|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2165
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 9:38 am: |       |
G'day Leanne,
"He didn't have to be a 'smart psychopath character a la Bundy' to desire a little camoflage(SIC?). It occurs as a SURVIVAL INSTINCT with certain species of animal, as a defence against preying enemies."
Well, at least it would indicate that he indulged in some sort of conscious deliberate planning and showed signs of quite rational thinking.
I could be wrong, but this is not the Ripper in my eyes, who is either disorganized or a complicated mixture of orgainized/disorganized (which is impossible to tell which, from where we stand today).
Hiding from detection is a part of survival instinct and self-preservation -- yes -- but the changing of clothes and appearence you're referring to here is an intelligent act that goes beyond survival instinct; an animal might hide behind certain bushes while laying in wait for his pray, but I've never seen an animal peeling of his skin behind a tree and change into another as he pleases in a certain situation.
"Don't you think the author of the 'Lusk Letter' was teasing George Lusk a bit with: 'Catch me when you can Mishter Lusk', as if he was confident that he'd never be caught?"
Well, that means absolutely nothing. Also very degenerated disorganized killers can show these almost childish traits of defiant behaviour. Besides that, and without claiming to be an expert on psychology or graphology, the letter in general clearly indicates a person with a typical disorganized and confused personality (unless the letter is fabricated in order to make the author appear as such).
All the best
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Glenn!
I love the League of Gentlemen clip!
Leanne- I agree the idea of disguise or maybe just 'disappearing' is probably the best plan for the 'Ripper' and I guess thats what he (or she) did....(just have a problem with Joe in Bullers.. or not) tho!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 509
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I think we might not want to draw too firm a conclusion over how quickly the police may have dismissed a suspect who was "named" or "brought in" simply because they had a "black bag". If we then extend what we think about that to, well, more vialbe suspects (like a victim's ex-boyfriend), then we're in danger of making a most likely error.
I'm sure the police would be more interested in Joe than some random fellow with a bag. However, that doesn't mean your concern that they may have dismissed him a bit easily is invalid. But I wouldn't base that upon the dismissal methods used for "black bag Jack" or "Jack in the pub" type suspects.
It appears the following things were metioned during the interview (amongst others).
1) the missing key
2) the window trick
3) the pipe
4) Joe's visit the night before
5) his claim to be in Buller's for the night until the morning
Obviously, the police knew there was no key found at the scene, but that doesn't prove when it went missing. To follow this up, they might have simply made inquiries of the other residence in the court, or Mary's "overnight prositute friend". All it would take is someone to verify that yes, Mary had lost her key.
2) the window trick could easily be checked out, either by Abberline or a cop. Go see if you can do this. According to the inquest testimony of Abberline, it appears sometihng like this was probably done and that it was quite easy.
3) Joe claimed the pipe, so it would be likely that it had been shown to him in order for him to have made that positive identification.
4) Joe visited at a time when Mary had a friend over, who also verified his story. The police may even have had this information before talking with Joe. As he mentions it at the inquest, I would suspect this came up during his interview as well.
5) Well, there's the rub. We know the police lose interest in him quite quickly, so it seems something was probably done to check out this alibi. Unfortunately, the issue boils down to the question of "Was what they did really enough to ensure a mistake was not made". And, without us knowing A) What they did and B) what they found, it becomes a guessing game as to what the correct answer is to that issue. If what they did was enough, we can clear Joe. If what they did was not really enough to prevent a mistake, Joe remains a suspect).
If my suggestions for 1 through 4 are correct (and of course I can't prove they are), it would suggest that the police checked out the minor details well enough. I would be surprised to find that the most important issue (Joe's location over the time period of the murder) should be the one area where they do a less complete job of it.
Anyway, that's why I tend to think Joe is probably not guilty. I can't be sure he's innocent because that would require knowing for sure what was done to check out his alibi. However, until something turns up to answer that question, I think the bulk of the evidence is in favour of Joe be cleared.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 6:52 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
'I think the bulk of the evidence....the bulk of the evidence..' What bulk???? what evidence????
A read of the chapter on the 'Missing Suspect Files' reveals that one character was cleared when he proved his name! Imagine that: "See, I'm not 'Jack the Ripper'. These papers proved that I'm 'John Smith'(SIC)!!!!
GLENN: You don't think it was possible for the Ripper to use: 'conscious deliberate planning', to disgiuse his appearance? Do you believe that all of his victims and potential victims displayed no caution at all? No will to live?
If the Ripper at no stage tried to camouflage himself from the detectives and try to fool potential victims, how did he manage to go uncaught with the greatest minds in London and everyone else looking for him? A lot of people brought suspicious looking characters to the attention of the police, but no one brought in the right one!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2167
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 7:24 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
This is really getting interesting -- finally! The Boards have been completely dull for several weeks now, and I though it had totally died.
"You don't think it was possible for the Ripper to use: 'conscious deliberate planning', to disgiuse his appearance?"
Possible, yes -- but no, I don't think he was the kind of person who would do that. One of the reasons being, he didn't have to.
It is not impossible, of course, but looking at the crime scenes and looking at other disorganized killers performing similar murders, it would in my view be a conduct that would be totally out of character.
