|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 3:40 pm: |       |
Kevin
Offensive and totally unecessary I feel if you cared to take a look across the boards you'd probably find a lot worse than mine typed late at night in response to someone who doesn't have the decency or the manners to live in GMT!
Brad-
Thanks!
Robert-
Exactly one look through the window would have been enough for both Joe and the police!!!!!!Still  smarting here tho
Suzi |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 190
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
If Joseph Barnett hadn't visited Miller's Court by 1.30pm , then this would explain why the door to the room had to be broken open with an axe - Barnett simply hadn't told the police how to open the door.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 481
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Yes, we need to sort out the fact from fiction when looking at the newspaper reports. Problem is, concerning the details of time and place around when Joe went to the Police, we have no official documents that allow us to do this. So, are the details that he went to Millers Court in the morning/noon/etc fact or fiction? With only the papers, which are known to mix fact and fiction quite liberally, how are we to know what is which?
And, can you please tell me how the statement "He voluntarily went to the police ..." could not be used to describe a male who voluntarily went to the police station? It's a valid interpretation. I admit it isn't the only possible interpretation, so it may not be the correct one, but it might be. Like I've said, it is ambiguous; meaning it could refer to multiple situations and we cannot decide based upon this information which option to choose. Re-reading the statement, which is:
'He was indoors yesterday morning when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset Street, but he did not know who the victim was. He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct.'
still seems to me to suggest that Joe went to the Police station. I'm sorry, but when someone says "I went to the police", the first thing that comes to mind is that that they went to the police station. Because that's the normal place to go when you "go to the police", I would think that if someone went "somewhere else", that detail would be included in the description: something like "He voluntarily went to find the police at Millers Court" etc.
However, as I've admitted, it doesn't actually say police station, and so yes this is only my interpretation. You've suggested that it could mean he went to Millers Court. Although that feels wrong to me, you are correct because if Joe did go to Millers Court, the above statement is not wrong. He still went ot meet the police voluntarily. The statement is, as I've said, ambiguous as how to correctly interpret it.
Ambiguity by itself, however, doen't make the interpretation "right" or "wrong", it makes it "unknown". I might have interpreted it wrong, or you might have interpreted it wrong, or we both might have interpreted it wrong (he met a cop on the street for example), or because the source is unreliable, the statement itself could be false (Joe never went to the police, they came and got him) and all interpretations of it are wrong.
So once again, without some sort of reliable source to back up the details in the papers, we have to treat all the statements as "unknown". At most we might be able to build an argument that "Joe went to the police" since all the papers seem to imply that; there's no article suggesting he was arrested, etc. However, the details as to time and place of this event, is unclear from the newspaper reports.
- Jeff
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3204
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
If Joe was inside Buller's, and he was concerned about Mary, going to BPS might have been the quickest way to find out which house the murder had occurred in - BPS may have been nearer to Buller's than Miller's Court was.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1427
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I really wish we had some evidence that Joe was in Bullers at some point during that fateful night....shame it's just his and nothing more constructive!Time will hopefully tell 'eh?
Seems like BPS was the quickest way to go tho IF thats where he was......at some point during the night...OK.. after the whist game......where does our man go?.....stay there or what??
Suzi |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 339
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
Hi Robert, Suzi
Bishopsgate Police Station was less then a minutes walk from Bullers, but it was on City Police territory. How closely involved they were at Miller Court I don't know. Personally speaking if I was Joe I would have gone straight to Dorset Street, it is only a three to four minute walk from Bullers, could have answered any questions there and been taken back to Commercial Police Street Station and give a statement there.
And I think Jim DiPalma is spot on regarding the safety issues with the broken window.
The public House near Bullers referred to earliar, would be "The Magpie," it is still there now.
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 9:40 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: But the glass in that pane was completely removed mate!
SIMON: If Joseph Barnett turned up at Millers Court anytime BEFORE the door was forced open, the desire to get in there close to his woman should have caused him to tell them of his alternative method of opening the door.
