|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 303
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:18 am: | 
|
Leanne,
So it is your assertion that Lizzie Albrook was not the girl in the room?
SJR |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1811
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
G'day,
'YES!' That's my assertation! I never thought that it was doubted!
I'll continue this discussion tomorrow. Good night!
LEANNE
(Message edited by leanne on August 19, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3948
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 10:17 am: |
|
Strange, on checking the inquest accounts, Maria Harvey herself says at the inquest that she was the one in the room that night!
Lizzie Albrook was never called to the inquest, and her statement only occurred in a newspaper. I admit I am confused.
OK, Albrook's statement matches Barnett's to the letter (practically) regarding that visit, but still... Harvey was an inquest witness. On Casebook's page about Albrook it says: "It was long suspected that this woman was Maria Harvey, but it is now generally accepted that it was, in fact, Lizzie Albrook."
But are we forced to accept that Harvey lied at the inquest about her being there when Barnett called????
On the other hand, Barnett says: "Yes, a woman who lives in the court. She left first, and I followed shortly afterwards."
And Harvey didn't live in the court at that time, I believe (which Lizzie did); she had moved to New Court. Or was Barnett mistaken about the woman 'living in the court'?
Does anyone know exactly when Maria Harvey moved to New Court?
All those bloody inconsistencies...
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2038
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
There you go again. Where did I say that I was sure?
Well, you did write, quite assertively:
If anyone would know when she would be alone and for how long, it would be him [Barnett].
I simply don't think you can say this because it's - at the very best - 50/50 whether Mary told Joe a sausage about her planned movements that night (if she had planned anything, apart from getting rotten drunk).
But it's a racing certainty that a customer, or someone posing as one, would know precisely when they would be alone together - when he had negotiated for her services and she agreed!
Hi Leanne,
Barnett could have expected to be asked to move back, because he told the press that he told her he would come back if she, [Harvey] would go and live somewhere else.
I've said this before, but if you are going to put Joe in the frame as a killer, you can't then use a single word of his testimony to support your case! Killers have to be liars first and foremost, and Barnett would have had to be as good a liar as he was a killer.
Therefore you can't afford to trust a word your suspect ever said.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on August 19, 2005) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1812
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
G'day,
Trying to read up on this Lizzie Albrook, I consulted 'The Complete History Of Jack the Ripper' - Phillip Sugden and she isn't even listed in the index.
I looked up 'Maria Harvey', and on page 327 Sugden wrote: 'In the statements Maria Harvey and Joe Barnett gave to the police on 9 November there is a slight discrepancy on the matter of times. Maria said that she left Mary at 6.55, when Barnett arrived. Barnett averred that he visited Mary between seven and eight and that he stayed until eight o'clock. At the inquest he said that he called on Mary between 7.30 and 7.45 and stayed about fifteen minutes.'
Maria saying that she left at 5 minutes to seven and Barnett saying he arrived at seven to see the woman leave isn't too much problem, because no one lives to a strict timetable arriving and leaving exactly on each hour.
The book also states: 'Indeed on the nights of 5 and 6 November Mary had put Maria up in No. 13. Although Maria had since found a room of her own, at 3 New Court, Dorset Street, the two women enjoyed each other's company. So Maria spent the whole afternoon of Thursday 8 November with Mary and was still there when Joe Barnett called early in the evening.'
Yes Barnett told the Coroner "Yes, a woman who lives in the court", but at the time of his arrival he wouldn't have known that Maria Harvey had found a room outside the court. To him she would have still lived at 13 Miller's Court.
Genn, I'd say that Maria Harvey didn't spend the night in Mary's room on the 7th of November because she had just found a room at New Court.
LEANNE
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 305
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Leaane,
Well I'm truly sorry you believe something that is not true. It has been accepted for a long time that Lizzie Albrook was the woman in the room.
If one were to analyze the case, specifically surrounding the Miller's Court murder, reasons pop up as to why both Maria Harvey and Joe Barnett would lie about this.
I wonder if, since you wholeheartedly accept what Maria Harvey said at the inquest, despite the contradictions in the press that it was Lizzie Albrook, which apparently everyone accepts except you, what your opinion on Caroline Maxwell's inquest testimony?
I would hope that consistency would reign, that if you believe Harvery's lies, or inquest testimony, you believe Maxwell's.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 309
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Glad to see you found the discrepencies within their statements, and hopefully understand that it was not Harvey, but Albrook, that was in the room when Barnett arrived after 7:00 PM.
SJR |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1813
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 6:20 pm: |
|
G'day Stan,
I don't believe this!!!! I have never heard it argued that it was Lizzie Albrook in that room!!
Why would Maria Harvey and Barnett lie about this? Maria Harvey was the cause of the row that caused Barnett to leave Miller's Court! I can't wait to hear your wild 'Speculation'.
There was no Lizzie Albrook at the inquest! People lied to the press to get their 5 minutes of fame! Anyway, where is this press report so I can read it? Do you believe that press reports defeat inquest statements? Hey maybe Mary Kelly had a little boy living with her! 
How dare you say that it has been accepted for a long time that it was Lizzie Albrook in that room! I have been studying the case since the Diary was published, and found Casebook, Jack the Ripper 7 years ago and this is the first I have heard of this Lizzie Albrook being the woman in that room!
You'll have to read my book to find out what I believe of Maxwell's testimony!