"If the Ripper at no stage tried to camouflage himself from the detectives and try to fool potential victims, how did he manage to go uncaught with the greatest minds in London and everyone else looking for him? A lot of people brought suspicious looking characters to the attention of the police, but no one brought in the right one!"
Because I believe both the police and the general public (as well as the press) were on the lookout for the wrong kind of character or had no real clue regarding what the perpetrator looked like.
The people on the street seems to have been quite occupied with someone rather well dressed with a doctor's bag or someone with strong Jewish appearance (the latter must have been like searching for a needle in a hay stack in Whitechapel and Spitalfields).
The Suspect files and the enclosed police communication in the Ultimate Companion, clearly shows that the police had no idea whatsoever who to look for, and practically brought in a wide spectra of suspects in every possible direction.
You say "A lot of people brought suspicious looking characters to the attention of the police, but no one brought in the right one!" Well, that is just the point. It wouldn't matter one bit what he looked like, because they tried to cover it all anyway, based on either theories or tips from the general public. I don't believe for a minute that the police had a single clue about his appearence, except from the rather diverging witness descriptions (where Mrs Long's is probably the most reliable, although she unfortunately only saw him from behind).
Furthermore, we may be talking of the "greatest minds in London", but it was also 1888. One of the main reasons for why he wasn't caught was probably the police's inexperience with these types of killers and the lack of possibilities to analyse the physical evidence.
Therefore, it wouldn't take that much of a brainstorm for him to avoid detection from the police.
We must also remember that these were crowded and large populated areas, which would make it rather easy to vanish in the crowds. In a large capital like this, it is easier to blend in and disappear than it is in a smaller community.
All the best
Glenn L. Andersson, Sweden.
(Message edited by Glenna on October 30, 2004)
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2168
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 7:27 pm: | |
Suzi, so do I. 
I just recently discovered these crazy bunch of guys; it hasn't aired yet in Sweden, but I got a couple of series on DVD. Twisted.
All the best
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 294
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
I would hardly say the police today do much better tracking down serial killers than Abberline and crew did back in 1888. Modern forensic science generally allows the police to nail a guy once they find him -- but the finding remains a real problem in most cases involving prostitutes and runaways. And that holds for some of the same reasons JtR eluded capture: being unremarkable looking he blended in and the general antipathy that exists between the police and prostitutes.
And Leanne, why would JtR have to disguise himself? Did anyone know what he looked like? There were a variety of "witnesses," but aside from Hutchinson's dubiously detailed description the other sightings could apply to so many males as to be useless.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2169
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 6:10 am: | |
Hi, Don,
"I would hardly say the police today do much better tracking down serial killers than Abberline and crew did back in 1888. Modern forensic science generally allows the police to nail a guy once they find him -- but the finding remains a real problem in most cases involving prostitutes and runaways. And that holds for some of the same reasons JtR eluded capture: being unremarkable looking he blended in and the general antipathy that exists between the police and prostitutes."
Well true, but we still should acknowledge the fact, that the police of 1888 had to deal with a type of killer and a concept (the serial killer performing motiveless crimes) that was fairly unknown to them at the time, compared to today.
"And Leanne, why would JtR have to disguise himself? Did anyone know what he looked like? There were a variety of "witnesses," but aside from Hutchinson's dubiously detailed description the other sightings could apply to so many males as to be useless."
Exactly my point.
All the best
Glenn L. Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 510
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
The "bulk of the evidence" isn't a large "bulk", I admit. All I'm saying is that of the little we know, such as the parts of what Joe has said is not really contradicted in any serious way by anyone or anything. The closest to a "contradiction" is his descriptions of why he and Mary separated. They all, however, revolve around a common theme, and emotional events like leaving someone, often get described by emphasising different aspects. However, it always sounds like verions of "We were short of cash, Mary went back on the streets, and she started having a friend stay over as well. This led to arguements and fights between us, and I left." Being short of cash comes from his loss of his job, but he didn't really leave because he lost his job but as a result of the consequences that followed. So his statement "It had nothing to do with my being out of work", is a bit of a logical error, but it's not really a "contradiction".
Anyway, what information we do have is that Joe seems to have an alibi, the police interviewed him and would have investigated his alibi, and then showed no interest in him again. The aspects that he's mentioned, such as the window trick, are easily checked out and appear to have been checked out. The neighbors seem to indicate that he and Mary were on good terms. He doesn't flee the scene or "go into hiding" after Mary's murder, which might be expected since he's connected to her. Unnecessary for the other victims, of course. It's hard to imagin how he could have hidden the body parts taken from the other victims when living with Mary, or what he would have done with Mary's heart while staying at Buller's. He doesn't spend time in an asylumn or appear "crazy", which would more or less rule out him having schizophrenia or other such disorders. He doesn't appear to have the violent temperment or lack of empathy that would suggest a psychopath. This seems to rule out the two most common ideas of any mental disturbance the Ripper might have.
Anyway, none of this clears Joe completely because we don't know how well his alibi stands up. Finding that much of his story is true doesn't prove all of it's true. etc. There are still loose ends to be tied up, but at the moment, it looks more like tieing up loose ends that suggest we should "change our mind from innocence".