JEFF: 'Can you please tell me how the statement: "HE VOLUNTARILY WENT TO THE POLICE", could not be used to describe a male who voluntarily went to the police STATION?'
Well Jeff, most of the 'force' would have been out patrolling the streets for the 'Lord Mayor's Day' celebrations / if they weren't cordonning off Miller's Court!!!!!
Bishopsgate Police Station was opposite Buller's Lodging House and the nearest station to Dorset Street. The 'People' newspaper described: 'Never before had so many men been dispatched from Whitehall.'
One Canadian newspaper said: 'While the Lord Mayor was parading the streets with gorgeous surroundings, his police were again inert around the wretched shambles where in lay the body of another mutilated hopeless woman, the seventh crime.'
Do you interpret: 'He voluntarily went to the police.', like most people today interpret: "I went to the football" as meaning: "I went to the football STADIUM"?
What if there was nothing on at that particular stadium that day?
ROBERT: Bishopsgate Police Station was opposite Buller's Lodging House. If you had heard that mega-panic was going a three to four minute walk away, and new that you'd be lucky to find an officer that could answer your questions across the road, and new that heaps of constables were cordonning off the street where your lover lived, where would you go?
LEANNE
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 482
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 10:43 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
So what you're trying to say, is that there were no police at the station at all, and that Joe knew this without going to the station. What do you envision the police did? Locked the door and put up a big sign saying "closed for the Parade. Come back tomorrow"? The idea that there were no police whatsoever in the station is so not the way things are done that unless you've got some solid proof they did this, I think we can be pretty sure that idea is wrong.
If you are not saying the station was shut down, then what difference would it make if most of them were on Parade duty? All it would take is for one cop to be there for Joe to be able to go in and ask some questions. What point are you trying to make here?
Anyway, since I do not believe that the police "closed up shop", I would expect Joe to go to the station because it is only across the street from Bullers (where I guess you are assuming he was since you mentioned it; otherwise it's a bit of a random inclusion). And if I was him, I would check there first because it would take less time to find out if the person I was worried about was ok or not.
What would you do? Ignore the quick and obvious option like ask at the police station across the road, or hike it all the way the crime scene in the hopes that someone there can spare a moment to answer your questions?
Anyway, if he was at Bullers when he heard about the murder, I would expect him to cross the street and inquire about it. And when he did go in the station, I would expect he would find a cop there, rather than a big "closed for parade" sign. He might even explain who he was when asking about the murder victim in Millers Court. That would probably result in him being questioned like a suspect (given his relationship with the victim), so he tells them where he was the previous night and up until the point he walked into the station. Probably in response to a pretty obvious question like "And where were you since last night?".
Since Buller's is opposite the police station, it would take little to no time for them to verify his story if it was basically along the lines of "I slept there last night, and have been there all morning until hearing of the murder. That's when I came over hear to find out if Mary is alright".
There's nothing to it. It's a simple story and all it takes is sending one cop across the street to check it out. If his story is verified then he's cleared because he's innocent, not even time for the press to catch wind of it. It's even the kind of thing that might not get recorded because it's not during an official interview. If the police cleared him right off the bat, then they might not have bothered to write down what his full story was, or how they cleared him. Or, hopefully, when they were getting more details about Mary from him, they thought it good to get him to re-tell his alibi, and perhaps noted how it was verified, and these documents will turn up one day.
Perhaps after verifying his innocence, they take him down to Millers Court, get him to describe which room Mary lived in (just to make sure there is no confusion), and then take him back to get more information about the victim from him, and conduct a more official interview for 2 and a half hours.
This is just a story that I just made up but which might have happened. I'm not saying it did happen, but it makes a lot more sense than the idea that the police shut down the stations for the day. They may have had fewer men on patrol, but that doesn't mean the stations were closed.
