|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 2:25 am: |       |
A curious thing about that pipe.
If you look on the "What's Missing?" thread, you might see who took it from the murder scene.
I do not know enough about police and doctors' conduct at the Millers Court post-mortem.
My impression is that a mortuary attendant broke the "Ripper" pipe. (I read this on the old boards).It was placed in the "collection of criminal curiosities" belonging to the man mentioned on "What's Missing?".
Now some years later most of that gentleman's "curiosities" were auctioned; so the pipe -or bits of it- might be described in that auction catalogue.
However, some items did not make it to the auction.
Its hard to say why the pipe was considered important, and by whom, (other than Anderson).
Might not Mary Kelly or her 'pals' have smoked a clay pipe? |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 9:02 am: | |
G'day,
I just arrived home after an excellent holiday on the beautiful islands of Vanuatu....top spot!
Now back to the Rip: Joseph Barnett told Inspector Abberline that the pipe he found belonged to him. Barnett wasn't interviewed until the body had been taken to the mortuary. If the pipe had been: 'thrown into the fireplace and smashed beyond recognition', or was knocked off the mantlepiece accidently, Abberline must have showed Joe one or more broken clay pieces. Yet he immediately said it belonged to him. Was this the normal conclusion for a man desperate to find his lover's killer to come to?
Sir Robert Anderson couldn't have nailed Barnett, using evidence of a clay pipe that had been destroyed twenty years previously...after his retirement! So he continued instead to write about the chalked evidence that had been wiped out.
JOHN: No mortuary attendant broke this pipe! It was: 'smashed beyond recognition' before Anderson could get to the crime scene.
ROBERT: How does this pipe work in favour of Barnett's innocence to you?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 217
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 7:20 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Glad you enjoyed your holiday. Poor old Joe's had a break, too!
Unless there were two pipes, why shouldn't Barnett identify the pipe as his?
With the pipe, there seem to be three possibilities :
(1) Barnett brought the pipe with him in the early hours of 9th, killed Kelly, and left the pipe behind.
(2) Barnett left the pipe on the evening of 8th (or even before - he may have kept a pipe there permanently). Then he killed Kelly on 9th, and left without the pipe.
(3) Barnett left the pipe on 8th, and was innocent of the murder.
It seems to me that (1) requires Barnett to be very stupid, and very clever. Very stupid, because he left his pipe behind and then foolishly told the police that it was his. Very clever, to outwit the police.
(2) requires Barnett to be very stupid, or very clever, and then again very clever. Very stupid, if the thought of taking the pipe, or, having left it behind, later denying it was his, never occurred to him. Very clever, if he thought he'd better leave the pipe behind, and admit its ownership, in case one of Kelly's friends called after he left her on 8th, and noticed it on the mantelpiece. And again very clever, to outwit the police.
So (1) requires Barnett to have been BOTH very stupid AND very clever.
(2) requires Barnett to have been EITHER very stupid OR very clever, and then again very clever.
(3) requires him to have simply been an innocent f-f-fish porter.
I know which one I choose!
Robert |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 62
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 7:42 pm: | |
Thanks Leanne,
I wonder if you or Bob Hinton could post on this thread the exact words and their source, for the pipe being smashed and who by ?
I cannot now find where I read the pipe was not smashed by the doctor, as commonly thought, but by the mortuary attendant.Can anyone else help?
Thirdly, can anyone supply information concerning
G.R.Sims' "collection of criminal curiosities"?
all I can find is the fact that when Sothebys(?)
auctioned Sims curios in the 1960's items that should have been there were not.
Has anyone read Sims' biography about the pipe?
Finally, I agree with other posters.If Joe Barnett felt he had rivals for Mary Jane's attention/affection in "Joe" the costermonger, or Kelly's female rooming mate,he would have staked out his own claim by planting a pipe on the mantlepiece.The fact he did not like her working the streets yet had no money himself, makes the relationship look one-sided.Did Kelly install her female friend to check-mate Barnett's pipe?
Or did she see this woman-friend as an avenue to solve her money problems? After all, she DID seem to have rather a lot of spare clothes! |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 8:10 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
I'm glad I enjoyed the holiday too! The last recorded case of cannibalism in Vanuatu was as recently as 1969!
If Joseph barnett brought that pipe with him in the early hours of the 9th and left it behind accidently, that wouldn't require him to be very stupid at all. Just careless! Owning up to owning it was all that was needed to draw significance from it's presence!
