|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 9:19 am: | 
|
Richard,
I don't recall using the word 'Nunners'. I use the word ‘Nunnerism’ which is a noun. According to the OED
“ Nunnerism (n) a statement whose veracity is entirely dependent upon itself.
Now lets get back to what you say.
“Just that if Reg is being honest, then regardless what you believe then his father is almost certain to be the Gh in question.”
No! a thousand times No! When are you going to grasp firmly the nettle of reality? Just because Reg is being honest IT DOESN’T MEAN HIS FATHER WAS.
Now do you get it?
Follow this. Many years ago my father and my mother told me that if I was a good boy and went to bed early on Christmas Eve a man in a red coat and carrying a big sack would come down the chimney and leave presents for me. And I can, unlike Reg, prove this is so as my brothers and sisters were told exactly the same thing. I am telling the truth. Now according to you that proves the existence of Santa Claus!
But between you me and the gatepost I think there is chance they might have been fibbing?
What do you think?
Bob |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
"Oh look! It's a horrible murderer with a knife! I'd better shout "murder" and alert everyone in the locality to my immediate peril."
THAT is the most logical and rational explanation.
But I can see a couple of possible flaws in that argument. If MJK had time to reason that her life was in immediate peril, and that her only hope was to 'alert everyone in the locality' by shouting "murder", she failed dismally to get the right amount of panic into her voice to suggest an inhabitant was being murdered in her bed, in Spitalfields, in the second half of 1888 no less.
A short, shrill scream might have had more impact. Yet both witnesses described the "oh murder" as being of the commonplace variety that could be heard any night of the week in that area, and didn't warrant investigating.
One or other of them could easily have dramatised the event more, by saying it was the scream of a woman in mortal terror, but that neither dared investigate in the current climate, and who could have blamed them? Yet they didn't do that.
Love,
Caz
X |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Sorry Caz, I’m going to have to spank you for that last post.
Let’s take the sad case of Sophia Hepworth from 1902 as a starter before I serve you your main course.
Sophia Hepworth lived in a court, much like Millers’ Court, where everyone knew everyone’s business, and one evening she got a bit tipsy, rushing about the court, annoying the neighbours and eventually falling into some water and having to be rescued by her partner, one William Churcher, who took her to their shared room in the court.
The report seems to indicate that her tipsy behaviour began at about 11pm and went on for some time, until her partner removed her to their room.
Shortly after the couple were in the room, many of the neighbours plainly heard a cry of ‘Oh, don’t murder me, Bill’.
It was not a loud cry, no neighbour appeared to be disturbed by the cry, no neighbour did anything about it, and everyone slept comfortably that night, apart from Sophia Hepworth that is.
Because she was tied to a chair, with blood all over her and the floor, stabbed and cut 33 times and quite dead, with two of the wounds deep cuts in her throat.
She didn’t scream and she didn’t yell.
Because she knew the man in front of her and did not expect to die. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
"Sorry Caz, I’m going to have to spank you for that last post. "
I swoon.
I think a Webcast is needed, just to keep things on the up and up, and in the interest of research into Victorian practices.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3256
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
CAZ,my dear!
If my life was in mortal terror in a room 12'x12' cuddled up with a chappie that at first seemed OK and then turned 'tricky', DEAR GOD I'd SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!! (and I know you would too!!!!)
NOT that we've been in that position!!!
Now- who's going to answer my question re 'Now I shall not be seeing you agin Mary Jane' allegedly from Mrs H..Come on Richard!!!!!!!!!! dont want to be accused of Nunnerisation here after all!
This 'common' cry of murder is always of course a worry.....HOW common was it?? Blimey! turning every corner and hearing said cry may have made a 'person' a tad nervous.....or more likely oblivious to it...I'm sure there were other more important cries for help coming out during the the night....'OH Murder!' is,to me still a rather ODD thing to cry out.
Anyway Richard.....all the 'Regisms 'are so detatched from what passes for the GTP 'reality' I feel we should step back and look again in the clear light of dawn!