And no, I'm in no way saying the above story is "right". We have so little information, almost any story could be told. Some of those stories will make Joe look guilty, some will make him look innocent, but all of them are just so stories. Without reliable data, we can say anything, because we know nothing (almost nothing anyway).
- Jeff |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 340
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 4:16 am: | |
Hi Leanne
If the whole window frame was removed, than why didn't someone just climb in and open the door?
Bishopsgate Police Station was around two corners from Bullers, not opposite, I think it nearly backed onto Bullers.
Technically speaking, no police officers from Bishopsgate should have been at Millers Court since it wasn't there patch, some senior officers may have been because of Catherine Eddowes murder.
And at that stage since no time of death would have been established for Mary yet, any alibi wouldn't have been much use at that stage.
I think it is peoples nature to be nosey, so if you heard a big commotion going on near by, I think natural instincts would make you go to the source.
Rob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
Hi Rob
As to the window being taken out I feel it unlikely ( although I wish I knew!) that the window was removed before the door being opened by Mr 'Heavy handed' Mc Carthy at around 2.00 pm.
Also I think that maybe BPS was atad too close for comfort to Bullers having just had a look at the map
As to Mary being out of territory for the City boys ...as you say I bet some of 'em couldn't resist a little look! (As you say people are inherently nosey!!!) Thank God or this site wouldn't exist 'eh?!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 101
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 7:35 pm: | |
Leanne,
I found another press reference to the windows being removed.
The Times of November 10th contained the following: Mr Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed.
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881110.html
Nina |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:04 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
No I'm not saying that no one was at Bishopsgate Police Station that night! When did I say that????
The 'Victorian London Dictionary' Website shows a document that reveals the duties of the police at the time and it reveals that an 'Inspector of Police on Night Duty' remained at the station while constables went out to patrol the streets. They were kept very busy went there were fires that attracted crowds and at/before events such as 'Lord Mayors Day', where robbers and pick-pocketers went wild.
1) How many of Joseph Barnett's questions would this single Inspector be expected to answer?
2) Why would Barnett even need to give an alibi before the victim was even identified?
3) How could his alibi, (of being in bed at Bullers all night), have been verified by this lone Inspector without him leaving his post?
4) Who would have been able to verify that Barnett remained in bed at Buller's all night?
5) If Barnett had heard that another prostitute had been butchered like the previous victims, why would he bother to ask how the victim was?
What would I do?
If someone told me that there had been a fatal car crash just down the road and I was expecting my boyfriend to visit, I'd rush down to the scene of the crash and ask a rescuer or policeman for more information. I would not run across the road and ask the person who phoned the ambulance!
Did I say anything about a 'Closed For The Parade' sign, or are you just trying to make me seem foolish? Do you think there would be alot of police at any police station at that time of the morning?
ROB,SUZI: About the window panes being entirely removed: I am not so sure that they were now. That information appeared in one newspaper and may have been copied from that into another. The reporter may not have meant to include a lie, but just misinterpreted things himself. Let's look for another reference.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3222
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:28 am: | |
Leanne, even if one of the windows was removed, we don't know which one it was.
Abberline is supposed to have said that Barnett had informed him of the "window trick" and that it was a simple matter to open the door this way. That would imply that Barnett was present before the door was forced, because Abberline seems to have tried the trick himself. He could only have done this when the door would still close (presumably it wouldn't once it had been forced) and before the windows were boarded up (which would have been after the body was removed).
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:54 am: | |
G'day Robert,
But if Abberline tried Barnett's alternative method of opening the door and found it simple, why did McCarthy have to force open the lock?
Barnett was taken to the police station and interviewed by Inspector Abberline after he turned up at Miller's Court. Barnett told the press: "They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for blood stains, and finally finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free." ('Lloyd's Newspaper' Nov. 11)
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3224
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Good point! So maybe Abberline wasn't talking from personal experience with the door.