LEANNE |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 310
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Leanne,
perhaps you should read a little Ripper book called "Jack the Ripper A-Z", published in 1991, revised in 1993 and 1996. It is clearly stated, by authors Begg, Fido and Skinner, that it is generally accepted that Lizzie Albrook was the young woman in the room when Barnett arrived.
I could see how someone only studying Barnett could miss an unimportant book such as this by unknown authors such as Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner. It's not good enough to read one book on the subject Leanne.
"How dare I say that". Well it appears obvious that somoene is taking to the case too personally to think clearly on the case as a whole. "How dare I". What did I do, kick your dog? If this truly is the first you've heard of Lizzie Albrook, I suggest you start reading more books on the subject. You may think I'm making stuff up, but come out and publicly say that Fido, Begg and Skinner are also, or else admit that you are wrong. Fair is fair
But then again you disregarded my question about Caroline Maxwell, choosing to make us all wait for your book. Quite frankly, if this is what you will present, I probably won't buy it. You probably wholeheartedly still believe that Mary lived with a man named Morganstone in 1885. Even though most advanced researchers know that was a lie. You must accept Maxwell's statements, since she gave them at the inquest. I mean, if thats your sole source of info, the inquest, where no one would ever think of lying to cover something up. Well gosh, it's just unheard of.
Yes, Lizzie Albrook lied to the papers, because that makes sense. She must have gotten an acting contract out of it, or perhaps, a thorough researcher would have noticed the inconsistencies within Harvey and Barnett's statements, and realized they were mistaken, or lying.
SJR |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1814
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
G'day Rita,
How on earth do you know that Joseph Barnett was 100% sane? Don't say that it was because neighbours said he was 100% sane!
'Psychopathic lovers are capable of horrendous atrocities that out-weigh any love thay may have entertained.' - Sorry if that spoils any fairytails for you!
'if Barnett was 100% right in the head, which he was, he would have used viable, SANE, means to achieve his goal of getting Kelly off Whitechapel's streets.' Yes, he did try to 'win' Mary back by continuing to supply her with money when he had it, but if she was doing the right thing and using it to pay the rent, how come she was so far behind when she died?
CAZ: 'if you are going to put Joe in the frame as a killer, you can't then use a single word of his testimony to support your case! Killers have to be liars first and foremost, and Barnett would have had to be as good a liar as he was a killer.'
But Caz, it wasn't part of Barnett's inquest testimony! Shortly after her body was found he was giving the press his version of the circumstances surrounding their quarrel after which he left.
Mary had a little lamb,
Her father shot it dead.
Now it goes to school with her,
Between two hunks of bread.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:41 pm: |
|
G'day Harry,
So it's arousal of suspicion that Barnett could have went to Miller's Court in the early hours you need eh?
Well, he told police that he went to bed at midnight. That may have been true, but there's no way of proving that he remained there! He stayed at a cheap lodging house near the docks, where people were leaving for work at all hours of the morning. If he did remain in bed, I bet he didn't sleep soundly!
Mary had a little pig,
She kept it fat and plastered,
And when the price of pork went up,
She shot the little bastard.
LEANNE |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 531
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
HI Stan,
Yes it is true that the woman with Mary when Joe called was probably Lizzie Albrook, but we are left with some strange anomalies if in fact Maria was lying in her witness statement. In fact there is a reasonable compromise between the various accounts.
The penalties for perjury were extremely high and for Maria to lie on oath, knowing that she could be discovered in a lie was rather a strange thing to do, when there was nothing to be gained by lying anyway.
It isprobable looking at several newspaper reports that Maria was with Mary the whole of the afternoon....... Maria never appears to have denied this and there must have been witnesses to this for it to have been reported quite widely.
It seems likely that Mary had called on Maria in her room at New Court, as per some accounts and they had gone out drinking afterwards.
Marie left Mary at about 7.30 and when she saw Mary heading towards Thrawl Street/Leman Street. Mary then went home to Miller's Court.
And before I go on, I am of course aware that there are newspaper reports that state that was the last time that Maria saw Mary alive, but I personally feel this needs to be compared with other conflicting reports that to me bear at least as much weight, not to mention the inquest testimony which has to be taken seriously.
I personally think that it is quite possible that Maria dropped the clothes around to Mary at around the same time Lizzie was there and with the advent of Joe, who was not exactly a bosom buddy of hers, literally just dropped them off and went, which would fit in well with her last words to Mary.....
"Well, Mary Jane, I shall not see you this evening again,"
Her use of the word 'again' would imply strongly to me that she had seen her prior to this particular visit that evening.
This is exactly in line with Maria's testimony.
In other words Maria left Mary and Joe to
get on with their business. Lizzie at this point was still there and remained there for a little while.
The coroner asked Joe:
Was there any one else there on the Thursday evening ?
Joe's statement at the inquest was:
- Yes, a woman who lives in the court. She left first, and I followed shortly afterwards.
This was almost certainly Lizzie Albrook as he would not have spoken about Maria in those terms. He had already refered to Maria as a woman of 'bad character.'
This statement however does not preclude Maria being there fleetingly and dropping the clothes off without staying.
The coroner asked if Maria was in the house when Joe arrived. In the house could literally be standing on the door step over the threshold. Joe may well have either had reasons not to mention the fleeting visit, or he may just have felt that it was not particularly relevant, or was just anxious to answer only the questions he was asked and get out of that witness box as fast as he could.
There are any number of reasons why he might not elaborate on the statement. In fact it might have been rather odd if in fact he had rambled on about Maria, a woman he obviously hated dropping some washing off.
