|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 4:56 pm: | 
|
Hi David,
Thanks for your kind remarks.
I am a bit uncertain about Abberline since I read
the Times comment posted by AP and the Cleveland Street reference about him apparently deliberately failing to apprehend an important character involved in the case[see news clipping under Abberline Cleveland Street,from Chris Scott].As I have said previously a Victorian civil servant or member of the forces,including the police had a different emphasis on their sense of duty than today.Duty to crown and country came before everything else
and it may have been suggested to Abberline that in order to protect scandal around Prince Albert Victor who was thought to have frequented the Cleveland Street house of ill repute it would be wise to allow this Cleveland Street witness/or person resposible to "go abroad" and therefore avoid arrest and trial and further scandal in the press.
Anyway it would seem Abberline was capable of a bit of "covering up" when required of him.It seems reasonable then that similar things may have happened over the ripper case which was only two years earlier.
Here I am not suggesting anything to do with Prince Albert Victor.The whole suggestion seems ludicrous regarding he himself,Dr Gull etc.But I am wondering if he knew more than has been supposed.
I myself dont think it impossible Chapman was the ripper.He had sugical skills was around the right age at the time and was completely without conscience,a sadistic serial killer living in Whitechapel at the same time as Jack the ripper was at large.I have trouble with the MO factor but less so as I learn more about others who have changed their MO.So for me it isnt particularly odd for Abberline to have suggested that Chapman was the ripper.However he may have said so simply to quash other rumours
simply to throw press and ripper hunters off the scent!The Times Article shows he was capable of such a ploy and who,today can prove he didnt say it for these reasons.Maybe he was awarded his great honours for having served Crown and countrywith such imaginative understanding!
Best Wishes David
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,Well put!Thats my view too.
Its all very well when challenged to conduct a feasibility study into the "hows" of the matter to become as slippery as an eel and avoid the consequences of such a suggestion but such avoidance tactics wont convince anybody!
Best Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1777
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Natalie is quite right, the social and political pressures put upon senior serving police officers in the LVP were enormous, and one must always regard their record as tainted by this.
It is nothing personal. Just the way it was.
One could almost say that the more respected a senior police officer was then very likely the more corrupt he was, for he was fuelling the very force that employed him.
This has to be a consideration in this case.
Robert's efforts to make people turn their cards up can only be admired.
You can't win unless you show your cards folks. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3191
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
What cards? By doing speculations from nothing?
With this little information available, everyone can create scenarios in their own right, fitting their own personal ideas. Unless we have more facts, I'd say that is a rather redundant exercise.
God knows I am no novelist and certainly no Patricia Cornwell, because that is what you're asking. But anyone who feels up to it, go ahead.
It has nothing to do with being slippery, but some questions just simply can't be answered 116 years after the incident because of lacking information. Unfortunately.
All we know is that Barnett is supposed to have had a so called alibi, spending the night at Buller's, but we have no evidence that corroborates it. Only some people's belief in retrospect that it must be correct since Abberline let him go. fact remains, we have no real confirmation on where Barnett was, where he went and when.
Surely, speculating from this can allow everyone to make it into anything we want it to be (depending on our personal opinions), and we still won't get closer to the truth.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 26, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:45 pm: |
|
G'day,
CATHARINE EDDOWES was found dead near a narrow covered entry from St. James Place orange market where Joseph Barnett sometimes worked.
ELIZABETH STRIDE lived with Michael Kidney at 33 DORSET STREET for 3 years in a stormy relationship.
At 12:35a.m. on the morning of her death P.C. Smith saw her opposite the International Workers Club with a man wearing a dark coat and a DEERSTALKER HAT. She was found dead 25 minutes later.
ANNIE CHAPMAN and her pensioner boyfriend spent weekends together at Crossingham's Lodging House which was opposite Millers Court on DORSET STREET.
Annie was to stay at Crossingham's the night she died and said to the deputy: "I haven't sufficient money for my bed..." She left in the direction of Spitalfields Market which was where Joseph Barnett sometimes worked.
Elizabeth Long saw her leaning against the shutters of 29 Hanbury Street talkinhg to a man wearing a DEERSTALKER HAT and dark overcoat.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1692
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:53 pm: |
|
On the 29th of Febuary I quoted from a 'Daily News' report which told of two young 'amateur detectives' on DORSET STREET who saw to the arrest of a suspicious character. The character was wearing: 'a long dark overcoat and wore also a DEERSTALKER HAT'. The man was detained at Bishopsgate Police Station until he was released that night because he gave satisfactory explainations of his movements.
Where the police too lenient with 'satisfactory explainations'?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 29
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 3:20 am: |
|
Leanne,
Yes that is what is generally said to be part of the report that Aberline is believed to have written on the evening after the interview with Hutchinson.
However ,what I am asking is whether anyone is quoting from that report after having read it.Have you yourself seen the report,and are you quoting from what you yourself read in that report.
I am curious of what happened to the report ,and where and if it can be viewed. |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 30
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 3:44 am: |
|
What Glen says about the whereabouts of Barnett that whole night is obviously true.He could have been anywhere.We have no record of interview that might help to determine whether his stoty was believable.
However any serious diversion from his normal habits would not be to his benefit,and whether innocent or guilty,a return to,and night at Bullers was probably the truth.
Without conflicting information,the police would have had to be satisfied with what he claimed. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 4:36 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
That report of Abberline's appears in 'The Ultimate Companion' which contains the preserved Metropolitan Police Files. It was file: 'Ref. MEPO 3/140, ff. 230-2'
Before it the book displays George Hutchinson's three-page witness statement which bears his signature. The reference number is: 'Ref. MEPO 3/140, ff. 227-9'.