That's what I mean by the "bulk of the evidence". What we currently know about Joe points more to innocence than it does to guilt. It's not enough to strike him from the list completely, so we still need to investigate him. Unfortunately, at this point, to further our investigation I think we're at the point where we need to find new information to work with.
This, by the way, is of course only my opinion. And, like everyone else, my opinion has been wrong in the past. And, as with all things investigative, just because at one point the bulk of the evidence suggests one thing, doesn't mean it will not change once new information is found. So, it would be premature for us to stop investigating Joe at this point. The police of 1888, however, may not have stopped at this point and so there may be more information for us to uncover. That's the hope and the reason why people look at old letters, old notes, etc. Hopefully something new will turn up.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 12:07 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
'The aspects that he's mentioned, such as the window trick, are easily checked out and appear to have been checked out.'
Do you remember in the past on these boards someone conducted an experiment, basing their dimentions on brick size at the time, Mary Kelly's height, Joes height, the position of the two holes in the glass, the position of locks at the time etc?
It was found that the lock wasn't so easy to reach, and if it was that easy it would have been the obvious solution to those trying to open the door on the morning!
But we are forced to believe and accept that it was easy because of what what the newspaper said Abberline said!
'The neighbours seem to indicate that he and Mary were on good terms', yet before that in your post you pointed out that Barnett said: "This lead to arguments and fights between us, and I left." What caused these fights?:
Around the time of Martha Tabrams murder, (7th of August), Joe lost his job for some trivial reason after working there for ten years.
Julia Venturney moved into that tiny room on or around the 27th of October, (2 months and 20 days later).
Julia found another room on the 30th of October, and Maria Harvey was invited in immediately.
I think that knowlege outweighs the opinions of neighbours that the couple lived in perfect harmony!
In 1888 nothing was known about schizophrenia, there was no medication and if there was, who could afford it? If a person sought what little help was available for mental illness, they risked being locked away!
How well did Barnett's alibi stand up? How well could it have stood up? An examination of common lodging houses in the East End at the time shows that beds were seperated into tiny rooms, there were no armed guards at the door, and anyway lodgers had many varying jobs, were in and out at differing hours that night/morning and we are looking at the morning of 'Lord Mayor's Day'.
Everyone was expecting a big day for business. Who would have thought to keep a watchfull eye on Joseph Barnett?
'I think we're all at the point where we need to find new information to work with.'
So do I, that's why I have looked right into Billingsgate Market and the life of a fish porter, right into the markets around Mitre Square and Spitalfields and the life of a fruit porter, life at cheap Common Lodging houses at the time like 'Buller's', and even the life of by Irish immigrants at the time of the arrival in London of Joe's parents!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
Leanne,
"Around the time of Martha Tabrams murder, (7th of August), Joe lost his job for some trivial reason after working there for ten years.
Julia Venturney moved into that tiny room on or around the 27th of October, (2 months and 20 days later).
Julia found another room on the 30th of October, and Maria Harvey was invited in immediately.
I think that knowledge outweighs the opinions of neighbours that the couple lived in perfect harmony!"
For once, I absolutely agree with you!
"How well did Barnett's alibi stand up? How well could it have stood up? An examination of common lodging houses in the East End at the time shows that beds were seperated into tiny rooms, there were no armed guards at the door, and anyway lodgers had many varying jobs, were in and out at differing hours that night/morning and we are looking at the morning of 'Lord Mayor's Day'.
Everyone was expecting a big day for business. Who would have thought to keep a watchfull eye on Joseph Barnett?"
Another interesting point.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 01, 2004)
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Monty, Jeff,
Sorry to go back a bit here (I haven't been on here for a while) but I just wanted to discuss the whole whole faulty or not faulty alibi of Joe. Joe killing Mary is a faulty theory, but then so is every theory with regards to Jack the Ripper. Maybe it's just me, but I need 100% proof (which isn't looking very likely anyway). I'm not saying Joe did it, but I'm not going to dismiss him just because he claims that he was asleep in bed at the time. This is all I'm talking about here. I'm not trying to use his faulty alibi as a reason to pin it on him, but I'm just saying that there is a fault with it and so we cannot be certain.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 523
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
Hi,
Sorry, by "Good terms" I'm assuming they were indicating that Joe and Mary were "getting along well enough that they didn't suspect him". "Good terms" to me suggests there is some tension, as it's not the sort of phrase I've ever heard used in relation to a couple who have not broken up. It seems to imply that whatever tension/problems they had, they were resolving them, or at least agreeing to "try to get along". Perhaps my interpretation is not the common one, but that's what I took it for. And true, their opinions could be wrong. As I said, the evidence is not sufficient to clear Joe, each bit is weak in some way. But, weak or not, what we have points to innocence more than it points to guilt, which is what I was saying. The bulk of the evidence points to innocence, but it does not prove innocence, so Joe remains a suspect.
How well did Joe's alibi stand up? Well enough for the police to consider him "not a suspect" if we go by their actions. However, since we don't know what they did, there is always the possibility they didn't do enough. If we knew what they did, and it was enough, we could strike Joe off the list.
