|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 180
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 2:42 pm: |       |
Posted by Robert Linford: "Marie, sorry I can't remember now, but was it you who said that you thought that Kelly was killed later in the morning? If the killer was Barnett, he was taking an awful risk - knowing that someone would be calling for the rent, plus he knew that the window could be peered through"
Sorry Robert, I didn't mean to ignore your post- it's just been one heck of a weekend, and my concentration is shot.
Yes, it was I who stated I thought that Mary was killed later in the morning, although I'm not yet ready to pinpoint an exact time.
I don't think that Joe could have killed Mary at night, because I'm not convinced she would have given him the time. It's my impression that she was spending her evenings trying to pick up paying customers.
Also, I'm not convinced it was planned, so to speak. Joe could have become very angry if his brother Dan (who was reportedly drinking with Mary the night before), told him that Mary was against a reconciliation. He may have simply taken an opportunity, and killed her out of rage.
Leanne's ideas about burning the shirt, and the jacket covering the window are very interesting.
The thing is, Barnett would have had just as much difficulty killing Mary, and sneaking out- as any other killer would have. But Joe had the advantage of knowing the room and street very well, and of being a familiar face. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 181
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 2:49 pm: | |
AP wrote: "You will have to study some medical textbooks from that period to support your theory, but be careful, the study of such things leads one onto some very strange paths indeed."
Funny you should mention it- I was walking past an antique/fine bookstore just t'other day, when I saw just such a beautiful, illustrated medical textbook. I wanted it so much, I could almost taste it's aged pages.
But there's no chance of me being able to afford anything so pricey. I'm guessing it would be pricey, I didn't go into the shop.
I'll comfort myself with the fact that I've been led down enough strange paths in my life. Perhaps it's time to try some more sensible ones... |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 182
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | |
Tim: I would love to see those sketches of Barnett and Hutchinson! Like Robert wrote, if you cannot post the pictures- perhaps you could post the link. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 79
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 3:20 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I'VE GOT YOUR HEART.....AND I'VE GOT YOUR SHIRT,TOO!
Leanne, I do not believe that Barnett had a family, or that he killed Kelly after nine in the morning, or that he disguised the crime as a Ripper murder.
I was replying to Richard's posts, in which (if I understand correctly) HE was suggesting these things, as a possibility.
Yes, Barnett used to live there. Exactly! How could he hope to get away with it in broad daylight? If Kelly was killed at night, of course, the problems are fewer. I think Kelly WAS killed at night...but I don't think Barnett was the one who did it.
Richard's suggested that Barnett didn't go to Kelly's room in the morning with the intention of killing her, but ended up murdering her in a fit of passion, so I'll try to reply when I post to him.
Would blood-soaked clothing thrown on a fire actually burn? I don't know - I've never tried the experiment.
Re the rent, maybe they collected the other tenants' rent first, leaving Kelly's till later, as they knew she was a late riser. But it doesn't matter. If you like, the rent day was Saturday - it's not vital to the argument.
Rich and Marie, I'll try to post later.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 4:03 pm: | |
Marie
I know what you mean about them old medical text books. I once had the fortunate misfortune to have been offered lodgings in a former president's palace in Male, the capital of the Maldives, and in investigating the premises found the former president's library in intact and perfect condition, dating from the very age of Jack. Well,let me tell you that I spent three weeks in a worm hole studying not only such beautifully illustrated medical text books from the era but also illustrated manuals on the correct art of spanking naughty serving wenches etc etc. There were so many volumes of this nature that I thought to myself at the time 'no wonder there were so many maniacs running around Whitechapel in the late Victorian period if this was their literary diet'.
It was a real treasure trove.
All this perversion, lust and imagination was I feel the black locomotive that drove our Jack, somehow.
He took the secret books onto the streets and shoved them straight into the face of a faceless society.
The reaction is known.
Even her majesty noticed.
I beg your pardon.
With her majesty's pleasure.
