|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:16 pm: | 
|
Unfortunately I had to start a new thread simply because I do not think Barnettt was capitalizing on a sequence of horrendous murders. I did not want to add to the thread cum threat against Barnett and thought I would be a solitary voice in his favour. In fact I am absolutely appalled that a team of great experts in the subject could attribute such crimes to a man only accused of compassion and total perserverance with his woman.
Looking at the sequence of events from his own POV; OK so you have a chance to get away with it, if you want to you. The only catch is, you have to kill the woman you loved and only ever loved and I don't think this is something Barnett is capable of. If you love someone you would never kill them.
On a scout of view, it is easier for a sequence of murders to be of the same hand. This is the point - it fits in with all the other murders.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 57
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:47 pm: |
|
sorry, what I mean to say was that Barnett was incapable of it. Hope that makes it clear. (sic) ©
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 294
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:22 am: |
|
Martin,
Maybe no one did it?
SJR |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3945
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
Hi Martin,
Even if he did it or not, Barnett - because of the nature of his relation to Kelly - would be the prime suspect in any police investigation. That is just how things work.
You can't say that someone in love with a woman can't do those things. On the contrary, love does weird things to people. We have loads of cases that illustrates that.
I can't believe that people are still caught up in this romantic and - I have to say - rather naive (not to mention totally incorrect) misconception about human nature. Those who claim this can't happen, they in other words also claim that other cases never existed, but fact remains that crime history is littered with such examples.
And we definitely haven't enough information about Barnett in order to state that he was 'incapable'.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1808
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
G'day,
Jack London wrote about a case that occurred in Whitechapel in the year 1903 or 1903 in which Frank Cavilla was tried for cutting the throats of his wife and four starving children, whom he supposedly loved. The whole family was suffering after Frank lost his job. He was described as 'not given to drink' and 'gentle and affectionate' by all of their neighbours and was one of the last people thought to have been capable of such actions.
Colin Wilson wrote about a case in 1993 in which Dr. Yves Evenou, who appeared happily married, stabbed his wife eleven times.
Wilson also wrote of Hungarian Dr. Geza de Kaplany who married Hajna in 1962, then days after the wedding he tied her hands and feet to the bedposts, mutilated her face, breasts and genitals then proceeded to pour acid over her body. He later claimed that he didn't mean to kill her, but to make sure that she ceased to be attractive to other men.
Have you read about these cases Glenn?
LEANNE |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3946
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 7:02 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
No, I must admit those particular ones have entirely eluded me. Thanks for that information.
But I am not surprised, they are by no means in minority.
Love can make humans do terrible things beyond our darkest expectations, and it is probably the oldest motive behind very gruesome and horrifying murders. Passion, jealousy, a need to control, sexual frustration etc. ... all those are ingredients that lay behind many of our worst nightmares in crime history. And in a large majority of the cases, the relationship has been considered a very 'loving' and friendly one by friends and neighbours.
These occurrences are so many that they are impossible to keep track of.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
perhaps no one did what? Kill Mary Kelly? Or do you mean perhaps no one was Jack the Ripper?
Jenni |
Ms C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
....a man only accused of compassion and total perserverance with his woman.
.....you have to kill the woman you loved and only ever loved
That's a touching view Martin, but there really is no objective evidence the Kelly/Barnett relationship was ever like that.
They lived with each other. Barnett seems to have financially supported Kelly. After the relationship ended he continued to visit Kelly and possibly continued to offer what financial support his unemployment permitted (he claims this).
What else we know about the quality of the relationship comes from Barnett, who even if he had no connection with the murder had an interest as presenting the relationship as amicable but not overly passionate (since because most murders are domestic was a leading and automatic suspect).
It would not have been wise to 'bad-mouth' her, and he doesn't, but neither as far as I can see does he do or say anything that warrants asertions that she was his one and only love.
These kind of medium term liasons seem to have been common in the East-End - the other victims were involved in similar set-ups at different times. Co-habiting with a man had the same potential advantages (and disadvantages) for a prostitute then as now ; some would have entered it as an emotional involvement, some more as a businesslike arrangement, no doubt many as a bit of both. The men of course got a regular sexual partner, housekeeper and companion, and even perhaps someone they had intense feelings for, but which of those categories Joe and Mary fell into we have no good evidence to judge on. They took a fancy to each other and lived together, and seemed to jog along satifactorarily until he could no longer support them and she returned to the streets (though we only really have JB's word she ever entirely stopped working them even - casual prostitution can be almost a habit of mind as much as a trade).
Maybe she was the love of his life, maybe she was just someone he was fond of and found convenient to share a room and a bed with. Maybe he was the steady, persevering chap, forgiving but with enough moral principle to hate her involvement in the 'trade' that he appears to be from his statements and actions, maybe he was an altogether more possessive and violent character. On the basis of his own version alone, and the fragmentary glimpses of other witnesses I don't see how you can form a firm and balanced conclusion.
Best
Cate
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 306
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Jenni,
I was responding to Martin unflinching belief that Barnett and Sickert were incapable of committing these murders.
So to show him how ridiuclous a statement that was I posed that maybe no one killed these women. maybe they all committed suicide.
SJR |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 819
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Martin...
Most murders [ domestic type,as the Barnett-Kelly would be,if in fact,Barnett killed her..],are motivated by either revenge, jealousy,a financially based reason,or an enmity existing between the two parties.
Glenn is correct that Barnett would have been the first person considered in the murder.
The poster,Ms C. has some very good points about the quality of relationships in an environment such as the East End was. Most weren't of the Brady Bunch sort,if one was constantly worried about where their next meal was coming from.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2321
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
The Kelly /Barnett relationship appears to have followed the classic alcoholic/co-alcoholic pattern that can be found described in any book on Co-dependency.Barnett was the "care-taker".He would probably been as "addicted" to Mary as she was to her tipple.Things had also got pretty bad for both of them at the time of her murder-no money,Mary acting up and throwing him out,some big rows[but none we know of that night].Joe may,for the first time in their relationship have felt "un-needed"-and abandoned.That would have perhaps caused Joe great distress.May even have made him want to harm Mary especially if he saw her laughing and joking with clients that night.
