|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 5:59 am: |       |
G'day,
In the paragraph above, about Barnett and Kelly 'going-on-a-drunk', I don't think I made myself clear: What I mean to imply is that SHE could have went out drinking, while he stayed home and slept. That's why I find it hard to believe that he would return every day after the break-up, to give her his share of the rent!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 134
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 7:10 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I didn't say I was sick of talking about Barnett as a suspect. In fact, I feel a bit protective towards him!
What I'm suggesting is that there's an alternative way of viewing the relationship between Barnett and Kelly. Barnett is supposed to be the man who issued an ultimatum, only to have his bluff humiliatingly called. He is then supposed to have butchered Kelly in an agony of rage, jealousy, rejection and humiliation. I'm suggesting an alternative. For instance, as I said, Barnett may have said that he'd move back in when Harvey left, but then changed his mind when she did leave - because he didn't want to move back in - because he didn't want to live with Kelly any more. For all we know, Kelly's inviting her friends to stay may have been the excuse he was waiting for to dump her, so that he could leave with a good conscience, as it were.
After all this time, how can we hope to divine what was really going on between these two people? It's difficult enough with present day squabbling couples!
Regarding Barnett's change of story, is this really so terribly damning? One possible explanation would be as follows : first, Barnett says that he left because he wasn't earning enough money, and because she went back on the game. The two would have been cause and effect in Barnett's mind - Barnett doesn't earn enough, so Kelly goes on the streets. This then causes Barnett to leave. Later he says he left because she brought a prostitute to stay (this closely associated with her going on the streets). He adds that his being out of work wasn't the cause of his leaving - i.e. if he'd lost his job, but Kelly had stayed off the streets and not invited a prostitute to stay, he wouldn't have left.
A more cynical explanation would be that Barnett didn't want people to think that he'd abandoned Kelly when the financial going got tough, thereby driving her into the clutches of the Ripper.
If Abberline had seen anything sinister in Barnett's change of story, he'd have been very interested indeed.
Re mental instability, in the days after the murder the police would have had ample time to interview various people who either knew, or had known, Barnett. As far as I know, there was never any suggestion that Barnett had ever displayed any signs of mental instability.
I can't follow you into the realm of Ressler and Co, I'm afraid. But what it seems to me you're saying here is that Barnett fulfilled certain criteria which a really good suspect ought to fulfil. I'm not denying that. He had a troubled family background, lived locally etc. But merely fulfilling the criteria isn't enough, is it?
Leanne, it's time for yet another cup of tea, and then I'll try to answer your other points.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 135
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 7:56 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Regarding the identification, what I said was "If later on they'd had any doubts about Barnett..." This wouldn't have been a now or never thing for the police, as if they said "We've got to arrange an identity parade today, the ninth, or we've lost our chance for ever". They could have asked the "witnesses" to take a look at Barnett at any time within a reasonable period, if they had any doubts about him.
You say you think Kelly did want Barnett to stay, for financial support. Then you mention her complaining of having no money and feeling suicidal. It would be very odd, then, if Barnett called in the early hours to plead to be allowed back, and she still refused him, thus triggering him into butchering her.
You say that no one is saying that Barnett locked the door with the key. Well, Bruce Paley is. The door and key business is an important part of his case against Barnett, which is why I mentioned it. If Bob Hinton is right about the door and key - and although I find the subject mind-boggling, at the moment I tend to think he is - there's no need to believe the door was locked with a key by the murderer on leaving, as it would have locked automatically. And if Bob Hinton is also right in saying that Kelly probably left her door unlocked that night, then anyone could have wandered into the room. But even if Bob Hinton is wrong about the door and key, I still don't see any compelling reason to think that Barnett must have had the key.
You ask how the Ripper would have cleaned himself up, dealt with his clothes etc. I don't know. But the Ripper didn't have to clean himself up the way Barnett would have had to clean himself up - the Ripper wouldn't have known that he was guaranteed to be interviewed by the police later the same day. Barnett would have known this.
The reason I mentioned Barnett's going on a drunk, was to point to another side of him, since in recent years he somehow seems to have acquired a reputation for having been a prim, stuffy spoilsport. As far as I know, it's never been suggested that he was an habitual heavy drinker. I wasn't suggesting that he was an alcoholic!