Notice that they examined Joe's clothes for bloodstains - a pointless undertaking if they'd been foolish enough to let Joe into the room.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1511
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
G'day Robert,
I don't know mate. While we were discussing/debating the type of lock Mary Kelly had on her door some people argued that Abberline was talking from personal experience when he said it was quite easy to open. Others argued that he was merely repeating what Barnett had told him. I think I was one of the later mentioned party!
It is standard detective proceedure to interview a victims 'inner circle' first, (i.e. husband, wife, children, servants); and I think it would be pretty standard to check a partner's clothes for bloodstains.
Why would it have been pointless to check Joe's clothes if they watched him closely in the room and never left him in there alone? Anyway, I didn't think we were debating whether or not he was let in the room, more whether or not he was at Miller's Court that morning and identified the body with a glance through the window, prior to the door being opened.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3225
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Well, we don't really know, but I have no problem with Joe being at the Court and identifying the body through the window (before a more formal identification at the morgue).
What I do find incredible is the notion of either Joe being let in the room, where it would have been impossible to remain blood-free, or Joe being interviewed in the Court instead of the police station (when I say "interviewed" I mean the grilling, not just a couple of preliminary questions).
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Hi,
I would say it is certain that Barnett made his own way to Dorset street after hearing of a murder there, en route he encountered his sisters brother in law who informed him it was Marie.
On reaching the cordoned off street, he approached a police officer, and informed him of his relationship with the victim, where as he was escorted to the court, and after a few obvious questions was asked to view the body through the window to give some conformation of the victims identity.
On saying he believed it to be his EX, he was then taken to the station in the discreted manner possible and remained there whilst his clothing was examined, and his nightime alibi was checked, he was then released proberly on the undertaking that he should remain avaiiable for further questioning if required, and should remain availiable for the inquest.
I Would suggest that Barnett assisted the police fully and they had no reason at the time to believe he was anything more than her ex boyfriend.
But i happen to believe that he was a cunning man, and was quite adapt to switching on /off his emotions.
One point i would like to make is , by his own admission he called on Kelly 'Several times' to give her money, so over a period of nine days what does that mean four/five times?.
So one can assume that he only called on her to give her what he could afford, and the other days did not visit.
Yet he calls on her on the evening of the 8th, saying he had no money[ which was proberly a lie] as by his own admission he was playing cards in a lodging house at 1230am, one can guess that there was some monetary incentive.
I Accept there is no crime in that, however why bother call to say he had no money, he did not call on the other days he had none.
members of the jury, i put it to you that the only reason he called on the thursday evening was to ascertain whether or not she was intending to ask someone to stay over that night, for if Barnett was intending to kill her, he would not have wanted her room occupied by someone at any time during that night or morning... for obvious reasons, also he had to be sure that she was independant enough to fall into a killers hands.
I Admit i am extremely bias, but i truely believe Barnett was as guilty as they come.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3229
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Richard, the time to ask Kelly whether anyone was staying that night would have been after she'd been to the pub.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
It had been Marys policy at least to the knowledge of people that knew her, that she would never take men back to her room, for safety reasons, that is up to that night..
Barnett would have assumed that if no female was sleeping over, that no man would , any business conducted he would have assummed would have been on the street.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3231
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi Richard
We don't really know that Mary didn't take men back to her room, do we? And if Mary was short of money, she would have met lots of women in the pub, some of whom may have been prepared to give her a few coppers for a bit of shelter for the night. In fact, if the report that McCarthy's shed had recently closed down is true, there would have been a higher than customary demand for a place for the night.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
It was reported that kelly used to take sailors back to her room, but since the increase in the murders she was petrified , and would not even venture out alone at night.
Obviously because of circumstances she broke that rule on the evening of the 8th /9th, but Barnett would not have been assuming that.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 6:21 pm: | |
G'day Richard,
Where was it reported that she used to take sailors back to her room?????
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 4:00 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Again the dreaded word 'Hearsay' the interview with Mrs coxs neice does state that sailors were her targets, and many a time her aunt saw her enter the court singing with a sailor and a bottle of gin slung under her arm.