Bob
Chambers-
Nunnation-n.the addition of a final n in the declenation of nouns
Says it all eh!
Anyway!!!!! Where's this comment of Mrs H coming from?
Suzi
:/ |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Richard Brian Nunweek,
Richard
I am not suggesting that George's statement was a pack of lies, however I am suggesting that his statement was exaggerated.
I find it difficult to believe that he had such a good look at Jack that he was able to provide such a detailed statement.
The police at the time did not call him as a witness, this would suggest to me that they also felt his statement was not important enough to call him as a witness, maybe due to the overly detailed statement or another reason, who knows?
The police had one witness who was able to describe the man with Mary in such detail that they must have been total idiots not to call him as a witness.
regards
Julie
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3257
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Julie
Abberline spent a deal of time interviewing Hutchinson , and continued to think of him ,if not as a viable suspect ,then certainly as a viable witness, to the extent of toddling around the East End with him to see if 'anyone was suspect'... Sadly, apparently to no effect!
Detail!!!!!! Detail!!!!!!...the Devil's ...(as they say).. in the Detail!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1556
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Hi Julie.
The police could not call George Hutchinson as a witness at the inquest because the inquest was over when George gave his statement.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5287
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Suzi, Julie
Suzi, I've found examples of people crying "Murder" when about to be murdered, or the victim of attempted murder. It did happen.
Now if she'd cried out "Oh dear", that I don't buy!
julie, the police couldn't call GH as a witness because he only came forward after the inquest had finished.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2827
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Quite right, Robert
but then again sometimes another little voice calls out 'Oh murder!' even when that little voice is not being murdered.
The murder of Elizabeth Miller in 1870 shows that nicely.
For it was a child who called out 'Oh murder!' and was heard but ignored. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
just to recall your memory look at your post Sunday November 14th 542am
The word Nunners appears there.
Let me grasp your interpretation of events.
if Reg was telling the truth that does not mean his father was.
So your opinion sways towards a George Hutchinson relizing he has the same name as a witness to a event during the Ripper crimes brags to all who listens that he is the man in question, informs his son that he was giving a hundred shillings in assisting the police, and the person he saw was a toff[ or at least dressed like one].
I quess this hard working plumber was well read in the twenties and thirties on the statements of witnesses some 40 years previous.
Come on Bob, why wont you consider the possibility that Regs Father was the man in question.
I personally can see very little doubt.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3258
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi All-
I was about to say all that about George not staggering forward till Monday, anyway I still dont BUY the 'Oh Murder!'
line!!!!!
Even so ,despite the fact that GH didnt come forward ,he was still considered as 'viable' by GFA!(as we're into initials!)
S |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Bob,
what do you mean about Santa Claus!!!!!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
G'day,
I have always feared that issues like the grave spitting one, George Hutchinson's great, great, Mary Kelly waking from a nightmare and being killed after 9:00a.m., would ruin the case against Joseph Barnett!
Please remember that not all 'Barnettites' believe in all that!- Especially not this one!
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3259
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Now Jenni!!!!!!!!!!
DONT upset me even more......firstly theres an unknown Maria Harvey line and NOW no Santa Claus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3260
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Leanne-
There are a lot of 'FACTS 're Barnett which I think we should concentrate on maybe.........but Where did Richard come up with that Maria Harvey line from?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne.
I disagree entirely with that assuption.
I would say the opposite.
Lets make it clear the Grave spitting incident is oral history although has a ring of truth about it.
The witnesses who claimed to have seen Mary kelly alive and well that morning all three of them, although a certain Mrs Goode appears to have vanished infact give Barnett a better chance to have committed the act because his night time alibi would have been irrelevent.
The nightmare account is pure specualation on my part but it has some credence because of Lotties remarks.
The very fact that a report was made to the press of a man rushing through Mitre square at 1010am that morning being the 9th November blood splattered, carring a parcel may have significance as the man [ witness ] saw that individual some 35 minutes before the body of kelly was discovered.