I wonder what books she had? |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 80
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 5:17 pm: | |
Hi Richard and Marie
Richard, I'm not sure we can ever know what exactly Barnett might have meant by his remark. For instance, maybe he thought that Jack had been a member of the gangs who extorted money from prostitutes. If such a person then set up on his own, and developed a taste for murder, which had the effect of driving some of the women off the streets, thus reducing the gangs' takings, then that person might have become a target for the gangs' summary vengeance if he ever owned up. I'm not suggesting Jack WAS a gang member, but Barnett may have thought this.
Richard and Marie, I see what your're saying about the crime of passion in the morning.I just have tremendous difficulty believing it. I'll try to envisage it step by step, and if I go wrong, you can tell me.
Barnett goes to Kelly's room in the morning, and enters either by using the key he's supposed to have taken, or by knocking, or reaching through the window, or simply opening the door. He wants to talk to Kelly. Although no neighbours reported sounds of a row (and I gather Kelly was quite vocal during a row!), something Kelly says or does makes him fly into a frenzy and he kills her.
Then he calms down and starts to think : if he can make this look like a Ripper killing, it will be better for him. So he sets about the stomach-churning process of mutilating the poor woman.
But why does he have to go so far? Surely he wouldn't have imagined, from reading the newspapers, that Eddowes et al. had actually been skeletonised? Why did he go so over the top?
Every minute spent in the room brought added danger, and represented added time that he might be asked to account for - he wouldn't have known that two women had heard a cry of "Murder" in the night, and that this would point the police towards an earlier time of death.
Then he leaves and walks off, bloodstained surely, without anyone's seeing or noticing him or remembering him later. And he's so confident that he can do this, he has the cheek to walk off with Kelly's heart in his pocket.
I suppose it's possible, but surely it's not very likely?
Rich, where I think your theory does score is in the matter of Barnett's finances. I myself don't think he had a family. But it might explain something. Barnett, until he lost his job, was apparently fairly decently paid compared with the people amongst whom he lived. Yet he chose to live in the very worst street in London, in very poor accommodation. Was there a hidden drain on his resources? If Barnett was supporting a family at this time, as well as Kelly, that might explain his apparently low standard of living.
Marie, do you know your name's in "Ripperologist"?
There's a photo of these Boards and you're listed as last poster three times. You're a star!!!...You'll still have to pay the congestion charge, though.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 6:41 pm: | |
G'day,
Kelly's inquest was too short, compared to the earlier inquests! Her's was over in a day, whereas the others lasted several days! I'd say it had alot to do with the testimonies that claimed she was alive the next morning! These testimonies weren't heard!
Why couldn't Joe have returned later that evening to plea with her to have him back? The possibility of him getting hold of some money somewhere, would have been too great!
ROBERT: How did her killer disguize it as a 'Ripper' killing? He cut her throat first, but no one could determine if it was from left-to-right or right-to-left. It wasn't obvious!
Last night I read, again, the official report describing how her body was found. I noticed that her uterus, kidneys and one breast were found under her head. Now taking her uterus and/or kidney would have been like her killer read about, but no her killer had to take her heart! This was probably placed under her head first as well, for later decisions!
Bruce Paley wrote: 'Porters were paid at varying rates, so wages varied, but a steady diligent worker could earn as much as 3 pounds per week - a considerable sum for a labourer at the time, and one that put him at the top of his class...' Then: 'Given his education, Joseph Barnett was probably capable of finding a better job but he may have been held back as much by the local economic situation as he was by his speech impediment...'
Then after working there for over 10 years, Barnett lost his job! Charles Booth calculated that the average dock labourer earned about 6s 3d per week, a sum far below what he was earning before!
LEANNE
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 190
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 9:57 am: | |
Hi all,
Robert, you wrote: "Marie, do you know your name's in "Ripperologist"?
There's a photo of these Boards and you're listed as last poster three times."
Haha! Oh, how embarrassing! Most of what I write is utter tripe. Well-meaning tripe, but tripe nontheless.