And yes, I remember Bob Hinton's experiment and his results. All it takes, however, is for his measurements to be out by a few inches to turn something "easy" into "hard". And, I seem to recall there being some issue over which pane was broken in his experiment. If you aren't reaching through the "right" window pane, again, easy becomes hard. Placing a modern re-creation against the contemporary inquest testimony is not my style. If a "recreation" doesn't fit the "contemporary" evidence, I suspect there may be some problem with the recreations parameters. But, that's my view of things.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 524
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
I'm not saying we should dismiss Joe. The evidence we have for his innocence is not strong enough for us to be sure he did not do it. What we would like to know, is what evidence the police at the time had that led them to dismiss Joe. If they were somehow able to verify his alibi, and do so "correctly", then cool. But until we find out what they did to determine where Joe was, well, we in 2004 don't have that information that was available in 1888. If we could find records pertaining to this issue, we could resolve at least one suspect. Without this information, however, we're sort of stuck with information that generally indicates he's probably not guilty, but the information we have is not very reliable and so could be telling us the wrong thing. The best evidence we have is that the police seem to have dismissed Joe; but again, the problem is we don't know why. All the information in the world about how Buller's operates in general is not going to help us answer what happened to Joe Barnett on that one particular night at Bullers that may (or may not) have allowed him to verify his alibi.
And this is not a "dig" at you Leanne. I think the more we know about Bullers, and common lodging houses in general, etc, is only for the good. The better we understand these things, the better we get a feel for the time in which the murders occurred. But I don't think knowing how things "typically" worked will answer our question about what happened on one specific night to one specific individual in one specific lodging house. The general information will give as a feel, but it can't give us the specific details we need. I think that will require us finding information specifically pertaining to Joe, his alibi, and the police actions.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2178
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
"How well did Joe's alibi stand up? Well enough for the police to consider him "not a suspect" if we go by their actions. However, since we don't know what they did, there is always the possibility they didn't do enough. If we knew what they did, and it was enough, we could strike Joe off the list."
Exactly.
And let's not forget that, the fact that they let Joe go, is by no means a garantuee for anything anyway. People are getting too stuck with this belief here.
It happens frequently, that the police draws the short stick and releases the wrong person -- it wouldn't be the first time and it wouldn't be the last. They are no wiz kid with supernatural powers.
Regardless if Barnett did kill Mary Kelly or not, or was Jack the Ripper or not (and killed her anyway) -- the police had their eyes set on the Ripper and they were convinced that it was a Ripper murder, right or wrong. Barnett was probably taken in for questioning on pure routine, only on basis that he was her closest male aquaintance.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 525
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
That exactly sums up what I was saying. The only evidence that will "clear Joe for sure" is knowing what the police actually did to check up on where Joe was. If they had solid evidence that he was nowhere near Miller's Court between his alledged card game and the time the body was found, then he obviously didn't commit the murder.
We know from their actions that they felt Joe to be innocent. What we don't know is "why they felt that way".
The question for us, in 2004, is can we find the evidence that the police had upon which they based their opinion that Joe was not a worthy suspect? Without knowing what they used to formulate their opinion, we are always faced with the two options:
1) they had solid evidence of his innocence
2) they were biased to see Joe as innocent, and did not sufficiently check out his alibi
From what we have, both are possible and,
If 1, then Joe's innocent.
If 2, he may still be innocent (their failure to properly investigate Joe does not impact upon his guilt) but he may be guilty too.
In otherwords, the only way we can know for sure if Joe was innocent, is to locate the information pertaining to how his alibi was investigated and for us to evaluate that investigation. If that information no longer exists, we cannot move beyond this point.
If we find the investigation was not so solid, then we are still left with wondering if he was guilty or not, but we might be able to narrow down the time window that he had available to committ the murder if he's guilty. And then, as the investigation progresses, we may either be able to prove his guilt or prove even that window of oppertunity gets closed. It's one step at a time.
The few bits of information we have are not raising any "red flags", but that just means there's nothing to really tie Joe to the murder of Mary, or any of the other victims. It doesn't prove he didn't, but it doesn't suggest he did either. That's what I mean by the evidence pointing towards innocence; if he's guilty one would expect some pointers to his involvement and if he's innocent, one would not expect any such pointers. At the moment, we have no pointers towards his guilt or involvement. But, I use "pointing towards innocence" deliberately, to indicate that I do not mean "proving innocence".
None of the pointers are proof of innocence, and all of them can be considered weak and then a theory as to how he could still be guilty put forward to show that yes, the pointers are not proof. But that still means a theory is needed to explain why the pointers are wrong. That, by itself, demonstrates that the "indicators point towards innocence", which is what I'm saying.
Maybe saying it this way helps. When I say the evidence points towards Joe's innocence, I'm describing the information we have, not saying that the information we have proves Joe is innocent, because it doesn't, and not saying that the evidence is flawless, because it isn't. It's what we have, and what we have is not enough.
What it does, however, is get us to a certain point. It gets us to the point where we know what information we need to find. We know that what we need to find to actually address this question is a reliable source that tells us something about what was said during Joe's interview, and more importantly what was done by the police as a result of that information to check out it's validity. An official transcript would be the ultimate find, but failing that, something like Abberline's diary, or notebook, etc. where he talks specifically about Joe, a letter maybe. Something from someone in the know about Joe would go along way to helping us.
