|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 25
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 5:02 am: | 
|
Of course Kelly was awake,and aware of her danger,hence the cry,but perhaps not aroused to the point where she could respond to the situation beyond that shout.
My opinion only,but I believe the killer intended to do what was done in that room.It was not a social call that got out of control,or a sudden impulse killing with no prior motivation.
The person in the room above was woken before the cry of murder, by the kitten.What disturbed the kitten?.Perhaps someone entering the room below.Whatever, there appears to have been no commotion loud enough to have alerted those that heard the cry of murder,so very little noise was made either before or after the cry.
I am still inclined to the belief,that the twelve o'clock visitor,who was in a good position to judge the situation as it was that night,returned later.That he was indeed known to Kelly,and was the same person outside Crossingham's later that night.At that time he was stopped from proceedin with his intentions by the arrival of a court resident,so left and returned later.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4156
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Hi Harry
That would seem to imply that Hutchinson and the blotchy-faced man were one and the same. But it's difficult to imagine how Hutchinson could have got away with this, as the blotchy-faced man had been seen and described by a Court resident.
If on the other hand Hutchinson and the blotchy-faced man weren't one and the same, then it's a bit of a coincidence that GH makes up a story that he was waiting in the precise spot and at the precise time that someone else was waiting. Unless you're suggesting that GH and blotchy-face were in it together?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
G'day Natalie,
'But with particular reference to Barnett I think that if they had anything on him at all they would have acted.I think he must have had watertight alibis...'
How could his alibi have been watertight? He told the press that he had told police that he played whist until midnight then he went to bed.
'The Society for Improving the Conditions of the Labouring Classes' was formed in 1844 and all common lodging houses in London were renovated. Each sleeping compartment was enclosed by its own door.
Each inmate had his own private locker and
his own unique key to his locker and door.
If Barnett went to bed at midnight in his single bed, how could his alibi for the hour of 3:00a.m. to 4:00a.m. have been proved beyond all possible doubt?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4158
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Leanne, only an idea, but maybe Barnett was seen in Buller's at some later time - say, 5, 6 or 7 AM - and maybe he couldn't have got in again if he had been out at 4, because the doors were closed?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3159
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Aha, I see.
Well, I don't know. I think the available documentation from the internal police communication (which all can be read in The Ultimate Companion), really speaks against such tendencies.
I was only referring to what legal means the police really had at the time, then of course there is a possibility that they may have misused their powers but I doubt it; in spite of them being desperate and under large pressure in October and November 1888, we have no such indications whatsoever.
Besides, the fact that the actions of the police were practically studied in depth by the media during the reign of the Ripper would in itself make such an a corrupted approach difficult. The authorities and the police really couldn't afford any scandals at this time; the press and the public had a real go at them already as it was and their actions were probably watched intesively.
So I am sorry, I just don't see it.
Judging from the internal police communication, it is quite clear that the police worked objectively and following procedure the best they could, without any prefabricated conceptions -- at least under the Ripper murders.
As I said, since they were on the look-out for the Ripper, he could probably provide alibis for the other murders (which is why it might have taken four hours), and that they therefore lost interest in him as a suspect.
Besides, if the corruption theory is true, then there were a lot of other suspects throughout the process that they could have held and prosecuted, but apparently let them go as soon as their whereabouts could be verified the slightest.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
much of your post is in accord with how I see Victorian police behaviour.However all those in authority tended to believe in putting King[Queen in this case] and country first,---before everything else.This was bred into them as to how they should view their duty and they would not have thought that they were acting improperly, let alone corruptly, if in certain circustances they were called upon to obey their superiors over questionable matters.
We also know that many of the ripper files got "lost" -so we dont really know who someone like Machnaghten spoke for----or why, though we can surmise it was in response to this or that newspaper allegation or to a request from this or that official for a report etc.
I do still think that noone really knew who it was and that if they had we too would know!
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne
Some good points I admit,but Robert makes a good reply too.
Where though did he go to clear the blood from himself?
Natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
G'day Natalie,
Barnett was interrogated and gave his alibi the day that the body was found. It wasn't until Kelly's inquest on the 12th that anyone had a rough time for when the murder took place. Some Witnesses claimed to have heard the cry of "MURDER" sometime around 4:00a.m. Caroline Maxwell claimed that she saw Kelly alive and spoke to her around 8:00a.m. The inquest was closed before they established the most likely time of death.
In closing the Coroner said: "The question is whether you will adjourn for further evidence. My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary for two courts to deal with these cases, and go through the same evidence time after time, which only causes expense and trouble. If the Coroners jury can come to a decision as to the cause of death, then that is all that they have to do. They have nothing to do with prosecuting a man and saying what amount of penalty he is to get...." In my opinion her inquest was concluded way too soon and all they were interested in was where to have it. Barnett wasn't even asked to state his alibi.
