|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2326
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 5:35 am: | 
|
Stan,
A reasonable response regarding whether or not Sickert could have been JtR.
I guess it depends on where you are coming from whether you bridle over the accusations about Sickert or not.
I see him,not as a painter of morbid,biblical metaphor etc-though he may have dipped into this during his long ,healthy and libidinous life.Ratrher as my above post says-a pioneer of painting and staying focused on the ordinariness and often the boredom of every day life.
Maybe he did kill prostitutes.I just somehow doubt it myself!
Your points about Michael J and OJ are taken though.I would however just add that neither Michael J or OJ were ever accused of being serial killers!
Natalie |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Hi guys,
Stan,
I think you miss you point about Santa Claus. I think the point was that something is only a lie if the person knows what they are saying is untrue.
Phil,
hey there!!
Nats,
While I do not agree with the idea that Walter Sickert was JtR, his painting really doesnt have all that much to do with it, or does it?
I like his paintings, poor old Walter !
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on August 21, 2005) |
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Stan,
There was more than one Mary Kelly in the world, and probably more than one in London. The nun did not have to be lying. A Mary Kelly (using either her real or false name) could well have stayed with the nuns. That doesn't mean it was our Mary Kelly.
The same thing happened to a friend of mine. We lived in Miami and one day she heard on the news that this guy was wanted for armed assault and rape. The name of this guy was very unusual and the name of a good friend we went to high school with and he lived in Homestead where our friend lived. Now if the guy had been named John Smith, she wouldn't have thought twice, but again, it was a relatively unusual name. SO she called me all like, "omigod, guess who's wanted for rape!" and I'm like "omigod who?" and she says, "YOu know that guy we went to school with? Blank Blank. He's wanted for rape!" and I'm like "no way" and she's like " I heard it on the news!". Well anyway, it turned out not to be our friend. Was my friend lying when she told me our friend from high school was wanted for rape? No. At the time she believed it. I don't consider it a lie. She was just wrong.
(Message edited by Ally on August 21, 2005)
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 538
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
HI Ally,
I spent about an hour last night putting together a post along the same lines........that the name Mary Kelly was a very common name amongst Catholic girls, that Mary used aliases anyway and she may have been calling herself something else at the time.
What worried me was how the nun knew actually identified here because there were no photographs taken from life and the illustrations in the newspapers were rubbish.
I could buy that Mary might have kept in touch with the nun when she first left but later I didn't think that it was very likely she would have written to dear old sister whatever that she was making her living flat on her back.
Then just as I was about to post, I suddenly thought 'Oh dear' or words to that effect, because I thought it is possible (although how possible still needs to be established) that the nun might have read accounts in the newspaper of Mary's early life with Davies etc., as rendered by Mary and thought ' aha' that's our Mary.
But that was only a passing thought, because I am now going to have to go back and see which newspapers the nun might have possibly had the opportunity to read and if they did have anything they could have used to identify Mary. Or if there was any other way she could have found out. If nothing presents itself, then I would have to ask how on earth did the nun know?
As it stands at the moment If you tried to thread beads on that chain you would have a very short necklace.
I am personally not totally averse to verbal testimony as long as it ties in exactly with known physical evidence, but the Hammond part does worry me, even if I tentatively can give credence to the nun and also I have a long way to go to be convinced that Sickert knew Mary or indeed that he was a killer or accomplice to a killer.
Of course as I spend most of my time painting dead people with bits missing from them who died in horrible ways, if that is one of the criteria then Heaven help me.
AND welcome back Phil...........missed you.
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 692
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
First of all, thanks to the many who understood the Santa Claus analogy and tried to explain it. Once the fire broke out last night I figured if I wrote anything more I'd only be fanning the flames.
Second, I too am pleased to see Phil return to the Boards. At least one good thing emerged from the chaos.
Third, most of what I have read about the "Nun's Tale" says that the particular order has a tradition that a Ripper victim had spent a short time there. The emphasis on the word is important because when used by historians tradition has the meaning unsubstantiated. My point was that calling into question this tradition, as related by a nun nearly a century later, is not sugesting she lied in the least.
If we consider the confusion about the identity of the Miller's Court victim in the immediate aftermath of the event, that the nun's were likely other-worldly and not readers of the popular press so that their news of that event would itself be garbled and third- or fourth-hand at best and that many women had passed through the refuge between Kelly's purported stay and her murder the possibility that the tradition is mistaken must at least be considered.
Oh and finally, I just want folks to know I don't lust after "Xena" (I prefer women who are real). Though, in the Small World Isn't It Dept., I do have a friend in New Zealand who was recently outbid for a home in Mount Albert by the actress's family.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 540
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
I am going to go through the newspaper reports just out of interest and I suspect the information that could have identified her might have been fairly readily available around the time, but having said that I am going to need an awful lot more 'proof' for want of a better word to swing me much further towards the Sickert connection.