Leanne, sorry, I don't understand your follow-up post. Could you please clarify?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 8:42 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: Yes it's strange that Abberline didn't take notice of Barnett's contradictary statements. Barnett's first explanation laid the blame on him, because he wasn't earning enough money. And his second explanation put all the blame on her for inviting her immoral friends to stay!
If the police interviewed people who knew Barnett after the event, how come no one recorded anything? Echolalia wasn't known to be part of a mental instability back then, so why should they have been looking for signs of it?
No, fulfilling certain criteria for serial killers wasn't enough to cause police to take a serious look at him. Serial or apparent motiveless murders were new to them. There were no past examples to build certain critera on.
Don't blame me for saying that Mary was suicidal, blame Lizzie Albrook and Margaret! Don't forget Joseph Flemming, (whom she was fond of), was visiting her and giving her money. Kelly was in a bad spot, and she had a choose!
There are a number things that I don't agree with Bruce Paley on. He believed that Barnett may have written some of the letters, but at the time of writing his book, this was probably more accepted by Ripperologists. The door/key thing is still being discussed!
One thing that people are overlooking about the door issue, is that it banged against a table when it was opened. Did the table move itself, or did the killer reach through the window and move it into position? I'll put this question on the missing key board, and see what Bob has to say!
How long do you think the Ripper needed to clean himself up? Couldn't he have wiped his knife on his shirt, thrown his bloodstained shirt onto the fire, and put on one of the men's shirts that were left? He may have thought "Oh no, Maria Harvey will point out that she left 2 men's shirts and one is now gone, so I better thrown them all on the fire!"
No, Barnett was never known to be a heavy drinker, that's why I believe it was Mary's fault they were evicted from that other place.
According to the Billingsgate Market Bylaws, the prime causes of dismissal were theft, drunkeness and abusive language or behavior. That's why I believe he wouldn't have turned up hungover for work, when the bell started for the opening of trade at 5:00am or 6:00, (I forget which, but I read this in a Website about Billingsgate Market).
How was that cup of tea? I prefer coffee thanks, 2 sweetners!
LEANNE
|
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:20 am: | |
Robert,
An excellent post! One of the major problems I have with the case presented against Barnett is that it is based on an unsupportable interpertation of the personalities of people long dead. We can invent any number of imaginary Joe's, but that is simply our invention and not necessarily reflective of the historical person.
"I can't follow you into the realm of Ressler and Co, I'm afraid. But what it seems to me you're saying here is that Barnett fulfilled certain criteria which a really good suspect ought to fulfil. I'm not denying that. He had a troubled family background, lived locally etc. But merely fulfilling the criteria isn't enough, is it?"
This is also an excellent point, and one echoed by John Douglas in regards to Paley's use of profiling to try to implicate Barnett.
Here's a quick quote from Cases that Haunt Us. "Paley also cites the analysis I did at the time fo the 1988 television series, as well as more general research coming out of Quantico in showing how Barnett fits the profile. This could be true in certain ways -- age, race, dysfunctional childhood with no father, comfort zone, triggering emotional even such as the loss of his job for example -- but these are the superficial characteristics, true of a lot of people. They're almost boilerplate for a certain type of offender. You have to get into the specifics to see if it really fits." He then goes on to explain WHY he doesn't think Barnett could have commited the crime. It's worth picking up used for that alone.
Regards,
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 139
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 6:59 pm: | |
Hi Leanne and John
Leanne, re the shirt : he'd have needed to do more than just change his shirt, wouldn't he? Surely he was very bloody? I can't dig the garden without getting earth all over me!
Re the records, maybe, like so much else, they got lost.Or maybe you're right, and the police, for some reason, didn't speak to very many people about Barnett. But during the period of the murders, people were writing letters to the police along the lines of "I think you should take a look at the bloke I work with. He's definitely off his rocker!" Well, no one seems to have written thus of Barnett - not even after he became nationally famous. At least, nothing seems to have aroused police suspicions - no letters from ex-workmates at Billingsgate etc. Unless we assume that an entire damning file existed on Barnett, now lost without a single paper of it surviving....