ROBERT: On 'Lord Mayor's Day' people around Katherine Docks were leaving at all hours and having their breakfast at varrying times. There was a kitchen and people helped themselves. Barnett could have been seen at about 6 or 7 a.m. fixing breakfast and that would have secured an alibi even if they weren't sure what time she died.
Natalie: I wouldn't mind betting he changed into one of the men's shirts that Maria Harvey left, (if he had to that is), and he could have washed his hands at a sink.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 5:38 am: |
|
Helo Robert,
In a prior post I stated that a witness had described the court as completely dark.If that was so,add that witness descriptions are sometimes inacurate,and it is quite possible that 'blotchy face' might be a description that is misleading.
For safety,Kelly might well have taken only aquaintances she trusted to her room,and the 12 am visitor was one such?.
There seems to be no doubt that Hutchinson's statement,drew the search direction away from himself and the midnight male.It also seems to have stalled a thorough search into Kelly's movements that night.Convenient for Hutchinson maybe,and for mr midnight.The chase instead
veered towards a person that I believe never existed.
As much as there is no evidence to conclude that Hutchinson and the midnight visitor were one and the same,there is nothing to say it couldn't be so.
Whatever way you look at the situation,Barnett appears out of the reckoning.He was not picked up by Kelly around midnight,he was not the male that Hutchinson alledgedly saw,and there is nothing to prove his alibi false. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Hi Natalie.
Very well expressed and accurately put.
The maligning and undermining of Abberline has become necessary to those who seek to push this fictional case against Joe Barnett.
The truth is that Philip Sugden, the doy'en of all Ripper historians, describes the much decorated Abberline as an "experienced and outstanding detective".
If it comes to a choice between listening to Sugden or the present sleuths, there's really only one choice in it.
Michael Kidney & Liz Stride had frequent domestic bust-ups. There is nothing to say that Barnett and Kelly wouldn't have patched things up too, had the tragedy not occurred.
Poor Barnett was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Best wishes Natalie.
DAVID C. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
David,Thanks for your posts.I too think that Abberline holds the clue to whether or not either Hutchinson or Barnett were Jack the Ripper[or even in the case of Barnett whether he killed her.
Leanne,
I believe Abberline was an amazingly thorough detective.Of all the ones we hear about he was the most "hands on" of all to judge from contemporary accounts.He took the trouble to befriend local people and was trusted and liked by them,including gathering respect from known delinquents and even several of the criminal underworld apparently --- some
of whom he drank with and gathered information from.When he was on the ripper case he worked night and day on it and as I said earlier was as thorough and paistaking in his work as it was possible to be.
As you say he completely exonerated Barnett.
To imagine that all that took place with regard to Barnett was that the coroner curtailed the session and therefore dismissed him without proper interrogation etc is a half truth that can totally conceal the truth which is that Barnett was their first and foremost suspect and as such would have been subjected to in depth scrutiny.His room,clothing,person would have been searched and scrutinised for bloodstains,knives etc and his fellow lodgers
would have been interviewed as well as the women friends of Mary Kelly and her neighbours being questioned about him too.This is apart from what came forth at the inquest.No way would it have been some halfbaked investigation with regard to Barnett.And they found nothing to incriminate him then and nothing to incriminate him afterwards.
The same would have been so with Hutchinson.Only a very stupid detective would have gazed back at him with his story about how he had hung around Millers Court around the time she was thought to have been murdered[the thoughts of the doctors that is] met this bloke with a smart appearance
etcetc.Abberline"s first reaction was probably "oh yeah-pull the other one!"
The fact that he believed him means he bothered to check out his story.This too would have meant talking to his fellow lodgers at the Victoria Home,searching through his clothing questioning him in depth for inconsistencies.
This idea that the Victorian detective had to have been a halfwit has only come about because we cant understand why Jack didnt get caught.It has no other explanation.They may have lacked knowledge about serial killers,DNA evidence,even finger prints etc but they had all dealt with criminals ,the mentally ill,murderers,jealous husbands and wives as part of their daily work and I dont believe Abberline spent 4 hours interviewing a prime Ripper suspect OR Mary Kelly"s killer without ever doubting Barnett"s innocence either then or during the years afterwards.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
re above post of 4.32pm
last sentence should read:....without ever doubting Barnett"s innocence either then or during the years afterwards if in fact Barnett had been Jack the Ripper.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4166
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
Hi Natalie
I agree that the police would have checked out Joe.
I don't want to go off topic, but I feel that GH is more problematical.