Coincedence that he was heading that way, like he could have been [if the killer] after Berner street when he could have accosted Eddowes.
As i have mentioned many times before Leanne, we have the same suspect but a disagreement on time of death.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
I have a study full of papers, books, original newspapers, plus notes from the press section, I will endeavour to find out that source shortly unless some one beats me to it.
To summerise it the conversation appears to have been in Kellys room on the eve of the 8th, and in Barnetts presence, it may have not meant a never see you again literally, but that she would not see her again that night.
It is so anoying that all these bits and peices in my brain are so hard to come across as quickly as they should i quess i should have more organised access.
Richard. |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Hello All
When are you guys going to quit side-stepping Dr.Bond. He alone was qualified to give a time of death for Kelly. His knowledgeable estimate was between 1 to 2 o'clock in the morning. Even allowing for a couple of hours out, there is still no way that Maxwell could have seen her at the time she stated.
Her evidence conflicts with all other, and it's quite obvious that she was either mistaken or got the wrong morning.
Trying to say that the scream of "Oh Murder" could have been Kelly having a nightmare, is the most pathetic cop-out I've yet read on this murder. Face it, the time that the two women heard that scream, is almost certainly the time she was attacked.
Look at ALL the possibilities before creating fresh fairy-tales. For one, what if Hutchinson's statement was true. If any of you were the killer, and knew you'd been seen and followed by Hutchinson, wouldn't you delay the killing for a while, until you were fairly sure that Hutch wasn't going to come banging on the door, or even bring a policeman ?? Remember that Hutch, like everyone else, was fully aware of the series of murders, so his interference would not have been out of the question.
I'm not saying that it happened like that, but it's equally as plausible as any other theory stated here. The biggest mistake made in this whole series of murders, has been to try and label every witness at these crimes as either lying, corrupt, mistaken, pimps in disguise, or even the womens killers.
Regards
ROD |
Doug
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 12:28 am: |
|
Greetings,
Firstly, I would like to opologise for 2 spelling mistakes I made in my message( I was finishing a 24 hour shift). 1. Barnett in the title.
2. I should have said 'stones throw' from Barnett's adress.
I will try to answer as best I can for those who responded.
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE: from what I know, a fight happened 8 days prior to Kelly's murder. A window was smashed in this fight.From experience that I have in domestic violence, particularly in working areas, when windows start breaking, you can be sure he would have been physically violent at some stages.
A point I would like to reiterate. He chose only prostitutes, and did terrible things to the corpses.I looked for any indication at all for any suspect who did not like prostitutes. I could only find actual evidence in Barnett.
The point I was making about the argument is that it arose from one point: He did not want a prostitute to stay there.The window was smashed and Barnett was tossed out.This is actual proof that he did not like prostitutes.
The fact that he tried to appease Kelly in the following days just follows a pattern.When that did not work he went back to violence again. It is a fair bet he was this Whitechapel murderer.Many domestic cases follow this pattern(though not to the extent Barnett took - which was extreme).
As for Hutchinson seeing a man with Kelly that was not Barnett, I can only say this. From what I have read she was seen with many possible clients that night, and it is not known for certain when she was killed. |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:19 am: |
|
Leanne,
You seem to say that Barnett's and Kelly's paths did not cross much except after losing his job when Kelly moved someone else in, effectively kicking him out. All that time when their paths weren't crossing she could have been working as a prostitute and they were really just sharing the convenience of a shelter. I guess we won't find out but that wouldn't make him her pimp or not her pimp.
Regards, N.B. |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Harry,
The only person who saw Hutch or someone like him was the woman on her way to work, If it was Hutch he may have made up his story as an alibi to save himself or Barnet (if he had seen him) from suspicion.
Richard,
You're missing the point. It's only Hutchinson's statement that puts the man in these clothes and with the specific description. If Barnett was there he may have been afraid of having been noted by someone. He identifies Mary's body so as a matter of course he is interviewed by the Police. His alibi is weak but believable.