You bring up some very good points in your post- which I promise I'll get back to. I'm in enough trouble for goofing off today, as it is.
AP, I loved the story! I'm envious you had the opportunity to look through all those books. I just can't get enough of those perverse old tomes. Spanking and all. Although I'm not sure that attitudes towards women have really changed that much.
On the surface, maybe. But one only has to look at all the porn available today, and crime stats for women to see that the main thing that changed is that we get to vote now.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 83
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
Hi Leanne and Marie
Leanne, I don't believe that Barnett - or anyone else - tried to disguise Kelly's murder as a Ripper killing. I think Kelly was probably killed by the Ripper, so as far as I can see we're in complete agreement on that one. The difference is, you think that Barnett was Jack.
I doubt if Barnett had a family, but his apparent low standard of living, at a time when his income was quite reasonable, puzzles me a bit and Richard's theory that Barnett did in fact have a family, at least offers an explanation. Of course
there are alternative explanations, or maybe I've got the whole thing wrong and there's no genuine puzzle at all.
Why do we have to say that these things were placed under her head? Why not the head ending up on the things?
Marie, you do not write tripe! I always look forward to your posts, and it's a pleasure to discuss the case with you. And I'm not just saying that because you're now a star!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 7:13 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Standard of living, standard of living: Bruce Paley wrote that considering his education the fact that he followed his father's footsteps and became a fish porter, (to contribute to the welfare of his siblings), would have added to his frustration. All his brothers became fish porters. Maybe the only woman he could find to stay with him was a common prostitute, so he tried to change her ways.
The fact that McCarthy sectioned off part of his shed to give them a home, shows that he had some confidence in Barnett's wage.
We don't have to say those body parts were deliberately placed under her head. We don't have to say anything. After reading how her body was found that morning, trying to answer someone's question about evidence to show that her killer cared, (stop laughing!), it stood out to me that for some reason her killer put her uterus and one breast under her head. I likened it to a pillow.
I just had a thought: As her uterus and breast were her female 'sex' parts, perhaps her heart, ('Love-organ'), was placed next to them for her killer to choose from before he left!
LEANNE
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 194
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 7:34 am: | |
Hi all,
Robert, you posted: "But why does he have to go so far? Surely he wouldn't have imagined, from reading the newspapers, that Eddowes et al. had actually been skeletonised? Why did he go so over the top?"
Honestly, I can't answer that question. But I've read of similar cases. One man who cut off his girlfriend's face, when she broke up with him, William Bury who eviscerated his wife, the list goes on...
I've no idea why these killers do this to their intimates, except to say that they are likely suffering from some type of psychological disorder.
I'm not sure what time in the morning I think that Barnett may have killed Kelly. Perhaps he went to her room shortly after he woke up, and that may have been very early indeed (5.00, 6.00am possibly).
I'm not sure how much faith I put in the statements of Maxwell, or Lewis. Perhaps they were mistaken. Perhaps not. I do agree that it would have been more difficult for Joe to have killed Mary later than 8.00 am, but he would have had the advantage of knowing the street, and the regular movements of it's residents very well.
I don't think that a loud quarrel would have necessarliy ensued, it's possible that Joe was already wound up when he went to her room. If Mary had been drinking with Dan (who may have been trying to put in a word for Joe), perhaps Dan brought back a 'no chance' answer to a reconciliation. Perhaps Dan had added that Mary had also been trying to pick up customers the night before. I imagine this could have wound Joe up, too. It may not have taken much more than Mary lying drunkenly in bed to make him snap.
If Joe killed Mary, I don't think it was a wholly conscious decision of his to make it seem like a 'Ripper' killing. It's possible he was influenced by all the newspaper reports he read about the killings. We all know that media accounts of murders can spawn copycat killings.
PS: cheers for the vote of confidence 
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 9:06 am: | |
G'day,
JOSEPH BARNETT'S KNOWN ADDRESSES
(sources in brackets / according to Bruce Paley)
1858: 4 Hairbrain Court, Whitechapel (birth certificate).