As you say things do get garbled in closed communities even if the belief is there that it is the truth and there really does need to be some more tangible evidence, like a written record of her being there. Show me her name on the register for the period and I will be a happy bunny.
We have a closed community up the road from us of a group very similar to the Amish who do actually interact quite a lot with the villagers and have commercial interests.
A nice bunch, but I have spoken to them at various times throughout the years and they really do have quite a different idea of what is going on in the world than those actually in it, and that is in this day and age with modern communications.
As you say bearing in mind the confusion after Mary's death about who she actually was I have to be suspicious of 'tradition' as you rightly called it.
I would never be skeptical for the sake of it, in fact if there is anything there at all I would love to see it found and pursued, but I think that it would be sensible to regard the account as dubious unless something else comes along to confirm it....especially in connection with Annie Crook.
And going back to the subject of the thread which was the main content of this post anyway.
I have to say that I am really torn here, because a part of me feels that Mary Kelly might well have been a domestic murder although it is still 60/40 in favour of it being JtR. Having looked at Joe again, although I can see some little flags waving here and there that have 'dodgy' written on them, I can't quite see him as a killer. There is not real evidence that I can see that can tie him to the murder and he had an alibi for most of the night which satisfied the police.
The only way I can imagine that Joe could have been her killer is if Mary's death was in the daytime and Mrs Maxwell was telling the truth, in fact the only way I think a daytime death is possible is it was Joe or someone of the same ilk.
As the police were so convinced of an earlier time of death then no alibi was needed then.
The problem with that is that the time frame and conditions for a later morning death are fairly ludicrous, although very barely workable by stretching things to their limit.
So where does that leave me as far as Joe is concerned? Still open to persuasion that he could be a her killer but erring on the side of his innocence at the moment.
Of course that doesn't mean that it could not have been another one of her lovers or someone other than JtR, but my brain hurts now.
Hugs
Jane
xxxx |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4823
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
I found this. Apr 3rd 1872
During the Boer War, some of the nuns nursed at Mafeking.
PS I wonder whether that's "our" Dr Holt in the article.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
In an earlier post you say that Walter Sickert knew Edmund Bellord, the chairman of the committee of the Providence Row Refuge.
As I have done some research into Edmund Bellord, I would be most grateful if you could direct me to the source of this information.
Rgds
John |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
G'day,
JANE: 'I have to say that I am really torn here, because a part of me feels that Mary Kelly might well have been a domestic murder although it is still 60/40 in favour of it being JtR.'
Well, Jane, try for a minute thinking along the lines of Mary Kelly being a domestic crime of 'Jack the Ripper'!
Over the years here, people have rushed to Barnetts defence, saying that he was 100% sane, an angel who couldn't possibly murder the woman he loved let alone other women in attempt to keep the woman he loved. How can anyone, over 100 year later, possibly know for certain? I confess that I can't know his character for certain either, so why can't we leave that 'door' open?
No one can easily find a link between Barnett and the other victims, ignoring the fact that a 'Serial killer' seeks victims randomly, who are usually only linked by the thing that forms the killers 'enemy' - in this case PROSTITUTION!
Miller's Court was right next to an orange market known as "Dukes Place", that was swarming with costermongers at the time that Kate Eddowes was killed. Barnett had a perfect reason to flee in that busy direction once he was almost caught in Dutfield's Yard. He would have wanted to build an alibi, but I can't find where anyone has thought of why he fled in that busy direction! Kate was seen talking to a man whos description fits Barnett.
People find it hard to accept the suggested motive put forward for believing he was the Ripper, believing that the Ripper must have had an understandable alibi - an alibi that normal minds can understand! They believe that every person has the ability to try less drastic means to achieve their goals.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1822
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
G'day,
JANE: 'There is not real evidence that I can see that can tie him to the murder and he had an alibi for most of the night which satisfied the police.'
Please tell us what you mean by 'real evidence'. No real evidence was found, so does that mean she wasn't murdered? What was his motive for the hours of 12:00 midnight to 4:00am that morning and why didn't they even ask him at the inquest?
Mary Kelly's most likely time-of-death wasn't even estimated until at that inquest, but the police were already comfortable with the alibi he gave.
'The only way I can imagine that Joe could have been her killer is if Mary's death was in the daytime and Mrs Maxwell was telling the truth, in fact the only way I think a daytime death is possible is it was Joe or someone of the same ilk.'
Oh please explain this. Joe was a street seller of oranges, it was the the dawn of a big day of celebration in the 'Lord Mayor's Day', and people were rising and attending/looking for work at all hours. Why wasn't he asked questions about this at the inquest?
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!
LEANNE
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 541
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Well, Jane, try for a minute thinking along the lines of Mary Kelly being a domestic crime of 'Jack the Ripper'!
Hee hee, that did make me smile, when you put it that way you have really got me on the ropes..........it does solve my sitting on the fence dilemma perfectly!
I do really agree with you in almost everything you say to tell you the truth. I am obviously not convinced of Barnett's guilt as you are....... that is an instinctive feeling on your part which I don't discount for a second, because sometimes things just feel right or wrong, and I really do understand that.