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
I don’t think Robert was really asking people to speculate, he merely wanted people to demonstrate in a clear and logical fashion how the events that were being speculated upon could have happened factually… and he did give a demonstration of this.
Robert seemed to applying logic to the motive and behaviour of the killer, whilst others speculated.
The last person I could ever accuse of speculative reasoning - or even encouraging such - would be Robert Charles Linford, for he pulls me up on an almost daily basis for my wild speculations, as he has just done so on another thread this very day.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3196
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Of course, AP.
I didn't suggest that Robert was speculating!
For God's sake, he is one of the sanest and most clear-thinking people around here.
All I am saying is, that constructing events based on logic is rather hard when we lack sufficient information, and that is why it only leads to fiction and speculation and is a waste of effort.
I personally don't believe in such an approach under such circumstances (people like Richard Brian Nunweek does this all the time, no offense), but that's just me -- as I said, I am no novelist and I fail to see how one can aplly logic on information that dpesen't exist. People can indulge in it if they want, but since I was among those who were challenged to do it, and I feel it is pointless, then I must say so. Others can do what they want.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 27, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
I agree with AP absolutely.Robert was simply asking for a reasonable example of the logistics
involved here.Its pretty obvious that a number of local people knew Barnett some of whom testified as witnesses.Not once do we hear of any behaviour that gave rise to suspicion by any of the neighbours despite reports of his rows with her.Indeed its Mary Kelly rather than Barnett who is attributed to the fiery temper. Nor do we hear that after the four hour interview with police which indicates that they placed him under strong suspicion immediately that any of the police or local people suspected Barnett either then ie immediately afterwards or in the years that followed---and they would all,including the journalists ,have loved to have known the identity of her killer.There wasnt then apparently, nor was there since ,a hint of any incriminating evidence.
So it is in the context of this,as well as the difficulties he would have had concealing the heart and whatever other trophies he may have stolen, together with destroying all the incriminating clothing-all of it not just his shirt or whatever,and cleaned himself thoroughly of all blood etc.that requires clarification.
I mean I could suggest that it was Queen Victoria herself who in disguise and anxious to protect the reputation of her family,stole out with John Brown or another trusted servant to kill Mary Kelly in the small hours-because she believed Mary was blabbing on about Eddie!
Immediately,anyone who took this as a possible scenario would ask quite how she managed to get from her palace to Millers Court and back at the balcony for the Lord Mayor"s show and in her full regalia that same day
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3197
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Really, Natalie.
Now it is getting ridiculous.
It is not the same thing.
1) These types of murders are generally performed by the husband or boyfriend, which the police always knows. This is not speculation; this is facts, based on what we know from murders of these character. People in the same position as Barnett will always be the prime suspect in domestic murders and will be given the first priority.
Unfortunately the police note books and interrogation notes in the old suspect files are lost for all eternity, so we will never know what was said during the interrogation or what the police really felt about him during the interrogation process or how they treated him.
2) They did have a row and although he left on his own consent, he was the one that was not happy with the situation. That is clear from his own testimony. He had a motive - not a big one, from the information we have, but these kinds of murders have been performed with lesser motives than that. In fact, some have been performed without no clear motive at all, besides some ghosts inside the boyfriend's or husband's head.
3) Barnett had lived there for over a year with her, therefore he knew the premises well. Unless someone who was unfamiliar with both her and Millers Court sneaked in while she was asleep (which I don't believe), it is reasonable to suggest that she was killed by someone she knew and felt comfortable with.
4) He had been a fish porter, and therefore most likely carried or owned a knife, or a set of knives.
5) It is a big mistake to assume, that just because the neighbours didn't find anything in his appearance that would reveal such conduct. Well, news flash -- they seldom do! Neighbours seldom know half of what is going on in a domestic household.Besides, your information is wrong. We have at least one witness stating that MJK couldn't stand the sight of him and that she didn't like his visits. One wonder why.
These are facts or implications that we can pick up from the material, and although it certainly is not enough in order to build a case against him (it is circumstancial to say the least), he is still the most logical suspect if you don't buy JtR.
Queen Victoria or any other doesen't apply on any of the points above! Nor do anyone else. Not Hutchinson. And Flemming we know practically nothing about.
Therefore the case against Barnett is a natural one since he has a natural connection to it, no matter how thin.
News flash again; blood-stained clothing and the problems with carrying and keeping a heart (which we don't even know was taken by the killer from the premises in the first place!!!!) is a big problem for ANYONE who needs an alibi and have no aim to look suspicious! Not just Barnett.
That is what we can deduce and speculate about from the facts we have to deal with.
To construct scenarios out of nothing -- with so many question marks, and an alibi that is not even verified, is really pointless. The most crucial police documenation, which could give us leads about how the interrogations worked, what was said and how certain alibis were addressed (not to mention why the suspects were released) are gone and therefore we are pretty much left in the dark. As I said, with such loose factual ground, guess-working can turn it into anything we want it to be.
But in my mind the facts we DO have, implicate enough in order to make him worthy of investigation. And he is the only one in her circuit of friends that we can say this about. Therefore, considering the circumstances, he is a far more natural suspect, than Queen Victoria or Daffy the Duck. But there are many detailed questions that we will NEVER know the answer to, no matter how much we speculate.
Robert,
Ouch! Good one. 
All the best.
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 27, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Glenn
I have only one thing to say to you and that is:
Timothy Donovan.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3198
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
AP,
What?
Elaborate.
