lived in George Street, which was the street that Joe and Mary had first lived together on.
* Martha Tabram lived on George Street at the time of her death, (although George Yard Buildings was on another street).
* Annie Chapman was a long-time habitue of various Dorset Street doss houses and had been living at Crossingham's in the months prior to her death.
* Elizabeth Stride lived on and off with Michael Kidney on Dorset Street.
* Catharine Eddowes sometimes lived next door in the shed.
Not a very defined common element I hear you thinking? With so many prostitutes in the East End at the time and so many great detectives working on the case, it would have been dangerous and stupid for the Ripper to choose a more defined common element like a common murder site or a common murder time.
LEANNE
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 406
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 2:39 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I agree that the fact that the murders all occurred relatively close to each other would be a reason for everyone who lived in that area to be fearful moreso than those who lived elsewhere. However, those who lived elsewhere were also afraid. That indicates how much fear these murders created.
Now for someone like Mary, who actually lived near the murders, and very close to Annie Chapman's murder location (though in the overall pattern, she's on the edge; Martha Tabram's murder is nearest the centre), I would not be at all surprised if she was afraid. Given her lifestyle, she had much more reason to be afraid than women, in higher income families, who didn't have to prostitute themselves to avoid hunger, and who didn't live near Whitechappel. However, that statement applies equally to all women, who lived in and near Whitechapple, who did have to prostitute themselves (even on occasion). There is no reason to believe that Mary required any special knowledge of the Ripper (i.e. she didn't have to suspect Joe) in order for her to have been afraid. In other words, anyone in Mary's situation would be highly expected to be afraid.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 3:45 am: | |
G'day,
This is on page 175 of Bruce Paley's 'The Simple Truth'. It's an account of what happened on Thursday November 8, which was nine days after Joe and Mary split: 'Kelly spent the afternoon drinking with Maria Harvey at Harvey's new lodgings.' Harvey's new lodgings were in New Court, Dorset Street. 'Harvey gave two different accounts of their time together. She told 'Lloyd's Newspaper' 11 Nov., that they drank together in New Court until 7:30, then Mary headed off towards Leman Street, possibly seeking trade. In her inquest testimony, however, Harvey indicated that she and Kelly were drinking in Kelly's room in Miller's Court, and that she herself left at around five minutes to seven, when Barnett stopped by.'
Here's how I got Lizzie Albrook's name mixed up with Maria Harvey's: Bruce Paley's next sentence is: 'Either way Kelly was in her room when her friend Lizzie Albrook dropped in for a visit. 'THE LAST TIME I SAW HER,...', Albrook told the press, 'WAS ON THURSDAY NIGHT, ABOUT 8:00 WHEN I LEFT HER IN HER ROOM WITH JOE BARNETT.' ('Lloyd's Newspaper' 11 Nov.)
Oh how I wish we had a copy of that report!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 4:23 am: | |
Joseph Barnett said his visit with Mary took place between 7:30 and 8:00p.m. As Lizzie Albrook claimed that she left the pair at 8:00p.m., Joe must have left just after her if he was telling the truth.
Albrook told the press 'About the last thing she said to me was "whatever you do, don't go wrong and turn out as I have." She had often spoken to me this way and had warned me against going on the street as she had done. She told me too, that she was heartily sick of the life she was leading, and wished she had money enough to go back to Ireland where her people lived.'
If Mary said all that when Albrook saw her last, and Joe was there too, then that gives us a fair idea of the conversation during Joe's last visit.
Oh why didn't Lizzie Albrook appear at Kelly's inquest?
Reading the newspaper account of the inquest, and Joseph Barnett's testimony, the Coroner asked: 'Was there any one else there on Thursday evening?'
His reply was: 'Yes, a woman who lives in the court. She left first, and I followed shortly afterwards.'