I do happen to think that bearing in mind that there is really very little evidence against any suspect that we have that Joe is certainly as good a candidate as any for being Mary's killer. Was he JtR? That one I am not so sure on..........I think the expression 'dumping on your own doorstep' might fit this one.
I can honestly see him doing it in a fit of uncontrolled passion and unpremediated, see it very easily in fact, but her as a victim of a JtR Joe doesn't feel at all right for quite a few reasons, although without a whole truck load of bikkies, I couldn't give specifics right now.
About the time of death........well I did say 'or someone of his ilk'......like another one of her old/new acquaintances as an alternative.
Ultimately I really don't see it as very likely at all that Mary was killed after 8.30 am, as I think you might have guessed from the post, but I will never dismiss anything if there is even a very slight chance that it could have happened that way. I really do think she was killed around 4 am as per most people.
It is actually an interesting point that no mention is made that I have found of what Joe actually was doing in the morning hours..... although I might just have missed it. Of course Lord Mayors day would be the best chance to make some money. But there could be reasons he didn't get stock to sell that morning. Everyone would of course be out to make a buck as well and coming from a long line of street market people I know from bitter experience that it is first come first serve and not everyone ends up happy.
I'd be interested to see what you have found out in your research about it. I ashamed to admit I can't even remember off hand where Joe was when he found out about Mary's death .........
I don't actually have that many problems about him not having been asked about his wherabouts in the later morning at the inquest to be truthful, because it is pretty obvious that the inquest was rushed through so fast I doubt if they got their bums warm.
I think that the amount of information that is missing from the inquest is very alarming,
If you don't mind me coming back in a bit when I've thought about it, then maybe we could see where we go from there. You never know you might well convince me..........
 |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 542
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Sorry Leanne,
Just saw the next post and haven't really answered your questions in the one I just posted and I seem to have missed a bit in the first one as well!
I am only going to comment on the alibi here because it will be the longest post in the history of the boards, but I am not ignoring your other questions I would love to come back later on them.
About the alibi, This again is such a complex issue that I will just try to be brief about my reasoning, and why I used the phrase 'Most of the night' and the police believing his alibi.
As I have said, I am only erring on the side of his innocence, but don't discount him as a viable suspect at all. But as I see it at the moment there is not enough to be as certain about it as you are. There are an awful lot of little niggles about him though which keep surfacing......enough for me to keep digging.
As you rightly pointed out, it was Lord Mayors day and there would have been a very great demand for stock. So we have to examine what Joe actually did that night and why he might have done it. (From the little information we have)
You mentioned in the post that Dukes Place would have been throbbing with life at the time of Kate's murder, which shows how early vendors had to get there to get stock. This does make me question why Joe was up until midnight playing cards and then went to bed and didn't go straight to the orange market. That does seem rather illogical for someone that wanted to make a killing on Lord Mayors day.......at least selling oranges. This is one of the little niggles that does keep me wondering about him.
I personally find it a bit disconcerting that someone who obviously had a good chance of making some money on Lord Mayors day, decides instead of getting an early night and then going to get the best stock from the suppliers, plays cards and then goes to bed.
That in itself is a bit odd, so if I was looking for suspicious actions on his part, I would say that fitted.
The innocent explanation for it has to be considered. That he did what a lot of people do, start playing cards and not want to quit. With the best of intentions he may have then thought, ' oh to hell with it, I'm knackered, I'm going to bed and to forget the money'.
The less innocent explanation is that he deliberately gave the orange market a miss, because he had other plans for that night that were far more nefarious.
This is why I personally find it so difficult to say 'Yes Joe is a killer.' There are too many possibilities some innocent some making alarm bells ring. For me it is not cut and dried enough for me to get the hangmans rope out of the cupboard. It is really the same with all the circumstantial evidence against Joe, most of it can be taken two ways or explained. We just don't have enough information.
So I keep Joe in the 'suspicous' pile and keep digging.
Jane
xxxx
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 726
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Leanne - he idea of "Jack" fleeing from Dutfield's Yard does, of course, depend on whether Liz was killed by him or not. If Stride was killed by Kidney (as I am tending to believe more and more) then Jack fled nowhere, he was already somewhere else.
Of course, you may believe that one murder is a domestic and another not - but consistency surely at least demands that you consider that Liz was not a victim of JtR, but as you surmise for mary, of her ex-lover.
Phil
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1825
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 2:27 am: |
|
G'day Jane,
I don't think Mary Kelly was killed at/near/or after 8:30 a.m. either. Dr. Bond found partly digested food in her stomach and similar food in her intestines. How long would it take a meal to get that far?
I don't know why other believers in Barnetts guilt think that an 8:30a.m. murder is necessary to suggest his guilt. Costermongers were very early risers, it was 'Lord Mayor's Day', and if Barnett did go to bed at midnight, I can't imagine him having a peaceful sleep.