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: 1649
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Glenn,
You are saying that this murder which has had people the World over pondering on the horror and madness of it for over a century,was in fact nothing more than a typical "domestic"which police are very familiar with and had Joe not tried to do the bogus ripper job with it the police would have seen the murder for what it was a simple "domestic".
Well most of those who saw this domestic/cum bogus handiwork never quite recovered from it.It haunted most till the end of their days and the general consensus was that the murder had been committed by a raving madman.
so clearly the police were not actually familiar with such an exraordinary sight as met their eyes
on this occasion.
If Joe Barnett did commit this murder then apart from anything else he must have been an actor of
world class capable of diabolical frenzy one minute followed by a performance of unbearable anguish /fainting the next and finally being congratulated on how well he was managing himself- despite the dreadful circumstances-by the coroner at the inquest.
Some man this Joe.
Natalie
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3199
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I am sorry, but our pre-fabricated conceptions regarding the human psyche doesn't always fit into reality.
Domestic mutilations are actually not as uncommon as some will make us believe -- several cases like this one -- no matter how gruesome they appear -- proves that, as they usually are being perpetrated by boyfriends or husbands with no prior crime records or no apparent disturbing signs in general. It is not like it is written "mutilator" across their foreheads. Usually these types of offenders do get caught (when we refer to modern domestic mutilation cases), but that is often thanks to modern forensics -- an aid that was not available in 1888. Not necessarily because the murderer couldn't hold face.
Your view upon the murderer as "an actor of
world class capable of diabolical frenzy one minute followed by a performance of unbearable anguish /fainting the next and finally being congratulated on how well he was managing himself- despite the dreadful circumstances" is logical (from where we sit) and corroborates quite well with how I first saw things.
However, later research on my part (with help from distinguished and experienced researchers and police officers) made me aware of that my conceptions of this was not attached to reality. There are loads of cases like this, performed by a totally inexperienced perpetrator -- and this being their one and only offense -- so unfortunately such presumptions about the human mind and conduct does not apply in real life. No matter how strange it seems to us.
I wouldn't have supported this possibility, if there weren't loads of evidence from other crimes suggesting its occurrence. And I have several times put forward examples of this, and far worse cases than that of Mary Kelly have seen the light, although that is gruesome and terrible enough. But people don't always work psychologically as we assume they would. Love and relationships can make us do horrible things, whatever the motive. And unfortunately people are capable of the most horrendous stuff, and usually the ones we least expect.
All the best,
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 27, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 3:48 am: |
|
Leanne,
Thanks for that information.I haven't read the book you mention,but I gather from your words that the report submitted by Aberline is reproduced in full,as is Hutchinson's statement.
Perhaps you can print it on the boards.Maybe then we can all comment on what Aberline wrote.Perhaps someone will interpret the words in a somewhat different way than that generally accepted. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 4:31 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
'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 opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her for about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man, and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.
Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment, and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11:30 am., to the Shorditch mortuary to identify the deceased. Several arrests have been made on suspicion of being connected with the recent murders, but the various persons detained have been able to satisfactorily account for their movements and were released.
F.G. Abberline Inspr
T Arnold Supt'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
G'day,
Joseph Barnett said he last visited Mary Kelly between 7:30 & 8:00p.m. on the 8th of November. "I told her I was very sorry I had no work and that I could not give her any money." (FACT).
Maria Harvey, (the prostitute Barnett moved out over saying that he would return when she left), was there and left as soon as Barnett showed up. (FACT). Miss Harvey, the laundress, likely left the unclaimed clothes for Mary to sell on 'Lord Mayors Day' to make a little cash. (GOOD GUESS).
No one knows what Mary and Joe talked about but I bet he was he was told, (by Mary or Maria Harvey herself), that Maria had found lodgings elsewhere. He wasn't invited to return. Mary probably also harped about her need for money and bragged that she knew how to get it. (SPECULATION).
Kelly was spotted in the 'Horn Of Plenty' by Maurice Lewis between 10:00pm. and 11:00 pm. drinking with Julia venturney and "Dan". ('LLOYD'S NEWSPAPER' NOV 11). Dan could have been Joe's brother or it may have been Joe himself.
11:45 p.m. Kelly was seen entering her room with "carroty moustache" (INQUEST).
Barnett was likely back at Buller's playing whist, still thinking about his rejection. (SPECULATION, BASED ON BARNETT'S KNOWN ALIBI).
12:30 a.m. Barnett stopped playing whist and went to bed. (ALIBI) He probably had intensions of rising early to try to find work on 'Lord mayor's Day, like so many other people. (SPECULATION).
DESCRIPTION OF BULLER'S LODGING HOUSE BASED ON RESEARCH: For about 3 or 4 shillings a week each inmate had a seperated sleeping compartment, filled with a bed, a chair, and a clothes box to which he had his own unique key.
A pantry in the kitchen provided a seperate safe for the food of each inmate. Meals wern't at specified times because casual dock workers and such couldn't be restricted to any time-table.
Due to the mad rush of people eager to find paid work on 'Lord Mayor's Day' preference was given to those who were at the markets early and carried notes of recommendation from previous employers (FACT BASED ON RESEARCH)
2:00a.m. George Hutchinson claimed to have seen Mary Kelly outside seeking money. He saw her take "collar & cuffs' into her room. Hutchinson (amateur detective) waited 3 quarters of an hour, so likely went away at about 3:00a.m. (HUTCHINSON'S STATEMENT)
3:00am. Mary Ann Cox returned to her room. Kelly had stopped singing and her light was out (INQUEST)
Joseph Barnett could have left Buller's at this time or was perhaps waiting there outside. He could have left, dressed for work, with the intensions of pleading with her and/or showing her how eager he was to find work.