Regards, N.B. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Sarah Lewis said, " I could not sleep. I sat awake untill nearly four, when I heard a female's voice shouting murder loudly. It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at our door. There was only one screem."
The cry of murder was also heard by Elizabeth Prater. She said the screem was faint.
We all agree there was a cry of murder. I think that the cry came from Kelly, and the time of death was shortly before four A.M.
I Feel that Mary Cox, the most reliable of all the witnesses. [ In my opinion. ] could not have seen the ripper. I doubt that Jack would have waited from the time he was seen by Cox, untill the time the cry of murder was heard to strike.
I believe Hutchinson. I believe he saw someone with Kelly that night. However if his times are correct, then I doubt that the man he saw was the ripper.
Nobody can argue that Mary Cox saw a man with Kelly that night. wether you believe George, or you do not believe him makes no difference. if the time of death was shortly before four, it is logical to assume that Kelly was on the streets still working after three in the morning. She may have went back out after George left, or George was not telling the truth and Kelly was looking for money after three in the morning.
I read a witness testimony. The woman claimed to have seen Kelly talking to a rather tall man around three in the morning. This makes sence the ripper would have struck quickly after Kelly let him in her room.
The ripper still could have been anyone. Hutchinson could have waited for Kelly, and hooked up with her after three. Kelly could have been with Barnett after three. Jack could have been anyone. I feel Kelly was still working the street after three in the morning.
Jack could have broke in and surprised Kelly why she slept. I do not believe he did, but I can understand the point of view of those who believe he broke into Kelly's room.
Your friend, Brad |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Mr.Wolf.
Sorry, but I think you're as way out on this one, as I think you are about that Ripper no-hoper Thomas Cutbush. I don't believe, as Richard and Leanne do, that Barnett was Jack the Ripper, but Leanne's statements regarding Barnett's attitude to Kelly going on the streets are spot-on.
No way was Barnett Kelly's pimp, and all the available evidence says as much.
Regards
ROD |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
"From experience that I have in domestic violence, particularly in working areas, when windows start breaking, you can be sure he would have been physically violent at some stages. "
I say this in all seriousness - how do you know she wasn't violent as well ? I can see a drunk Kelly tossing a few things about before forcing her way onto the streets.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1560
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Hi Rodney,
A couple of points.
With regard to my suggestion that Kelly may have been having a recurring nightmare i am merely attempting to give a alternative suggestion based on Lotties remarks and observations during that last week, also trying to make sense of the morning sightings.
Everybody assumes Kelly was killed around 4am then if that is the case have no alternative but to call Maxwell/ Lewis/ and the elusive Mrs Goode liars or mistaken, even though Maxwell swears her testomony under oath and the police also checked out her account of her morning errands.
my scenerio would allow the morning sightings to have happened.
Point two.
You say that Hutchinsons sighting of possibly her killer would have unnerved the man that is why he waited over a hour before making a move.
Then answer this one, what if after twenty minutes a dozen policeman had entered the court and obtained entry to the room and searched the man for any sign of weapon, how would he have explained the very nasty blade on his person.
Sorry Robert I do not agree with the waiting explanation, and although bias i do not agree that the dream scenerio is utter rubbish it offers a attempt to make sense of the many factors we find hard to explain.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:24 am: |
|
G'day,
N.B. wrote: 'His alibi is weak but believable.'
Joseph Barnett DID NOT have an alibi!!!!!!! At Mary Kelly's inquest he wasn't even asked to give one. The only existing contemporary reference to his alibi, appeared in 'The Daily Telegraph', November 10: 'was at [Buller's] Lodging House in New Street, and was playing whist there until half past twelve when he went to bed.'
Mary Kelly's most likely time-of-death was established at her inquest, three days later, so if that's the alibi he gave to police during his interview, "I was asleep" is no alibi!
Buller's Lodging House didn't have a guard at the door to give people permission to leave! The morning Kelly was murdered was 'Lord Mayors Day', and workers around the nearby St. Catherine's Dock were leaving at various early hours to find work. Who was there to make sure Barnett didn't leave?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1888
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:41 am: |
|
G'day,
I remember reading that Maria Harvey quote somewhere and I am looking for it too Rich!