After he moved out of Miller's Court he returned almost daily to give Kelly money, which I believe he thought she was paying the rent with. He hated Mary's drinking and wouldn't have fuelled that habit. In the last 15 minutes of his 7 to 8 visit he probably said something like: "Sorry, I have no money to give you."
"OH DRATS! That puts me in a spot! I'm way behind in rent payment and McCarthy expects some money tomorrow morning. I must earn some money the only way I know how!"
As for the premeditation part, Barnett knew she was in danger of eviction and could have went back there later to show her how much she meant to him and flipped under deaperate conditions. The thing that has me wondering now is the fact that he took a sharp-bladed knife with him. Perhaps he had intensions of taking his frustration out on a prostitute other than Mary, but flipped and used the knife on her instead.
I remember reading that Barnett was found drinking in a pub near Buller's Lodging House when a policeman found him and told him of the murder of a woman in Dorset Street. He voluntarily went there!
Gambling was a very popular pastime for dock labourers and costermongers, and sometimes they only had the clothes on their backs to gamble with. Barnett was broke so I'd say that's all he had. If he converted some of this clothing into money, I believe he would have taken the money back to Mary early in the morning before he went to the fruit market to stock up on oranges.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 2:39 am: |
|
G'day Phill,
The Ripper fleeing from Dutfield's yard is the subject of my next contribution to 'Ripper Notes'. I'll debate like crazy about that when it's read.
LEANNE |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 544
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Has to be a quick one because I am on my way out......not literally I hope!
I think that post more of less sums up a lot of gaps that I needed some more of your thoughts on...........that is more or less the scenario I would go with if I was really putting Joe in the frame.
The food in the stomach is really the thing that puts a total damper on the post 8.30 killing for me. Mary supposedly vomited in front of Mrs Maxwell and yet immediately afterwards rushed and grabbed fish and chips/potatoes and gobbled it up presumably on the hoof as she trotted around Whitechapel.
Doesn't quite cut the mustard with me I'm afraid, although as I said there is the slimmest possibility , albeit the Kate Moss of a possibility that it could have happened. So I reluctantly have to leave it in there.
The only thing I would say is that practically everyone in Whitechapel carried knives at that time anyway for defense primarily, and Joe as an orange seller would have carried a sharp utility knife as any market trader does. That one I am sure of, because my family worked the markets all their lives and every single street trader carried a sharp knife for mundane market chores.
If I remember rightly John Richardson rushed to the market to borrow a sharp knife to cut the leather from his shoe in Hanbury back yard. So Joe having a sharp knife with him is no problem to me.
Did he use it? Well that's a different crate of fish! 
love Jane
xxxxx |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1827
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
G'day Jane,
Dr. Bond wrote that there was partially digested fish and potatoes in the body's 'abdominal cavity', (intestines?), plus similar food in her stomach.
I found a Website that said that food can remain 3-4 hours in the human stomach, then spend 3 more hours moving through the intestine. Her meal seems to have been moving from her stomach and through her intestine. All body functions stopped working between 3 and 4 hours after that meal.
If the cry of "OH MURDER" came from her lips at about 4:00am, it is likely that she had a late supper between 12:00 and 1:00.
If the cry wasn't hers and she was murdered at around 8:30a.m., she would have had an early breakfast of fish and chips at about 4:30 or 5:30a.m. Which is more likely?
It's a pity they didn't ask Maria Harvey if they ate together, or question this at her inquest.
It's almost midnight here, so I'll start a new board about this on the 'Mary Kelly' thread tomorrow morning. In the meantime everyone can work out what to say. GOOD NIGHT!
LEANNE |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 733
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 1:35 am: |
|
Leanne - sorry that you do't feel able to share your counter-arguments. The oldest argument in the world is, "I have evidence to refute what you say, but I can't reveal it right now"!!
As I don't read Ripper notes, I suppose I'll never know.
Phil
Post edited on second thoughts.
(Message edited by Phil on August 24, 2005) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1831
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
G'day Phil,
I'm not hiding evidence to refute anything! At the moment I am discussing Mary Kelly's final moments and I hope that the Dutfield's-Yard-to-Mitre-Square escape is discussed after my next Ripper Notes story appears.
I have been thinking more about it, however, so hey why don't you state all your evidence against Micheal Kidney first!
I am dying to know why you feel that Kidney who, stated that Liz always returned to his home in DORSET STREET after things cooled, chose to slice her throat in Dutfield's Yard, instead of waiting for a more private time to kill her.
LEANNE |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 734
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Leanne - my evidence re kidney is nothing new - see AP's book. And I have stated that case several times already on Casebook..
The answer to your last question - assuming Kidney did it (I'd give it 60:40 probablity) would probably be "rejection-rage" or crime of passion. It was a spur of the moment thing motivated by jealousy - she had been out with another man, his replacement.
But that's just logic.
That said, the Lizzie as JtR-victim view has been strongly and widely challenged in recent years. I don't think I am alone in my evolving view.