This would mean that to all intents and purposes all of the reports were partly true to a lesser or greater extent.
Lizzie Albrook was the woman who was there when Joe arrived, Maria had popped in and dropped the clothes off, and left immediately, around the same time leaving Mary, Lizzie and Joe in the room.
There is actually no comparison with Mrs Maxwell's testimony and Maria Harvey's. Mrs Maxwell probably did see someone she believed to be Mary and gave her statement in good faith. Maria would have been knowingly and deliberately perjuring herself; she could not have been mistaken over so straightforward a question.
As with almost everything in this case nothing is set in stone and I believe that there are enough doubts to allow for more than one interpretation of this incident.
All the best
Jane
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 315
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:09 pm: |
|
Jane,
Good points. All of them. I'm glad you can understand that Albrook was the one in the room, but puzzled why the need to include Harvey in a pop-in. I understand you are perplexed why she would lie under oath, but there could be another reason. And Barnett lying under oath could have another reason also.
As far as comparing Maxwell's testimony to Harvey's, according to fairness, it should fall under the same criteria. if you believe one, despite the obvious discrepencies, obvious to most, then you should believe all.
The point is, if someone can't accept that Harvey lied under oath, even with the discrepencies, then they shouldn't accept that Maxwell lied under oath, hence, she told the truth and the woman murdered in Kelly's room was not Kelly.
Leanne is on the other side of the world from that logical conclusion, and it is an hypocritical stance to selectively choose which person you want to believe, especially when there is more credence to Maxwell telling the truth than Harvey.
SJR |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 532
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:42 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
Well it's not actually a case of 'understanding' that it was Lizzie Albrook in the room. The evidence dictates that is the most obvious conclusion, although not the only one.
As with most serious researchers who have studied the case for many years there are so many inconsistencies and contradictions that the only thing to understand is that there are very few certainties.
The reason I include Maria Harvey in the 'pop in' is because a great deal of evidence, both physical and circumstantial relies on her at least partly telling the truth in the inquest testimony. Yes it does need to be examined with a critcal eye, but I don't feel that it can be dismissed lightly.
The police accepted her statement that she was there and they accepted that the laundry left by her according to her testimony did tie in with the known facts. The pilot coat over the window and the remnants in the grate at least bear out that some of her statement is worth taking into serious consideration.
I have also found no evidence to suggest that she was lying in her statement. There are discrepencies in the timing, but without watches that is easily reconciled. I would be very interested to see why you believe that she and Barnet were lying about who was in the room when he visited. He said someone that lived in the court, Maria said she visited as well. No conflict as far as I am concerned.
Barnett may have been lying about other things in his statement, but I can personally think of no good reason why he would lie about who was there when he visited, unless of course you are suggesting that he was in league with Maria Harvey in some great conspiracy and they were in collusion.
Mrs Maxwell's statement was possibly one of mistaken identity, or someone who wished to gain some fame from the event.
This is an entirely different proposition to someone deliberately going into the witness box and stating on oath that she left laundry in the room of the murdered woman which was later shown to be material evidence in the murder.
Maria Harvey could not have been mistaken and she didn't need to seek any more publicity than she already had as a close friend of the murdered woman who was the cause of her break up with Joe. That in my opinion makes them totally different as witness statements.
Of course Joe, Maria and Mrs Maxwell could have all lied under oath, I don't dispute that, so could every single witness that took the stand in every one of the victims inquests, but in my opinion, the body of evidence leans more in favour of them telling the truth, at least in that part of the statement, which is in fact all we are discussing here.
As I say if you do have evidence that either of them were definitely lying in that statement then I will of course be very glad to revise my opinion.
All the best
Jane
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 316
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Jane,
I have no evidence that they lied under oath, just the idea that by analyzing all the information, it makes more sense, when one understands the discrepencies.
Most people think that if two people lie, its a great conspiracy. There is no need to go overboard, as Stephen Knight did, but maybe they did agree to lie, and maybe it was because Kelly was not the woman murdered. That kind of makes sense of maxwell's testimony, doesn't it?
It also explains a lot of other pieces to the puzzle which people just like to ignore, like the locked door, locked from the outside with a key, and the pardon offered on November 10th, to anyone who did not actually murder anyone.
These are all higher concepts, that most researchers refuse to examine because they can not come up with anything tangible. Like "it had to be Harvey because she said so at the inquest". Rather than, "well there are major discrepencies so it was probably not Harvey, and was more than likely Albrook", as the more advanced researchers Begg, Fido and Skinner surmised, correctly I might add.
The only reason to add Harvey as a pop-in is because the researcher can not suitably explain why she lied at her inquest. What it is tantamount to is inventing information to fit the pieces of the puzzle that one cannot explain.
Once again, many will come out, more than likely Leanne, and say I am crazy. Remember, she has been researching Barnett for years, and never once picked up the A-Z to read that the main authors on the case concluded it was Albrook, and that Harvey was mistaken, or more to the point lying.
Some people don't like when they can't come up with viable solutions, so an invention or an ignoring of logical deductions takes place. Begg, Fido and Skinner didn;t need to say Harvey popped in, to justify that she may have lied during her inquest.
I'm not sure why anyone else needs to. actually, I am sure why. No disrespect Jane, but thats really bad detective work. And when others do it, such as Stephen Knight, Frank Spieiring and Richard Wallace get called out for doing it, so should you.