But even if we never find it I'm sure that Barnett would have been told that Maria Harvey had found lodgings elsewhere, because her staying in Room 13 was the reason that Barnett moved out.
Barnett told the press that: 'I told her that I would come back if she [Mrs Harvey] would go and live somewhere else.'
That's why I don't believe he went to bed at half past twelve, and stayed there! He didn't go to Miller's Court to murder her, but flipped when she still didn't want him back!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:47 am: |
|
G'day,
If I ever get my book published you will see a picture of what 'Buller's Lodging House' most likely looked like. There are no existing photographs or drawings of what the actual lodging house looked like.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Hi AP,
Only one man gets to spank me and I'm afraid it's not you.
She didn’t scream and she didn’t yell.
Because she knew the man in front of her and did not expect to die.
So you are not talking the same language as me and Ben in this instance. I was responding to Ben's scenario, whereby Mary knew she was in immediate peril and needed to alert everyone in the locality.
I simply observed that if she reasoned that she was in deadly danger and that her only hope was to summon help by screaming for her life, she failed dismally; two people heard a 'shout' or 'cry' of "oh murder", and neither thought to investigate.
Obviously, if Mary knew her killer and didn't see it coming, Ben's panic scenario would not apply - but my 'no panic perceived by the witnesses' observation would.
So in fact, nothing I wrote in my post conflicts with your own favoured scenario! It could actually support your view that Mary knew her killer and was unafraid, because I agree that the shout did not appear to be one of sheer terror. Perhaps she was being spanked and called out "Oh murder" to please the spanker. 
I should be spanking you for not reading properly.
A question for Barnettites:
If Joe killed Mary and knew he had rendered her practically unrecognisable, why didn't he take advantage of what he'd done by failing to identify her? After all, the prime suspect is always going to be the victim's partner or ex partner - assuming they know who the victim is.
No one would have blamed Joe if, through apparent grief, he had been in denial and said "I can't believe that's my Mary. I'm sorry but I can't be sure whether it's her or not".
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 15, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5291
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Caz, maybe Mary called out "Murder" through the sheet. There were stab holes in it. Also she may have been rather groggy, which might have slurred her cry a bit.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
A couple of possibilities there - thanks.
But even if the cry was muffled or slurred, it was still clear enough for the two witnesses to make out the word "murder".
Love,
Caz
X |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Dear Richard,
First off I’m perfectly willing to accept I used the word ‘Nunners’.
Now getting down to serious stuff. Once again you are guilty of Nunnerisms.
“So your opinion sways towards a George Hutchinson relizing he has the same name as a witness to a event during the Ripper crimes brags to all who listens that he is the man in question”
Where do you get the information he bragged to all who would listen? Reg doesn’t say he told anyone else to the best of my recollection.
“I quess this hard working plumber was well read in the twenties and thirties on the statements of witnesses some 40 years previous.”
What did he supposedly tell his son that would need an in depth knowledge of witness’s statements? All that he was supposed to have told his son was plastered all over the papers, and since the person in question had almost the same name as himself it is highly likely that he read them – in common with thousands of other people worldwide. The bit about the five pounds could have been pure invention.
“Come on Bob, why wont you consider the possibility that Regs Father was the man in question.”
Of course I will consider the possibility – I just don’t find it very likely. What I cannot understand is your refusal to accept that possibly he wasn’t!
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
Richard
You obviously think I am having a go at you personally. Not so. What I am having a go at is the way you insist on portraying vague possibilities as accepted fact.
When others seriously research an aspect of the case, for the large part they beaver away working diligently building up a store of discoveries and facts that support their contention. You don’t.
You fix your mind on something, and without any further research or corroboration of the theories, insist everyone accepts them as facts because you say they are!
Three examples.