Now pick that to pieces!!!!
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Hi Leanne and Glenn,
What you have provided between you does, I accept,
provide us with a reasonable scenario for Joe having committed this murder---but only up to the point he goes to Mary Kelly"s room.
With regard to how he cleared himself of blood stains it does not really hold up in the context of
-the box for clothing in his lodging house to which he had a unique key.You can bet that this key was handed over to police at the point of questioning and that they would have checked all his clothing both in and out of that box.They tell you that they were searching for bloodstained
clothing in various rooms throughout their search and that this was one of the reasons Anderson gave for placing Kosminski as his prime suspect viz he must have had a relative who helped him
to cover his tracks or else he lived "on his own"
and was therefore able to come and go without suspicion.So we know that one of the very first things they did was check a suspects clothing and rooms.
-Next,my point about the absence of hot and cold running water and the crucial need for privacy
while changing himself ,and then washing away all trace of blood and other organic matter disposing as well of all stained clothes----any change of attire would have aroused suspicion and how many out fits did a poor man possess at this time?One change of clothing I bet at the most.
All this before daylight if he wanted to be sure not to be seen.
If as Leanne suggested the other day he had used the pump in Millers Court people would have heard him as such a pump can still be seen today with its big handle capable of making quite a din especially with the sound of running water as well.Also he would have had to do this in the dark or people would have seen what he was up to.
So how he got himself clear of all bloodstained clothing as well removing blood from his ears face,hair ,nails ,shoes,etc to be able to present himself that same day to a four hour questioning
session requires some further justification in order to provide a reasonable theory for Joe Barnett being either the ripper or the murderer of Mary Kelly.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4188
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:18 am: |
|
I see, he pays good money for a bed but he only spends a couple of hours in it because he wants to look for work. But then he changes his mind and pops into Mary's instead. There, he has some kind of row with her and kills her in a fit of rage. But after the fit has passed he puts his thinking cap on and decides to mutilate her so that she'll look like the Ripper's work. But then his thinking cap drops off his head when he has a sudden fit of sentimentality and grabs her heart to take with him. But soon his thinking cap is on again for he manages to tidy himself up and be ready to face the police later that day.
Well, it looks like he didn't sell many oranges. Too busy!
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3204
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
Natalie,
Again, all those things you say about need for privacy, blood-stained clothes etc. applies to everyone -- whoever did the crime! Not just Joe Barnett. But anyone!
It does not in any way clear Barnett as such; these would be problems everyone would be faced with after a killing.
fact remains, somebody DID pull it off, but somehow some people seem convinced of that Barnett couldn't and that only an experienced serial killer would be able to.
Secondly,
The bed at Buller's is not really verified as evidence, we just assume that the police checked it out and that it was OK, but we actually have no confirmation on it whatsoever.
Furthermore, I can't see how we can establish that he should have been there all night just because he paid for it sure he needed the money as good as anybody, but we can never know what things that may have turned up. How do we know that? Where is the document saying that?
We can't in any way state with certainty that he spent every hour of the night or early morning there. Those who have evidence of that, display it immediately.
Again, these are totally unfruitful speculations and efforts of guess-making regarding an event happened 117 years ago, where we have so many holes in the information, that it looks like Swiss cheese.
"...requires some further justification in order to provide a reasonable theory for Joe Barnett being either the ripper or the murderer of Mary Kelly."
Natalie,
I gave you the reasons for why Barnett should be investigated above -- those are more or less facts we can read out from the documentation and from crimes of similar nature.
Apparently, you seem more interested in theories and speculations outside the facts, than looking at the facts as such. Since that is the case, I can't help you.
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: 1651
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Major error:
Not everybody was caught in the same circumstances as Joe Barnett recent ex of Mary Kelly
Joe was unique in that he came under suspicion immediately and was questioned for four hours by the police.It was only Joe who had to prepare himself for such questioning precisely because he had come under scrutiny for that reason..You make it sound as though everybody had to wash,change
do whatever within the very same time scale as Joe Barnett.
They did not.
It was Joe and only Joe as far as we know who had to answer police questions about his whereabouts for four hours on the very same day as Mary was found dead.
And this is the problem.I dont believe he had the time or facilities in which to prepare for it.
You claim we dont know whether they searched his room.
The police claimed they searched half the rooms in Whitechapel over the ripper case.Why on earth would they have left Joe Barnett out -their very first port of call?-----and when they searched these rooms they were looking in every case for blood stained clothing and knives or murder weapons because in the case of Mary kelly its believed other instruments may have been used as well.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Glenn
I suppose I meant that just across the road from MJK on the night of her murder was Timothy Donovan, a man with a considerable record of violent and criminal behaviour; and a man who had some contact with almost every Ripper victim; and a man who eventually went on to murder and mutilate his wife.
Now, as far as I know there is no record of Timothy Donovan ever being investigated or even interviewed by the police in connection with the murder of MJK.
However at Annie Chapman's inquest he gave evidence of seeing Chapman at the common lodging house at 1.45 am.
So he kept late hours.
Personally I find it difficult to believe that it is necessary to weave a fairly improbable set of circumstances around a character like Joe Baggins here - who was interviewed by the police and then released - when we have a prime suspect like Timothy Donovan, kicking his heels at unearthly hours of the morning and with a window view into MJK's room, and a vicious penchant for violence against women.
I do like farce, but I prefer it on the stage. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3208
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Natalie,
What time scale?
We have addressed this before.
The murder wasn't discovered until several hours after it occurred (if we are to believe that the cry of "Oh murder" indicates the time of death), and Joe and everyone else was called even later. We are talking several hours after the murder occurred. There would be plenty of time for anyone to get themselves ready for an interview -- even Barnett.