On the door, I've never had the impression that the table was actually blocking the door - just preventing it from opening fully. I doubt if Jack could have moved it in front of the door by reaching through the window. And anyway, why would he do this? Sheer devilry? The only other reason I can think of, would be to make sure nobody chanced into the room until he'd got right away from the scene. In which case, it wouldn't have been Barnett as he'd have known that the door was locked once closed.
I still can't work out why McCarthy didn't have a spare key. Surely he wasn't afraid to produce it? If the door locked automatically, no one need have suspected him. I just don't understand it.
I used to drink coffee, but it started seemingly doing things to the lining of my stomach!
John, like you I feel that there's been rather too much "reading between the lines" on the Barnett-Kelly relationship. I think we're all born too late to work out what was passing between this pair. After all, look at the different views held on Charles and Diana - and they lived part of their marriage in the full glare of publicity.
I can see I'm going to have to really read up on Ressler et al - I seem to be the only one on this site who hasn't!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 4:06 am: | |
G'day,
JOHN: What I am saying is that Joseph Barnett should have been looked at closer. At the two and a half or four hour interview, (whichever you prefer to believe), did the police ask him all about his own childhood, his attitude to prostitution, where he had lived all his life etc, as well as check his alibi and his clothes?
I'll look for that book at a library, before I buy another book, as soon as I get home from my holiday/vacation. I leave for Vanuatu on Friday!
ROBERT: Police or doctors at the time didn't think the killer would necessarily have alot of blood on him. I'll find that comment, if you want. He sliced her throat to killer her. A lot of blood splashed on the wall and dropped on the floor. Once a person is dead, their blood stops splashing!
How do we know that one of Barnett's work mates/aquaintences didn't write that letter you mention? Maybe someone who worked at the orange market across from Mitre Square wrote it!
Ok, forget the table. No one who saw it is alive still and we can only guess!
We discussed the question of why McCarthy didn't have a spare key or skeleton key to all his rooms on the old message boards. We concluded that so many spare keys would have been very expensive, Dorset Street was home to very poor people, we don't know if skeleton keys existed back then and if it was that simple, why didn't Kelly ask McCarthy for a spare key when she lost hers?
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 7:38 am: | |
Leanne,
"At the two and a half or four hour interview, (whichever you prefer to believe), did the police ask him all about his own childhood, his attitude to prostitution, where he had lived all his life etc, as well as check his alibi and his clothes?"
We don't know what was asked Leanne, but I doubt that they would have asked about his childhood or "attitude to prosititution" because it's not relevent. If he had an alibi that checked out, there's no point in pursuing it further.
What I believe you are failing to appreciate is that a rough childhood doesn't make someone a killer. As Douglas said, "-- but these are the superficial characteristics, true of a lot of people. They're almost boilerplate for a certain type of offender. You have to get into the specifics to see if it really fits."
Profiling is used to identify and prioritize suspects, but once they're identified they don't then attempt to gather information about their childhood as evidence. Standard police work is used to find any actual evidence.
Regards,
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 145
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 6:18 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Good point about the key - Kelly and Barnett would probably have borrowed McCarthy's, if reaching through the window was such a job. Therefore McCarthy probably didn't have a spare. I hadn't suspected spare keys were that expensive, though. Oh well.
Re the blood, Bond thought the Ripper's hands and arms would have been covered in blood and parts of his clothing certainly smeared. I would have thought he'd have had to wrap the heart up pretty well too, if it was to go into his pocket without leaving a stain there. Now Barnett was actually inspected by the police, they'd have checked him over pretty closely. He wouldn't have been able to pass off bloodstains as raspberry juice from his fruit job! I would have thought he'd have had to change into a new lot of clothes to meet the police in.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 2:32 am: | |
G'day,
On the day that Kelly's body was found, Barnett told the Central News Agency: "I heard there had been a murder in Millers Court and on my way there I met my sister's brother in law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the Court and there saw the police Inspector and told him who I was and where I had been the previous night."