The Grave Spitting Incident, which you describe as oral tradition. It isn’t. It’s an unsupported account of something somebody may have said. In any case it doesn’t in any way, shape or form link to Barnett. His name is not mentioned. Yet you insist on dragging it up to show that Barnett hated MJK.
Reg’s Father. You insist that Reg’s father is the right GH. You haven’t done any research (or if you have you haven’t told us the results) to back up your claim – you just insist it must be correct. Don’t forget this information was published in a book that has widely been accepted as a hoax.
Radio Broadcast. You insist you heard a particular radio broadcast back in the seventies. No one else can recall such a broadcast, the BBC have no record of such a broadcast yet you insist it did happen because according to you ‘we can take your word for it’ Oh well that’s ok then isn’t it. In that case I was right, GH is the Ripper and you can take my word for that!
Do your research, try and find something to help prove your theories, and let us know what you find out. But you must be honest with yourself and us. It is very noticeable that whenever a point is raised that doesn’t help your case you just ignore it and refuse to answer.
How many times have I asked you to comment on the fact that Reg’s father’s handwriting doesn’t match that on the statement by GH? I’m still waiting for a reply. Or that Reg’s father has a different name to the man who wrote the statement?
After my book was published I spent years researching ‘my’ GH. Everything I found out convinced me I had the right man, but in the end I received a document, which to my mind at least, showed that I was wrong. I immediately got on the boards and let others know of my failure. But if you wish any credibility you have to be brutally honest with yourself and others.
Start researching your theories, and try and find something that will back your assertions up – and then tell us. If you don’t find anything then you really must accept the possibility that you were wrong.
Bob |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2830
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Sorry Caz, it was a verbal spank, and it looks like I got it anyway.
I’m struck by a couple of things here.
Firstly, on his own admission Barnett had been out of work for the previous four months.
So what were the pair of them living on, if it wasn’t Kelly’s immoral earnings?
Secondly there are the subtle distinctions in Barnett’s testimony to the police and to the court of inquest.
He told the police that he left Kelly because she had ‘resorted to prostitution’.
But he told the court that he left Kelly because ‘she took a prostitute in’.
Big difference there.
And it sounds to me like his original statement to the police was fuelled by a desire not to be prosecuted for living off the immoral earnings of a prostitute. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3261
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Enough spanking!!!!!
AP- I agree with that there is more than a subtle difference there!
Bob-
OK....... Re.... GH,The facts contained within the statements Nos 1 and 2 cannot be denied ,neither can Abberline's comments re GH!
Richard-
I dont want to reiterate Bobs post here but it does make sense....GRAVE,OUR CHUM REG, AND THE BBC 'PROG' Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When you've got this watertight Richard........and it has to be watertight ........people who have found leaks ADMIT it...........Then THINK again and then publish..........Maybe and be damned.........but publish anyway!!!
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1891
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
G'day,
CAZ: 'If Joe killed Mary and knew he had rendered her practically unrecognisable, why didn't he take advantage of what he'd done by failing to identify her?'
Barnett was located the morning of the bodies discovery some hours later drinking at a public house near Buller's. He later told the press: "I heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court and on my way there I met my sister's brother-in-law and he told me it was Marie....' So by that time everyone must have already been pretty certain, "....I went to the Court and there saw a police Inspector and told him who I was and where I'd been the previous night." Alibi? That was reported in 'Lloyd's Newspaper', November 11.
By the time he turned up on the scene, John MaCarthy, who also verbally identified the body, was already there. Barnett probably had to merely confirm the identification, and sign an official document. Mary's two prostitute friends who could have been the body, were already there too.
Do you think that unless he was absolutely, positively certain who it was he would have needed more proof that it was Mary Kelly on that bed? He would have atlast needed more proof than similar eye's and ears.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3262
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Richard
PLEASE!... there is no contact here re the handwriting.....hate to say it I've been an Art teacher here for too long to get that one past me!
STILL WAITING for that Mrs H line...............
'Reg's'...."Father"....sorry doesn't match wherever I try to look !