I really don't see the problem.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3209
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
AP,
That is interesting, but there is really nothing whatsoever except pure speculation indicating that he had anything to do with the murder of MJK. Or that he had any connection with her -- or was a regular client of hers.
But I agree on, that his location is an interesting point and therefore could be worth looking into. But until we find more information, he is so far only a character that appears in the context of the Chapman murder.
By the way, as far as I know it is not totally established with evidence that he was the same Timothy Donovan that mutilated his wife. I think that is still under some debate (at least according to the Jack the Ripper A--Z). But that could of course be old outdated information.
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: 1789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Well Glenn
Donovan certainly fits in, and so far it does appear that this is the same Timothy Donovan who murdered and mutilated his wife - and had the record for violent criminal offences - his date of birth and age at sentencing seem to confirm that.
But nothing can be certain.
Personally I have always seen the murder of Kelly as having in its essential make-up the involvement of someone from across the road at the common lodging house.
It has always disturbed me that Dorset Street was - criminally speaking - in the hands of the immigrant Irish, and that the victim, MJK, was immigrant Irish.
We must not be shy of the fact that the common lodging houses - and the associated rentals - in Dorset Street were in fact brothels, in control of the Irish mafia, and as I have always maintained, if a jew-boy, cockney, spic, or Liverpool businessman tried to get aggressive on that street they would have been horse meat within the hour.
The only man safe on Dorset Street after dark - apart from the Irish mafia - would have been made of rigid steel, or bent copper. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3211
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Interesting opinions and information.
If what you say is true, it is of course worthy of investigation. And it is not the first time -- I might add -- you have delivered very interesting leads. Maybe I should change to your type of brandy after all.
Still, what I am looking for in the context you suggest, is a more personal connection with MJK, because I am prepared to bet on that it was perpetrated by someone she knew. Some facts do indicate it, and looking at similar crimes, that has usually been the case, and in nearly all cases I know, by the closest male relative. And Barnett still fits this picture the best in my view.
So, until a proven proven link between Mr Donovan and MJK can be established it will never reach the status beyond speculations, as far as I am concerned.Besides, we don't really know for sure that MJK were Irish -- we only have Barnett's word upon that and she could have filled Barnett with a complete fairy-tale.
But it is by all means a trail that is certainly worthy of closer investigation.
I would also be very keen to suggest that Mr Joe Flemming would be an interesting subject in this context, but unfortunately we know practically nothing about him.
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: 1696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
G'day,
NATALIE: By revealing that common lodging houses near St. Katherines Docks had a clothing box for each inmate with a unique key, I didn't mean to suggest that Barnett used it to store his blood stained clothing and Mary's heart. He must have been aware that he'd be the first person searched and it would have been suicide to return to Buller's with those things.
How do we know what Mary's killer was wearing at the time he mutilated her? I bet he had his pants and coat off at least. He could have wiped any blood that was on him and wiped his knife clean with a shirt, (his or Mrs. Harvey's), before throwing it on the fire. I really dont thinbk he would have kept his shoes on.
ROBERT: The 3 or 4 shillings for a bed at Common Lodging Houses payed for the entire week, and all casual labourers would have wanted to get up early to find work to pay for the next weeks bed.
I don't believe Barnett was mimicing the Ripper. It would have been easy to mutilate the cause of his torment because he had already gone to extreme lengths to try to keep her.
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Glenn
believe me, I can see the attraction of a personal crime in the case of Mary Kelly, for I have always been against the idea of the total mutilation of Mary Kelly as being the apex of the killer's crimes.
Taking into account the pardon that was offered in this one and only case in a series of murders, and the very provoking fact that the pardon was offered to persons who may have been involved in the circumstance of the murder but not the actual crime, I am naturally dubious about any single suspect who might be named.
I have always felt that the pardon was offered at this stage of the police investigation because the competent authorities in the Home Office and Scotland Yard did realise that the murder of Mary Kelly could only have been carried out with the tacit approval of the persons in control of Dorset Street at that time.
In other words, more than one person was involved. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Leanne
In his memoirs Walter Dew spoke about the floor of Millers Court being covered in blood which he slipped on.Maybe the murderer escaped from Millers Court in just his Long Johns, bare foot,heart in a red handkerchief slung over his shoulder Dick Whittington like . But if he did have his shoes on when he left then they would have been pretty bloody.
AP,that was a cool piece of deduction
re a case for Donovan and wham bang on re the composition of the criminal gangs of Spitalfields!
Natalie |
Clive Appleby
Police Constable
Username: Clive
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Although not new to JTR studies, this is my first ever post, so going by the evidence of what I have seen to date, I am prepared for the inevitable backlash !
I also make the customary humble apology in case any of what follows has appeared before, although some of the current debate on this thread may suggest otherwise.
My main comments are on the issue that if Barnett (or whoever) was the killer, how did he clean himself up ?
Not that he got everything right, but Dr. Thomas Bond stated in his letter to the Home Office (10th November A49301C/21) "The murderer would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands and arms must have been covered...."
This would not therefore have required a massive clean up operation. One of the "mysteries of Millers Court" relates to Abberline's statement at the inquest that there had been a roaring fire which had burnt the spout off the kettle that was in the grate. (Although nobody is certain how old the fire was, it seems that it must have been lit on or after the 9th November as most of the clothes left by Maria Harvey would appear to have been burned in it).
Abberline's reasoned assumption was that it was to provide light. Kettles either contain water or they are empty. If empty, there is no liquid acting as a coolant (as for a car radiator). I am not an expert in physics and co-efficients of linear expansion of metals and all that stuff (*), but I suspect that if empty there would have been more chance of the spout suffering serious damage. This then poses the question, at what point was it emptied of water ?