So I think Joe could have killed her but I dont think he actually did.I think that had it been Joe he would have killed her during a row or by going round and smashing the place up and then going for her and I think that her neighbours would have heard them and at least one of them would have reported it to the police-as one or two of them did who had heard them rowing in previous weeks.But not one reported hearing such a row or seeing Joe there after 7 or 8 at night.Alternately Joe could have worked himself up into a rage thinking about all his humiliation etc and slipped into her room using his key and killed and mutilated her as she was awakened from sleep or was going to sleep.The savagery could have been carried out as part of his built up rage.
To me though it seems unlikely he would have cleaned himself up so well that none of the police who interviewed him only hours after the event noticed or found any sign of blood on any of his clothes or in his room.Not a cloth,not a spot of blood anywhere....and they would have searched his rooms....definitely.
Natalie
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 59
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 7:05 pm: |
|
Stan,
Your comments almost warrant no reply, but I shall try.
You just don't get it, to use your own words. There is no way those women could have committed suicide - the doctors said that the fatal wounds were caused by another person. The offical verdict was the inevitable death caused by person or persons unknown. I have an unflinching belief that no suicide was involved whatsoever.
How do you explain Mary Kelly's mutilation? Maybe Sickert crept in the room for new inspiration after her suicide?
I realise you don't really think they committed suicide, but what choice do you leave me in response but to play devil's advocate?
Your ideas about Sickert are indeed interesting and often plausible but you seem to form a diatribe against anyone who questions otherwise. Maybe this explains why some people then pick you up on minor spelling mistakes because you have wound them up the wrong way?
Glenn,
You raise a good point which I admit I had overlooked. Let me put it this way. I just think once the police caught up with certain suspects they would cross-examine everything. If he did commit the horrific crime, then not only was he a very good liar, which seems to contrast to what we know of his decent nature, but he was also calculated enough to cover his tracks. Maybe killing her is possible, but having to cut her up like that and then carry on like nothing happened?
The only alternative to match such a psyche is that he committed the whole sequence of murders but then he would have been identified along the way.
But as you know my friend, there is no real hard evidence describing his nature for me to really build a strong argument on. Yet I somehow feel it's not likely. I think the police would have ground some small shred of evidence against him had it been so. Although they didn't have the advantage of modern forensics, this meant they relied more heavily on cross-examing suspects and as far as I know, this is something they were very good at. Have you read The Man Who Hunted JTR" about Inspector Reid who was acclaimed for his detective skills? What is evident is that not one man at the time, on the ground or at the top, suspected Barnett of committing these or any other heinous acts.
Cate,
A touching view perhaps, but this is the feeling I gleaned from reading about Barnett and his relationship with Mary Kelly. Admittedly, that was a year ago and my mind is not as sharp as yesteryear.
Kind regards
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 311
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 7:21 pm: |
|
Martin,
Thanks for clearing up that I don't believe the women committed suicide. To be honest, I bet there was a newbie who actually thought it was an interesting idea.
Here's another angle to look at Martin. Maybe I'm the only one who calls crap what it is, crap. That is a possibility. And some people just don't like when their ideas, albeit crappy, are called crap. Your idea that Sickert couldn;t have done, because he was a painter, is pure crap. Like 100% pure crap. And then to boot you come out and say Barnett was incapable of committing the murders. More pure crap. Why don't you tell us who did it, why, and then back it up. maybe that will make your posts seem less like they were written like a three year old who enjoys making up silly poems.
And thanks for replying on the way I showed you how Sickert is actually connected to the case, proving another of your concepts is 100% pure ... well we all get the idea.
i can admit I am wrong when I am. i messed up in applying the alias Drewen to McCormick rather than Howells and Skinner. that was a mistake, and I can own up to it. Someone harping on it, and then stating that almost everything I say is wrong because of it, is just purely argumentative and untrue. But thats the point of some people, to argue little things, rather than to focus on the bigger picture, such as the fact that you shouldn't be forcefully eliminating any suspect based on your own preconceived notions. That is just uhhh crap.
SJR
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 60
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 7:42 pm: |
|
Stan,
I still don't believe you gave me evidence to show how Sickert was strongly connected to the murders. I was simply being polite. You just gave me the impression of a merry-go-round fairytale of a poster convinced of a suspect and then builds an argument around him. What I will not do for you is name who I think is responsible for the murders. I am more partial to elimiating suspects based on the facts or the likelihood.
How can you tell me that my idea is wrong? No-one can do that because no-one knows. If I stated something along the lines of 'Elizabeth Long saw a man at 5:00am" you could say I was factually incorrect and I would happily take it on board. But some people have a way of putting it better.
If you really don't like my points that much, then please feel free to ignore them. I would rather be educated, not insulted.
p.s. If you are accusing me of being a 3 year old, why do you use words like "crap" and "uhhh"?
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 312
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Martin,
Sickert is eliminated as a supect because he is a painter? That is a fact?
Barnett is eliminated because he was incapable of committing the murders? That is a fact?
I must have missed fact day in school then. Because that, to me, sounds like opinion, and baseless biased opinions.
If the numerous connective factors do not show that Sickert is connected to the case, then someone just won't accept facts. This is not to say that Sickert was the murderer, which you can not differentiate, obviously, from being connected to the case. Ignoring facts is very good detective work martin. Bravo.
Martin's idea: Sickert was not the murderer because he was a painter. WRONG. He may not be the murderer, but being a painter had nothing to do with that.
Martin's idea: Barnett was not the murderer because he was incapable of doing it. WRONG. He may not have been the murderer, but he was surely capable of committing the murders.
Like most, you confuse your opinion with logic. Your opinion, while in the long run may be correct, is illogical. the same as if I stated that the Sun wont rise at night because my foot is twelve inches long. The Sun won;t rise at night, but my feet have nothing to do with it.
I'm sure that logic evades you as your posts clearly show. I used those words because for a moment I believed I was communicating with a three year old, deducing the age from the intellectual level of your posts.
I suppose Lewis Carroll couldn't have done it because he was a writer, or Francis Thompson couldn;t have done it because he was a poet? One has nothing to do with the other. American rappers prove your opinions wrong every day, or just look at Johnny Cash. Writing great country songs didn't keep him from killing a man, and then writing a song about it.
It's okay to admit you are wrong. Some people, like myself, won;t hold it against you. the whole point is to learn and advance, not stick to your erroneous guns.