Lets face it we can all fix ourselves on a concept........sometimes we think again and look from a different direction but at the end of the day we stay focused!
Incidently that Maria Harvey line still worries me and I guess I'll still lie awake at night waiting for the prog on the radio!!!!!!!..No offence BUT IF it should arrive will it really prove anything to be honest???!
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
G'day Wolf,
'Firstly, on his own admission Barnett had been out of work for the previous four months.
So what were the pair of them living on, if it wasn’t Kelly’s immoral earnings?'
When Barnett lost his well-paying job at Bullers he became a hawker, costermonger of oranges. This brought in a lot less cash, but shows the man's desperate attempt to keep the couple alive, and keep Mary from needing to resort back to her old profession.
After he moved out of Miller's Court he kept on returning to her almost daily to give her money when he had it, and probably to try to stop her from needing to returning to prostitution.
But Kelly's rent arrears at the time of her death, added up to the time that Barnett lost his job at Billingsgate, (we talked about this in the past). Kelly was probably fuelling her drinking habit!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Bob,
Where do i start.
First of all I bear no malice for the Nunners reference, it reminds me of schooldays and a slight sarcism, but so what..
The grave spitting incident is purely a reference to a remark by the late Dan farson, which i found intresting along with the Associated Redifusion broadcast back in 1959.
I am simply relaying to these boards that if such a occurence took place with emphesis on the word 'if' then going by all the facts we know refering to the burial service Barnett would be implicated.
Refering to Regs claim about his father he does state that in the twenties and thirties when the subject crept up, he merely said that he knew one of the victims and assisted the police and as his surname suggests it was the murder of kelly he was refering to.
The radio broadcast is very frustrating as yours truely happens to be the only person on this site to have heard it, however i have been on this case for 40 years . and intrested for even more so mayby my enthusasim enabled me to seek out that radio airing and listen to it , which is precisely what i did.
A couple more points.
Regarding the hand writing conparisson on Hutchinsons statement which you have been asking me to reply to.
That statement we know was tampered with the crossing out of the pub in which the sighting was witnessed, the statement may have been signed on behalf of GH, Mayby he was illiterate even though in later life he was able to scribble down estimates,
Last but not least Bob.
You admit a reference i respect that you got the wrong Gh, as i will gladly do if it is proven I have the wrong Gh.
I am not trying to be a clever ripperologist, nor am i lacking in basic knowledge, just offering a opinion as always.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1562
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Hi,
Must add that i am going to start a new thread tomorrow [ day off] that should offer more debate.
entitled. 'What did the scavengers see'
Now this is intresting.
Regards Richard. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 63
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Was Buller's Lodging House a regular doss house? Given Barnett's financial situation, could he have afforded a private room in the lodging house (assuming a private room was even available)? If not, would his coming and going have been noticed by others? If he killed Mary, what did he do with his bloody clothes? What did he do with the knife and Mary's heart (if, in fact, it was taken)? Where did he wash up? I assume that would have taken some time. Could he have done it in the lodging house or would people have been pounding on the door saying "hey, I need to get in there?" A lodging house certainly doesn't seem to afford much privacy and it seems like he had a lot of things to take care of.
c.d. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3263
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Leanne-
The Mary/Marie-Jeanette thing is lets face it a bit worrying......Surely the French affectation came purely from Mary and her (was it or was it not ...visit/s to France)
I'm sorry I think that this was a total affectation, to rise above the 'Mary Jane 'of Dorset Street! - but there again ,I can't help but think that the Mary Jane and even the Kelly somehow , may not have been the right names!..
Lets face it Mary Jane ...and Kelly are a common set of names.....
Oooooh god I know this is contencious....BUT if we look at the Welsh records which we all have .....maybe Davies/Davis/Kelly are a 'no no' and then dear God where do we start to look?!
( I KNOW this has all been done before! BUT!...)
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
G'day C.D.,
In 1844, 'The Society for Improving the Conditions of the Labouring Classes' was formed under Royal patronage. Existing lodging houses were renovated and three new ones were built for single men, single and aged women, and families.