GH came to the station at 6 PM on 12th. Abberline made his report, in which he said he believed GH, on the same evening - which hardly would have given the police much time to check out GH's background before the report was made.
Are we forced to believe either
1. Abberline was being sloppy here
or
2. Bob Hinton's right in saying that Abberline only pretended to believe GH, because he actually suspected him?
Even if we go with number 2 though, I suppose Abberline could have checked GH's background in the days that followed, and then exonerated him.
There's something funny about the whole business!
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3171
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
David Cartwright and Natalie,
No one here is implying that Abberline was a clumsy idiot.
All I am saying that police officers are humans and humans make mistakes. Much of their work is based on intuition and being a good judge of character -- all subjective traits. And subjective analysing doesen't always work out the way it should, regardless how good or experienced a police officer you are.
Therefore, to expect that the police, and especially Abberline & Co., were able to make correct decisions and judgements at all times at a time when they were on a large deal of pressure from both the authorities and the press, not to mention the general public, is simply naive and unrealistic. If experienced modern police officers can be fooled by or make the wrong interpretations regarding a suspect, then so could an experienced officer in 1888.
I think Abberline was a splendid detective, but I also think he and the others may have made some more or less serious mistakes. It is not surprising, considering their lack of experience of these types of cases, plus the lack of forensic science in 1888. Fact remains, they had to catch the killer red-handed or produce a large number of witnesses pointing out the same suspect (with no credible alibi) in order to nail him and drag him to court.
As I said (since I don't believe Barnett was Jack the Ripper), they were on the look-out for Jack the Ripper in the investigation of Kelly's murder, and Barnett could probably produce credible alibis for the other murders, and therefore they let him go. It is at least a possibility.
As for Barnett's so called alibi at the night of the MJK murder, we are in no position whatsoever to be able to thouroughly study or confirm it today, 117 after the actual event, and obviously with no files available regarding that particular issue.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1684
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
G'day,
Glenn's right! Nobody is undermining Abberline but The technological and criminologyical sophistication of the entire police force.
Abberline's knowledge of the district made him very valuable to the investigation, but he would have only been able to identify the Ripper if his identity was known to the people on the street. The characteristic of a killer hiding behind a 'mask of sanity' hadn't been identified as a characteristic yet.
Abberline had his favourite suspect and that was Severin Kosminski! The police interviewed many men and let them all go because their alibis seemed unshakable. Isn't it OK to believe they spoke to the Ripper at some stage?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4167
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne
But Barnett would have been subjected to more scrutiny than most.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1768
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
I'm sorry, but I did post a Times report not so long ago where Abberline's entire credibility as a police officer was called into question; and he was in fact taken to task by a senior judge for his sloppy and almost criminal attitude to evidence in a serious criminal trial.
So let's not be too kind to him, please.
He was certainly not 'kosher'. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1632
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Maybe its difficult too because in the case of Mary Kelly some on this thread argue that although its possible for her to have been killed by Joe they wouldnt go so far as to say that they think Joe was Jack the Ripper.
But those who think he was seem to overlook the fact that JB was certainly considered a prime suspect for Mary"s murder for several hours after Mary"s body was found .Therefore they would have looked at him and his movements and his belongings and alibis particularly closely.At the time washing away bloodstains would not have been easy for a poor out of work man.If he had shown up at the Goulston Street Baths the attendants would have been suspicious-this murder was very bloody and blood would have been hard to shift in the time he had available.So would disposing of clothes er just ake that for a minute.Joe sits in the same clothes as he was wearing the past week...this can quickly be checked out either during his interview or later with neighbours and his fellow lodgers.Was there anything about them that looked as though there had been efforts made to clean off blood any dark water stains even?If not what was he wearing?From the state of the room ,its walls,table, floors etc as described by Walter Dew there must surely have been blood on him somewhere!Like you couldnt have brushed past the table,trod on the floor even without it clinging to various bits of clothing/shoes/hair
nails yet we are to believe Joe managed to get rid of all trace and reappear in a totally different set of clothes just hours after the event...all this completely unnoticed by neighbours or by lodging house personnel and,even were it possible, without access to a private bath.The very first questions would probably have included questions about his attire and on a day like this when everybody was agog, Joe"s appearance would immediately have been observed by those people----especially if he suddenly appeared in a change of clothing from head to toe with his hair all washed and his nails all red and scrubbed.
If Joe had been JtR on the other hand,then every person who knew Joe would have been questioned about his whereabouts for the previous murders.
Finally far from it being "strange" or displaying some kind of obsessive interest in the JtR murders when he kept reading about them to Mary,I think it would have been far more strange if he wasnt obsessively interested in them----after all everybody else in London was and a good few of us still are showing such an interest !