SJR |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 533
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 10:42 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
Well I have to say that I don't discount any possibilities at all, including the possibility that Mrs Maxwell might have been telling the truth and in fact Mary did survive that morning, but I have investigated that very thoroughly as well, with as much vigour as I investigate everything (because I am completely crazy) and on balance I have found too many discrepancies for it to be viable, in my opinion. (Actually not really based on Mrs Maxwell's testimony at all, but on physical evidence that I found got in the way of it being workable.)
I have been researching the case for 41 years now....(nearly put 421, but I'm not quite that old, although it feels it sometimes) and I suppose out of boredom of following the same path over and over again I have gone off on every possible tangent and found myself sometimes disappearing into cul de sacs, sometimes up to my arm pits in gooey stuff and eventually in places that made sense to me. Maybe not to anyone else, but at least I am happy.
I have almost certainly explored every possible scenario and option that could have taken place that night or morning in Miller's Court, simply because I am nosey and have reached a comfortable place as far as I am concerned about what could have and could not have taken place, within the bounds of probability.
I am always open to new evidence though or even new ideas if they have any merit at all as I get a real kick out of the exploration.
I have no pet suspect, all are innocent until indisputably proved guilty. Or on a whim I might decide that all are guilty until proved innocent just for a change of scene; ultimately the interest for me is satisfying myself, and not others, which is probably just as well.
I have read and reread the statements by Joe and Maria in every newspaper and report from Lands End to Alaska and I can see their flaws, but to me there is more evidence that Maria did not lie at the inquest than that she did.
As to Joe Barnett, well I do have my doubts about him, but he hasn't hung himself yet. He's just on remand in my book, and I do think that there is more to our Joe than meets the eye,
Oh and the difference between myself and the other candidates on the list is that I have no suspect to champion... or is it persecute? So I just look at every single possibility and love every minute of it, although I do question my sanity sometimes.
All the best
Jane
(Message edited by jcoram on August 19, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3949
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 11:46 pm: |
|
Stan,
I think you have to accept that very little in the Ripper case can be considered settled with such certainty as the one you display.
I don't rule out the possibility of the woman being Lizzie Albrook, not do I rule out the possibility that Harvey lied at the inquest.
I think many of Jane's points here are interesting, though, and could work.
I can't believe, though, that you actually seems to refer to the A to Z as a source where the information is written in stone. A to Z contains factual interpretations made by the authors - like in every other book - and it is also worth to remember that A to Z contains some errors here and there in other areas and is not totally reliable.
You can't say that something is generally accepted just because it appears in A to Z.
Nor does 'generally accepted' mean the same as written in stone. If you accept everything they say in A to z, then you also must accept everything the same authors say in other books as evidence, which we can't.
Let's just remember that Harvey was called at the inquest and Lizzie Albrook wasn't. Taking a newspaper account as a reliable source and using it as evidence of the truth is always dodgy and not good research work; they always should be seen with some amount of doubt.
What speaks in Lizze Albrook's favour is that the information she gives does seem to imply that she in fact was there, like she said. But that's as far as I am prepared to go and I wouldn't call it 'accepted'. What we should accept is that there are anomalies to consider.
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
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 317
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:04 am: |
|
Jane,
That is a more than fair response. I'm with you that every idea should be entertained, although I am cautious not to insert ideas, to fit my own feelings as what went on. In my opinion, my feelings of what took place don;t really matter. all that matters is what is shown, and sometimes analyzing past that, without inserting concepts (i.e; the Harvey pop-in), could help the case along.
As far as whether or not Mary was killed that night, I am interested in hearing your physical evidence that shows to you that it was without a doubt Kelly. The physical evidence that I have read, along with everything that went on that night, leads me the other way.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 318
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:24 am: |
|
Glenn,
That's a fair assessment.
Here's the point I don't get. When asking the question "Who was in the room with Mary Jane Kelly, when Joe Barnett stopped by?", which is a better source? Is a better source Leanne Perry, who had never even heard of the idea that Lizzie Albrook was ever in the room, despite the fact that most eceryone else had? Or is it better to state that three solid Ripper authors such as Fido, Begg and Skinner all examined the evidence, saw the discrepencies, read the inqust reports, saw those discrepencies, read the press reports, saw those discrepencies and used their combined knowledge on the case to arrive at the fact that it was Lizzie Albrook?
Since one must be chosen, as opposed to a compromise by Jane, who is awesome by the way, i choose to follow the ideas by Begg, Fido and Skinner. In researching the case, as I have done, I agree with them.
I do know that there are errors within the A - Z. It is not the perfect book. There is however, a difference between the celebrated authors, who do make misakes, and someone who is focused solely on one suspect, yet somehow missed one of the key elements related to that suspect, despite 13 years of research. You would think just by accident that researcher would come across it, not to mention understand that Barnett has an alibi for the Miller's Court murder, retruned to the scene of the crime, not once but twice, which serial killers do not tend to do, and the fact that he was drilled by Abberline for four hours, none of which was kept on record. I see that as fishy. Leanne apparently sees that as Barnett convncing Abberline he was innocent.
So, yes you are right, the book is not written in stone, and certain things can change. With specific regards to this issue, after reading all the evidence, which Leanne obviously has not or else she would have known that Albrook is endorsed by the general populus as having been the woman in the room, I will side with Begg, Fido and Skinner, as opposed to Leanne's opinion.