The trouble is what hearsay is accurate, and what is over dramatized..?
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: When a body is found one of the first concerns is to identify the victim. In this case the early press reports named her Lizzie Fisher. A number of people looked through the window. Amoung them were Elizabeth Prater, John MacCarthy and I believe Joseph Barnett would have been asked to look as soon as he got there. The official identification would have happened later, because Barnett had to state why he believed it was her, ("hair and eyes" or "ear and eyes") and then sign his name to it.
RICH: If you believe Barnett visited Mary on the evening before her murder just to make sure she wasn't going to bring anyone home, then you obviously believe her murder was premeditated. I don't. look at the photo of her on the bed! This was done by a crazed, out-of-control mind!
Once Barnett had found out that Maria Harvey had moved out, the chances of her being alone were greater. Barnett knew he could possible go there to plead with her have him back, but she so urgently needed her rent money. Barnett had none to give her, so the chances were great that she was going to bring a client home.
The man Hutchinson saw may have been either Barnett in disguise or just a client that he had to wait for.
If Buller's Lodging House was opposite Bishopsgate Police Station, it's easy to believe Barnett was interrigated there. But if Bishopsgate was in City Police Territory and Miller's Court was in the territory of the Metropolitan Police Force, then he probably wasn't.
'St. James Gazette' Nov. 10 reported that police officers from Leman Street and Commercial Street were instantly communicated with, were swiftly on the scene and cordonned off Miller's Court. Commercial Street Police Station was just five minutes away, so it's more likely he was taken there.
As the 'Lord Mayors Day' celebrations were the following day, I still believe that little more than the 'Inspector of Police on Night Duty' would have been working at Bishopsgate Police Station at about 1:00a.m. in the morning.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on October 16, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3232
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 8:30 am: | |
Leanne, the man Hutchinson saw may have been Barnett in disguise?
Robert |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 343
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 11:42 am: | |
Hi Suzi, Leanne
I thought I read somewhere the window was removed so the photographer could take a photo, although it does seem impractical, but I am using my aging memory here.
Suzi, I would be shocked to hear if there was no City Police at Millers Court since they were investigating Catherine Eddowes murder, and would want to know what was going on.
Rob |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3234
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hi Rob
In his "Uncensored Facts" Paul Begg says : "After considerable delay and difficulty a photographer was brought to the scene and took photographs through the window. A slight drizzling rain was falling and it was so overcast that it was almost dark in Miller's Court. In the conditions and with the equipment available, the photographer did a remarkable job. The photographs still exist..."
When I first read that, years ago, I thought that the photographer had taken pictures through the pane. But obviously, if he did take the pictures from outside the room, the window would have been removed first.
Robert |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 344
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
Hi Robert
Thanks for that, unfortunately it is one of the few times Paul Begg doesn't give a source.
Since the police already had there own photographer I don't know why there was a difficulty in obtaining one. If the main photo was taken from the outside then the frame would have had to be removed. According to Donald Rumbelow's book the City Police gave the order for the door to be removed so the photographer, who Donald Rumbelow believed (wrongly) worked for the City Police, could take the photos from the inside.
Rob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1432
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Hi all
The police and their photographres are a problem here!
Someone was in the room taking THE PHOTOS.... I must say that they must have been taken IN the room behind the bed etc etc (Oh God dont get me off on that one again!)
IF there were photos taken through the broken or removed pane....Gosh!!!! wish we could see 'em cos I think the ones we have.. are the only thing we have!!!! (sadly!)
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1433
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Ooooooooooooooooooooooh God!!!! spelling horror again!!!!!!!! PHOTOGRAPHERS! sorry! xx |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 345
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
Your forgiven.
I think it would have been too impractical to take the main photo from outside.
Just having a look at the photo, the direction of the flash would suggest it was taken from inside the room.