Phil |
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 64
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
I agree Phil. Rather than accusing Barnett of a copycat killing, the much liklier happenstance is that Stride was a victim of another killer, with no attempts made to copycat the killing whatsoever. I suppose some could argue that the cut to the throat was a mild attempt to copy the Ripper. However I concur it was more typical of a heat of the moment attack, typical of a dispute with an acquaintance of some kind.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
G'day Phill,
To say that Kidney had just found out that his prostitute lover had just been found out with another man, is very bold indeed!
Why is it so hard to believe that the Ripper was disturbed by the arrival of Diemchutz?
And MARTAIN: I am not accusing Barnett of copying anyone! If he merely copied what he'd read in the newspapers, which edition did he copy from?
LEANNE |
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 65
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Leane,
Actually its martin and phil,
And copying in the newspapers? What?
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 740
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
Leanne - the whole Dutfield's yard scenario increasingly fails to add up for me - too many people around, too public a place, out of the usual stamping ground (north of Whitechapel Road).
I doubt Lizzie was attacked twice, second time by the Ripper. If Schwartz is to be believed, then I don't see the killing as fitting Jack's MO.
Finally, Lizzie was not walking the streets that night - she was with someone, a new lover perhaps, and she had left Kidney. He had been violent toward her previously. Enough motive there, I think, to warrant looking at anew.
Diemschutz arrival has nothing to do with it.
But the burden is frankly for those who think Lizzie's murder is one of the JtR series to prove it. Thought, it seems to me is tending to question both the Stride and Kelly killings to a large degree - suggesting that they may have been "domestics".
So I don't think anything I have said in this thread is particularly "bold".
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2068
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
After so many years, and counting, it's perhaps inevitable that everything about this unsolved case that can be questioned will be questioned - and that's no bad thing as a general rule.
It was almost certainly only a matter of time before questioning the inclusion of anyone other than Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes would gather momentum and supporters. And I can't see the arguments or the numbers diminishing.
The trend by itself, therefore, isn't IMHO a surefire indication that anything was wrong in the first place, although of course it's possible.
And I'm not sure that questioning the inclusion (by many) of Stride, and (by most) of Kelly, earns you the right to put the burden on others to prove you wrong.
A little bit of hard evidence against the second and/or third killer might help to eliminate the one known killer - Jack - from your enquiries.
But of course, it's Jack we are studying. And if he did kill Stride and/or Kelly we would at least know a little more about his behaviour. If he killed neither, we know even less than they once thought they did.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 743
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
What a very convoluted and self-serving argument, Caz.
It seems to amount to, don't question too much or Jack might disappear!! Too late - there has been at least one book arguing that there was no single murderer.
Your points remind me of AL Rowse on Richard III - don't question whether Richard was not guilty of the crimes traditionally laid at his door, he is better off as a "black legend". Alas, I find neither approach good history.
If this Board were to find evidence that there was no single "Jack" sobeit. We have solved the puzzle and can all go home.
Now, turning to your more general points:
if you read the post to which I was responding you'll see I had been told that I was being "bold". I simply sought to make the point that nothing I said was new. Please don't make mountains out of molehills.
As to the burden of proof - I advanced my reasons for the view I take. But it has yet to be proved that JtR killed Lizzie (that he did so is simply a conventional wisdom) so if someone says he DID, then the burden of proof lies there, not with me.
Keep questioning say I, and abandon all pet theories, they are useless (except to sell books). Keep an open mind.
Phil |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
If it was Barnett's intention to kill Mary and make it look like a Ripper murder, why did he not arrange to have a better alibi than he did? If on the other hand, he killed Mary in a rage and afterwards hit upon the idea of making it look like a Ripper murder, wouldn't you expect that the killing would be preceded by a heated argument? Yet, there is no testimony from the residents at Miller's Court that such an argument took place on the night of her murder. I know that Joe and Mary had quarreled previously but would that rage have carried over so that Joe simply pulled out a knife and killed her without any other provocation? |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Hello Caz
Quite right young lady.
As the expert opinion of those on the scene at that time, the senior police officers, and the Doctors who examined the bodies, all considered both Stride and Kelly to be Ripper victims, then the onus is on the present day doubters to prove otherwise, and NOT the other way round.
Warmest regards
LUKE WHITLEY |
Uncle Donald
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
I think this whole issue about it being a copycat is petty lame on the surface. Are we honestly suggesting any killer would be stupid enough to make a murder look like a ripper murder at that time to deflect the blame away from him onto JtR. He would be taking a massive gamble here, for it would more than likely have the opposite affect. It could end up framing him for all the ripper murders and give him the tag of JtR.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 745
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Luke, I respectfully disagree.
You repeat the conventional wisdom, but we must be prepared to challenge that if we are to make progress. Nothing should be sacrosanct in this case.
You may not like it, but AP established an honest and real measure of doubt in the view on Stride's killer. That now puts the ball in the court of those who would defend the old view.