Libraries were added and improvements were made to kitchens etc and sleeping compartments were enclosed by their own doors.
For three shillings per week, each inmate had one compartment fitted with a bed, a chair and a clothes box. Each had his own locker with a unique key for it, and he also had use of a common warehouse. There was also a well-ventilated safe for each inmates food in the pantry. A staircase occupied the centre of the house. All doors were secured with spring hatches of which each lodger had his own key.
Joseph Barnett was born in 1858, 14 years after the improvements were made. I haven't been able to find reference to a lodging house called 'Buller's', but another one in Spitalfields that was further from St. Katherine's Dock was opened for 234 single men so it is unlikely that the presence of one man all night and morning could have been proven beyond doubt.
Meal times at these houses weren't an occasion held at a specific time and food was obtainable at any hour of the day, because casual workers couldn't be restricted to any time-table.
All of the above is a summary of research I made for my book, and I hope it at least puts us closer to a description of Buller's and Barnett's 'alibi'.
I don't know what he did with the knife and bloody clothes, but he had ample time to dispose of them.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 15, 2005)
(Message edited by Leanne on November 15, 2005) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
G'day Caz,
Why did Barnett give an Inspector an 'alibi' as soon as he turned up at Miller's court and before peeking through the window at the body, if he wasn't certain it was her on that bed?
How do we know the Ripper was smart enough to think the little 'tactic' you thought of? (the one of making him appear innocent by questioning whether the body was Mary Kelly's or not?)
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 15, 2005) |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 66
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:23 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Thanks for your response. I was not aware that such places existed back then. And you are right that the problems that I listed were not insurmountable in such a place.
As for Barnett's alibi, he may very well have been asleep. Certainly not the greatest alibi that anyone has ever come up with but if it were the truth it is pretty hard to embellish it. For example, I went to bed last night (unfortunately, by myself). Had a murder occurred in my apartment building, that is the "alibi" that I would have given to the police. Not real great as alibis go but it would be the truth.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1895
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 11:52 pm: |
|
G'day C.D.,
Yeah Barnett may have been seen walking into his compartment at 12:30. He may even have tried to sleep, which was needed if he intended to get up early and try to find work on that special day like everyone else. But if he was fortunate enough to fall asleep and enjoy a full night sleeping after being rejected by his lover, that would have to go down in history as one of the most remarkable sleeps ever!
LEANNE |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 3:42 am: |
|
Richard,
You state that you are:
“just offering a opinion as always.”
But you’re not – that’s the problem. You are making statements and demanding we accept them as fact! You’ve even done it in this post.
“going by all the facts we know refering to the burial service Barnett would be implicated”
Not ‘might’ be implicated, not ‘possibly’ implicated but ‘would’ be indicated, and yet as I have already pointed out there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CONNECT THIS INCIDENT WITH BARNETT.This incident, if it ever happened, makes no reference to Barnett. Do you understand now?
“That statement we know was tampered with the crossing out of the pub in which the sighting was witnessed,”
The statement was NOT tampered with. An error was made and corrected – that is not tampering, and yet you have stated as a definite fact that the statement was tampered with.
Don’t you see what problems you are causing by making these statements and demanding we accept them as fact? Anyone reading your posts will be under the impression that Barnett was involved in the grave spitting incident, GH was Reg’s father and the statement by GH was tampered with – all of which is incorrect.
Bob Hinton |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1896
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 3:56 am: |
|
G'day C.D.,
Another point is that he may have been naked when he butchered Kelly! Ever thought of that?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 211
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 4:25 am: |
|
Richard,
Because a name was crossed out,that is by no means tampering with a document,and certainly not illegal.
It is done even today by law enforcement officers,the difference these days,is,any alterations are initialled by questioner and questioned.It may not have been the custom in 1888.
At the bottom of each page there is a signature,and being as it was a witness statement,the only signature required is of the witness.
There can be no question that the signature we are reffering to was that of G.H.himself. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