How about a scenario whereby the killer cleans himself up using some of the clothing left by Maria Harvey along with water in the kettle. As the clothing has then become wet as well as bloodstained, a strong heat is then required to destroy this evidence. The remaining clothes and possibly other fuel already in the room (bearing in mind it was November) provide a fire of sufficient intensity to eventually burn the evidence and damage the spout of the (now empty)kettle in the process. If this scenario is plausible, then talk of external water pumps, accomplices, etc. would be academic.
Although I am not a "Barnettist" through and through, I do not think that he can be dismissed lightly as a suspect for the murder of MJK (although I do not believe there is anything at all to link him to any other killing).
He had a motive, he had opportunity and he would have had excellent knowledge of the "domestic routines" of both MJK herself and Millers Court / Dorset Street. I agree with Glenn that the killer of MJK needed this knowledge.
It is often said that Kelly was a victim of JTR but the excessive mutilations were a "natural progression" of a serial killer's bloodlust and with kelly, he could do his work in his own time and undisturbed.
What worries me about this, especially given the extremely limited escape options from 13 Millers Court, is, even though it might have been early hours of the morning, how did the killer know that he wouldn't be disturbed and that somebody such as a "live in lover" (especially if they had a key) wasn't going to turn up at any moment ? Only someone "close to home" would be able to make such a risk assessment (or if a total stranger to Kelly they would have had to have done an extensive "stakeout" over a prolonged period).
I also believe that Kelly must have known her Killer. Despite being intoxicated, given her known concerns about JTR, would she really have invited a total stranger into no.13, stripped off folded her clothes neatly (and then possibly gone to sleep in his presence) ? (OK it could be legitimately argued whether "Blotchy Face" as seen by Mary Ann Cox was a stranger, but I suspect that he might have been a known and trusted client rather than a random pick up, especially as he wandered in with a quart of beer).
It is extremely unlikely that the killer entered No. 13 without Kelly being aware. Otherwise, why and how did he do this ? Did the killer take a random stroll down Millers Court looking for a victim ? Would she have been that unwise to have left the door open and, if it was a spring lock, then like a yale, it would have locked automatically when closed. Even on the assumption that the killer knew that there was a lone female "victim" in the room, Did the Killer then work out for himself that he could gain entry by putting his hand through the broken window to release the bolt ? Again, if the murderer did enter without kelly's knowledge because she was already asleep at the time, then the person must have either had a key or had detailed knowledge of the lock arrangement. Barnett is one of the few that would have fitted this bill.
(I won't go into detail about domestic murders, suffice to say that I tend to support most of Glenn's observations)
Whilst still on the subject of Barnett, can someone enlighten me to the source of Barnett being interviewed by the police for four hours ? The only reference to this I have seen is as reported in "The Star" of 10th November, where Barnett apparently said to the reporter that he was taken to Millers Court where he was kept for 2.5 hours.
I would also be curious as to any intelligent (or better still evidential observations) on whether Barnett was traced by the Police or whether he went to them voluntarily. According to the Daily Telegraph report of 10th November Barnett voluntarily went to the Police on 9th November, having heard that someone had been murdered in Dorset Street. (This seems a bit curious, unless he had heard specifically that it was MJK who had been murdered).
Barnett seems to have had a busy day on 9th November. Not only did he go to the police after hearing about the murder, and was taken to Millers Court where he spent 2.5 hours, (Either making his statement there or at a local station) but he also went at some point to the "pub near Bullers", where the reporter from the Star tracked him down. ( I note that he wasn't too distraught to willingly give an interview)!
keep up the "Cut and Thrust" of debate and I'll wait for the backlash !
ps Sorry this post has been so long - but I've got a lot of ground to make up. I promise that anything in the future will be shorter.
(*) sidetracking I know, but I believe it was the brilliant defence barrister Edward Marshall Hall that totally destroyed the credibilty of an "expert" witness for the prosecution in a murder case by making his very first question "What is the co-efficient of linear expansion for lead" ? For what should have been a basic question for the expert, he was totally dumbstruck and simply didn't know the answer ! |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:26 pm: |
|
G'day Clive,
Welcome! Here's what Bruce Paley wrote: 'Into the midst of this scene came Joseph Barnett, sometime in the early afternoon. "I heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court" he later told the press "and on my way there I met my sister's brother-in-law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the court and there saw the police officer and told him who I was and where I had been the previous night."
The police took Barnett to the station where he was interviewed by Inspector Abberline. "They kept me about four hours", Barnett told the press, "examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free". ('Lloyd's Newspaper' Nov 11). Speaking to the 'Star' Barnett said that the had kept him for two and a half hours.'
LEANNE |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 12:24 am: |
|
Robert Charles
Good one (split personality)
Luved it
Restless Spirit
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 12:36 am: |
|
G'day,
Buller's was opposite Bishopsgate Police Station, so if a reporter interviewed him in a pub near Buller's, I'd say the reporter was waiting outside the Police Station waiting for an exclusive!
It certainly would have been suicide to walk right past Bishopsgate Police Station to get to Buller's to put his bloodstained clothes and heart into his clothes box!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on March 01, 2005) |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 32
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 3:29 am: |
|
Leanne,
Thanks for that information.As it's about Hutchinson will have to leave ir for that board. |
Clive Appleby
Police Constable
Username: Clive
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for the info. from Paley about the Lloyds Weekly News Report of 11th November. Interesting in this one that Barnett said he went to Miller's Court whereas according to the Reporter in the Star, "He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street". I suspect that this is a reflection on the quality of reporting rather than any inconsistency on Barnett's part.