SJR |
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 62
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:22 pm: |
|
Stan,
You have got a little confused in how you are portraying my thoughts, and I suspect you are doing it deliberately... to wind me up.
An argument is often paraded against Sickett that he was JtR because he painted the crime scenes. Far from making him the murderer, I simply surmised that he was went about his daily routine doing what he did best - painting. He lived in the East End and painted something that wasn't just in the local news but also the international news.
Of course this doesn't rule out the idea that a painter can kill. Hope this makes it all clear otherwise we will just have to agree to disagree.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 313
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Martin,
Well I'll disagree with you again. I actually think this stament of yours makes sense, so I'm not disagreeing with you.
However, you portrayed your opinions as Sickert should be eliminated simply because others have portrayed him as the murderer because of his paintings. That is an illogical argument. What others do wrongly should have no bearing on Sickert as a suspect, or else wouldn;t all that is needed for me to suddenly eliminate your preferred suspect, whoever that may be, is create a ridiculous theory of why he was 'JTR'. See - that formula shows why your original logic was flawed.
This new statement, that he just painted what he saw, is fine. but you came off as insulted that I might accuse you of committing murder because you like to paint or create poems. This has nothing to do with you, or me. This is about what you said, and now that you have clarified this, it makes much more sense.
SJR |
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 63
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:41 pm: |
|
Stan, you are by far one of the most entertaining characters that I have met on the casebook.
I am also pleased that you are seeing sense at last.
Maybe one day we will laugh at our disagreements kiddo!
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 314
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:02 pm: |
|
Martin,
Thanks, I think.
Well after you explained it the right way it does make sense. Just so you know, Sickert is one of my two suspects, but paintings have nothing to do with my theory of why he did it. That's just silly to incorporate paintings as the reason or proof of why murders were committed.
SJR |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 823
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:34 pm: |
|
Martin..
Off the top of my head,I can't remember the exact name of the case in which someone killed a stranger [ maybe it was something to do with Tylenol..?] in order to set a precedent for the subsequent murder of a significant other....but there is one there and damn it,if I can remember the name of it.
I'm sure crime historians on the boards will be able to help out.
In any event,maybe the terminology, "copycat" isn't the proper word...If Barnett killed her, he wasn't copycatting a series of murders,but in reality linking MJK's to the already established precedence of other murders by this solitary murder. This is using the original premise that he killed MJK and MJK alone based on the way I understood your initial post,in that you don't feel that Barnett was the Ripper OR the murderer of Kelly.
The way I understand "copycat" is that killer A sets a pattern of [one or more] murders. Killer B imitates the murders of killer A,but not necessarily with an intimate party,but with no specific party..a stranger would do. The m.o. is the same or very similar,not necessarily out of linkage to the original murders,but out of some bizarre admiration or desire to emulate the previous unrelated killings. In other words,a murder without some tangible gain,other than the sick twisted desire of the killer.
So...maybe its more accurate to state that Barnett was attempting to link his murder of Kelly to the previous murders of women dating back to Smith, than to say he was copycatting the Ripper. Since Barnett was intimate with her,the influence of the Ripper may have provided him with an idea...a methodology..but from the basis of a personal,one-off murder,not the replication of a series of murders that were currently underway at that time by someone else....
Do you see what I mean,Martin? Although there is little difference,there is,at least to me, a difference at hand. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 824
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Martin...
Stan doesn't need my backup, but to eliminate Tumbelty for his alleged homosexuality...
Druitt..for his alleged homosexuality...
Stephenson...for his age
Kosminski...for the idea he was that far gone in 1888..
well...you see where this is going.
To eliminate them conclusively is a hard thing. What I am trying to do with Stephenson,for example, is find that one thing...that one thing that says that it was impossible for him to have been the Ripper [ shut up,Stan ! ].
But age and sexuality and profession and stereotypes aren't the way the Case makes progress. Take a hunch and run it down. I've done that myself and although it is admittedly discouraging,we are, after all, ALSO trying to clear the names of the innocent who have been lumped in with one [I hear you from here,Stan..] or two murderers. To accept that what we find out is damaging to the belief system we had is a good thing. Its a positive thing. And we all profit from each others trials and errors.. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3950
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:15 am: |
|
Howie boy,
"So...maybe its more accurate to state that Barnett was attempting to link his murder of Kelly to the previous murders of women dating back to Smith, than to say he was copycatting the Ripper. Since Barnett was intimate with her,the influence of the Ripper may have provided him with an idea...a methodology..but from the basis of a personal,one-off murder,not the replication of a series of murders that were currently underway at that time by someone else.... "
A very good explanation indeed. That is pretty much how I would see if, if Barnett DID do it.
Martin,
Well, actually, I don't think the police of 1888 was good at cross-examining at all seen by modern standards. In fact, I think several circumstances ( as well as how other witnesses were handled) suggests that their efforts in this direction were more or less questionable, and it is also possible that Jack the Ripper gave them tunnel vision because of the large pressure they were subjected to from the press and the authorities, not to mention the general public.
The Hutchinson interrogation shows quite clearly in my mind that the suspect and witness interviews of the day were a in its infancy and sometimes even a joke, and it is quite easy to come to the same conclusion when you study contemporary interrogation reports in other cases, where all original notes and interview documents still exists (in contrast to the Ripper case). They overlooked a million of things and the interviews of the late 19th and early 20th century - in any country at the time - generally leaves more questions than answers.
NEITHER of those interviews would be accepted by any police department today.
If they believed the Ripper did it, and we know they were desperate to find him at this point, all Barnett had to do was to display an alibi for the other murder dates and they would dismiss him.
As for Barnett's alibi for the Kelly murder, we are in no position today to evaluate it or determine how well it was checked out, since that information also is left out from the official reports. But I am not prepared to just sit back and say, that just because the police of 1888 (and especially Abberline) believed him then he must be cleared.
As for Sickert, I'd say it's quite hard to find any reason for why he should be linked to the crimes at all.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 319
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:30 am: |
|
Glenn,
I am glad you said that there is nothing whatsoever linking Sickert to the crimes, ignoring the fact that he is a suspect for over 30 years, a self proclaimed suspect for over 80 years, a theorist, proposed as an accomplice, he knew Mary Kelly, unless you still want to ignore all that evidence, and he knew almost every other major suspect. Discounting or ignoring all that, you are right, there is nothing that links Sickert to the crimes.