He didn't say the woman's name. Lizzie Albrook also lived in Miller's Court and Maria Harvey didn't!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on June 08, 2004) |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I just have a gut feeling that Kelly and Joe argued that night. I know that it is just very,very much speculation on my part but my girlfriend and I argue all time over stupid stuff. I believe Joe was angry when he saw Harvey with Kelly.
There is some food for thought Harvey stated she saw the black overcoat that she had given to Kelly in another room on Friday afternoon. So Maybe Albrook did stop by soon after Harvey was there and Kelly gave her the coat. Maybe just to keep warm that night. The reason she did not mention this to the press, she may not have wanted to admitt she had taken charity from Kelly.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 12:51 am: | |
Hi Paul,
Thanks for takeing the time too answer my post. I agree that the Albrook press report is confusing. I went to the Albrook thread and I read the press report that leanne mentions above. She doese claim she was there amd some people do believe her story because she gives a simikiar time as Joe gives. She claims she left around eight were Joe claims he left at 7:45 I still tend to believe it was Harvey who was in the room. She gives no times and the fact she left cloths and there was cloths found burned in the fire place, the fact that she stayed with her Monday and Tuesday nights and she was with her all day Thursday makes me believe her story. I wonder if the cloths were some form of payment to Kelly for letting her stay with her. Maybe Kelly was suposed to sell the cloths.
I dont want to believe that Lizzie lied to the press and I see no advantage for her to do so unless she was a glory seeker or she got paid for the story. Maybe Joe just got confused and forgot that Albrook was there or maybe Joe stayed longer then he had admitted to and he did not want to get caught in a lie.
I agree Paul I dont think those unforunates are going to help us solve the case and I do not believe that Joe was the ripper. However, I do not post on the Barnett threads to discredit the theory that Joe was the ripper but I want to understand the theory. piecing together the last day of Mary Kelly's life is interesting and I would like to be as accurate as possible but it is difficult with so many conflicting stories.
Speaking of being accurate I mispoke about dews comments he never said Kelly was speaking Tearfully but he said fearfully again I was tired when I read it over.
All the best,CB |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 407
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I think your conclusion that Joe must have left shortly after Albrook is a good one. It fits the times they both give, and it fits Joe's testimony that he left shortly after the women who was there as well (which was apparently Albrook).
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 3:00 am: | |
G'day,
I'd say that Mary Kelly and Maria Harvey were in Kelly's room, when Joe Barnett arrived at about 7:00p.m.
Harvey left immediately, saying that she wont see Mary again that night. As she left straight away Joe didn't think to mention her at the inquest.
Barnett and Mary were alone when Barnett told her that he had no money, Mary told him that the only option she had was to earn it as a prostitute or be evicted. An argument could have begun.
Lizzie Albrook suddenly turned up around 7:45 and had that conversation with Mary. Joe would have been in the background.
Albrook left around 8:00p.m. and Joe left shortly after.
If it it happened that way then none of them would have been lying. Harvey was there when Joe first arrived and Albrook was there when he was about to leave. It's the conversation that went on before Lizzie Albrook turned up that we are interested in.
Barnett obviously didn't simply tell Mary that he was very sorry that he had no money, as Mary was in the mood to express a desire to return to Ireland. Question is did he promise to return later that night with more money?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on June 09, 2004) |
David Andersen
Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 30
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
With great respect to all, and to the views posted above, do I assume that Hutchinsons testimony is to be ignored? Whatever passed between Kelly and Barnett earlier in the evening, Barnett was not, according to Hutchinson, the man she was seen with entering her room. If we accept Hutchinson then is it not reasonable to assume that the unidentified man was Kellys killer? Or do we simply dismiss Hutchinson because he does not fit the Barnettist's theory?
Regards
David |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 10:57 pm: | |
G'day,
Why do we have to ignore Hutchinson's statement? (It wasn't a testimony.) He saw his man at 2a.m. If you think that Hutchinson would have recognized Joe Barnett in a flash, why did this man: "hide his head with his hat over his eyes."?