I guess this is why I take such a cautious approach. It helps me to focus on what I perceive as getting through the "red tape" and the distractions. It doesn't answer the question if we find out that Joe was fired for swearing, or stealing, or if he moved out of the area after the investigation, or if he married, etc. None of these things answer the question of "Where was Joe at the time of the murder?" If he's not at Miller's Court, he's not guilty of her murder (unless he hired Jack of course, but then he's an accessory to murder, or something like that).
That doesn't mean the other information is not useful, it is. Just not for the purpose of addressing this particular qusestion directly.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
Hi,
One point i would like to raise is the payment of the rent, and who was responsible for the payment to McCarthy.
McCarthy told the Times Nov 10th that the dead woman came to live with a man called Kelly [ a coal porter ] some time ago, and she often used the name kelly as she posed as his wife.
It would therefore appear that Barnett originaly used a false name for reasons known to himself.
Hardly unusual for that area i will accept.
however the room [13] surely would have been under the working parties name, and therefore any rent owed to the landlord would have been down to Barnett, regardless of him not residing there after the 30th oct, therefore if he cared that much for marys welfare one might well come to the conclusion that he would have paid any surplus money he had to attempt to keep a roof over his Marie's head, and kept Mccarthy sweet.
It appears however that he by his own admission gave what he could afford to Kelly, knowing that she would use the coinage for her addiction .
Which seems a bit strange if he was responsible for owing McCarthy twenty eight shillings rent.
The real reason McCarthy did not chuck kelly out onto the streets was proberly pity that she was left in a hopeless condition by Barnetts reluctance to pay the rent.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 12:06 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Exactly how many of Mary and Joe's neighbors came close to swearing that the couple lived in perfect harmony? The first that comes to my mind was Julia Venturney, (who actually lived with them so I'd say she was pretty much 'in-the-know'!)
The Coroner's Inquest files reveal that she testified that Barnett was: "very kind to her" and he often spoiled her with gifts 'such as meat and other things, as my hard earnings would allow.' (Joseph Barnett, Inquest/'Standard')
It was also Julia Venturney who testified that: "he said that he would not live with her while she led that course of life."
Julia told 'Lloyd's' Newspaper on the 9th of November: 'I have frequently seen her [Kelly] the worse for drink, but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone.'
Venturney only lived there from around the 27th of October and found a room three days later, so if she said that Mary 'frequently' got drunk I'd say she was a very close friend of Kelly's, and/or may have frequently got drunk with her.
As Barnett was so opposed to Kelly's drinking, (claiming that she never got drunk in his presence), and had to be at the markets before the early morning bell, it would seem that he wouldn't accompany her on these frequent 'pub-crawls'.
Could Julia Venturney have been talking about Joe leaving to find work early when she said that he: 'would go out and leave her to quarrel alone.' I wonder what else he did? 'frequently'?
Another person who claimed that the couple lived together comfortably was Joseph Barnett himself, but he doesn't count!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 6:39 am: | |
G'day,
A read of the inquest testimonies reveals that the landlord John McCarthy said: 'She lived with Barnett. I did not know whether they were married or not, they lived comfortably together, but they had a row when the window was broken.'
How intimately did the landlord know the couple I wonder, when all he would have been interested in was collecting the rent? And they kept from him the fact that they weren't married, so why would they want him to feel that the relationship wasn't secure? The room was in her name, but he was earning the money.
Well that's two people I've found that said they lived harmoniously, apart from Barnett. How does that equal all the neighbours and the bulk of the evidence?
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 536
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Sorry, I'm confused by your 2nd to last post. Don't these "tesitmonies" suggest that Barnett was not known to be violent towards Mary? That the source of their "problem" was her going back to prostitution? And that the testimony of the neighbors that bear upon their relationship backs up the notion that Joe was not violent towards Mary, but rather was perceived as a "nice guy"? And since Julia lived with them and was "in the know", and calls Barnett a "nice guy", shouldn't we take her word for it then? Notice, she doesn't say "they lived in perfect harmony", she says "Joe was a nice guy" and he would "leave Mary to quarrel alone" (when she was drunk).
If they lived in "perfect harmony", Joe wouldn't have left her (moved out). But even by Julia's testimony you give, it indicates that Joe left because she went back to prostitutation (not because of her drinking per se), at least that is how I interprete her reference to "that kind of lifestyle". So, isn't Julia sort of backing up what Joe says here? He left her for a combination of reasons that revolve around her going back to prostitution? (i.e., drinking more, prostitution itself, taking in a female companion who was also a prostitute, etc). In other words, they seemed to have gotten along as well as any other normal couple of the day until their finances lend to Mary returning to prostitutation.
As for it equalling all the neighbors, it doesn't, but you didn't present "all the neighbors", nor did you attempt to. Why not just get all the statements together from friends and neighbors that bear upon the issue of how well they got along. Look at how many indicate they got along well as a couple ("Well for the times" I guess) as compared to those that indicate they got on poorly as a couple. I can't think of any off the top of my head that indicate they got on poorly as a couple. Yes, they had fights and arguements, but it's normal in any relationship to have some. In other words, all of the testimonies I'm aware of seem to indicate they were a "normal couple of the time and place", and got on "quite well as a whole".