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Hi AP-thanks for that intervention!
Still I think even so he might have smelt a rat if Joe appeared with a shiny scrubbed face spotlessly clean hands and the newly washed hair! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3172
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Natalie,
Yes, there are signs of that the police in the beginning treated the MJK as a domestic killing.
However, it is still necessary to remember that a police offcier is nothing more than a human being.
You seems totally incapable of accepting the fact that people like Abberline could make error of judgements, and that is a naive and incorrect interpretation of how a police officer work. Once again, they are not superstars and they do not get it right everytime. Abberline's interest in Klosowski in 1903, is certainly one such example which seriously put doubts upon him being a good judge of character and upon his psychological skills.
Leanne,
True, but let's not forget that Klosowski was not a contemporary suspect. He wasn't acknowledged as a serious criminal until his crimes were discovered in 1903.
All the best
G.Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I notice that you have avoided answering any of the points I make above-each of which has to do with Barnett and how he managed to have deceived and fooled the police in the context of that day.
This man was questioned only hours after the murder-----dont you think it necessary to explain how with only a poor mans access to water and without private washing facilities and few changes of clothing[most likely] just how
Barnett in this short time managed to scrub away every trace of visible blood after vacating the murder room whose floor and walls and tables and chairs were covered in blood?
Dont you think you have an obligation of some kind to try to answer these questions ?
They were not about Abberline
I am not incapable of understanding your point about Victorian police knowledge or about Abberline in particular.It wasnt the point of what I was saying above.
Also please dont use terms like "you seem to be completely incapable of understanding...."---I find it offensive and aggressive.
The point is how YOU can explain the anomolies---- in the context of a poor person"s access to sanitation in Victorian times /how Barnett could have cleared himself in every sense!!! -------- -----not just the same stuff about Abberline---- concerning the differences in police practice and knowledge.
If you can explain how Barnett managed all this it would be a great help in following your reasoning regarding placing him in the picture for a domestic murder of Mary Kelly. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3173
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 7:48 pm: |
|
We weren't discussing that, Natalie.
We were discussing the efficiency of the police and the skills of Abberline in general. And you still won't believe that Abberline can't be wrong -- but you're in good company. Unfortunately the police do mistakes occasionally, also in modern times.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound snappy, but it irritates me that people are expecting the police officials to possess some sixth sense and never even bother to question their deductions.
Now, the other stuff is another matter, and no - I can't give you a scientificly solid explanation, but then there are a lot of things and details in the case we can't explain and we can't find answers to because of unreliable and lacking information. I have no idea where there were sinks of water in East End.
The murder was not discovered for several hours after it had occurred -- and Barnett was called even later -- so I believe there would have been plenty of time for him to freshen up. Freshening up doesen't take several hours to do. I really don't see the problem, Natalie.
All the best
G.Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 24, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1685
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 8:53 pm: |
|
G'day,
Yes Mary Kelly was supposedly murdered 7 hours before the discovery of her body and Joseph Barnett wasn't found straight away. At the time he was interrogated no one had interviewed the witnesses who heard the cry of "MURDER" at around 4:00a.m., so they could have thought they were looking at a night time murder.
Joseph Barnett was the first person interrogated because that was and is standard detection work. The person considered in a victims 'inner circle', (HUSBAND, WIFE, CHILDREN) are investigated first. Then detectives look at next door neighbours, servants, regular visitors etc.
There was a sink and tap just outside somewhere underneath the large window.
How do you know Barnett was wearing the same shirt he'd been wearing all weak and anyway how could detectives have known if he wasn't? If Maria Harvey had have recognised his shirt as hers he could have just said that Mary gave it to him after his visit, so there was no risk there.
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3175
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 8:56 pm: |
|
Leanne,
This really feels odd. Being on the same side for a change.
Well, one should never be surprised of anything.
All the best
G.Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:06 am: |
|
G'day,
Have a read of this interesting newspaper report.
http://casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881112.html
Under the heading: 'ATTEMPT TO LYNCH AN AMATEUR DETECTIVE EXCITEING SCENES' go to the 14th paragraph down to read about the bloody shirt found in the street. As at the time there was no way of telling human blood from animal blood I suppose police had to ignore it.
LEANNE
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 3:40 am: |
|
Glenn,Leanne,
OK so I think we accept that Abberline was a "good enough" detective for the most part and experienced.I am also very interested in AP"s posting above that implies that he was not up to much at all and will read both AP"s source in the Times and Leanne"s post on the shirt later today as I have to go now.
I think that if indeed Abberline was not up to the job re the Ripper then for me too it may throw into question Joe"s innocence or rather whether he should have been subjected to much deeper investigation.