1861: 2 Cartwright Street, Whitechapel (census report).
1864: 8 Walton's Court, Cartwright Street, Whitechapel (father's death certificate).
1871: 24 1/2 Great Pearl Street, Whitechapel (Census report).
1878+: Osborne Street, Whitechapel (Billingsgate porter's licence).
1878+: North East Passage, Wellclose Square, St George in the East (porter's licence).
1887: George Street with Mary Kelly (inquest).
1887: Paternoster Court, Dorset Street, Whitechapel with Mary Kelly (press statement).
1887-8: Brick Lane, Whitechapel with Mary Kelly (press statement).
1888: 13 Miller's Court, 26 Dorset Street with Mary Kelly (press reports).
1888: Buller's Lodging House, New Street, Bishopsgate Street (inquest).
1888: 21 Portpool Lane, Leather Lane, Holborn, with sister (inquest).
1906: 18 New Gravel Lane, Shadwell, with brother Daniel (porter's license/Daniel's death certificate).
1907: 60 Red Lion Street, Shadwell (porter's licence).
1908: Tench Street, Wapping (porter's licence).
1919-26: 106 Red Lion Street, Shadwell, with 'wife' Louisa (electoral rolls, death certificate).
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 89
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 9:45 am: | |
Thanks for posting that, Leanne.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 4:24 pm: | |
Marie
glad you enjoyed the tale. I have a confession to make about that anyway. I borrowed one of the ex-president's books from his library and have still not returned it.
And a fascinating book it is too.
It is a booklet from 1889, written by a visiting British army officer from Ceylon for the Sultan's coronation, and recounts some of the very early history of the Maldive Islands. Amongst the usual stuff I found the fascinating account of what I believe could be the first recorded activities of a serial killer at large in a community, and this harked back to a time before the Roman Empire and before Islam arrived on the islands to replace Buddhism.
What happened was this - I know this is off theme but what the heck - every month a sea monster would harrass and threaten the simple folk of the capital island, called Male, at night, with its huge shining eyes and flame filled mouth, so the good people went to their good king and asked him what they could do to satisfy the threatening demon. Quite simple he told them ,just tie a nice virgin up in the small temple by the harbour once a month, and for that night all the people must remain in their houses for that night. This they did and sure enough along would come the sea monster, shining eyes and breathing fire, and next morning they would find said virgin raped and brutally murdered in the temple. 'It's a miracle!' they all chorused, for the sea monster then only bothered them on the night when they put the virgin out.
This went on for years.
Along comes famous Muslim cleric, adventurer and explorer, Ibn Batutu - who eventually converted the islanders to Islam - and decides to sit in the temple along with said virgin on the night the sea monster comes... sea monster approaches and turns out to be a specially converted barge with large portholes where lights and flames are shown, and the merry crew is the king and his closest advisors who have been quite happily raping and murdering the young girls of the island for almost half a century.
King resigns, banished to remote island called Fumulaka, virgin is so happy to be saved by Ibn Batutu that she immediately marries him, they go to Fumulaka too and good old Ibn takes fifty more virgins as wives and not more is ever really heard about him until he dies of a massive heart attack some years later.
True story. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 91
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 6:10 pm: | |
AP, I can certainly believe the heart attack!
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 92
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 7:16 pm: | |
Hi all
Apart from all the other objections, the problem I have with Barnett marching from Bishopsgate to Miller's Court intending to kill Kelly, or have a heart to heart with her, or simply to give her "what for", is that he couldn't have known in advance just how many people he'd find in that room! Barnett, more than most other men in the East End, would have known, not only that Kelly was a prostitute who might well have a client with her, but also that she sometimes invited female friends to stay the night too.
Also, if Barnett killed Kelly, what about the fire? If the murderer wanted more light, why didn't he use the candle? Why stoke up a big fire? Barnett would have known where the candle was, but a stranger might well have missed it. If on the other hand the killer was so cold that he stoked up the fire for warmth, that sounds more like someone who'd been out a few hours in the rain, than someone who'd just come from his lodging-house.