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT CHARLES: Well it's a possibility mate! Hutchinson said that the man held down his head as the couple passed, so he was avoiding close eye contact with someone who possibly had met both of them before. I have always been suspicious of: '...the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes....'. If Hutchinson did see him in Petticoat Lane on a Sunday morning he could have been there buying 2nd hand clothing and fake jewellery like everyone else.
ROBERT CLACK: I read and have always believed that the entire glass of the smallest window was entirely removed, but now I am starting to doubt it and pass it off as a misinterpretation by the reporter at the time.
Kelly was murdered after Kate Eddowes and I feel Kate's murder brought the City Police into the entire hunt so they would have had a great interest in the Miller's Court murder.
ROBERT CHARLES: I think Paul Begg may have misinterpreted press reports too! It can happen to anyone!
ROBERT CLACK: There would have been some difficulty in finding a police photographer as they were all probably somewhere preparing for the big parade. They would have needed to be of assistance on short notice, as robberies and mischiefous behaviour was common at these celebrations.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
Hi,
Although possible to cordon off millers court with a number of officers forming a square, would it have been practical to cordon off both ends of Dorset street between 11am-4pm, so that nobody could go about there daily business without being noted.
However how did the cart containing the shell in which kellys remains were placed arrive at the court if both ends of the street were not blocked off, even if it was the residents of Dorset street a considerable number would have made it difficult to approach the site.
I am trying to fathom out and picture the security procedures on that day.
Regards Richard.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3241
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Leanne, re Barnett in disguise : I think you're wandering into the realms of fantasy there.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 6:58 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: Why do you say that? Because no one has suggested it before, and it's such a obvious explanation? Why do you think it's fantasy?????? Come-on, defend your opinion!
Here's why I now doubt that the window frame was removed entirely:
I can find it in only 2 newspapers. One, The 'Times' November 10 said: 'Mr. Arnold having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed.'
A week later the 'East London Advertiser' said: 'The police were sent for and Superintendent Arnold, having satified himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed.' An almost exact copy of the first report!
Arnold may or may not have ordered the window removed and then changed his mind and settled for a forcing of the door. Alternatively, the reporter may have heard wrong, wrote or read his shorthand wrong then failed to correct the text.
No other source recorded the fact that one window was removed!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1516
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
G'day Robert.
I don't mean a disguise to hide his identity as the murderer that no one knew! I mean a disguise to allow him to spy on/approach Mary Kelly with the ease of a customer!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3243
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 7:56 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Well, for one thing, are we to suppose that Barnett could approach and speak to Kelly without Kelly noticing who he was?
Robert |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
Hi Suzi,
I enjoy your post and have never had any trouble reading one of them except for the british slang. I sometimes wish I had a dictionary for some of those words. I think people loose sight on the special nature of the boards. Jack the ripper is a dark topic but the boards gives us a chance to communicate with people from all over the world and that is neato.
I do not want to get of topic so I will add interesting thread.
Your friend ,CB |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 347
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Hi Leanne
There does seem to be conflicting Newspaper reports into what Superintendent Arnold did when he arrived. The Daily Telegraph and St James Gazette (both 10 November) said he gave orders for the door to be broken open. The Times for the 10 November, also said that "while the examination was being made, a photographer, who, in the meantime, had been sent for, arrived and took photographs of the body, the room, and its contents." This photographer was Joseph Martin and he took photos of most of the other victims as well.
There may have been garbled communication problems with the press, and they may have thought when the windows were boarded up later in the day, that they may have been removed.
Rob
(Message edited by rclack on October 17, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 485
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
You asked: No I'm not saying that no one was at Bishopsgate Police Station that night! When did I say that????
If your response to my previous question is not intended as a suggestion that there were no police at the station, then your response does not answer my original question. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and simply figured that your response was intended as a reply. The only reply that makes sense, is if you mean the station was closed. I thought that such an unbelievable suggestion, I presented a response to indicate why. Not to make you look foolish, but to point out that perhaps such a line of reasoning might be heading us into "large monkey" territory. Can't prove he wasn't there, but it's so unlikely we would need proof of presence to justify continuing that line of reasoning while others are still available.