Don't say that he didn't want to be recognized after the murder. All he had to do if that's what his fear was, is abort the murder and try again at another time or choose another prostitute.
LEANNE
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 138
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
Regardless of what it means for Barnett as a suspect, the Hutchinson statement probably deserves to be dismissed, or at least taken with a lot of caution. Not only do the details sound absurd, but it's pretty clear that the police stopped taking it seriously after a while. For example, there's the famous statement that the person who got the best look at the killer was used at a witness identification, and almost nobody believes that person was Hutchinson, even though he gives by far the most detailed description. Something about it doesn't add up.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 409
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
I agree with Dan. Hutchinson's statement, at best, would indicate that Kelly had a customer around 2 am. His physical description of that customer, however, is so detailed that it does not reflect normal human memory.
So, either we have to presume Hutchinson has some very rare and unusual powers of recall (very low probability event with no evidence to back it up but true description) or we presume that Hutchinson's description has somehow become contaminated with false details (far more probable event, but also no other evidence to back it up and false description).
Since neither explanation has direct additional evidence (we have no tests of Hutchinson's memory, and we have no description of events that might have contaminated his memory), we have to weigh the probabilities (which are in favour of incorrect description). We also can compare indirect evidence, which is to compare Hutchinson's description with other descriptions presumably of the same person. And, Hutchinson's is much more affluent in appearance than any other. This might suggest the "doctor theory" may partly be to blame for contaminating his description, and possibly posters for Jeckle and Hyde? (were there poster type adverts placed around London? Might Hutchinson's description correspond to such a poster?)
Anyway, the most we could draw from his tesimony is that Hutchinson saw Mary with a customer at 2am. He waited around for awhile (this does seem to be supported by other testimony). And after 45 min or so, the customer was still with Mary when he left. But, the description he gives of the suspect is useless.
At worst, Hutchinson was no where near the location. He's made up the story, hoping for some reward money. The idea that he waited around being "supported" is no big deal. The person just wasn't Hutchinson. (It's not a risky lie, since if someone was spotted it looks to support him and if nobody was spotted, "So what? So I wasn't seen? What's the problem? Where's my fiver?") Etc. Which means we would want to disregard everything he claims.
More sinister, of course, is that Hutchinson is the killer and he's now introduced himself into the investigation (which does happen fairly often). However, I would think Hutchinson would have become a pain to the police (keep insisting to be informed, etc), but he seems to dissappear from the whole investigation. But, in this situation, we now want to pay more attention to GH!.
Anyway, although there are many possibilities (more than just those I've listed), if you are going to consider GH's testimony, it is my opinion that the first listed (he saw something, useless physical description, he's not the killer) is the way to view Hutchinson's statement. Just do so with caution. Disregard the description of the suspect, what ever has contaminated his memory has done so that we don't know what parts might be real and what are "introduced". To be very conservative, just disregard his statement entirely, but do so simply because it's clearly unreliable in it's description, and so could be unreliable in other details as well (like the time, for example). Don't try and interpret his motive (we have too little evidence to make statements about GH's motive for giving his testimony in the first place).
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 3:15 am: | |
Hi,
According to two peices of imformation , the early seventies radio programme, and GH son, Hutchinson was paid the sum of five guineas[ five pounds twenty five pence] which in 1888 was equal to an average four weeks wages, one can easily contribute this to an equivalent amount in todays terms, and i can assure you that payment was a considerable amount, if the police considered hutchinson a joke as, some people imagine, then that was a complete waste of police funds to say the least.