The 'Star' newspaper told how Barnett looked through the opened window, to view and the body, but after researching this, my belief is that Barnett identified the remains at the mortuary. The 'Star' must have either seen someone else looking through the window, or Joe may have looked but officially identified the remains at the mortuary, after they were sewn together.
Paley wrote: 'The police took Barnett to the station where he was interviewed by Inspector Abberline.' He told the press: "They kept me for about four hours," (I believe he could have said "fffffor hours") "...examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free."
The 'Star' newspaper chose to report that they kept him for two and a half hours. This is why I believe that he stuttered out: "ffffor hours" and newspapers chose to publish what they understood.
According to the 'Daily Telegraph', Barnett told the police that he 'was at Bullers Lodging House in New Street, and was playing whist there until half past twelve when he went to bed.'
I'm sure he had enough time to swap his shirt with one of the men's shirts that were left there, wipe his knife and hands on it, throw it onto the fire with the other clothes, take off back to Buller's, change his pants and head back to Dorset Street, where he ran into his sister's brother in law.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 147
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 6:20 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I know Barnett's supposed to have killed Kelly on the spur of the moment (he couldn't have planned it like this!) but it's all a bit unlikely, isn't it?
He'd have had to leave his lodgings without being noticed. Then he killed Kelly. Then he would have had to hide the heart somewhere (why would he take it if he knew he'd immediately have to chuck it away?). Then he must have gone back into his lodgings, for the second time that night, wash, and change his clothes, without being noticed.
I think he would have had to change his shirt yet again - it would have been a bit of a cheek to turn up for the police wearing Harvey's men's shirt! Finally he'd have disposed of the clothes.
If the police were right and the murderer burnt the clothes for light, he'd have had to carefully keep a shirt back, knowing he'd need it later - while still in a fit of jealous rage. So I think you're suggesting that he burnt the clothes AFTER the mutilations, to disguise the fact that a shirt was missing. OK, but he would have had to be clever enough to leave his pipe behind. An ordinary murderer might have thought that leaving his pipe in the murder room would invite trouble, but Barnett was clever enough to know that if one of Kelly's friends had happened to visit her after he left on the evening of the 8th, and noticed the pipe, then its absence, rather than its presence, would spell trouble.
I'm assuming the pipe was already there and that Barnett didn't arrive with it. I can't believe he sat puffing on it in between slicing off bits of Kelly!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 6:29 am: | |
G'day John,
I looked in my local library for that book. The libraries computer told me that it didn't exist in that branch, but is on loan at another nearby library. I'll wait till I get home from my holiday/vacation and try then!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 7:24 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Why couldn't Barnett after slicing Mary's throat in a fit of jealous rage, sat on a chair smoking his pipe while looking into the low fire, still fuming and still in a rage?
No I wasn't suggesting that he burnt the clothes AFTER the mutilations. The police were right in thinking that the killer burnt the clothes for light, but I'm suggesting another reason also. Were they all the clothes that were left by Maria?
Why do you say he was clever to leave his pipe behind? He accidently left it! - forgot it!
I can't believe he would have left his pipe behind when he visited her at 7:30, then went to play whist with his friends without it! It would have been too tempting an excuse to return!
At the inquest, Maria Harvey said she left: "2 mens shirts, 1 boys shirt, an overcoat a black one a man's, a black crepe bonnet with black strings, a ticket for a shawl in for 2/-, one little girl's white peticoat. I have seen nothing of them since except the overcoat produced to me by the police."
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Adding to your thoughts, it appears to me, as I tried to suggest on the 'Sorting the clues' thread, that a guilty Joe the Ripper had to be both clever and very stupid all at once, or at least count on the police being total idiots. Barnett theorists should perhaps try putting themselves in his shoes. Here is a man who has recently bumped off and mutilated at least three prostitutes who have no reported connection to him or to his lover Mary. He then goes and adds her to the list - taking the biggest risk of his life that his funny little game will soon be up. If anyone suspects a different hand at work here, Joe is in deep trouble as the obvious candidate for a copycat killing. His only hope is that the police will believe the elusive ripper has indeed struck again and that Joe Barnett is simply the victim's grieving sweetheart. So what does he do? Does he take her uterus, like last time and the time before? Not a bit of it - he removes it but leaves it at the scene and rings the changes by taking the heart away instead. Yet his recklessness in this regard matters little because somehow whatever he does works like a charm and he still avoids the least suspicion being attached to himself. If he was guilty, I don’t think he had any right to expect such an easy ride.