By the way, and you knew it couldn;t stop there, enlighten us as to what actually links, oh I don;t know, Montague John Druitt to the crimes please.
SJR |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3952
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:38 am: |
|
Stan,
What evidence? To my knowledge, being a 'self-proclaimed suspect' and a theorist can not be considered evidence.
And where is the evidence of that he knew Mary Kelly?
There is not that much linking Druitt to the crimes either, but at least he was a contemporary suspect. Not that it means something of value as such, but at least his mentioning in the Macnaghten memoranda (whatever we think of it as a source) is evidence of that he was considered at the time and gives him a proven link to the case, regardless of what we think of him as a suspect.
In any case, this is not the right thread for it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 320
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:59 am: |
|
Glenn,
1st - the whole contemporary suspect business. This is going to sound sarcastic, as usual with anything I say, but JACK THE RIPPER WAS NEVER CAUGHT. So what if the police had suspects at the time. It's almost more damaging that Druitt was a contemorary suspect, because he was investigated at the time and there still isn;t enough to say he is our man. Hell, MM botched the case on Druitt so badly with his errors that most have bypassed Druitt as a serious suspect alltogeher.
Now to Kelly knowing Sickert.
Ever hear of Morganstone? It is who Kelly told Joe Barnett she stayed with, or more to the point, what Joe Barnett said she told him. This Morganstone has never been found, while everything else regarding the information Barnett supplied about Kelly has been checked out and cross checked to be accurate.
Now take another piece of information, such as an elderly nun coming forth in 1973 and saying that Mary Jane Kelly had lived for close to 8 months at Providence Row Night Refuge, which corresponds to some of the time where she said she lived with Morganstone. The refuge was connedcted to an Edmund Bellord, who personally knew Sickert.
When Kelly left the convent, she as set up as a nanny for Alice Crook. this was attested to by Florence Pash, a painter and friend of Sickert's as far back as 1948, with nothing to gain from revelaing this knowledge.
i know you hat when I do this, but how much more information is needed to connect Walter Sickert to Mary Kelly. Perhaps the brothel that she worked at in the West End being owned by the same man who owned the Cleveland Street male brothel, Charles Hammond, who knew Sickert. Perhaps the fact that where Kelly was purported to live, with Annie Crook and alice Crook, at #22 Cleeland Street, was run by a woman named MORGAN (UH OH) who also lived there with her son (MORGANS SON MAYBE). Perhaps another factor that connects Prince Eddy to the young boy Morgan, might help connect Kelly to Crook, which goes to Sickert.
Once again, I know you hate to put two and two together, but I feel confident in doing so. If you don;t want to, then please explain who Morganstone was, and why Florence Pash lied, in 1948, with nothing to gain from it, an elderly nun lied, with nothing to gain from it, why Mary Kelly lied to Joe Barnett about Moranstone, the only thing she lied to him about, because every other place she live has been checked and found as the truth.
if you do not want to put 2 + 2 together, then answer all those questions with a logical and consistent answer. or else allow these connections, because they answer many questions, and do not require inserting any fabricated information, only making fabricated information go away, like Morganstone.
SJR |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:59 am: |
|
On the subject of killing for love I think it would be helpful to define terms. Love is a very broad and sometimes misleading word.
The highest form of love is "agape", a Greek term used in the New Testament. Agape is totally self giving and unconditional. It is not dependent on reciprocity. Agape can even attach itself to one who is indifferent or even hates. It would never lead anyone to harm its object, though it might manifest itself in what is commonly called toughlove wherein there seems to be harm but it is really for the benefit of the other party. The only One capable of pure agape is God.
Then there is physical love referred to in Greek as "eros". It can be beautiful or terrible depending on the context. It can express a deeper feeling but is incapable all by itself of sustaining a relationship. Eros can be terrible as seen in the example of rape. To always equate eros with love is thus inaccurate.
Then there is friendship/fondness which is nonsexual. That is probably what is created by the interactions on this board. The Greeks called it "phileo". It involves reciprocity as is amply demonstrated on the boards again and again. As soon as someone starts to demolish my pet theory phileo evaporates and I launch an attack. So phileo unlike agape has its limits.
In a really strong marriage, one that lasts till death do us part in old age you probably have a mixture of imperfect agape, phileo, and eros.
What these "love" killers have is a mixture of selfishness, ego, and eros. They call it love because of self delusion.
I think some of Martin's and Stan's conflict would be lessened if they defined terms. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Stan
You forgot to mention that Sickert and Kelly were both witnesses at Prince Albert Victor's wedding.
Chris Phillips
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 690
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Stan,
The subject comes up from time to time on the Boards, but surely you are a sophisticated enough thinker to know that someone telling an untruth is not necessarily lying. A classic example would be a young boy on Christmas morning telling everyone that "Santa Claus brought me a train set." Santa did not bring him the trains but that is what he was told and what he believes.
And so one does not have to call an elderly nun or the equally elderly Florence Pash liars to question the ultimate veracity of what they are supposed to have said. Time plays tricks on memory and all too often stories get better and more certain with each retelling. Then there is the question of the provenance of each story. Is there any confirmation for the Pash story beyond Violet Fuller?
If the reasons for these and some of the other sweeping declarations you make are locked up in your manuscript then I can understand any reluctance to share until it gets published. But until then I am sure you can understand a certain disincilnation to accept those statements as indisputable fact.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 329
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Chris,
Why does it not surprise me that you would bring up something that was disproved?
I'll tell you why, because as soon as those who are narrowminded find one thing wrong, they will ignore all the other truths, the ones that I mentioned.
Just by mentioning that absurd event, which never took place, should show everyone on the boards that you fall into that narrowminded category.
Interestingly enough, you don't disparage on Druitt for being called a Doctor, perahps because you just go with the flow, because its safe, that is until someone with intelligence sees it and calls you on it.
I guess, in your world, since Stephen Knight spoke of a wedding that never existed, the Providence Row Night Refuge never existed either, because Kelly stayed there in 1885. Florence Pash never existed. The female brothel run by Charles Hammond in the West End, that Kelly worked at never existed. Morganstone, of course, did exist, because no one can prove he did, yet it is the popular thought as of today, so you follow along. That would make sense, or no it wouldn't.