The only reason I can see for adhering to the old views is that there is a preconceived theory that depends on the double event, or Kelly's death being attributed to JtR.
Over to you,
Phil |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
All doctors, Mr. Whitley?
In the case of Stride the only doctor who was in a position to compare anything was Phillips, as he had already carried out a post-mortem examination on Annie Chapman. And what did Phillips answer at the inquest when asked if "there was any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case?" He pointed out that there was "very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones."
Very great dissimilarity.
I might add that in every case, except Stride's, the victim's head was almost completely severed. This particular powerful and ferocious way of cutting throats seems to me as typical for Jack, alsmost a trademark you might say, as the mutilations that followed.
Well, that is the mutilations that followed in every case, except Stride's. Indeed, in Stride's case even the intention to mutilate was absent: her clothes were untouched.
Many people explain the absence of mutilations by the fact that Jack was disturbed. And although this is by no means an established fact, he may have been. But then he must have been disturbed at the exact moment he had cut her throat. If he had been disturbed ten seconds later he would already have pulled up her skirts. If he had been disturbed two or three minutes later he would already have removed her intestines. And so on.
Now in the light of the man's strange behaviour ( hurling insults at passers-by), his odd choice of location (near the side entrance of a house full of noisy people) and the very dissimilar throat wounds, I find this an odd coincidence, to say the least.
Furthermore, I think your appeal to authority as an argument is not very strong. Yes, they may have been experts and they certainly had opinions, but in spite of their expertise they failed to solve the case.
As to the burden of proof, there is none. This is no court of law. There is nothing to prove or disprove. It is simply a matter of evaluating the available facts, and I promise you I won't take it as a personal insult if you arrive at different conclusions.
That said, I, of course, don't believe for a split second that Jack had anything to do with the Stride murder.
Kindest regards,
Martin
|
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hello Phil.
Yes, I can see exactly what you mean.
The only problem is, that those who believe in the canonical five, and the people who have doubts about Stride & Kelly, are just going to keep passing the buck, with each putting the onus of proof on the other, and neither side giving any ground.
Being absolutely honest with you, I've got doubts about Stride myself, but equally honestly, I haven't seen any convincing reasons for excluding Kelly.
If, as I assume, you mean Michael Kidney in the case of Stride, then yes, there is a record of violence to work with. But there isn't an ounce of evidence to even accuse Joe Barnett of "loitering with intent", let alone the horrendous butchery of Kelly.
If not Barnett, who else do we "fit up", as the expression goes ?? I'm not trying to be awkward or difficult here. I'm merely saying what I personally think, which is all any of us can do.
Warmest regards.
LUKE WHITLEY
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 752
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:30 pm: |
|
I'm a little confused, Like. I don't see any connection between Barnett and Stride - Kidney is the likely killer in her case.
Barnett may (or may not - still more likely not in my opinion) have killed Kelly. But i don't think for a moment her was JtR.
Martin - thanks for a clear, forthright and logical post, well expressed.
Phil |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Phil,
Could you direct me to the thread or the specific posts where AP "established an honest and real measure of doubt in the view on Stride's killer"? If this is nothing more than the same stuff Glenn has been arguing on the Stride murder, then I don't need to read it. But you seem to be implying that AP has come up with something more?
The justification for "adhering to the old views" as you call them is NOT that the double murder supports any preconceived theory (that I know of) but we might remember the reason the double murder is conventional wisdom in the first place... because the majority of people who have studied the case have come to these so-called "conventional" conclusions. In fact the only theory that I know of that depends on the inclusion of Stride or not is Stewart Evans' Tumblety theory, which kind of falls apart if Stride is included.
I also do not see that is any more progressive or insightful to "challenge" the conventional wisdom, especially with such stubbornly conclusive and yet wholly unfounded statements as "Kidney is the likely killer in her case". This is about as unfounded a statement as if one was to say "Kelly was not likely a victim of JTR"... the evidence is pretty heavily stacked against both these positions.
RH |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 880
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Dear Rob:
There is another theory that depends on the inclusion of Stride, that being of the Donston-as-preplanning killer-to-create-a-design-for an unspecified reason.
Luke and Caz...I agree for what its worth that its incumbent upon the naysayers to Stride-as-Ripper victim to explain why the police felt she was a victim of JTR.
Someone from the naysayers camp should address Kidney's showing up at the Inquest without altering his appearance one bit. The moustache was in full bloom... This is indicative of someone with nothing to hide. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 757
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 5:58 pm: |
|
Robert - see AP's book (here on Casebook in e-format, I believe). That is where I first began to think outside the box on that murder.
Phil |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1838
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
G'day Phil,
If 'Jack the Ripper' had restricted himself to 'hunting and killing prey' that only worked the streets and public houses north of Whitechapel Road, he would have been increasing his chances of capture greatly.
Joel Norris wrote in his book: 'Serial Killers, The Growing Menace': 'A serial killer is a roamer. He eludes police detection and is always ten steps ahead of any pursuit.'