SJR |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3951
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:31 am: |
|
Stan,
I can agree with you on that.
Let's just remember, though, that the researchers in question behind A to Z uses their personal interpretation and analysing, and that we do not always agree with their interpretations on other points when we are discussing their own books or their own suspect hunts. And not to forget - they do not always agree with each other.
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
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1816
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
G'day,
STAN: Reading the third or fourth copy of the 'AtoZ' that I've owned, (I have opened and closed each one so many times that they have fallen apart), I see under 'ALBROOK, LIZZIE': 'visited Kelly on the night of her murder and was there when Joseph Barnett called on Kelly between 7:30 and 7:45p.m.'
Under 'HARVEY, MRS MARIA': 'She was in her room when Joe Barnett called (between 7:30 and 7:45. by his account), where upon she left.'
Under 'KELLY, MARY JANE': 'On Thursday 8 November, Kelly spent the afternoon with Maria Harvey and the early evening with Lizzie Albrook. Joe Barnett visited her amicably between 7:30 and 8:00.'
Well I must say that makes it all perfectly clear! 
I like Janes analysis that Maria Harvey payed a fleeting visit to drop the clothes in and Lizzie Albrook stayed. Joseph Barnett got there as Harvey was leaving and Albrook left before Barnett.
Maria Harvey nor Mrs. Maxwell lied at the inquest because both genually thought they were right!
Stop trying to make everyone think that I've only read one book on the case!!!!
LEANNE |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 322
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Leanne,
I will accept those suggestion regarding the night of the Miller'sCourt murder.
Regarding you only reading one book, you yourself stated that you have never heard it was Lizzie Albrook in the room (post #1813). From your own admission, since it clearly states that Lizzie Albrook was the true woman in the room when Barnett arrived, I assumed since you never read that before, that you had never read the A - Z. Now that you say you have, I apparently was wrong. It's not that you never read the A-Z, you just didnt see the Lizzie Albrook info, hidden away in the section under Lizzie Albrook. My apologies for that mistake.
We could also say that Julia Van Turney was a third woman who arrived as a "pop-in", if we wanted to CREATE information, rather than understanding information. That doesn't make it so. Good researchers analyze and understand, bad researchers invent, because they can't analyze.
I understand why I am seen as a troublemaker now. It's because i only post on the boards where there are discrepencies, and people who have made these discrepencies will fight to the death, with their last breath, to keep the discrepency alive. Then, eventually, someone steps in, because my straight forard attitude is taken as combatative, when it is meant as explanatory, and wants everyone to make nice nice.
Nice nice is nice, but when someone holds onto the discrepency, it becomes futile. i could say you were right Leanne, but you are not. And it's not fair to the researcher who will read this, and think that it was Harvey, and not Albrook.
I makemistakes, and I own up to them. perhaps more of that should be done.
SJR |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 150
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:16 am: |
|
Maybe both Albrook and Harvey were with Kelly when Joe visited.Reading what has been written above,it appears possible.
There is no way of knowing if Joe remained in bed all night it is true,but for him to have been placed in Kelly's room in the hours after midnight,needs some evidence also,and there is none.
I doubt he would ever have been a suspect.He would certainly have been a person of interest to the police,but untill they heard his story they would not be in a position to know whether there was reason to suspect. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 325
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
|
Harry,
Well maybe Tublety was in there too? Maybe's don't cut it. It is just sheer speculation, and many authors have said so, of which I am one of them. The general consensus among authors is that Harvey was either mistaken or lied during her inquest testimony, because of the discrepencies within Barnett's story and Albrook's press interviews.
I have never heard from any reputable author or source that Barnett remained in Kelly's room after midnight. As far as I remember, Barnett left the room, however he is seen with kelly at 10AM the next morning. That of course is ignored, because coveinently, it doesn't fit what some people need to believe.
SJR |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1817
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
You wont find confirmation that Barnett went to Kelly's room after midnight, because if he did and stated that he did, it could have been like a confession!
Glenn is correct in saying that a victim's partner is always a suspect at the start of investigation, because the partner falls within the victims 'INNER CIRCLE' of aquaintances. That's standard detective work. It's my belief that they cleared him too quick!
STAN: Have you ever heard by any reputable author that Tumblety was in Kelly's room after midnight? or Hutchinson, or Sickert, or Druitt or....or..... Therefore you have to eliminate all suspects that have ever been suggested!
The 'AtoZ' doesn't make it crystal-clear that all three women were likely in or just outside Kelly's room together, at some point, Barnett turned up, Harvey left and Albrook remained. Is this a likely belief?
LEANNE |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 328
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:46 am: |
|
Leanne,
We all get it - you think it's Barnett. We all get it.
The Tumblety line was said to show, yes anyone could have been in the room, but it was more than likely just Albrook and Kelly, when barnett arrived.
The A-Z actually does say that, and until this last couple of day's discussion you, by your own admission, stated you had never read it. Under the Lizzie Albrook entry - it states that she was the young woman in the room referred to by Barnett. The fact that there are discrepencies in the stories told by Barnett and Harvey, and these discrepencies have been discovered by researchers and analyzed, has led the consensus, of which you remain on the outside, that the young woman with Kelly was Lizzie Albrook.
One such thing that should have thrown a red flag up for you, was that Barnett always referred to Maria Harvey as a 'bad woman', not as a 'young woman'. This is the major discrepency that has led us, or should I most of us, excluding you, to accept that it was Albrook and not Harvey.