On the point of kelly's heart, I have to go with Paul Begg on this one. The ambiguity of Bond's report leaves us in doubt as to whether it was "absent" from the room or "absent" from the pericardum.
Harry,
I'm not sure why you say in response to Leanne's post that "This is about Hutchinson" ? |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3214
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Hi Clive,
Goodness grace, that was indeed a splendid post you put up above! A large number of great observations.
"How about a scenario whereby the killer cleans himself up using some of the clothing left by Maria Harvey along with water in the kettle. As the clothing has then become wet as well as bloodstained, a strong heat is then required to destroy this evidence. The remaining clothes and possibly other fuel already in the room (bearing in mind it was November) provide a fire of sufficient intensity to eventually burn the evidence and damage the spout of the (now empty)kettle in the process. If this scenario is plausible, then talk of external water pumps, accomplices, etc. would be academic."
This, I think, is interesting -- and in my mind it makes sense.
As you point out, I do believe the extreme heat of the fire in the fireplace needs to be explained somehow and it is not impossible that it could have been used to burn some of the perpetrators clothes -- his shirt, for example.
In any case, I can't see no "ordinary" reason for a fire to get so heated that even the police noted this detail especially.
You are also quite correct, that it would not be absolutely necessary for him cleaning himself up that much.
And for the record, I also agree with Paul Begg -- it is not conformed without doubt that the killer actually took the heart with him; it could very well have been destroyed in the fire, for all we know.
Welcome to the Boards, Clive.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 601
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Hi,
I think the general notion is that the reason for going back to Miller's Court to search the fireplace was to search for any human remains that might have been burnt: meaning the heart in this case.
Of course, that is only an interpretation, but if correct would indicate that the killer took the heart with him. This is because it is reported that nothing but burnt clothes were found in the fireplace. If they were searching the fireplace for something else, then it remains possible that the heart was simply "outside of the body", not "outside of the room". In such a case, I would think it's location would be listed, along with the other locations of body parts.
Although certainly the situation is not "beyond all doubt", it appears the heart was most probably missing from the scene.
I fully agree with the cleaning up, and it would make sense if the killer used the water in the kettle to clean up. They may even have started the fire simply to warm up the water for this purpose. The burning of the clothes, which some have done experiments on, would most likely have just smoldered rather than burst into a roaring fire (especially if wet and blood stained). If the kettle was empty (water used for cleaning), however, the fire could easily have been hot enough for it to eventually break, and the spout come off.
As for Barnett being interested in who was killed in Miller's Court, since he used to live there, I would think this not unusual. Also, if he doesn't know it's Mary, checking at the police station would not be so strange either. The Ripper's victims were generally much older than Mary, so Barnett may have thought one of the other residence more "at risk" anyway. This, of course, assuming that this report is true and that Barnett did not kill MJK himself.
Anyway, I thought that a great post. Welcome aboard.
- Jeff |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 35
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
Clive,
I was referring to Aberline's report on his interview with Hutchinson.It is better left for discussion,if any,on the Hutchinson thread.
There is one interesting observation to be made. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
The 'Daily Telegraph' November 10 report said about Joseph Barnett: 'He was indoors yesterday morning when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset Street, but he did not know who the victim was. He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct.'
'He voluntarily went to the police..' doesn't necessarily mean he voluntarily went to the Police STATION. Most of the police would have been outside Miller's Court.
On his way to Dorset Street he could have bumped into his sister's brother-in-law who told him it was Marie, (but I believe he already knew).
He probably got there in the early afternoon and was kept there for two-and-a-half hours before the police took him to Bishopsgate Police Station for four. After he spoke to the reporter in the pub, the police could have taken him back to Miller's Court, (by that time the body had been taken to the mortuary), that's why some newspaper reports stated that he wasn't located until the night while others imply that he was there earlier.
LEANNE |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 9:15 am: |
|
"The bed at Buller's is not really verified as evidence, we just assume that the police checked it out and that it was OK, but we actually have no confirmation on it whatsoever. "
I understand the spirit behind what you're saying, Glenn. However, so much of the historical record has been lost that I think we just might have to take a stab (no pun intended) and assume a few things. Personally, I am willing to assume that with an intensive manhunt on, that the police would have thoroughly checked out Barnett's alibi. He's too obvious a suspect in MJK's murder for me to believe that this angle was ignored.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 603
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
As we've discussed before, the statement is ambiguous. It doesn't say he went to the police station, but it doesn't say he went to the police in any particular location. As you indicate a few posts earlier, the police station was next to his lodging house, so that is simply the closest location for him to check (assuming he hears of the murder while still at his lodging house). But you are correct, we cannot be 100% positive he went there to find out who the victim was. He may have gone to the scene, spoke with police there, and then they took him back for questioning. In either case he apparently went with (or to) the police without incident.