You also include the following, which confuses me:
The 'Victorian London Dictionary' Website shows a document that reveals the duties of the police at the time and it reveals that an 'Inspector of Police on Night Duty' remained at the station while constables went out to patrol the streets. They were kept very busy went there were fires that attracted crowds and at/before events such as 'Lord Mayors Day', where robbers and pick-pocketers went wild.
------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what I'm to do with this information in terms of the night duty inpsector with respect to Barnett's possibility of going to the police during the day.
Q1) How many of Joseph Barnett's questions would this single Inspector be expected to answer?
A: Since the above single Inspector is the night duty inspector, I would expect he would have to answer exactly zero questions as he would be home in bed at the time Barnett might have shown up.
Q2) Why would Barnett even need to give an alibi before the victim was even identified?
A: He wouldn't, however, if he asked who was killed, found out it was Mary, and during the conversation it came up that he and Mary were expartners, he would have been asked where he was the last night and up until he arrived. I don't mean to imply he went to the police with a "prepared alibi", rather that he may have been asked for one once it was established he had a relationship with the victim. And yes, I'm assuming that the police at the station knew the identity of the victim (if unofficially) when Barnett arrived.
Q3) How could his alibi, (of being in bed at Bullers all night), have been verified by this lone Inspector without him leaving his post?
A) Since the "lone inspector" would be the night duty inspector you talk about in your previous paragraph, and we know that Barnett would have arrived during the day, I think it's safe to assume there would be more police at the station than just one lone inspector.
Q4) Who would have been able to verify that Barnett remained in bed at Buller's all night?
A) To be specific would require more information. But obviously it is possible that someone could have verified it. And if they could have verified Barnett's presenence all night, the police would have lost interest in Barnett pretty quick. And what do you know? They did! If you really want an example of "how", well perhaps he snored and kept someone in the next room up all night. Silly, yes. Do I think that is what happened? No, but it's one of probably a million ways someone could verify his story. If you wanted to keep Joe there, I'm sure you could think of a few if you tried. I know you can think of how he could "get out and back in without being noticed".
Q5) If Barnett had heard that another prostitute had been butchered like the previous victims, why would he bother to ask how the victim was?
A) I must have phrased something strangely. I could see him asking about how "Mary was" if he didn't know who the victim was (he's not asking about the victim, he would be asking about Mary in the hopes that she wasn't the victim).
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 486
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
As for Abberline's quote about the opening of the door via the window trick being quite simple, it seems to me the most obvious time when this might have been tried is after Joe suggested it during his interview with Abberline.
Since all indications are that this interview took place after the door was forced, it's certainly possible that Abberline may have tried it out personally (as part of his way of checking out parts of Barnett's story). It seems more probable to me (and this is just an opinion here) that he sent someone (a policeman) to try it and they reported back that it was easy. Either way, he would have the information he wanted concerning how "plausible" the story was on that one point.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1517
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 5:07 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT CHARLES: On the 11th of November 1888 Dr. William Holt was arrested after he frightened a woman by jumping out of the fog in George Yard with his face blackened with charcoal. Men dressed up in attempts to capture Jack the Ripper, so why is it so hard to believe that the Ripper tried to conceal his identity at some stage?
Let's read George Hutchinson's statement again: '...a man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say alright to him and the man said you will be alright for what I have told you, he then placed his right hand around her shoulders....' Does that sound like normal behaviour when a customer aproaches a prostitute that he's not aquainted with? Would Mary Kelly feel that comfortable with a stranger, and invite him into her room so quickly?
ROBERT CLACK: 'and they may have thought when the windows were boarded up later in the day that they may have been removed.'
The 'Times' reporter was most likely to have been describing events as they happened and when Arnold gave the orders at 1:30p.m. Notice how the report doesn't actually say that the window was removed, just that Arnold gave the orders.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3251
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 5:40 am: | |
Leanne, she was desperate for money. As for the man, his manner would suggest that he was a regular user of prostitutes.