The busy, noisy, public location of Dutfield's Yard fails to add up to the scene of a domestic murder to me. To believe Michael Kidney murdered Elizabeth Stride in a totally unplanned fit of rage doesn't add up either. Why would he choose in a second to slice her throat, (deep enough to sever her windpipe), when he could have choked her with the silk handkerchief that was tied around her neck?
If Israel Schwartz is to be believed, I think that 'first man' may have been Michael Kidney, who angrily turned her round and threw her to the ground, shouted "Lipski" at 'second man', then parted the scene. 'Second man' could have returned to Dutfield's Yard to sooth her and gain her trust, then kill her as she turned to thank him for his kindness the only way that prostitutes knew how.
After Diemschutz arrived, second man hid behind the gate until he could easily escape in all the panic and confusion. He then fled from one busy location to another, not specifically to find another victim, but to establish and alibi by being seen near the fruit market at Duke's Place, which was busy with costemongers hiring and filling their barrows at that time.
LEANNE |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
I see the crux of this argument as being not so much whether Barnett carried out a "copycat" murder on Kelly, but whether Kelly's death was a "copycat" killing at all?
Surely anybody (whether Barnett or not) wanting to deflect attention onto JTR would have emulated only what they had read in the papers or had heard in the street?
Most contemporary reports seem to have mentioned the abdominal cuts and displacement of the intestines, but Kelly's entire abdominal wall was removed and the intestines completely *extracted* from the body. Again, the press reports mention removal of one or two abdominal organs, but in Kelly's case every single abdominal organ was removed *and* the killer targeted the organs of the thorax for the first time.
If anyone wanted to disguise a murder as one of Jack's all they had to do was cut the victim's throat and perform some token evisceration, maybe with one or two cuts to the face for good measure. But Kelly's murder went *way* beyond that and, if it was an attempt to copy JTR's known MO, it appears to me to have been an extremely crude - and crudely extreme - failure.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 758
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Leanne;
If 'Jack the Ripper' had restricted himself to 'hunting and killing prey' that only worked the streets and public houses north of Whitechapel Road, he would have been increasing his chances of capture greatly.
Your view. I don't necessarily agree - it all depends on whether he was cunning or just lucky. An alternative would be that a killing south of the Whitechapel Rd was out of area and thus inconsistent.
I have no axe to grind, no theory to support. We'll just have to disagree.
Phil |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1841
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 2:54 am: |
|
G'day,
GARETH: I agree with you totally. The case for Kelly's killer covering the crime as a Ripper crime is very weak indeed. Supposing Barnett did it, an ex-lover could use just enough elements, (MO), to throw suspicion on someone else, i.e. he would have taken her womb or kidney, ran the knife up her body and got out of the room to establish a clear alibi.
A close look at the press reports covering the earlier victims reveals that the public wasn't told much about the mutilations at all.
The 'Daily News' September 1 said of Nichols: 'the lower part of the woman's body was found to have been horribly mutilated by three or four deep gashes.'
The 'East London Advertiser' September 1 just said: 'the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open with the bowels protruding. The wound extends nearly to the breast.'
The 'Times' on September 1 just said: 'The woman had terrible wounds in the abdomen.'
The 'Times' September 10 said of Annie Chapman: 'Davis could see that her throat was severed in a terrible manner, and that she had other wounds of a nature too shocking to be described.'
Of Eddowes the 'London Evening News' October 1 just said: 'The revolting details of the last murders need not be described here.'
PHILL: No that's not just my view! I repeated the finding of a trained counseling psychologist Joel Norris, who worked in the criminal justice and corrections systems and within the professional milieu of mental health and acedemia!
LEANNE |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Hello Phil,
Many thanks for your kind words, and I am so bold to assume that you referred to my post and not to those of the man who initiated this thread and my namesake, Martin (Anderson).
I do not write much - I am a relative newcomer to this case - but every now and then I feel the urge to step in, espescially when people are making sweeping statements whithout the evidence to back it up.
Kindest regards,
Martin
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 763
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Leanne - I wouldn't agree if your man had worked in "the milieu" of 1888 !!! Tell him to get some common sense. My view remains as stated.
phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
The sample is way too limited to tell what would be inconsistent for Jackie Boy.
I'm sure you could find some aspect that made each murder site different from the others, for example Mitre Square was the only one not in Met territory; 29 Hanbury the only back yard killing; 13 Miller's Court was the only indoor job (and if you exclude Kelly, the sample really does become impossibly small to determine Jack's geographical limits).
If you think Kidney killed Stride, let's have some evidence.
You wrote to Luke:
You repeat the conventional wisdom, but we must be prepared to challenge that if we are to make progress.
Ok, so what progress do you think you are making concerning Jack the Ripper by challenging Stride - or Kelly's - inclusion as victims?