Finally, apologies to Marie who took my comments on the 'clues' thread to be a deliberate misrepresentation of her views. This was never my intention, the offending remark was not directed at anyone in particular, and certainly not aimed at Marie, whose opinions are balanced and show more of an open mind about Mary's murder than others I have seen.
Love,
Caz
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 149
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 9:51 am: | |
Hi Caz
Yes, I agree with what you say. There seem to be two theories at work here - a) the mutilations were a fit of jealous rage b) the killing was a fit of jealous rage but the mutilations a cynical attempt by Barnett to make it look like his previous work, thus throwing police attention onto "Jack". Like you, I'm not convinced by either theory. And as you say, he took the wrong organ, if he was trying to make it look like a Ripper job.
I want to reply to Leanne's post tonight. Her idea that Barnett could have sat there puffing on his pipe has rather taken my breath away. Maybe he made himself a cup of tea as well! Was that how the kettle got damaged?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 1:51 pm: | |
Hi,
Regarding the pipe, I am sure Leanne was not saying that he sat there , and calmly smoked his pipe, I agree with her that he accidently left it on the mantlepeice.
It is obvious by my posts that I suspect Barnett of Kellys murder and the others as well.
The one point that needs to be understood, is if he committed this act, knowing as we do that although they appeared to be on speaking terms , the intimate side of their relationship seems to have been out of favour.
Therefore, as Kelly was in a state of undress apart from a chemise, the following points need to be raised,
a] Did Kelly undress in his presence and get into bed, folding her clothes and placing them on the bedside chair as per norm ?.
b] For what reason did she do this in his presence, if not for sex?.
c] Did Barnett undress her after killing her and put her clothes on the chair , knowing her routine?.
d] What time was Kelly killed?.
e] What was the actual cause of her death?.
The reasons I have made those points is, the sceptics on Barnetts involvement will say,Why would Kelly undress in the early hours of the morning in front of Barnett , when she had stated she couldnt stand the man although he had been good to her.
The answer is she proberly would not.
I believe if Kelly was killed between 2am-4am on the morning of the 9th, and if Barnett killed her, then he proberly throttled her into unconciousness, then undressed her, folded her clothes up and placed them neatly on the chair,Undressed and carried out the mutalations, the fact that he would have been heavily bloodstained would be Disguised once he wiped himself on say the girls petticoats that we know were in the room at the time, and redressed.
Lets face it all he had to do was leave the scene in a apparently clean fashion.
As I Have said before Barnett was a dapper individual, and would have had other clothes to change into , and a good bath would have been sufficant to cleanse himself.
If She was killed in the morning which I tend to side with. It is entirely possible that Barnett met her close to 10am, and on her remarking that she felt unwell. he escorted her back to her room, and told her to get back in bed, and that he would light the fire to warmth the room, whereas he placed his pipe on the mantlepeice, when lighting the fire, placing her wet boots in front , and when Mary had gone through her routine of undressing and got into bed pounced on her throwing the sheet over her head and cutting her throat, then undressed in the same fashion,and comitted the act of mutalation.
Both the above scenerios are entirely possible , and I passionately believe one of them occured on that fateful 9th Nov.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 151
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:07 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Just on the pipe, as far as I know what little evidence there is tends to suggest that the pipe was a cheap, nondescript disposable one rather than a handsome distinctive one (I believe there's a reference somewhere to a doctor dropping and breaking the pipe in the fireplace). If the pipe was a cheap one, and Barnett brought it with him when he went to see Kelly, and then forgot it, why did he admit to Abberline that it was his? Why not just say "It must have been the murderer's"?
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 242
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:24 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Thank you so much for your post. Apologies for misinterpreting your comments on the 'Sorting the Clues' thread.
I'm afraid I jumped to a hasty conclusion, my wrist was hurting and all sorts of things were stressing me.