PS Leanne and Marie, if you think Barnett took Kelly's heart out of symbolism, you might as well chuck in the key as well - so he walked off with the key to her heart!
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 205
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 6:34 am: | |
AP: marvellous story! incredibly elaborate plot by the King. I just love the imagery of the shining eyes, and flames coming out of the portholes of the boat.
I might have to paint that.
I'm sure old Ibn died with a smile on his face.... |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 206
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 6:40 am: | |
Hi Robert,
You wrote: "the problem I have with Barnett marching from Bishopsgate to Miller's Court intending to kill Kelly, or have a heart to heart with her, or simply to give her "what for", is that he couldn't have known in advance just how many people he'd find in that room!"
Well, this is why I tend to think that Mary was killed a bit later in the AM. Joe would expect that she wouldn't necessarily have a customer with her at that time. He was coming to visit her every day, so he may have known her habits, after he moved out.
We don't really know that the killer started the fire, do we? Perhaps Mary started it because she was cold, or maybe she didn't feel well.
I've often wondered whether Joe took the key. That door continues to baffle me.... |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:53 am: | |
Hi Marie,
I just arrived from the Missing Rings board.
You wrote:
‘Actually, my example was intended to prove the fact that people who have no history of violence, can 'suddenly' kill.’
Yes, but your example was not ‘people’ – it was Bundy. How does using the example of a serial killer, to prove that ‘people’ can ‘suddenly’ kill, despite no known history of violence, help the argument (that was being debated at that point) that a non-serial killing Joe suddenly attacked Mary, letting Jack take the blame? On the basis that Barnett is just as good a suspect because he wasn’t known for being violent, as he would have been if he was always knocking ten bells out of her, he really can’t win, can he? In your opinion, was there anything he could have done, or not done, that would have argued well for his innocence?
‘Caz, killers give themselves away all the time.’
And from Leanne:
‘Everyone slips-up occasionally!’
Yes, but did Barnett give himself away at any time? No he didn’t. Did he slip up, even once, in a way that made the police look twice at him? No he didn’t – at least not until Inspectors Finlay & Perry took on the case.  Was an admission, by a man whose lover had just been butchered, that implied she had been afraid of him when they rowed an indication of his guilt? Was it taken seriously by anyone? Apparently not. Should it have been? We don’t know, because there would have been a host of other factors to take into account. Were the cops blind to the suggestion that someone like Barnett could have been responsible for the scene in Kelly’s room, and therefore could have killed before? No they weren’t – they questioned him at length and were satisfied there was no case against him. And there is nothing to suggest they ever reconsidered, despite their inability to convict anyone else.
Is there anything we know about Barnett that makes him a likely murderer, as opposed to just a possible one, based on the fact that he had lived with a woman whose life ended violently?
Love,
Caz
|
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 11:26 am: | |
"Were the cops blind to
the suggestion that someone like Barnett could have been responsible
for the scene in Kelly’s room, and therefore could have killed before?
No they weren’t – they questioned him at length and were satisfied
there was no case against him. And there is nothing to suggest they
ever reconsidered, despite their inability to convict anyone else."
Caz - I think this is a critical point. Barnett is one of the contemporary suspects that we know to have been brought in for questioning. Which, of course, makes perfect sense. The police have had to immediately suspected him, and courtesy of the sheer savagery of the murder, thought that he might be Jack himself. Yet his answers completely satisfied them - and I don't think the police at that time were overly concerned with Miranda rights and the presumption of innocence!
Sir Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 4:28 pm: | |
Sir Robert,
You say the police would have immediately suspected Barnett.
Why?.
This murder had all the hallmarks of Jack the Ripper, Kelly was a known prostitute, he was not living with her at the time, my point is why should he have been suspected by the police as being the whitechapel murderer?.