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 3:46 pm: | |
Hi David,
This is just a Barnett thread, On the kelly thread I have discussed Hutchinson and I do not think he should be ignored at all. I believe his testimony. It seems to be backed up by Sarah lewis and by the cry of murder heard by Lewis and Prator. I feel Kelly was seen by Cox entering her room around midnight with a man that was not Barnett. I feel Kelly was seen by Hutchinson and possibly Lewis entering the court around 2:30. with a man that was not Barnett. I can not say for certain that the man George and possibly Lewis saw her with killed her but it is a possibility. We still have to account for almost an hour before the cry of murder was heard. I believe the cry of murder was Kelly because I do not know what the odds would be that two people could hear a cry of murder and then one of there neighbors is murderd that same night and the cry not have come from the murderd woman. If Joe killed Kelly I believe he had to have killed her after Georges man left around 3:30 Giving him a two hour window before I believe he would have had to escape. I dont think he would have killed her in the daylight because he was to well known in the area and someone would have seen him. Also, he knew the rent was due and he knew the rent man would be comming by to collect. The after 8:30 theory in my mind goes out the window. When it comes to Joe.
I feel that it is possible that Kelly dismissed the man that George saw with her and went back out on the sreets after three in the morning and then picked up the ripper. It is just possible none of the witnesses got a look at him. If I was a gambling man I would go with Hutchinsons man as the ripper or possibly George himself.
I am not a Barnetite. Although I do not dismiss him as a suspect. He is not my preferd suspect but I can see why some consider him theres. I am just trying to figure out what happend to Mary leading up to her murder.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Hi Don,
I do not dismmiss Hutchinsons testimoney so easy, because of Sarah Lewis's testimony. If you believe that Kelly was the last ripper victim and I do not know your thoughts on this but I tend to believe she was the last victim. I read in John Douglase's book and others [I mention Douglas because I have his book in front of me] that aid to the east end stood down shortly after the Kelly murder. In less time then the previous murders and the Kelly murder. I watched the A&E special The Hunt For Jack The Ripper. I think there numbers were someting like patrols incresed from 25 to over 80 and after the Kelly murder they incresed to over 140 patrols and then aid suddenly stood down. This fact would seem to indicate that the police were sure that there would be no more murders. I suppose the royal conspiracy believers support this theory and the Kozminski/Kasminski/Cohen/a reletive of Kozminski or any insane Jewish male locked up theory would also support this idea. Other supporters may be, Druitt and Tumblety. I am not sure if I believe the police had an idea of the killer or not. They seem to all have different suspects. I believe the murders stoped after the Kelly murder so something may have happend that night to put the police on the trail of the killer. What happend? We have Cox who identified a man, Hutchinson who identified a man or just maybe someone that was kept under wrap [possibly and undercover patrol men] came forward with an identification that put the police on the right track and they questioned the right man. Either they had him watched and then locked up, He fled the country or he commited suicide. This idea may give credibility to George's statement.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Hi Leann,
Yep, your scenerio sounds good to me. The problem here is they all give different times. If your time is corrrect of 7:00 for Harvey that means Joe would have been there Longer then he claimed He only claimed to have been there for a quarter of an hour but if your times are correct he must have been there for over an hour. He may not wanted that fact known.
People often mistake what time they are at some place, so this is fun speculation but I am not sure how important it is. I would like to know what was said between Joe and Mary when they were alone. I can only imagine an argument that may have gone something like this. Joe comes over and he sees Maria Harvey with Kelly. The fact that Maria is there angers him, Harvey maybe senses that Joe his disturbed by her presense, makes sure to tell kelly [for Joe's benefit] I will not see you Mary again tonight. After Harvey leaves, Mary ask Joe if he can spare some money. I believe Joe did have money but he was angerd by Harvey's presense and he says, I have no money. Kelly perhapes sensing that Joe is not truthfull, tells him because she knows how it will make him feel, I will have to make my money on the streets. Joe angerd more by this remark reminds Kelly of Jack the ripper, Maybe even says I hope the ripper gets you. Kelly probably would have insulted Joe's manhood someway, Maybe saying I would be better of dead then staying with a worthless man like you. I am sure some more colorfull adjetives were used. Lizzie stops over. If all times are right then that means that Joe would have already been there an hour. I never knew two women to get together for just a few minutes chat, I believe Lizzie stoped by to ask Kelly to go somewere with her or borrow something or maybe since Joe was there she did not want to disturb them Either way Kelly gives her the coat. Kelly says something to the effect, Whatever you do dont go wrong and turn out like I have. This is a rather gloomy statement to make between two girl friends, unless Kelly was upset or she may have been taking a backhanded shot at Joe. Joe upset that Kelly gave the coat to Lizzie, picks up the rest of the cloths and throws them in the fire. The fire is already going because Kelly is fixing tea or dinner or just warming the room for the night. Kelly starts to cry and tells Joe I am going to live with my mother. then Joe departs. It is possible, Kelly may have been planning to spend the evening with Joe. She did not like walking the streets so, what better way then to get the money from Joe and spend a nice evening with him rather then a stranger. I am sure Joe would have rather spent the evening with her then in some lodging house but unforunately there tempers got in the way.