Yes, Harvey could have turned up, but again why the need to even speculate that? Is it because you have a need to believe that Harvey could not ever have lied under oath? Please tell me how that is not an invented supposition which fits your need?
SJR |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
G'day Stan,
It makes absolutely not difference to my 'supposition' whether Harvey lied under oath or not! But if you accuse her of being a liar, please state why you think she lied. Do you also believe she lied about leaving the clothes in Mary's room? She didn't say that she gave them to Mary to take to her room, but that she left them there.
I just found another board on which someone asked a very similar question. The question was the last post made on that thread and dated 2004. The person never got an answer.
'Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,
All the king's horses and all the kings men,
Had scrambled eggs for breakfast again and again.
GOOD NIGHT!
LEANNE
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 534
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Hi All,
There does seem to be some question about the importance of Maria Havrvey's presence in Mary's room at the time she said she was and I have to say that I personally don't feel that it is something that can be dismissed lightly.
Stan I don't think it is a case of fitting Maria in, like a piece of puzzle you have to knock the corners off and jump on to fit in.
If we look at her testimony logically and how it fits in with the known evidence and events it takes on monumental importance, which I think is probably why Leanne feels that it is something that is important to establish.
This is especially true as we are trying to pin point Joe's involvement in this and if he did have anything to hide.
If we look at some of the facts.........you candidly admitted that you couldn't find any evidence to prove that Maria or Joe was lying on oath, so it is the burden of the counter argument to find at least some evidence to suggest the alternative.
Maria's testimony at the inquest was surprisingly short, even is a short inquest. and yet an inordinate amount of time was spent asking her about the laundry she left at Mary's.
Maria had no access to the inside information the detectives gathered in Mary's room after the murder and yet she was able to give a very detailed account of the laundry that was left there. She claims she left them and bearing in mind that detail, I have to believe her.
How was Maria to know what remnants would be found in the grate or around the room or how important they were to the murder? She could have been implicating herself in some way unknowingly. Yet she offered the information and it was correct.
The police thought her evidence was of paramount importance and they accepted it, The clothes burnt in the grate and the pilot coat were very valuable material evidence. There is no question that Maria left that laundry there.
It of course may be suggested that it was another day, but bearing in mind Mary was one of her best friends is it likely that she would forget the day of her murder?
Not only that but to admit to being at Mary's when she was elsewhere on the night of a murder was nonsensical. Dorset Street and the environs were alive with people at that time of the evening.
What is someone had spotted her at the other end of Dorset Street or in one of the pubs at the time she claims she was with Mary? I would say that was living very dangerously and for no good reason.
Therefore I have to reason that Maria was there at the time she said she was and was a very important witness that the police believed. She was led in a specific way by the coroner in his questioning to confirm something of great importance.
Then of course we have Joe's statement. One line about a woman that lived in the court.
Are we to assume that the police didn't press him about who that woman was so that they could take a statement from her?
Lizzie Albrook was a witness to the last conversation between Joe who must have at least been at least nominally a suspect at this point and the murdered woman. The police must have questioned her about what the conversation between them was.
Did Mary and Joe seem on good terms...
Was there an argument?
Did Mary appear afraid of Joe?
It can only be taken that as she was not called to give evidence at the inquest that she heard nothing of any significance in that conversation and was not worth calling as a witness or as another possibility that she was not in the room at all or was there fleetingly.
On the other hand the woman who was supposed not to be in the room by some leading researchers nowadays was called as a major witness at the inquest. Something of an incongruity it would seem.
I cannot imagine that Joe would be so stupid as to lie about who was in the room when he got there, knowing that he would be at least a preliminary suspect in the case.
So where does that leave us.....no evidence that Maria Harvey lied at the inquest, but in my opinion enough evidence to suggest that Maria Harvey was not just a pop in character to make up numbers, but one of the key players in the drama, with some of the best lines.
Yes you are totally right.......I need to get out more!
All the best
Jane
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1819
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
G'day,
STAN: 'One such thing that should have thrown a red flag up for you, was that Barnett ALWAYS referred to Maria Harvey as a 'bad woman', not as a 'young woman'. This is the major discrepency that has led us, or should I most of us, excluding you, to accept that it was Albrook and not Harvey.'
That through up no 'red flags'. Where's the evidence that Barnett ALWAYS reffered to Harvey as a "Bad woman". If that was your 'major discrepency' it's not a very major one!
The only reason I feel it's important to establish this, is that it gives an accurate account of what happened in Mary's room the afternoon before her murder!
JANE: 'Lizzie Albrook was a witness to the last conversation between Joe who must have at least been at least nominally a suspect at this point and the murdered woman. The police must have questioned her about what the conversation between them was.
Did Mary and Joe seem on good terms...
Was there an argument?
Did Mary appear afraid of Joe?'
Since we are looking at minor details and using them to support our theories, let me point out that Joe stated that the woman left the room and he left shortly after, so there was a time the couple were alone!
Barnett was very vague about that time alone, because he stated that he was there from 7:00 to 7:45, (that was probably the length of time that a third person was with them), yet other sources have him leaving her at 8:00! There was no one to confirm that the couple were on comfortable terms for that 15 minutes. This is another minor detail that I feel was overlooked and needs to be established!
I wont be home until tomorrow evening, so I cant make another post for a little while.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
G'day,
I lied, here's another post:
Even the great book the 'AtoZ' says under ALBROOK and HARVEY that Joes visited her between 7:00 and 7:45, the under MARY JANE KELLY it says that Joe was there from 7:00 to 8:00!