The police believed the medical reports that the victim died in the night, so if Barnetts alibi of being in his lodgings throughout the suspected hours proved correct,and his nerve throughout questioning was stable, and their were no bloodstains noticed on his clothing or clothing belonging to him found, then he simply could have got away with murder, he was obviously able to convince the inquest that he was a decent law abiding person [ hence the remark by the coroner].
but I believe he was a cunning , and ruthless individual, that came across as the caring, hard done by person, when infact he could have mastermined the infamous murders.
Does grave spitting indicate a decent mourning soul?.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 96
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 6:24 pm: | |
Hi all, Marie
Marie, we'll have to agree to disagree over the interpretation of Barnett's remark!
Surely it would have been quite on the cards for a client or female friend to stay at least till sunup? And I'm not sure that Kelly had habits!
Kelly may have started the fire, but was it she who stoked it up? And with what? It's all a mystery to me, and I wish there was a metallurgist on these Boards. The wire rim of the hat doesn't seem to have melted, so maybe the hat was put on last?
Re the key, do we have any evidence that the key went missing after the window was broken (the allegation being that Barnett took it), as opposed to the key being lost (thereby probably causing a row) and the window then having to be smashed for the purpose of entry?
Robert |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 10:00 pm: | |
"Sir Robert,
You say the police would have immediately suspected Barnett. Why?"
Every once in awhile, a question or remark gets made on these boards that causes one's jaw to drop. This is one of them. If common sense doesn't tell you why the police would have suspected the former live-in lover of a whore that has met a gruesome end, I can't help you.
More to the point, however, is the fact that they did INDEED consider him a suspect. Bruce Paley, in The Simple Truth, p.184 cites Lloyd's Newspaper of Nov. 11th 1888 as quoting Barnett: "They kept me about 4 hours, and examined my clothes for bloodstains....." The interrogation was conducted by none other than Inspector First Class Abberline. This was serious business.
Barnett satisfied Abberline as to his whereabouts, and frankly that is good enough for me. You can say what you will about the police of the time - and I think they did a great job without the benefits of modern science and psychology - but when it comes to a matter of checking an alibi out thoroughly, I have faith in them. They wanted passionately to catch the Ripper, and would not have hesitated for a moment to railroad Barnett if there was ANY question as to his guilt.
"Does grave spitting indicate a decent mourning soul?. "
First off, there is no hard evidence that this happened. Secondly, even if there was, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS BARNETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are chasing shadows.
Sir Robert
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 5:21 am: | |
Robert,
'...but also that she sometimes invited female friends to stay the night too.'
Joseph Barnett: 'We lived together comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected and as Mrs Harvey afterward came and stayed there, I left and took lodgings elsewhere. I told her that I would come back if she would go and live somewhere else."
Maria Harvey lived there until the 6th Nov, when she found a new room a dozen yards away. As Barnett claimed that he last saw her between 7:30 and 8:00pm before she died, and Mrs Harvey was there visiting but left immediately, I'd say he was well-aware that Maria Harvey was no longer living there!
The candle found in Kelly's room was recently bought and it wasn't very big.
In your first paragraph above you wrote: 'The problem I have with Barnett marching from Bishopsgate to Millers Court...' (implying that it was too far for him). Then in the next paragraph you wrote: 'That sounds like someone who'd been out a few hours in the rain, than someone who just came from his lodging house.' (implying that if it was him, it wouldn't have been long since his last shelter.) Make up your mind! Anyway Barnett used to do it every day to give her money and the Police believed the fire was stoked to provide light, not warmth!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 5:39 am: | |
G'day Robert,
THE KEY: - At Kelly's inquest, Abberline said: 'Barnett informs me that it has been missing for some time and since it has been lost they have put their hands through the broken window and moved back the catch.' So this ties the missing key to the broken window, because if the window wasn't broken, how would she have gotten in?
The London 'Times', Sat Nov 10 reports that: 'Bowyer, knowing that when the man Kelly (Barnett) and the dead woman had their quarrel a pane of glass in one of the windows was broken...'
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