This should clearly show the boards from where you operate, out of a deluded world where only what is accepted by the majority can be endorsed. In the 60's you would have been for Druitt, and in the 90's I guess you were for Tumblety. Those were the accepted ways in Ripperology, before the age of advanced thought, so they must have been where you were at.
It's really sad when it becomes clear. And since you continue to ignore my efforts at ending this conversation, by adding ridiculous statements that show your true nature, the boards now know and see just what kind of a thinker you are.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 331
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Don,
Whoa boy. This is priceless.
You are equating Santa Claus with a woman stating she actually knew a murder victim from her own time living in the West End. You are also equating Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, with an elderly nun claiming that Mary Kelly stayed at the Providence Row Night refuge in 1885.
Why you are doing this is quite simple. It is because you are following the majority, and not using any alanytical skills. It is also not onle crude, but quasi-retarded, to equate a myth like Santa Claus with statements made that in no way promote suspects or agendas, yet rather just supply information that might actually help our understanding.
That would be bad. We all know that you, Chris, and Phil, who actually left after his "letting a guy put his pickle inside you doesn't make you gay" tirade showed the boards once and for all what I tried to show them, that his ideas were ridiculous and borderline certifiable. Just like this one is.
I guess when you live in a fantasy land it becomes easier to interject fantastical figures such as Santa Claus and the easter Bunny in to your own detective work when certain truths can not be discovered by your own limitations.
It is interesting that you, Chris P, and Phil, as well as some others, are so eager to challenge me, because I actually show some initiative in thought, while you guys tend to remain stagnant, and just accept whatever script you are given. Druittist in the 60's and Tumbletarian in the 90's. When you find out who everyone is pushing for in this decade, I'm sure you guys will jump on that bandwagon.
As far as continuing to come after me, despite my efforts to ask you nicely to do your own thing, while I do mine, it only shows, through the last two full on retarded arguments given by you and Chris P., that it is you guys who are on the boards to argue, and simply because i am stronger and better at it than you, I am the one who winds up looking like the aggressor.
Even in your total futility, you seem to come out looking better. It's indicative of the ambition and drive by the majority of those who "study" the case. And what I mean by "study", is talk about stuff to try and make friends.
Stephen,
Feel free to do what you need. It is plain as day that there are some on the boards who hate being shown for what they are, and will argue over obviously ridiculous items (Santa Claus and a disproved wedding), rather than for just one second say "someone might actually have a clear insight". Until those insights become the majority insight, we all know that most will never endorse it, and some will fight you tooth and nail, with really solid arguments such as Santa Claus analogies.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:42 pm: |
|
Stan
The female brothel run by Charles Hammond in the West End, that Kelly worked at never existed.
Well, as you mention it, what is the evidence that Charles Hammond ran a female brothel (let alone one that Kelly worked at)?
Chris Phillips
PS Please calm down a bit. I don't suppose you really meant to imply Phil Hill was "borderline certifiable", but I think you need to be a bit more careful what you are saying.
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 334
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Chris,
Try the book in 1976, by H. Montgomery hyde, called The Cleveland Street Scandal. In this book it is clearly shown that Charles Hammond woned both brothels in the West End, the one where Kelly worked in 1884, and the one that was raided in 1889.
I read that book, because it is in some way related to the Ripper case. i felt that as a researcher it was important to read books that are of a nature that in some way could help the understanding of the case. In this instance, it does.
I am very calm Chris. And if you had actually read what I wrote, i clearly state that his idea, his idea, HIS IDEA, that male on male pickle chugging and pickle intaking does not make a person gay, is "borderline certifiable". HIS IDEA. please re-read as it appears you misunderstood what I was saying.
SJR |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2324
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:36 pm: |
|
I am astonished that you are returning to Sickert Stan.
Whatever people think personally of his work he was the pioneer of British realism in a way no other English painter can claim to be .The forerunner of Bomberg,Frank Auerbach and Lucian Freud , Kossof etcthese last three whose paintings command by far the greatest following,[and prices]as painters in oils alive in Britain today.Frank Auerbach appears to remain so influenced/admiring of Sickert he even lives in Mornington Crescent,possibly in Sickert"s old studio or at any rate right next to it.Not long ago he was painter in residence at the National Gallery,London.
The reason for all this kudos Sickert has isnt especially to do with the way he painted in oils although his bold ,loose, brush strokes also broke the mold at the time as did his use of photographs like his master,Degas, who he greatly admired.
Sickert was quintessentially "of his time"-a man who painted the seamy side of life because he and the likes of Marcel Proust, his French contemporary in writing, believed in the capturing of this seedy stuff as well as "intimist" every day moments,the role of memory etc,some of it quite ugly some of it beautiful.
Both men were moralistic and principled over matters they felt passionate about outspoken and fearless regarding anti semitism for example and in Sicketrt"s case he resigned from a leading position in the art world over the particular establishments refusal to appoint a Jewish trustee[or something very similar].Similarly as Anti Semitism
was rife amongst the French aristocracy over Dreyfus- Proust defended him in his writing at the time while exposing the extent of such anti semitism among the aristocracy [that is ofcourse when he wasnt going on and on and on about his prostitute heroine Odette and her longsuffering husband Swann or even seedier affairs--- hey now--- imagine the outcry if Proust was accused of being Jack the Ripper too!
Sickert as part of all this ,painted the poorest and most defeated prostitutes from time to time,showing them brutalised and in one series murdered.This warts and all approach to art offended people then and it still does-though even then his cutting edge approach was actually recognised and respected in the art world.I actually love this ability of Sickert"s to present a poor , desolate , vulnerable woman sitting naked on a bed her oversized body long past its prime, a prostitute living in Camden Town - about to be murdered,and depicting her in such a way as to be able without any resort to "glamourisation" -in fact leaving us to see her ravaged skin and body and faceless despair -but still able to draw out and touch our sympathetic nervous sytem in such a way that she arouses our pity and compassion and she has not done this through being young and beautiful for -unlike the image we see time and again of Mary Kelly in films in particular we are persuaded to feel for her because of her" beauty " and youth" or rather the audience "allows itself" to romanticise/feel compassionate about such aconventional image of a romantic heroine.
But dear old Sickert would have none of it-middle aged and faceless he tells us she is still just as deserving of our pity as anyone else in such a position-not bad thinking for 1908!