However just let us suppose he was up to the mark the day he interviewed Joe.
Having an outside sink with cold water would not have been sufficient an aid to getting rid of all the blood and gore that would undoubtedly have
got into all sorts of places on both clothing and his body.Looking over scrubbed and newly attired
would have surprised any detective or neighbour just hours after the horrific murder of his long term lover........what have we here might be the sort of comment....he"s taken a lot of care getting himself up for this interview...strange when his murdered lover is barely cold etc.
And if he didnt take that sort of care and there were spots of blood here and there in his room or on his person then further scrutiny would undoubtedly have ensued.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 4:12 am: |
|
Robert,
I agree...there is something that doesnt add up.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3176
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
Firstly, as been said earlier, several hours had passed since the murder was committed. It really doesen't take that long in order to clean up and dispose of the clothes, and to calm down.
Secondly, I think you are jumping to conclusions regarding the psychology of people who murders their spouse. Some of them certainly have been proven cool enough during an interview some hours after the murder, and we can't possibly know -- not you, not I -- how fit Barnett really were psychologically. For some people such a situation would provide no problem whatsoever (note that I am not speaking of serial killers here, but ordinary husbands), for some it would be very problematic. It is a mistake to assume that a murdering husband would be so out of his mind that he could not face the police directly after the murder. This has proven to be a fallacy time and time again.
Thirdly, there are actual indications on that Barnett appeared nervous and uncomfortable, especially at the inquest. This could of course have several explanations, but we can't rule out that the reason for this may have been that he had something to do with the murder.
That much for Barnett. As I said, this is probably what the modern police would see a priority and important lead in the investigation. Mutilations or not, serial killers or not, domestic murders are almost every time committed by the husband or boyfriend -- also where it involves mutilations. And in Barnett we have someone with both opportunity and motive.
However, I would also have liked to see an investigation regarding Joe Flemming (who according to some was not at all pleased with her connection with Barnett), for example. Apparently no reports sent to the Home Office, indicate that he was even tracked down and questioned and here I feel the police made a terrible blunder and a sloppy mistake.
And then we have Hutchinson, but since we have no idea about his real personal connection with MJK, then it is rather problematic to investigate his role in the whole affair.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 43
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Glen,
I am quite sure that Chris Miles in his book "on the trail of a deadman" shows that Hutichinson lodged in the same building as Barnett's brother. Obviously that is a plausible theory as to how Hutchinson met MJK.
Regarding Barnett, I have always felt that he could have killed MJK but not the others. The theory that suggests Barnett killed the other victims to frighten MJK enough to keep her of the streets is very unplausible.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3178
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hi Lee,
We seem to be on the same wave-length regarding Barnett (although it is only just a theory). Nice to hear.
I haven't read Chris Miles' book, but there is absolutely nothing in the documentation that suggests that Hutchinson even knew Mary Kelly at all, apart from his own testimony. I don't doubt that he might have a plausible theory, but I want a theory at least to some extent to be slightly supported by implications in the evidence. It doesen't in any way makes it invalid as such, but regarding Hutchinson and MJK there is no such thing.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1769
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Thanks Natalie
to save you searching, and because it is important, I'll post the comment again:
Central Criminal Court, Jan 16, 1890
‘If it were true that Saul told Abberline his story in August, he (his Lordship), as one of the public, should like to know, and he dared say that the jury would like to know, why it was that, if Abberline knew the story in August, he hold his peace, said nothing, and did nothing up to the present hour. It would be the first duty of those who were the guardians of peace and public morality, if they had evidence of crime like this, to bring the criminal to light - no duty could be more obligatory.’
Abberline failed in his duty here, and it is reasonable to suppose that he might have made a habit of this.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1687
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 3:06 pm: |
|
G'day,
'The theory that suggests Barnett killed the other victims to frighten MJK enough to keep her of the streets is very unplausible.'
I agree that suggestion is week. Forget it! Look beyond it! Joseph Barnett very likely lost his mother to prostitution, he grew up without a father, Mary Kelly was using him for his money, plus he had the added torment of jealousy because Mary still loved Joseph Flemming, who was her former lover was still visiting her and whom she told a friend that she preferred. He was a loser!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1688
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
G'day,
Would police have had time to discover all that during his 4 hour interrogation?
Lee what motive do you think the Ripper had?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on February 25, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Thanks.I have also read part of a newspaper report on the Abberline/Cleveland Street Case
where Abberline is accused of deliberately prevaricating and witholding the arrest of an apparently guilty party who had the money and means to escape abroad
while another man with less opportunity[ -one assumes money/social position]was arrested.This was in connection with the raid on the male brothel in Cleveland Street and the dispersal of numbers of upper class clients rumoured to include Prince Albert Victor.