LEANNE |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 332
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Good luck with your book. i look forward to seeing where Barnett referred to Harvey as anything but a 'bad woman". That is, in reality, not when Harvey is substituted for another person because of faulty research.
SJR |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 535
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Before I forget, totally loved your article in Ripper Notes, More please and I am really looking forward to your book too. Barnett has always intrigued me.
The good thing is I don't have any suspects and I so I can go up any alley I like and not really care how it comes out. 
It is small details like the fact that Mary and Joe were alone together for a little while after Lizzie left that can sometimes make a difference in a case.
A lot can be said in a single minute, or even a few seconds if the words are chosen well - good or bad.
The annoying thing is that no one is ever going to know what the conversation between Joe and Mary was after that. So I am not sure where that leaves us.
I am still getting my brain cells around Joe's testimony and how it apparently conflicts with Maria's statement to some degree. I think there is still something there that needs looking at......just not quite sure what.
Maria Harvey would have given her statement to the police prior to the inquest so we can be certain that they knew what she was going to say at the inquest. This means that they had investigated and resolved the matter to their satisfaction and had no doubts that Maria was telling the truth.
So it is Joe's testimony that needs to be looked at again to see why there was this discrepancy and if it can be explained satisfactorily.
More chokkie bikkies needed.
Hugs
Jane
xxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on August 20, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3959
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 7:48 pm: |
|
Jane,
Good point. I agree that Joe's statement might possibly be the problem here rather than any of the two women's. Well, at least it's a thought worth considering.
The chokkie biscuits are on me.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 536
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Now there's an offer I don't get every day!
Thinking again about Joe's testimony at the inquest has led me in other directions. (Yes I know I am a nosey cow, what can I say.....I hate loose ends!)
We have to ask ourselves I think whether or not Joe told the police prior to the inquest about Maria Harveys presence there that night. Now depending which theory we go along with his interview lasted either two and a half or four hours, both a considerable length of time and I find it unreasonable to believe that he could have omitted to mention Maria in all that time. She must have come up in the conversation time and time again as the partial reason for the break up. Logically they would have asked when he saw her last.
Joe would have known that Maria would tell the police she was there that night and it would be unreasonably daft of him not to realize he had to say she was there.
That would seem to indicate to me that he did tell the police the same story, but that when it came to the inquest he either forgot or did not bother to say that Maria was there, because he knew she was testifying anyway. I honestly can't think of any other explanation, maybe someone else can. If so I would really love to hear it because this is driving me bonkers.
This would exonerate Joe of being a deliberate liar or trying to mislead the jury and coroner. The police already had his statement so it was an innocent slip or omission when he gave evidence.
Of course this thread is trying to establish if Joe might have been Mary's killer and that is why his testimony at the inquest and to the police is so important........but I have a feeling that the statement itself seems not to be of much help in that direction, except to clear up certain anomalies that are troublesome.
Having said that I still think there are some things lurking in there that need looking at. I do think that Joe is worth a second look.
Yes you are right Glenn, I would never hang myself and if I did I would have a pair of scissors in my hand in case I changed my mind.
I haven't done with Joe yet though. He might still be the one what done it!
Love Jane
xxxxxx
 |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 340
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
To all,
Goodbye and enjoy.
STAN |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 691
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Glenn, Jane & Leanne (alphabetical only),
It strikes me as interesting that the discrepencies went quite unremarked at the time of the inquest. Now it may be, as some hold, that the police were all buffoons. If we don't take that route, however, we are left having to defer to those gentleman who had the witness statements in hand and heard the inquest testimony. And if they were not bothered by these seeming discrepencies then perhaps it was all much ado about nothing.
As it is, being now privy to the statements and testimony there are many other discrepencies between the two as well. Is it possible that after the inquest the police could have had one or more of the witnesses in for another chat about what was said and we don't know?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 537
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
I think that is more or less where I am at in my thinking right now as well.
I can't imagine that unless every policeman at the inquest was deaf or drunk that they would not have been quite aware of the discrepencies and had no problems with them.
In hindsight, the little holes that appear here there and everywhere are probably of more interest to us today than they were to anyone at the time!
I think the only real advantage of sifting through and trying to reconcile oddities, is that when trying to make sense of a 117 year old case then some sort of discipline has to be imposed on disorder so that sense can be made of any of it. Well that's how I work anyway. It's a bit like clearing the junk out from under the bed so that you can find something that you have been missing for ages.
I have got to get out more!
Hugs
Jane
 |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 151
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Leanne,
If you cannot show confirmation that Barnett was in Kelly's room when she was killed,or that at some time he lied about his whereabouts,then you shouldn't suspect him as the killer,and of course that does apply to all the other so called suspects.
The partner is not always suspect at the start of an investigation,they are persons of interest.It is only when evidence points to a suspicion of a persons possible involvement that that person becomes suspect.At that point they should be cautioned.
They did not suspect Barnett because his alibi could not be proven untrue,and that fact remains to this day. |
Ben Holme
Police Constable
Username: Benh
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
I agree, Harry.
To all those who believe that Barnett was responsible for Kelly's murder:
When do you believe he entered the room and killed her?
Many thanks in advance,
Ben |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Jane
Where have you been? I've missed you. Hope all is well.
regards
Restless Spirit
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3970
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Harry,
That is correct, but they are usually the first person to be of interest and considering that he prior to the murder had left her and they also had had a row, any police officer would definitely consider him a likely suspect with a motive. Not to mention the fact that she was visited by ANOTHER guy on a regular basis, and whom she liked.