No Sickert was not just some decadent old artist like some of the pre-Raphaelites were!He was a pioneer in his day and was the undisputed master, in England anyway ,of the depiction of everyday,ordinary,people--- good and bad,pretty ugly--- folk-as they really are, and good, bad a indifferent and sometimes murderously criminal everyday life.
If you think Sickert really assisted Jack the Ripper in any way at all ,[knowing him to be the Ripper ]I really and truly am astonished Stan!
But Good Luck with your book anyway!I look forward to reading it!
Natalie
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 335
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
To all those who seriously want to learn about the case,
What is going on here is a perfect example of the state of Ripperology today. It is nothing but infighting and petty disputes by people who can't deal with anyone showing them up. It is looked down upon, when someone shows up someone who makes a ridiculous comment. Unfortunately, the ridiculous comments are not looked down upon. Stupid is allowed, yet making those people who are seriously interested in the case aware that the stupidity has been posted is not allowed. it is seen as bad, while stupidity, as long as it is non-confrontational, is seen as ok.
What Chris P and Don are doing, is purposefully trying to bait me, because they know i am passionate about this case. they know i like to comment on ideas that I feel may be incorrect, and it comes in direct contrast with their method of sticking to the safe accepted ideas that have kept Ripperology stagnant. Very few people are willing to go out on a limb anymore, because of the ways in which catty little people will fight to keep their stagnant ideas as accepted belief, whether or not they are not true. It's more of a matter of clinging to their beliefs, than actually learning. It takes a complete shift, with a majority announcement, to get their ideas changing, and only then because it is accepted by the majority. The days are gone where someone can come up with an innovative idea that challenges the accepted notions, without receiving tons of flack from a wide variety of people who really don't know the entirety of the case.
As for Chris and Don trying to bait me, that has become their goal. What type of idiot (and its a question), but what type of idiot uses a Santa Claus analogy to make a point? If that fits anyone, then so be it. Once again, it has become acceptible to use these ridiculous analogies and make these ridiculous statements, but not acceptible to call them as ridiculous or calling those who make them out for proposing them. If as much time was spent on creating insane analogies, simply to bait people who are trying to help and sincere about moving the case forward, imagine what these people could do if they applied this to helping the case. I guess that's what bothers me so much about them. Not that they are trying to bait me, but that they just don't see what they could do, if they weren't focused on keeping the case right where it is.
I would love to be able to answer questions for people who were interested about the case, but like many other authors, I grow tired of having every single word I say challenged, and every single idea I come up with held to a 19 item inquiry. What the hell happened to higher thought?
I know that Chris and Don are giggling on their cell phones, probably while watching their thirteenth consecutive hour of Xena:Warrior Princess, because they have won. In fact, not only have they won, the case has lost, which is another victory for them. I don't claim to know more than anyone about these murders, but at least I am thinking, and trying new ideas out. To Chris, Don, Phil Hill, and to some extent Glenn A, even though he has been better lately, that is an unacceptible viewpoint to have. Conformity must rule or else, or else, or else something might actually get done, and then all that could be talked about while giggling on the cell phone to one another is Xena's crazy adventures. Oh that Xena, she so great.
So in conclusion, finally, good luck to all those who understand this is an unsolved murder case, and with the right amount of logic, intellect, cooperation and insight, maybe we can get somewhere. Those who lack in all four categories, as we all know who they are, are understandably opposed to any such venture.
And for Chris, Don and Phil, just remember, the ironic part about all this, is that some day, maybe 80 years from now, someone will write a book about early 21st century Ripperology. They will mention your names, because we will all be gone by then. Your legacy, your true legacy, although I am frowned upon for citing what it is, will be revealed. The inventors such as McCormick and Le Queux will be seen in the same light as those who helped suppress the case from moving forward with their childish antics and insistence on accepting archaic principles in the light of new ideas. Congrats gentlemen, you'll go down in history, like Rudolph, to use a similar and really important analogy posed by someone who hates progress.
SJR |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Stan,
In the interest of not letting stupidity go unchallenged, let me tell you, you have missed the point.
The thing with the Santa clause was an example. The basic point of that story is, a person is not necessarily lying if they state wrong information. A person can believe something occured, and if they say that thing occurred, is it really lying if they are wrong.
That was the point, but as per usual when discussing the case, you have the tendency to fly off the handle and miss the big picture because you are too busy picking nits. And that was meant as constructive criticism, not an insult.
And while I will agree that there are certain people on this site who are full-on ass boils, in comparison you have a tendency to make them look rational and reasoned when you reply to them.
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 336
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:22 pm: |
|
Ally,
If you view these two events as similar:
A father telling his child that there is a Santa Claus
and
An elderly nun relaying a story that one of the victims of a horrible murder in London history had stayed with them for a time
then I must disagree with you.
One is a blatant lie, to create a myth for a child's benefit. The other , if it was a mistake, which only those who really really really really hate the Royal Conspiracy believe it is, is not. If it was a mistake, i see no benefit in it. And I am not religious in any way, but will someone please tell me the point of creating such a myth? What possible benefit could it have?
This is why the Santa Claus analogy is so bad.
As for making idiots look rational, i guess i don;t know how to show that they are idiots, which is what I am trying to do. A little help would be appreciated, and I understand you are constructively criticizing and I appreciate it. I would love some help in showing idiocy for what it is, because some people on the boards do accept it as fact, if no one really challenges it.
As far as me flying off the handle, i look at it as passionate, but as i have admitted, it can be taken as ultra-combatative.
Here's an example of me trying to show restraint. On the thread regarding my new book, Don made a petty comment that it should be moved elsewhere, he probably wanted it in the trash. whether he was right or wrong, and he was technically right, why the need to even step in and say anything? because he is a petulent little child. And then he came right out and accused me of asking my friends to start the thread to promote the book. The ironic thing about it is, that later in the thread, Don was more than happy to hawk his own book by giving the information of where it could be purchased. If I was flying off the handle i would have said "hey Don, just to let you know - HYPOCRIT is actually spelled with an E at the end". I didn;t do that, because i showed restraint, and these lovely citizens kept coming after me.
Join the battle Ally. I know you hate stupidity and arrogance as much as I do. You could be like, oh I don't know - Xena :Warrior Princess.
Hope i didn;t get anyone too excited.