Are you saying that Kelly didn't recognise Barnett?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1518
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 6:12 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
I appologise mate! I seem to have gotten my a.m.s mixed up with my p.m.s with the 'Inspector of Police on Night Duty' stuff. That's one point to you! But it was still 'Lord Mayors Day', and in Barnett's position I would have rushed straight to the source of the problem.
If Barnett did ask who it was that was murdered, he could only have gotten a reply similar to: "I'm sorry cobber, but the victim hasn't been possitively identified yet!"
Buller's was close to St. Katherine's Dock wharehouses and people were arriving and leaving at all hours of the day, plus lot's of businesses would have been preparing to make money at the days celebrations.
ROBERT: I'll get back to you tomorrow because I have to put my thinking cap on!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Whoever the astracan man was it certainly was not Barnett in any shape or form.
To walk with her back to her room with his arm around her shoulder, complete with kid gloves?.
The fact that he was reported to have walked very sharply would imply he was in a hurry, which is similiar to Mrs Coxs neice report that Kelly was being pulled along the passage, by what her Aunt said was a 'Real Toff'
I Personally believe the man Cox saw and the man Hutchinson saw were one and the same, but [ if we leave Barnett out of the frame]after he left kellys room quite possibly to collect a weapon, and was on his way back to Mjk room when he saw her approaching his way, and after she left hutchinson detained her, and asked if he could stay the remainder of the night , as he was locked out of his lodgings.
I know that this feeling is not running par with Barnett, but is a possible scenerio.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 353
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 5:22 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I don't think the 'Times' reporter was in the court at the time, but there does seem to be confusion about when or if the window frame was removed. Personally, I don't think it was. It wouldn't serve any useful purpose.
Rob |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 489
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 5:56 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Ahhh, yes, that would make sense (am/pm mixup). Let me know, either way. Anyway, yes, I do see why it's possible Joe might have went to Miller's Court and not the Police station. But I also see why he might have gone to the Police Station, and something like what I've suggested above could have resulted.
All I've been trying to say is that because we both can come up with reasonable theories about what he "might have done", that indicates that we "do not know what he actually did". And I think it best we try and build threories on the grounds of what we know "actually" happened, and stop our theory at the point when all we are left with are "he might have done a, b, c, or d" etc. Anything from the papers, that does not seem to be backed up by more official and reliable sources, should always be considered as a "well, he might have done what the papers said" because we find so often that in fact, "that actually did not happen".
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 1:26 am: | |
G'day,
RICH: Why do the man's kid gloves prove to you that it wasn't Joseph Barnett that Hutchinson saw? The fact that he was thought to walk very sharply indicates to me that he was in a hurry to get past Hutchinson and lessen the chances of him being recognised by anyone.
If Mrs Cox's niece is to be believed and Mrs Cox saw a "Real Toff" with Mary Kelly, it was probably Hutchinson's 'Toff', and describing him as such shows me that it was uncommon to see such a character in that corner of the city.
There's that premeditation thing again, if you believe that Barnett left Mary's room that evening to deliberately get his weapon! No, Barnett left Mary's at 8:00p.m. because that's what usually happened. He wasn't living there anymore and he wasn't welcomed back once Maria Harvey had found lodgings elsewhere. For him to go back to Buller's, play games and then retire to bed and sleep soundly, seems imposible to me. Especially when the opportunity to get up early and pretend to be looking for work on 'Lord Mayors Day' was there.
I don't think 'Jack the Ripper', (Joseph Barnett), planned any of his murders, so he wouldn't have went home to get his weapon. He was always armed, (ready to work at any time), and the urge to kill just got too great at times.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 1:46 am: | |
G'day,
RICH: If Mary Ann Cox did see Mary Kelly with a "Real Toff", how come she described him as being "shabbily dressed" at Kelly's inquest? What exactly does 'Real Toff' imply?
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