I have no problem with challenging anything at all if the arguments are reasonable and based on tangible loopholes in the evidence. But it beats me how you think any progress is going to be made in the hunt for Jack if you succeed in lowering his body count. He is invisible enough as it is.
I don't know why you thought my observations were 'self-serving'; I don't think it's wise for anyone to rely on Stride or Kelly's inclusion or exclusion.
I prefer to keep my Stride and Kelly balls in the air.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 775
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
I NEVER keep my balls in the air, caz, NEVER!!
There IS a clear difference between Berner st and the other locations - this has ALL been gone into before, so I am sure your questions are simply for show.
There were more people about; the attach was in the open on a public thoroughfare with no easy escape route (Bucks Row and Mitre Square were deserted and dark and there were alternative exists routes). I am quite certain Liz was not attacked by two men in short space.
As for the evidence, read AP's book. It's all there for you. But then, I am sure you have done that. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2083
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
I am sure your questions are simply for show.
How very dare you!
Once again, instead of speculating that my observations are self-serving and my questions are just for show (the case certainly won't progress that way, will it?), how about supporting your statement about progress being made through challenging stuff like Stride's inclusion?
What progress - even if your challenge is one day successful? One less murder to examine for clues about Jack, and that's about it.
Well done in advance.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on September 01, 2005) |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Phil
You keep using the word "evidence".
Evidence, as far as the law is concerned, is something tangible, solid, visible, or physical,etc.
Was Michael Kidney identified by a witness ? Did he leave any tangible evidence on the body, or in the vicinity ? Did he fail to produce an alibi for time of the murder ? etc.,etc., etc,.
Without any of these things, there is no "evidence", just speculation, and one man's opinion. In this case, yours.
Has AP got any "real" evidence ?
Rod |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
I'm sorry, but after reading through this thread I feel I should point out something that I would have thought would be blindingly obvious to most of you but,apparently, is not.
A serial killer very rarely has anything that connects him to the victims, other than his own fantasy & I think it is safe to say that the Whitechapel murders were the product of a serial killer.
In the rush to 'prove' who the killer was an awful lot of people are forgetting one basic thing....the death of the victim is NOT what drove this man...the mutilations were.
THINK! Most of these women died so fast they did not even know they were dead, its only AFTER they are dead that it becomes his fantasy.
Joe Barnett was no more Jack the Ripper than I am, and the simple fact of the matter is that anyone could have walked in off the street and killed Mary Kelly, she was without doubt asleep when attacked.
As for the names well....Eddowes gave her name as Mary Kelly at the time of her release from the drunk tank....Superintendant Arnold was told that the surname of Frances Coles was....Kelly. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 784
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
"Evidence" as I use the word here relates to supporting statements by at least some reference to substantial books on the Ripper killings; to the use of contemporary quotes (from Inquests, statements etc; use of police and HO files); the use of newspaper reports - anything to back up the contention being made.
I think if you look back you'll see clearly that what I challenge are UNSUPPORTED statements, "beliefs", odd "theories" that do not relate to anything that can be discussed bar the view of the poster - which is basically unarguable. Discussion must be based on logical deduction from what we know - not on the illogical, crude and unfounded advancement of fantasies.
Clear?
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2091
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 5:53 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
So I'll ask you again - what is logical about your claim that we must challenge stuff like the inclusion of Stride and Kelly if 'progress' is to be made with the case?
How can anyone find out more about the ripper crimes by trying to fit up Kidney and Barnett for two of the knife attacks on prostitutes during Jack's Autumn of Terror?
I'm seriously trying to understand the nature of the progress you think is being made by arguing strongly and at length for one or two more killers on the scene besides Jack. How is that going to get us anywhere in the long run?
Love,
Puzzled Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 798
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Anything that keeps us questioning the conventional wisdoms of the case must be progress, IMHO.
I long since (since the 70s I think) gave up peddling theories or believing that - short of astounding new material turning up - we'll ever know the identity of Jack. I'm interested in the case now for the light it throws on many aspects of Victorian society; and as a great puzzle. I like to follow the development of the theories about the case too and to play with ideas. My mind is, I think, quite open.
If we were to show that Stride was killed by another hand, it changes our perceptions of the Ripper's territory and methods. It takes away the pseudo-drama of the "double event". It erodes the deadly mystique that surrounds the case. That, to me would be progress.
If Kelly is excluded, it takes away all the speculation about her being somehow the cause, or the finale to the murderous sequence. It might cause us to rethink our view of the killer's psychology. It might also affect our view of suspects like Druitt.
If BOTH were excluded, it changes our perceptions of "Jack" - his spree is perhaps less dramatic, less unusual. We have learned something about the power of the press in creating a myth, and about the tendency of the police to be susceptible to influence of various kinds - again progress in my view.
Anything that dispels the "myth" of JtR is, to my mind to be welcomed, and constitutes a form of "progress". the myth deludes us, causes us to cling to old or "romantic ideas about these murders.
Clearing the mind, clarifying the issues - that's progress for me.
All clear now, oh puzzled one?
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