And no, it doesn't equal the bulk of the evidence. It's not even the bulk of this one kind of evidence (testimonies pertaining to their relationship).
I'm confused by why you would ask me such questions when I've never indicated that a partial listing of information that pertains to one kind of evidence should be considered "all the evidence" or the "bulk of the evidence"?
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3364
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Hi Jeff, Leanne
I tend to think that in Barnett's mind, Mary's drinking, her prostitution, her inviting women (probably prostitutes) to stay in the room (probably in return for a little money) and Barnett's inability to earn more money, all fused together into a single whole, and therefore I don't see any contradiction in Barnett's explanations of why he left Mary.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 537
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Thanks. That's what I've been trying to say, but you've put it much more elegantly.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 11:08 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
'Don't these testimonies suggest that Barnett was not known to be violent towards Mary?'
They suggest that the landlord didn't know the couple well enough to know that Joe wasn't married to Mary, and that he probably didn't know which one broke the window nor why.
Julia Venturney's full testimony tells us that Barnett took-off whenever Mary "frequently"came home drunk. Perhaps if he confronted her about it, we'd only be trying to solve HER murder!
Why do alot of people focus on Venturney's words: "very kind", and Mccarthy's word: "comfortably", and ignore the rest of these testimonies?
Why don't people wish to know where he went he left her alone, at what time he went, and how he released his frustration?
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 541
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 11:31 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I would like to know where, and when, he went, and what he did. But since there is nothing to provide us that answer, I don't want to encourage wild speculations. But, if you insist, he went out and went to the pub, chatted with mates, and then went home and went to sleep.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 12:28 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Well no wonder she was always sober when around him, like he said!
When he came home from work, she'd go out drinking.
When she came home drunk it was his turn to go out drinking and hope that he was sober enough to go to work that day!
That sounds like bliss! No wonder they were known to live harmoniously!
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 3:36 am: | |
Hi,
If the room was in Marys name surely this must mean that at the time of moving in she was a working woman, for i cannot understand why McCarthy would rent a room to someone with no regular income..
His statement to the times nov10th implies that she[ Mary] came to Live with a man called kelly, which implies that the person that rented the room was that man.
Taking all of this at face value, i would say that during the time that both of them shared that room, Barnett was the person who paid the rent, therefore he was the one that owed the landlord any back rent, even if he was not staying there after the 30th october.
To assume that kelly was the person that rented the room, when she had no honest profession, would not have been acceptable to a astute man like Mccarthy.
Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 545
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Yes, and the "wonderful system" broke down once he was out of work and they had to drink together. ha!
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
No wonder he couldn't bring home enough money to pay her rent... he was always hungover!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 546
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Exactly! And now we know why he lost his licence! They broke their own rule and went out together and he showed up drunk!
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 5:43 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
You wrote: 'I don't see any contradiction in Barnett's explanations of why he left Mary.'
You also listed a number of things that would have been building up in Joe's mind, the last of which was his: 'inability to earn more money.'|
At Kelly's inquest he told the Coroner that he left her: 'Because she took in an immoral woman....My being out of work had NOTHING to do with it.'
Three days earlier he had told Abberline that he left her: 'in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her.'
Abberline was there and heard every word of this direct contradiction but he didn't question him about it. He must have been excused as a man showing signs of normal grief. All of the friends and relatives of all the victims would have felt grief at the inquests, but all politeness should have been pushed aside in order to get to the truth.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3376
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 6:33 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I think we have to distinguish between the immediate cause, and the underlying cause. The immediate cause may have been the female lodgers, the underlying cause - responsible for the whole situation - would have been Joe's loss of his job.
There's often a final straw that breaks the camel's back in human relationships, but that doesn't mean that such a "straw" is the only cause operating.
I know it's dangerous to try and guess what was going on in the minds of people who lived 100 years ago, but Joe's remarks seem to me to be perfectly consistent with an innocent Joe, who loved, or at least was very fond of, Mary. Maybe he felt responsible for her death? If he hadn't proved himself inadequate as a breadwinner, he would have been present in her room that night, and she wouldn't have been murdered. So maybe he was saying, "It wasn't all my fault. We'd have muddled through somehow, but she just wouldn't cut back on her drinking, she just had to have more money..."
Now, is what Joe said consistent with the cunning psychopath Joe, who butchers Mary, cleans himself up, hoodwinks Abberline, and then, with virtually three days to rehearse his answers for the inquest, contradicts his own police statement of three days before?
Joe also contradicted himself when he said that Mary was of sober habits while she was with him, but immediately admitted that she had been drunk several times in his presence. Is this suspicious too?
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I just don't get why you insist on seeing a direct contradiction in Joe's two statements when several people have already explained why they don't necessarily contradict one another at all.
Try this:
"I was out of work. In consequence of my not earning sufficient money to give her, she took in an immoral woman, which is why I left her."
Why couldn't Joe, in your considered opinion, have been trying to explain that he only left Mary because of the way she chose to deal with his joblessness?
In other words, couldn't he have been implying that had she taken up sewing instead, in consequence of his being out of work, he would not have left her? That being out of work wasn't the reason he left - it was her reason for taking in an immoral woman which, in turn, was his reason for slinging his hook.