I think your quote concerns the same matter
as this above which was posted by Chris Scott.
This is throwing a new light on Abberline for me
anyway.It seems he didnt hesitate to protect the interests of at least one apparently culpable
individual.
Earlier I referred to this when talking about whether the Victorian police were ever corrupt.
It wouldnt have been likely to have been thought of as corruption by those in authority for a detective such as Abberline to have turned a blind eye when protecting the interests of the ruling elite.Most probably like most civil servants he would have considered it part of his duty to king and country to protect the ruling classes and their friends-a matter of honour-!
Very interesting,
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1638
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Thanks Leanne for a really great link!
I read the whole report from beginning to end and thought it gave a taste of what Dorset Street in particular and Spitalfields were like at that time
Strange business about the man with the bloody shirt.
Also this well dressed man they talk about who had accosted them while carrying a black bag.
But the most interesting of all was the tall well dressed man seen crossing Mitre Square in a very agitated way clutching a parcel under his arm[containing what?]and his face shirt etc all spattered with blood!This being seen by a man at 10 am on the morning of the murder who had not then heard about the murder of Mary Kelly.
Anyway,I"ll have to have a rethink about the whole
business in the light of all this!
Thanks again
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4169
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn old friend
I don't see it being easy for Joe to get scrupulously clean. I certainly don't see him banking on being able to do so.
But OK, I'll issue a challenge : you compile a scenario detailing what you think Joe's movements might have been from the end of his game of whist till his turning up at the Court. Of course a large part will be speculation. That's OK. Just do it so it sounds plausible and hangs together. And describe Joe's state of mind at each point i.e. "he was being cunning here" or "he flipped his lid here." I always end up asking people to describe the nuts and bolts (fitting phrase) when talking about the Kelly murder.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3179
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:29 pm: |
|
Hi Robert old friend 
Well, I can't see any real problems for him getting clean and changing clothes etc. in a time frame of several hours. Surely, he might have been spotted by people on the way from where he came from, but we are talking night/early morning and darkness here and blood on people wasn't that uncommon in East End, with a lot of slaughterhouses etc. Besides, he could have worn a large overcoat etc. -- there could be a million explanations.
What it all comes down to is: There were quite a lot of sufficient time for him to get himself together and in order. IF Barnett was the killer (of which I am not 100% convinced).
As for your challenge, you are asking the impossible of me. No way, with the little information we have, could I 117 years later construct a scenario. I am no novelist. Yes, it is speculation and it would be too much speculation for my taste. We could make up anything we want, on both opposing sides, if we just put our minds to it, so that approach rarely solves anything and it is really not my scene. I think it is too late in the investigation process for those types of exercises.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4172
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
The sort of thing I mean is, take this change of clothes. Now, when he leaves Buller's, does he intend to kill Mary, or just speak to her? If he only intended to speak to her, he'd have left his clothes at Buller's, and he'd have had to go back to Buller's to get his clean clothes. Which would have been risky and, for all I know, perhaps impossible, unless he waited till they opened in the morning. If he intended to kill her, he'd have taken his clean clothes with him, but he'd have had to be very careful they didn't get any blood on them.
Another example : if he's cunningly mutilating her in order to make the crime look like a Ripper crime, why suddenly go sentimental and take the heart?
Or, if he took the heart because he'd heard that the Ripper took organs, why not take a kidney? He'd have heard about Lusk.
Robert
(Message edited by Robert on February 25, 2005) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3182
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I have only one answer: we will never know!
Not that your questions are invalid, but thanks to lacking information, such questions do arise in practically every aspects of the Ripper case, and we are in no position to answer those from where we sit today. I think that has to be accepted, or we might loose ourselves in details that is beyond our ability to solve.
Who said he went directly to Buller's? And who knows here he went and where he was at all those hours from when the murder occurred and he was called to the police?
As I said, we could speculate and make up questions or problems in every direction depending on which point of view we're supporting. We simply have too little information, Robert, and that is also why his so called alibi at Buller's is hard to verify with certainty. Too many holes in the information. Sorry, I wish I could help you.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 4:12 am: |
|
Robert,
I think your challenge is not unlike what the police themselves would try ,in the absence of any real leads.As Glen says there are a lot of possible trails that might be taken,so the way would not be easy.
However you would have to start before Joe left Buller's.He would surely have to have had some plan,and foremost was where to go from the scene of the crime should he be successful.I,d say it would be back to where he started from.
It is of course unfortunate that we do not have an interview record to help,though the inquest testimony helps.Why was Hutchinson's record able to survive,perhaps the only one to do so.