- Jeff |
C.Shaw
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hello,
I am also new, so I was wondering if some police person could clear something up for me please.Having checked out the suspect info on this website, I do believe Barnett a strong contender.I do believe he lived reasonably long.Has his handwriting ever been evaluated? He must have signed censuses, documents,wills,ect. I was wondering if anyone has bothered to try and match his writing with the hundreds of apparent ripper communications yet? Or has nobody tried this yet? |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn, It is always good to be on a thread in witch you are involved. Clive, Your post are well thought out and written but I disagree with a few of your Ideas. The ripper had to have known Kelly because Kelly would not take a strange man back to her room? Over estimating Kelly's charactor is a big mistake that is often made by people who study the Kelly murder. It is hard to imagine that Kelly would take a strange man back to her room during the autumn of terror but it was a reality of life in the eastend. Kelly has become a tragic figure. She was young and by all acounts attractive. She is the ripper victim that recieves the most sympathy. However, Kelly was a prostitute and she made her money off strange men. Mary was desperate for money. I doubt that the rent was her top priority. She may of had some concerns about her rent being due that morning but food and drink were probably her top concern. Kelly would not undress infront of a strange man? I disagree. She was a prostitute. A little bit of nudity is required when having sex. In my oppinion Kelly undressed down to her chemise. She did not get completly nude. [I feel she would have.] I do not believe Kelly would of had a problem undressing in front of a stranger and she probably folded her cloths as she went along. The odd thing to me is that the ripper let her undress and fold her cloths. The fact that Kelly invited her killer back to her room and undressed is not proove that she knew her attacker. The fact that she was able to undress before she was attacked does raise a flag.
Over estimating the rippers cunning is another mistake that people make when they study the murders. The ripper was a cunning killer only because he did not get caught. The woman he attacked probably had more to do with his illusiveness then he did. They took him to the place were they knew interuption was least likely. I realise that the crime scenes appear risky [They were.] but who knew the area better then the unfortunates? Who knew the routines of the constables better then the victims? The ripper killed woman in the streets. He seemed to be totally unafraid of the danger and of being caught. I think he was a disorganised and impulsive killer who struck when the opportunity presented itself. The Idea that the killer had to be someone with knowledge of Kelly and her personal life or that the killer would of had to stake out Kelly to gain such knowledge is very speculative. All Kelly would of had to do is assure the ripper that they would not be disturbed or tell him she lived alone. The idea that the ripper would have been afraid to strike Kelly in her room because of limited escape options or because he feared that someone might stop by is wrong. [In my oppinion.] The ripper took risk when commiting every murder and he seemed to be indifferent to the danger.
Your friend,CB
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn.
Thanks for your message, & yes, please call me David C.
You surprised me there, that mutilating killers of that degree are thicker on the ground than I'd have thought. I've never been a policeman, just a keen student & amateur detective, so I'm not qualified to argue with about that.
I'm not, as it may have come across, someone who thinks Abberline was a "Sherlock Holmes". In fact, in my message to you on a "Chapman" thread, I agreed that his choice of G.C. was very poor character judgment, and his statement at that time was highly questionable.
I just considered that, being under the microscope, and under the heaviest pressure of his career with the Ripper murders, he would have exercised the greatest care and attention to detail when dealing with a leading suspect, as Barnett was after the Kelly murder.
Like anyone else, without evidence I can only give a personal opinion, and that has always been that Jack the Ripper, whoever he was, murdered Kelly along with the previous four, or five if you include Tabram. However, I personally don't think that Tabram was a Ripper victim, and there seems to be some doubt about Stride too.
Having said all that, it's far from impossible that Barnett killed Kelly, as all your points have shown. You're quite right of course that these serial killers DO influence other unbalanced minds. It may be that McKenzie & Coles were two separate examples of this.
I'm sorry if it came across that I painted Abberline as infallible.
Best Wishes Glenn.
DAVID C. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Hi Clive.
Welcome to the boards, from one who has not been here very long either.
This particular thread seems to be getting more and more complicated by continuous new ideas.
Personally, I believe that the man who killed the the other four victims also killed Kelly, i.e. Jack the Ripper. Having said that,it's far from impossible that Barnett killed Kelly, as others, notably Glenn, have clearly demonstrated here.
But I don't believe that the Killer needed any knowledge of Miller's Court, or it's inhabitants.
We can't discount George Hutchinson's statement without evidence to the contrary. It was believed and acted upon by the police.
Jack the Ripper was an opportunist killer. If he was the "well-dressed man" & had propositioned Kelly, she probably would have informed him that her room was nearby if he was willing to pay the price for comfort.
As others have said here, the Ripper must have had a manner that disarmed and allayed any fears in his victims, and this man probably came across as a real gentleman.
Once inside No.13, he would eventually have had to go through the motions of having sex with Kelly, therefore removing most of his clothes and putting them out of the way. I believe that he then attacked her completely by surprise, by producing the knife when appearing to reach for the money to pay her. I agree with Glenn & Leanne, that Kelly was wide-awake when attacked, whether it was by Barnett, or a stranger.
Just for argument's sake, if it was the well-dressed man, and he had undressed, supposedly for sex, little of his clothing would need to have been bloodstained, and that long overcoat would have covered all but the bottoms of his trousers. A pair of gloves could have concealed bloody hands.
ALL of this though, is dependent upon Hutchinson's statement being accurate and true.
Glenn and Leanne have put up a formidable case for how Barnett COULD have killed Kelly, and I wouldn't bet any money against their argument of this possibility. Indeed, Leanne believes that Barnett WAS Jack the Ripper. I personally can't believe that, but all here have their personal opinions, and are good arguments.
Well Clive, I hope you enjoy sharing your views with these knowledgeable people here, as much as I have.
Best wishes Clive.
DAVID C.
|
Nikita
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Hi,
I am just a tourist so I'll keep it brief.Was Barnetts issues here prostitution and Mary Kelly only.If so, why bring antisemetism into it.Was he also antisemetic.Why would he shout antisemetic abuse at Israel Shwarts - 'Lipski', and write the antisemetic graffitii on Glouston street.This has nothing to do with the issues that are the basis for him being a suspect.
If he is a suspect for the ripper, then why bother with the antisemitism. This is an unjustifiable sidetrack to his apparent motives here.Has he changed has motive mid-stream? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