It is not evidence - and we don't have enough information to reckon anything as evidence - but from any policeman's point of view that surely opens up to some of the oldest motives in the book: jealousy and frustration.
It would have been another matter if it was a functioning relationship, but it wasn't.
Spouses have been suspected for foul play on much lesser motives than that.
And we do not have enough information about his character, psychological status or his so called alibi in order to dismiss him out of hand.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Bela
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Does anyone have any information about a prostitute who may or may not have been staying with Mary Kelly. She was known as Winnifred May Collis around dorset street. An interesting point is that she has not been seen since the morning of 9th November 1888.
I'm also looking around for any images of The Brittania Public-house} |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
But Caz, it wasn't part of Barnett's inquest testimony! Shortly after her body was found he was giving the press his version of the circumstances surrounding their quarrel after which he left.
I said 'testimony', not meaning at the inquest specifically, but in general.
If Joe was the killer you think he was, you can't then rely on anything he said to anyone.
Why would it make any difference who he was talking to, if his sole purpose was not to give himself away as the killer?
Love,
Caz
X |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
G'day,
HARRY: Yes his alibi may have proven true! Police may have found someone to confirm that he was at Buller's until midnight, but at the time he gave his alibi, they didn't have any idea of her most likely time-of-death!
BELA: The 'Winifred May Collis' issue was discussed on these boards years ago, and it was found that she was only mentioned in the book 'Ripper and the Royals' (I think). She was never a gest in Mary Kelly's room. Someone with the Casebook CD may be kind enough to look her up.
CAZ A killer can't lie about everything when giving a statement or testimony. If they did they would be suspected and caught as soon as someone realized!
LEANNE
|
Ben Holme
Police Constable
Username: Benh
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
I wrote:
When do you believe he (Barnett) entered the room and killed her (Kelly)?
No takers?
Or am I, in so saying, asking people to divulge theories which they would rather keep secret until they publish their book(s)?
In which case, no worries. I'm just interested.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3974
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
The reason for you haven't received a reply for that question (although I admit I missed it) might be because it is pretty difficult to answer.
As has been stated earlier, we have no complete time schedule for Mary's activities that night, so there are quite many blank spots and question marks to consider.
We simply have too little information and some of it can not be relied on with certainty (like Hutchinson's), which is why it is quite difficult to jump into such details over 100 years after the event. Therefore your guess is probably as good as any others. Our suggestions can be speculative at best.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 543
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
HI Ben,
This is a sort of cross over from 'Joe, not the first copy cat thread'.......as I am very torn about him being Mary's killer.
On the one hand I do think that if we are looking at a domestic murder scenario then I do have the feeling that he could be her killer, but if that is the case as you rightly point out, when did he do it?
On the other thread I just posted that I have suspicions about his actions on the night of her death, because they just seem a bit odd.
As Leanne pointed out the morning of the Lord Mayors show would have been a great opportunity to make some money which he obviously needed. Yet instead of going to the suppliers and getting stock to sell, he played cards until midnight and then went to bed. That does strike me as odd.
Of course he may have just not felt like working or may have even won enough money to think that he could afford to miss the days trading, but it is worth a looking at further in my opinion. Whatever he said, the police believed him, but as Leanne rightly pointed out, at that time they did not even know the exact time of Mary's murder. Whatever he said to them, must have convinced them that his alibi was sound and of a long enough duration to cover all eventualities.
Could he have slipped out of the doss house without being noticed at any time of the night? Probably yes I suspect as they were heaving with people, coming and going, overcrowded and not exactly maximum security .
Unfortunately unless some new information comes to light, I don't think we are ever going to know one way or the other. I have my suspicions about Joe but have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Jane
|
Ben Holme
Police Constable
Username: Benh
Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn and Jane,
Many thanks for your responses.
It is, of course, impossible to speculate with any degree of certainty in regards to the time of Mary Kelly's death. History consists, in the main, of what people *said* happened, and in those instances where the witnesses are unreliable, the researcher's task is rendered all the more difficult.
It is also true, however, that if we find enough reinforcement of a given event, the likelihood of that event having taken place is thus increased, as a consequence of which, we can place greater credence in the witnesses.
We know, for example, that TWO people claimed to have heard a cry of "Oh, murder" emanate from Miller's Court at around 3.45am. It may be true that such exclamations were common in the Victorian East end, but how many such exclamations were followed by an *actual* murder?
Though it is by no means proven, it would be reasonable to surmise that Kelly MAY have been killed shortly following the cry of "Oh, murder".
Is it likely that Joseph Barnett was at Millers Court in the wee hours? I would respectfully submit that it is isn't, but I would welcome suggestions to the contrary.
Best Regards,
Ben
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2341
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Hey Stan,
Don"t go away like that-some of us enjoy your
sabre shaking and the bright minded disputatiousness you bring to these boards!
Natalie
x |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3980
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
A very good and reasonable post, and I agree on that it is quite likely that the cry did derive from Kelly and that was the time of her death.
Whether it was possible for Barnett (if he was the one who killed her) to be present in Miller's Court at that time is almost impossible to answer, but I can't see why not.
t least I see no reason to rule out the possibility. His so called alibi (which we have very little detailed information about) is not possible to check out today with the little information we have.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