I would especially like to see the report that Aberline submitted stating his belief in Hutchinson.Has anyone ever seen it?.Someone must have ,or are we all quoting information that was never tendered. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
G'day,
HARRY: Abberlines report of 12 November following Mary Kelly's inquest said after he gave the verdict: "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."
An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion his statement is true.'
The newspaper report that I mentioned last says: 'Another arrest was effected at an early hour in the morning through the exertions of two young men living in the neighbourhood of Dorset Street. Like many others in the district, they appear to have constituted themselves for a time amateur detectives, and have been perambulating the streets on the lookout for suspicious persons. About three o'clock yesterday morning they had their attention drawn to two men in Dorset Street who were liotering about.'
I wonder whether George Hutchinson could have been one of the many amateur dectives in the neighbourhood?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1690
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
Joseph Barnett probably did play whist until midnight and was then seen going to his room. Costermongers generally gambled longer but everyone was probably preparing to get up early to search for work on 'Lord Mayors Day'.
I am not willing to guess whether or not he got some sleep but I bet he minimized his sleeping hours and was up and out early, dressed for work as a costermonger. A page of the 'Victorian London Dictionary' says of the dress of a costermonger: 'Their usual style of dress on a working day is a long dark green corduroy jacket, with long sleeves and large buttons, what they call the "Cable-cord" trousers, and high lace-up boots with heavy nails'.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3184
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
"Why was Hutchinson's record able to survive,perhaps the only one to do so."
My personal bet is, that it for some reason was forwarded as an attachment (see Leanne's quote above from Abberline) along with one of the ordinary reports that went to the Home Office. Among the suspect files, the reports sent further to the Commissioner or Home Office are the ones that exists (and they are pretty much complete), while the police officers' personal note books and the interrogation notes are lost.
So that could be one reason for why Hutchinson's statement has survived.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
Hi Natalie.
Don't take too much to heart, some of the comments we personally get on these boards. I've had a couple of remarks that I could have taken offence to, but prefer to rise above it.
For what it's worth, I think that you are a very knowledgeable and sensible lady, and it's a pleasure to exchange views with you. It would be no less a pleasure, even if we could never agree on ANYTHING.
As for Joseph Barnett, even though I don't believe he killed ANYONE, speaking personally I think Leanne's view, that he was Jack the Ripper, is a better theory than the domestic copycat idea.
Many men have committed murders, but few would have been capable of doing to another human being,
that ghastly carnage in Miller's Court. The perpetrator of a deed like that would be a rare animal amongst the millions of men in the country.
To say that Barnett killed Kelly, but was not Jack the Ripper, is trying to tell us that TWO such animals were at large in that one neighbourhood, at the same time.
No way will I buy that from anyone.
Best wishes Natalie.
DAVID C.
|
Darren Lehman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Hi Glen,Robert,David,Leane,everyone
I would like to impart my oppinion of detective Abberline as the oppinion on him seems to be divided.He does not deserve critisism, He probably did try his heart out to catch the ripper.The real issue here is the period he belonged to.It is a fact that the London policeforce was not equiped in 1888 to deal with a modern times serial killer.They had not the experience behind them or the technical knowledge.What Glen and Stuart say is correct for that time - you almost literally had to be seen perpertrating the crime to be charged.
With Isreal Shwartz as the only witness who came close to seeing him on the job, they didnt have much to go by.Mr Abberline and his assossiates were trying to pull a 'rabbit out of a hat' with all of their suspects.No CSI team, no forensics team, no profilers, no psychologists, no DNA team or any of the luxuries modern detectives get.
I read an article about the technical advances the FBI detectives had hunting the Washinton City Sniper just a few years ago.They could call on NASA satellite image enhancing to pinpoint and to detect gun flashes. No satellites for Mr Abberline. A far cry from 1888, so I think we can leave poor Mr Abberline alone for now.He did the best with what was at his disposal.
I have no idea who or what JtR was.But Joseph Barnett can not be dismissed.His alibia does not check out and his 4 hour questioning is as I have stated - they were trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat.It did not exonerate him.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Hi Natalie.
You know, the Ripper case is complicated enough, without people making it even more so.
All the top police officials, Anderson, MacNaghten, Swanson etc., have been rubbished in order to promote new theories.
Now Abberline has come under the hammer, in order to keep Joe Barnett in the frame. I think that today's police forces do a wonderful job, in the most difficult circumstances. But they do at least have all the modern scientific developments
at hand.
The fact that the police THEN had none of these things, does NOT mean that they had no brains. To listen to some people, they were London's answer to the "Keystone Cops"
Under the public microscope, and under intense pressure, I believe that Abberline would have examined Barnett VERY thoroughly, and had he not been totally satisfied, then Joe would have at least remained a serious suspect. But he wasn't, and Abberline never mentioned him again.