I think if Joe was the killer then something had to have been said that evening to upset him. I feel if he did go back to kelly's, he went back to apologise. Mybe an OJ happend, he went to Kelly's early that morning saw one of Kelly's clients departing, he became jealous and killed her or maybe he went over there and Kelly who had been drinking rejected him and he kiled her. This is my best Hercule Poirot impression.
I feel there is some logic behind my ramblings and of course it could be flawed but I feel they had to have argued. Kelly was desperate, the rent was due the next day and she would have let Joe stay if Joe had given her any money. Joe would have rather stayed with her and given her the money then to a lodging house. Kelly and Joe had Just broken up and guys do not go over to exes houses unless they have hopes of getting back with them. Also, Joe had to have known that Kelly would ask him for money. If he did not want to give money to Kelly, then why go over to her house? I feel the reason Joe never went to his sisters to stay untill Kelly was killed is he alway had plans to get back together with her. If the theory put about Joe that he killed prostitutes to scare Kelly of the streets and eventually Killed Kelly because he relised it was over, Then I believe he would have been insain over her, Desperate to get back with her and they would have argued that night. I realise there are people that keep things bottled up inside untill they finnally snap but those type of people do not spend months killing inocent women in order to make a point.
ALL THE BEST,CB |
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 12:20 am: | |
Everyone -
Random thought on all of this, and I know it is out there but then again, what isn't out there when talking about a JtR suspect? If the body of Kelly/Obrien/Davies whatever is so absolutely brutalized, and Kelly is seen 3 times the following morning, and from an article posted by Chris on a different thread we know she was so striking for the neighborhood that she couldn't be mistaken, is it not plausible to play on the fact that it may have been a different prostitute killed, and Kelly needed to disappear for some reason. Her whole past is hazy and unfound. It is not wholly impossible(albeit unlikely) that her and barnett decided this was a good way for them to disappear together, and barnetts appearence the day of was to finalize some sort of plan? This would explain the locked door theory, and of Kelly being seen. As for barnett doing the other ripper killings, well, the only thing i can come up with that i havent seen anywhere is that ghoulston street is located directly on the way home to miller after the eddowes murder, giving barnett a chance to drop the apron and leave a message. I don't know if any of these theories are sound in anyone elses head, just fat to be chewed on, and hopefully spark something for someone that may have been overlooked.
-Ken |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 2:41 pm: | |
I feel like Columbo but just one more question, since I have the editor of Ripper Notes on this thread [ of course I welcome response from anyone] we no that the police had alot of patrols in the area. They would have walked the street at the odd hours. [the hours the ripper struck] and they probably would of had undercover patrol men in the pubs and on the streets. Is it possible that one of the patrolmen saw Kelly either with a man walking in the direction of her home or having a good time in one of the pubs and thats why they brought the alleged man in for questioning. It had nothing to do with the statements of Cox or Hutchinson. I think I read that it was hard to get a conviction in 1888 anything short of catching the ripper in the act would mean that they probably would not have got a conviction. They could have had a good idea but not had enough evidence to convict.
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.
|
|
|
|