SJR
SJR |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4817
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:36 pm: |
|
Stan, if you re-read Don's post, you'll see that he was looking at it from the point of view of the child - the child isn't lying when he tells people that Santa's been, because the child isn't aware that the statement "Santa's been" is untrue. In order to lie, the liar must make a statement which is
1. Untrue
and
2. Known, or at least believed or suspected, by the liar to be untrue.
The child's father doesn't come into it.
Robert |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 337
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Natalie,
This is a really good argument.
Sickert could not have been 'JTR' because of how kind he was in real life, with all his hating anti-semites and pioneering British realism within Art. I mean, its just so illogical that a man who does those things could in any way have committed a criminal act.
Just like Michael jackson, because he made such great music and changed the landscape of POP in the early 1980's could never have molested children.
Just like O.J. Simpson, whose energy was centered on football and won the Heisman trophy and starred in many movies as that lovable funny guy, could never have committed a double murder.
It's just not possible.
First - I have said many times, Sickert's paintings have nothing to do with him possibly committing the murders
Secondly - your method of eliminating suspects, because they do something which you see as constructive for society - is incredibly naive.
This is my opinion. You may be right. sickert may not be 'JTR'. But you are 100% wrong in why you think so. There is no way that simply because someone does something which you claim as good, prohibits them from doing something bad.
Perhaps understanding that Hitler was an artist, might help you realize it is a naive approach.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 338
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Robert,
Ok. I'll accept that.
Now tell me how that relates to what he was trying to accomplish, that the nun was mistaken about Kelly staying at the convent?
There is a big difference.
She is telling another nun about Kelly staying there. If Kelly hadn't stayed there, then the nun was lying. If the nun was lying, what would be the benefit? Mistaken about that information just does not make sense, when the context is understood. Are you implying that the nun had an agenda?
I don't see the connection Don is trying to make. Apparently I'm the only one though.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 339
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Robert,
Here's the scenario Don is offering:
OLD NUN: hey new nun, wanna hear something
NEW NUN: hey old nun, sure.
OLD NUN: guess who stayed here in 1885.
NEW NUN: like, i don't know.
OLD NUN: guess.
NEW NUN: I don't know.
OLD NUN: guess or I'll hit you with this ruler.
NEW NUN: Liberace.
OLD NUN: Who?
NEW NUN: oh yeah, he hasn't been born yet.
OLD NUN: ok I'll tell ya'. It was like, Mary Kelly.
NEW NUN: who?
OLD NUN: Mary kelly, the one who was murdered by, like, 'Jack the Ripper'.
NEW NUN: like, cool.
OLD NUN: uh huh.
NEW NUN: like, how do you know that?
OLD NUN: because I was like, there.
NEW NUN: ok.
OLD NUN: you don;t believe me.
NEW NUN: like I dunno.
OLD NUN: what ever. like I'm leaving now. So stick that information in your habit and smoke it.
NEW NUN: what ever.
PLUS
The older nun would have had to make the story up, or be mistaken. Kelly stays with them for 7 months. I would presume in all that time she revealed her name. Three years later, on November 9th, Kelly was killed, according to the papers. Even nuns can read.
Are you honestly saying that the elderly nun, who for some strange reason I have turned into a Valley Girl from the 1980's, made that drastic a mistake? Like in fact it was really a Molly Kielty who stayed there, despite the other information from other sources that back the nun's info up, which no one dares to believe because immediately Knight's bad tale pops in rather than the intuitive gene.
This is what Don is asking us to believe, with his bad santa Claus analogy.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 717
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:08 am: |
|
Stan - it marks you out for the kind of man you are that you make unsubstantiated (pun intended) comments about people who are absent. Abuse, not reason was always your forte. It also, given that the likelihood was that I would not see or reply to the post, reveals you for the bully you appear to be. Others must draw their own judgements about your illiberal views which show you as not having thought or read very widely.
Having read the thread, it is for YOU to start providing evidence for your unsupported comments about KELLY WORKING Hammond's brothel etc. The devil, as always, is in the detail.
I may not have been posting lately, but I have dipped into the site now and again to keep abreast of developments. You ruined abother perfectly interesting thread recently in this way - I have yet to see you have any commitment to honest debate or intellectual argument. You pick on a point - the Santa Claus analogy is perfectly correct in context - and then hijack the thread on an irrelevancy. Childish!! I had thought it might have been me you react to, but clearly (as i was not a participant in that thread, it is a problem on your part - not on that of others - and one you should deal with.
Stephen - my apologies for this post being only tangentially relevent to the thread, but when libelled, I'm afraid I claim the right to comment.
I am also sorry to make a re=appearance in this way. Stan is not a good advertisement for this site and his presence and attitude certainly do not encourage me to start to post again.
Phil
Edited for clarity
(Message edited by Phil on August 21, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3960
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:16 am: |
|
PHIL!!!
Welcome back! 
Now maybe we can go back to the thread's initial subject, if Martin is keen on picking it up again where it once was lost.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 718
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:38 am: |
|
Thanks Glenn - it's good to "talk" to you again too.
After my riposte above, I feel I should make a positive contribution to this debate.
I feel the approach of focusing on Barnett and motivations is unlikely to be fruitful since we simply do not have enough evidence. His and Kelly's relationship may have been a matter of convenience dressed up with Victorian sentimentality before and after her death. We cannot now tell.
Better in my view to focus on likelihood. I see no clear evidence that Barnett was JtR, but if Kelly was not a JtR victim (but rather the result of a domestic or some weird crime of passion) then as Glenn says Barnett must be the first suspect. It is also not unlikely - in my view stride was 60:40 the victim of her ex-lover Kidney.
I would also assert that Abberline was an experienced copper, who knew the east End ways. He looked barnett in the eyes in a way we never can. He heard the man speak and explain himself, while fully aware of the crime scene and details lost to us (not least the things picked up by being there). He was also probably privy to much detailed evidence - investigation of alibis etc - probably lost to us.
Ergo, if Abberline did not think Barnett "done it" then I would give that viw considerable credence. he may, of course, have been mistaken, but I am weighing evidence here, not rushing to judgement.
As for Kelly we know so little about her - was ANY of the story of her life, which Barnett claimed she told him, true? Even if it was, it has been transmuted at least once by re-telling, and probably more by the press reporters. modern research STILL has not identified MJK in the reord to even wide agreement.