It's all too fashionable today, to denigrate the top officials of that time.
Best wishes Natalie.
DAVID C. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 10:20 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
Whatever our views, whether we are in agreement(see George Chapman), or on divergent lines, please call me just "David". Giving me my full title sounds so formal, and after all, we're only discussing and comparing views on a subject we're all deeply interested in.
Best Wishes Glenn.
DAVID C. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I feel that we just have to go on blind faith that the detectives knew what they were doing. Barnett was questiond he was released and never suspected as being the ripper. I do not believe he was the ripper but he may have killed KellY. Ripperologist,historians and people on the boards with a lot more of a background in the field have suggested that it is possible. I am prepared to accept the possibility but as Glenn points out we do not have enough information. In my oppinion the ripper murders stoped after the Kelly murder. If Barnett was a copycat killer then the murders stoped after the double event and that puts a whole different spin on things.
Your friend,CB
--------------------------------------------------
Things work out best for those who make the best out of how things worked out. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3185
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Hi David.
Is I OK if I call you David C, then?
You see, the problem is, you are not the only David here. I know of at least two others. So I didn't mean to be formal; just that I wanted to avoid confusion.
As for the police officials...
Can't say questioning their work has anything to do with it being fashionable or not. I think it simply is a matter of being realistic. As I said in a post above, without any evidence, all you have when you are interrogating a suspect or witness is your own subjectivity and your ability of being a good judge of character. Which is not easy; Abberline and the others would not in any way be the first or the last to make errors of judgment in this regard. It happens everytime, and it is human. If you think it has anything to do with "rubbishing" them, you are clearly mistaken, and I certainly would not see the point in such a conduct, unless one has a pet theory that needs to be protected.
Abberline has popularily been appointed almost a police superstar and hero, and I believe that is not only silly, but also a rather impossible view not based on any kind of reality.
I don't think the police of 1888 were idiots --on the contrary, and I have said it and repeated it over and over again. But I think they made some mistakes and it would be strange if they didn't. They were human beings -- not robots or clairvojants. And although Abberline was a workhorse and an excellent policeman in many ways, I see some indications of him not being the best judge of character -- his statement about Chapman being the Ripper is such an example, in my view. The fact that he also bought Hutchinson's statement straight off without even questioning it, is another.
I don't agree one bit with the opinion, that we have to go on blind faith that the detectives knew what they were doing (sorry, CB, no offense) -- the police of 1888 didn't have the criminal and psychological knowledge that we have today and not the forensic scientific means. I believe they did the best they could considering the circumstances they had to work in, but I certainly don't take for granted that they made the right decisions throughout.
Unfortunately no notes exists, which is why we can't say WHY a suspect was dismissed. We don't know the circumstances under which Barnett was questioned, what they questioned him about, how well they checked his ailbi etc. But I do believe they might have questioned him for the other murders, since they were on the lookout for the Ripper and the press saw it as a Ripper murder. Then, all he had to do was to produce a credible alibi for at lest one or two of the previous Ripper murders, and he'd be off the hook.
"Many men have committed murders, but few would have been capable of doing to another human being,
that ghastly carnage in Miller's Court. The perpetrator of a deed like that would be a rare animal amongst the millions of men in the country."
I am sorry, David, but that is a total error based on misinformation. It is unfortunately more common than you think, and if you've followed the discussions on several threads here on the subject, you'd find that several cases of similar character pops up now and then, some even before the Ripper. The human mind is a dark continent.
"To say that Barnett killed Kelly, but was not Jack the Ripper, is trying to tell us that TWO such animals were at large in that one neighbourhood, at the same time.
No way will I buy that from anyone."
Well, actually there were at least more than one at large, unless you also want to attribute the torso murders to the Ripper.As for these types of murders, like the Kelly "carnage", they usually turn out to be domestic, not victims of a serial killer. Those are unfortunate facts.
Secondly, when such brutal murders occure, and the press is spraying gruesome details all over the population, it is rather common for some individuals to get triggered off and influenced by it, which is why we have copy-cats. And Kelly's murder was one of the last in the row of murders. We have contemporary statements from the authorities at the time, actually displaying a genuine concern for that the Ripper murders would influence people in the wrong way. So already they thought about this.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4173
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Hi all
Hmm. Well, I can only state my opinion, which is that Jack the Ripper killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Possibly Tabram and Stride.
And Joe Barnett is unlikely to have been Jack the Ripper.
If I'm going to take him more seriously as a suspect (Ripper or copycat domestic), it's going to need new info to come out - e.g. of Barnett getting into trouble before or after 1888. Alternatively, someone could always write that scenario! 
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.
|
|
|
|