Why won't you at least consider this may have been what Joe meant?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1546
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
G'day,
CAZ: 'Why couldn't Joe, in your considered opinion, have been trying to explain that he only left Mary because of the way she chose to deal with his joblessness?'
Because of his words: 'My being out of work had nothing to do with it.' (Inquest, 'Star' 12 November.)
It is your 'considered opinion' that Mary CHARGED her immoral friends to share that tiny room. That fact isn't stated or even implied anywhere in the official files or in any press report!
'She only let them in the house because she was good hearted and did not like to refuse them shelter on cold, bitter nights.' (Joseph Barnett / Central News Agency statement / 'Lloyd's Newspaper' 11 Nov.)
Why wont you at least consider that Joe left Mary because of her return to prostitution in reaction to his joblessness, and that he saw the presence of her prostitute friends as an influencing factor?
LEANNE
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Where have I given my considered opinion? And what have I refused to consider?
I simply offered an alternative interpretation to the one you put on Joe's statements - ie that he wasn't straight about why he really left Mary.
You don't seem prepared to consider any alternative that allows for Joe having been innocent.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
G'day Caz,
You believe that Mary charged her lodger friends to sleep in her room with her and Barnett. That is just an opinion. Mine is another one.
There is nothing in the records nor in the press reports to even suggest that she charged. In fact Joseph Barnett stated that she did it just to be kind....but maybe he was just confused?
I believe she invited them in, (against his wishes), showing that she was the dominant one in the relationship.
Mary told her close friend that she really preferred the other Joe, but Barnett was buying her gifts and she wanted that!
If she knew that having her friends there upset him but still continued to do it, that would suggest that he was about to wear out his welcome in the relationship. The same could be said about her return to the profession!
Telling the Inspector of police that he left her because the loss of his job triggered her return to the 'profession', then three days later turning that reason around full-circle saying that his unemployment had nothing to do with it, was a contradiction, (unless the meaning of the word has changed.)
He could have just been upset and nothing more, but it should have prompted Abberline to take a closer look at the relationship.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 6:30 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
You wrote:
'You believe that Mary charged her lodger friends to sleep in her room with her and Barnett. That is just an opinion. Mine is another one.'
Well, my beliefs are neither here nor there (although I'm not sure I actually expressed any).
The point is, it doesn't matter whether Mary was hoping to make up for Joe's loss of earning power or not, by sharing her tiny room with 'immoral' women. The timing of both events is such that Joe could have believed this to be the case.
Surely it's reasonable to consider that when Mary started inviting other women in, Joe would have taken this as a sign of her general disenchantment with him (if hubby came home to find one of my friends sharing our bed, I think he might just feel he was being given a hint  ), and that the loss of his earnings would have been a not insignificant factor in that disenchantment.
Maybe I'm hopelessly on the wrong track here, but it's what Joe believed was happening to their relationship, and why, that matters, when examining his various statements for clues.
And we don't know what Joe really believed, or how precisely he would have been able to express his feelings - especially after Mary's brutal murder.
Love,
Caz
X |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Hi Caz & Leanne. Forgive me for jumping in on your long-running exchanges, but I've been quite fascinated by them. As a totally committed M.J.Druitt advocate, I can't understand how Joe Barnett ever came to be a JTR suspect. It simply isn't believable, that Barnett was the killer of Nicholls, Chapman, Stride & Eddowes, and even more unbelievable that one author suggests that he killed those other four women just to scare Kelly off the streets. If, and it's a "big" if, he did kill Kelly, it's beyond imagination that a man who obviously thought a great deal of her, would hack the whole head and body of her to pieces, as the Ripper did. Whatever, Abberline was satisfied with his story, and given the magnitude of these crimes, would certainly have checked all the details of his statement. Poor old Joe, to even be thought of as the maniacal butcher of Kelly, not to mention the other four, must have him turning in his grave. Sorry to butt in ladies, please carry on with the discussion.
Best wishes to you both.
David Cartwright |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
Hi David,
You aren't 'butting in' at all - anyone is free to join in, despite the odd person who occasionally thinks they can have 'private' conversations on a public message board.
Enjoy the boards!
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3553
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
Hi David
With all those friends of Kelly's staying over, Joe probably now has more room to turn in his grave than he had back then to turn in his bed. 
Robert |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
Hi Caz. Thanks for the reply, and the smiley. I must admit that a couple of things regarding the Kelly murder, and concerning Joe Barnett, do intrigue me. I assume that his visit to the mortuary was for making official identification. If so, his word would be the only thing to scupper that other theory, that the dead woman may not have been Kelly. Personally, as tantalising as that idea may be, I don't believe it for a moment. The more interesting thing is the missing key. This mystery seems to get less attention now, than it used to, but the question still needs answering. Surely Abberline questioned Barnett closely about it, but among all the statements on the case by the Inspector that I have read, I've found no reference to Barnett's answers concerning the missing key. Maybe I've missed something somewhere. As someone who has taken a good deal more notice of Barnett than I have, perhaps you have a couple of answers that I don't. A pleasure speaking with you Caz.
Take Care.
David Cartwright |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
Hi Robert. That's a brilliant observation, and I'll wager, the truest statement made on the boards this year. I keep breaking out laughing every time I think about it. You've obviously got a great, and quick, sense of humour, and we can't have too much of that these days. I wonder if Carolyn (Caz) has seen your message yet.