I do enjoy debating with you, and have much respect for your opinion. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 3:41 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
The answer is simple , just because his pipe , albeit a cheap one, was present would not present a problem, after all he lived in the room for months, he would have no reason to lie about that. I do not suggest the pipe being there is a pointer to guilt, he could simply say he left it there when he visited Kelly the previous evening, something which he voluntary told the police.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 153
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi Richard
He must have been a cool customer! He leaves his pipe in the murder room and he's quite happy to admit it's his.
Surely if the pipes were cheap, and he'd lived with Kelly so long, and was still visiting her, it would have been natural for him to keep a pipe in her room on a regular basis - even after the split. He would have had a pipe for his coat pocket, and a pipe for her room - for anywhere he might go. Then he need never be without a smoke.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 5:07 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I do not think it is a big deal regarding the pipe, although judging Barnetts character, he comes across as a man who took pride in his appearence, and was the sort of man who had an opinion of himself. and mayby owned a better class of pipe then the cheap variety.
I see him as the type of person who saw himself as a degree better then working class, with better morals,better clothes , one woman , and proberly one pipe man....
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 154
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 6:32 pm: | |
Hi Richard
One woman, one pipe...five murders!
Anyway, I'm now going to post to Leanne. Let's see what she says about this pipe business!
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 155
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 6:59 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
If I understand your scenario correctly, it goes like this :
In the early hours of 9th, Barnett goes over to Kelly's, taking his pipe with him, to plead to be taken back. Then, without there being any kind of blazing row that the neighbours would have heard, he flips and kills her in a fit of rage. Then he calms down enough to burn Harvey's clothes for light, and has the foresight to keep one shirt back to change into later. Then he flies into another fit of rage and mutilates Kelly.
Sometime during this lot he has a quiet smoke!
Then he throws his shirt on the fire, puts on the other one, wipes his knife and pockets it, wraps up the heart and pockets it - and then this man who had the foresight to keep back a shirt from the fire, walks off without his pipe.
I find it all a shade unlikely.
Besides, why couldn't he have kept a pipe at Kelly's on a permanent basis? He probably had more than one. But if he brought the pipe over with him on the 9th, why would he admit to Abberline that it was his?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 8:40 pm: | |
G'day,
CAZ: I am not accusing the British police of being idiots! That's why alot of people say that the 2.5/4 hour interrogation was absolute proof that he was innocent! No one knew at the time that a person could have two totally different personalities, and no one knew a the time what to look out for about the make-up of serial killers!
Three of the victims before Kelly, did have links to 'Crossingham's', (with the exclusion of Nichols and the inclusion of Tabram), but they obviosly couldn't see this.
Perhaps the too-close-for-comfort aspect of the Kelly murder, was enough to bring the Ripper to his senses a bit and stop playing his little games!
If he tried to make Kelly's murder look like the work of the unidentified 'boogeyman', he would have taken her kidney or uterus. But his other personality made him choose her heart instead. It would have been more difficult to escape with a kidney, uterus as well as a heart, so he left the other two bits there.
All he had to do was turn up the next day, in the afternoon and give the impression of a whimpering, grieving idiot of a lover, to stop police looking serios at him any further. They only interviewed him because that was standard detective work.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 9:15 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: I just thought of Barnett sitting there smoking his pipe to try and calm his nerves, as a cheeky reply to your post. But how could they have determined whether or not the killer paused between slices? Thinking of him making himself a cup of tea is silly, but who knows if the kettle wasn't damaged on another occasion?
RICHARD: Kelly probably undressed herself, folded her clothes neatly on the chair to put on again for the 'Lord Mayor's Day' celebrations and hopped into bed with Joeseph Barnett standing somewhere in the room still whimpering, and said: "Let's discuss this tomorrow, shall we? You know where the door is, and just leave whatever money you have on the table."
I don't think he would have been thinking straight enough to fold her clothes for her.
Doctor Phillips wrote in her autopsy report: '...In the abdominal cavity was some partly digested food of fish and potatoes and similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to her intestines.' He concluded from this, and the fact that rigor mortise was starting to set in and progessed during the course of the examination, that she died about 12 hours before his examination. This placed her likely time-of-death somewhere between 3:30am and 4:00am.
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.
|
|
|
|