IF - note the emphasis - anyone has specific and reliable evidence on where Kelly worked (Hammond?) then this is new and important. It provides a new point of departure for research. But I stronly suspect that no such evidence exists and it is simply an assertion which does more harm than good. If the evidence is there then it needs to be published or made public quickly - anything else would be academically criminal.
Just my views as always though,
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3963
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:58 am: |
|
Phil,
I have to agree, that we simply have too little information. All we can do here is to weigh things against one another in form of credibility and looking at the case facts at hand and speculate from that.
It is a shame we know so little about Kelly, when we in fact have quite vast info about the other victims and it would be a great break-through if more confirmed personal information regarding her would come to light.
I have to disagree with you regarding Abberline and the police, though. As far as judges of character and interrogation methods, I don't give them any credence whatsoever. Looking at how many valuable clues that got lost because certain questions wasn't asked to certain people was probably their worst mistake they did. We see it in the Hutchinson statement, that was handled totally unsatisfactory, and the fact the Kidney never seems to have been interrogated as a suspect, in spite of his record as wife-abuser and his irrational, arrogant appearance at the inquest, is pretty much a scandal.The fact that material is missing is irrelevant, because it would nevertheless have been mentioned in the reports to the Home Office or to Abberline's superiors. And those files are pretty much complete.
What I think happened is that the police got biased and focused too much on Jack the Ripper because of the pressure they were under, but it was also a phenomenon that was typical for its time. As I've mentioned earlier, I have read a lot of witness interviews from the late 19th and early 20th century, where the actual original interrogation notes exists, and what they all share in common is that they are a disaster seen with modern eyes and shouldn't be accepted by any modern police department. Interrogation techniques were still in their infancy and were sometimes also very subjective. Threatening the witness, for example, in a way that would be considered totally illegal today, was common. But most importantly, they contain a lot of Swiss holes that leaves more questions than answers and where a lot of strange anomalies aren't followed up. So the fact that Abberline - who seems in my mind not too have been that hard to convince - cleared Barnett (who probably could show an alibi for the other Ripper murders) in a time period of the investigation when they were desperate and needed to catch Jack the Ripper does not mean squat to me.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 720
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:27 am: |
|
Glenn, I endorse all you say.
As with the problems facing the Met today regarding terrorism in London, the force is having to learn fast. Mistakes are inevitable, and 20/20 hindsight will suggest many ways in which they were misguided and/or wrong, could have done better/different/more speedily etc. I am sure the same was true during the unprecedented scare in 1888 as well.
Another factor is the political dimension - common again I think in 1888 and 2005 - which could range from considerations of strategic thinking (leading to some information being given limited circulation so as not to compromise future operations/alert suspects); protecting sources; to concerns about how certain thing should be handled - today the ethnic minorities (then the Jewish community?)
All this has to be taken into account.
But I think on the whole I would trust Abberline's instincts - even if Abberline was looking for JtR not a one-off killer of his ex-lover.
As to "lost" evidence being mentioned/referenced in the reports up the line - again I agree. But there must have been a mass of stuff tht the police of the day knew - about individuals, way of life, rumours, context - that has not come down to us, and may never even have been committed to paper. Think what Abberline, with all his experience of 1880s Whitechapel - would have brought to bear as Barnett sat before him. Enough, I think, to catch Joe out had there been any major inconsistencies in his story, or anything that did not "smell" right.
All speculation, of course. We simply do not know and he MAY have got it all wrong.
Always a joy to read your posts, my friend,
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3964
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
And the same to you, my friend.
Although I may not share your trust in Abberline's personal judgements.
I don't think he would have catched any inconsistencies in Barnett's story, when he didn't catch those that are incredibly apparent in Hutchinson's. Having a good local knowledge and experience on the ground doesn't automatically mean that you're a great analyst or knows how to interrogate.
As for the missing stuff, those are - I believe - mostly the police officer's personal notes about suspects, the interrogation notes and protocols etc. - things that would have been of great use to us today. But the official reports - that are internal and goes directly to the superior or office in question - are pretty much complete, and I fail to see why they should not contain any vital information about certian witnesses and suspects. If Kidney, for example, was taken in for questioning as a suspect, then that would have been mentioned in such a report. But there is nothing; he is only referred to as an ordinary witness. And I believe this was because they were already convinced from the start that Stride's murder was a Ripper killing and therefore didn't pay the attention to him that they should have.
I know many people don't agree with me on this, but judging from the material available, I find it hard to be that impressed by Abberline, seen in relation to the sometimes supernatural capacities people sometimes are prepared to give him. He probabaly had a good local knowledge and a long experience on the streets but I don't see him as standing out of the ordinary when it comes to analytical skills.
We must also take into account that the police was subjected to a situation with a serial killer roaming the streets, while the press ridiculed them and put them under pressure, and it was most likely a situation and a pressure they had no experience in. It was a vast investigation and since they did a lot of hard work and brought in hundreds of people, it must have been an incredible workload.
I am absolutely convinced of that they let Barnett off the hook too fast, just as Hutchinson was taken seriously too easily.
Glad to see you back, Phil.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
Stan
Try the book in 1976, by H. Montgomery hyde, called The Cleveland Street Scandal. In this book it is clearly shown that Charles Hammond woned both brothels in the West End, the one where Kelly worked in 1884, and the one that was raided in 1889.
Are you sure you're not just thinking of Lord Euston's rather dubious claim that he went to Cleveland Street in the hope of seeing female "poses plastiques" there?
I don't remember any mention of Hammond keeping a separate female brothel either in H. Montgomery Hyde's book or in the one by Simpson et al.
There is no question of Kelly being mentioned in either of these books.
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 721
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
Chris - I didn't thank you for seeking clarification of exactly what another poster intended to have said (I might almost say thank you for jumping to my defence). It is appreciated.
I too look forward to the same person's response to your very valid question.
Phil |
Charles Valentine
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:27 am: |
|
This is becoming as nonsensical as Des McKenna's theory of "On Mother Kelly's Doorstep". I really do despair when you all wander off from the main subject, which is, serious Ripperology. |
Jonathan Menges
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Stan,
You say "American rappers prove your opinions wrong every day, or just look at Johnny Cash. Writing great country songs didn't keep him from killing a man, and then writing a song about it."
To keep the facts straight...
Johnny Cash never killed anyone, ever, never.
J Menges |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