Take Care Robert, and thanks.
David Cartwright |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 3:46 am: | |
Hi David,
I believe that the "missing key" was brought up in the inquiry. Barnett said that they had lost the key some time ago and had been using the hole in the window to open the door.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3557
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:16 am: | |
Hi David
Thanks for your kind words.
I agree, there's no reason to conclude that Joe was the Ripper. I think he's a perfectly respectable suspect, but the Barnettists need to find some evidence of violence or mental illness in his character, or turn up the police interrogation of him, or something like that.
PS Caz is a wizard at word-play!
Robert |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 6:35 am: | |
Hi Lee. Thanks for the reply my friend. Yes, I believe that you're right. The mystery to me is that, with the door found locked by the police, it seems unlikely that Jack the Ripper would be aware of the "hole in the window" method. Today, we have snap-locks, whereby the door locks itself when we pull it shut from the outside. But would they have had such locks then?? If not, then how did the Ripper lock it when he left??
Best wishes Lee.
David Cartwright |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
Hi Robert. I agree that it would be foolhardy to completely rule out Barnett as Kelly's killer. But we'd be forced to assume that Kelly was not a victim of the Ripper. The very idea, as one author suggests, that Barnett killed the other four, simply to discourage Kelly from the streets, is just too far-fetched to even consider. I think that the missing key is the main reason that Joe is considered. I was quite amazed that Don Rumbelow, in his book, found this missing key of importance. He said, and I roughly quote, "Yet someone had a key, and used it, which is why the police found the door locked". The answer to that little mystery is surely obvious. These days we have snap-locks, whereby we can pull the door shut from the outside, and it locks. They didn't have those then, so the only way to secure the door would have been via a bolt on the inside, which was reached through the broken pane. As Kelly took her killer home, she would have had to reach through the window to the bolt with Jack the Ripper standing right beside her. On leaving, he could simply have bolted the door again the same way. So that makes the missing key totally unimportant, except as a reason for putting Joe under suspicion. What do you think Robert??
All the best my friend.
David Cartwright |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
G'day David,
"The very idea, as one author suggests, that Barnett killed the other four, simply to discourage Kelly from the streets, is just too far-fetched to even consider."
Mate, which author suggested that? If you care to stop and look closely at the case against Joseph Barnett you will see that his hatred for prostitution and what it could do to relationships stemmed right back to his childhood!
I know it's foolhardy to completely rule out Barnett as the killer of Mary Kelly, and it's such a small step further to suspect him of killing another four prostitutes.
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 375
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi David,
“These days we have snap-locks, whereby we can pull the door shut from the outside, and it locks. They didn't have those then, so the only way to secure the door would have been via a bolt on the inside, which was reached through the broken pane. As Kelly took her killer home, she would have had to reach through the window to the bolt with Jack the Ripper standing right beside her. On leaving, he could simply have bolted the door again the same way.”
The lock on MJK’s door seems to have been a spring lock. They were used in those days, or so I’ve understood. With such a lock, the bolt shoots home as you pull the door to and locks the door. So, the Ripper probably didn’t need to stick his hand through the window to lock the door behind him, he just had to pull it shut. If you’re interested, you can read some more on the ‘mystery of the key’ here: ../4921/6293.html"../../clipart/wacko.gif" border=0> |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 318
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 7:46 pm: | |
Leanne,
If you care to stop and look closely at the case against Joseph Barnett you will see that his hatred for prostitution . . .
What evidence is there for "hatred," which is a rather strong term? And no, not wanting the woman in your life to return to walking the streets is not hatred. Most would say that is a quite reasonable attitude. In any case, it does not constitute hatred, far less the sort of obsessional loathing that might turn one toward slaughtering prostitutes.
Without any evidence Barnett felt that way it is only spinning one more possible scenario, though you are certainly not alone. Unfortunately, every theory out yjere depends on one or more unprovable assumption.
But then that is part of the fun.
Don.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
Hi Frank. Thanks for the information about the locks. It's always good to get precise detail when possible. I couldn't see anything other than a bolt for those days, but you've put me straight on that one. But, whatever the locking method, Kelly would still have displayed her way of entry to the Killer, as we know that she took him home. My point was that the missing key is not a critical factor, or a good enough reason for trying to implicate Joe Barnett. Thanks again Frank. I'll now enter any further discussions about MJK's door, better informed, thanks to you.
All the best Frank.
David Cartwright |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3571
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 3:37 am: | |
Hi David
I too think the killer probably just pulled the door to after him and locked it that way.
Many people seem to think that the killer was someone Mary took home, but I have my doubts. My preferred option is for someone who just walked in.
If I'm wrong and it was someone she took home, I feel he was probably someone who seemed to have a bit more money than fourpence. If I was Kelly, I wouldn't take someone home to collect fourpence, when I could get that simply by going down an alley with him. Once he was inside the room, it might be difficult to get rid of him. I know that the blotchy-faced man was taken home, and he didn't seem to be too well-off for money, but then, Kelly was drunk! He also had a bucket of beer, and Kelly had a drink problem. According to GH, she'd sobered up later.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