If Barnett left it there following his visit at 7:00 on the 8th, went to play whist with his friends at Bullers, then thought: "Sssshot! I left my ppppipe at Mary's! he had a good excuse to return to retrieve it, without buying another one with no money!
JOHN: The pipe wasn't shown at Mary's inquest. Whether or not it was important crime scene evidence, everything should've been presented!
Anderson wrote in an article that appeared in the 'Daily Chronical' on the 1st of September 1908: 'In one case it as a clay pipe...' (This information can be found in 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion/Sourcebook' page 626)
He wrote other articles about the other destroyed clue of the chalked writing, but no more of the pipe. This is where I think he went wrong/was lead onto the wrong track. The writing was never proved to be the killers work, but the bloody apron did belong to Eddowes, and showed in which direction the killer fled.
In 1912, Anderson wrote an article for 'The People' in which he tells of a Constable Halse tracking the killer's most likely route from the apron piece to a blood stained sink where he: 'washed his hands at a sink up a close in Dorset Street, only a few yards from the street'.
Page xxiv in the introduction of 'The Complete Jack the Ripper' by Phillip Sugden, says that a small collection of Sims' correspondence was bought by Stewart Evans in 1993. This included the 'Littlechild letter'.
BRIAN: Anderson's memory may have been faulty 20 years after the events, which is why I reckon he rambled on about the other unprovable, destroyed clue....another failure!
LEANNE |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 11:48 pm: | |
Hi,
The broken pipe Anderson is talking about in 1908 is the one from the Alice McKenzie murder, not the one found in Mary Kelly's place. Unless there is a report that the pipe found in Kelly's room was also broken, Barnett would have been shown an intact clay pipe, which he identified as his. (Note: Anderson's statement can't be used as proof that Barnett's pipe was broken).
I've written a lengthy article (a new addition to the Dissertation section) examining Anderson's statement in full concerning the broken pipe.
In summary, Anderson can only be describing the McKenzie pipe, and not the Kelly pipe, his 1908 statement. Therefore, his 1908 statement cannot be construed as meaning he thought Barnett's pipe was an important clue.
- Jeff |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 12:31 am: | |
Hi Scott,
You mention that it's known Anderson visited Kelly's murder scene shortly after 1:00? Can you point me to a book and, if possible page numbers, so I can look it up? I've not found anything saying he was there, but I'm sure I could easily have overlooked it. Thanks.
- Jeff |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 12:18 am: | |
Jeff,
The sources that Anderson visited Kelly's murder scene are:
1) The Daily Telegraph, Nov. 10, 1888. This is available for viewing on the Press Release section of this site; also see page 200 of the "News From Whitechapel", which reprints the DT article; 2) Sugden in the 1994 hardback (p. 317) mentions that Anderson visited the murder scene. His source isn't specifically stated, although it could be a report to the Home Office (HO 144/221/A49301C/8). I haven't been able to find this report as of yet.
I read your essay on "The Broken Pipe." It's a very good analysis. However, I would reiterate a couple of points made before; 1) Anderson in 1908 said that the broken pipe could have been an important clue to the identity of the Ripper, yet only two years later in 1910 he said that Kelly was the last Ripper victim. I don't think that everything Sir Robert said was entirely accurate, but in such an important case as the JtR Murders, he would probably would not have had such a severe memory lapse in such a short span of time. So I think it is unlikely that he believed that McKenzie was a Ripper victim, and that the pipe he referred to had nothing to do with the McKenzie murder scene. 2) There were other doctors assisting Phillips in Kelly's room with the examination of her body, any one of which could have either accidently dropped or thrown a clay pipe into the fireplace; 3) There is no data to support the contention that a destroyed pipe found in the room belonged to Barnett; 4) Abberline's inventory of the contents of Kelly's room has not survived, so we don't know specifically what was found. 5) What needs to be addressed is whether the mortuary to which McKenzie's body was taken had a fireplace, or an incinerator.
But don't mind me, I'm just a so-called "Andersonite."
Regards |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 8:21 am: | |
G'day,
JEFF: It was quickly determined that McKenzie's pipe was either hers or it may have been borrowed from a fellow lodger. How would it have very easily secured proof of anything? I suppose, after alot of time-waisting, it could have proved who she borrowed the pipe from.
To ignore the fact that this pipe was 'thrown into THE fireplace' and believe that a mortuary attendent carelessly threw it on the floor, is almost as bad as Anderson's 'wrong turn' in writing more about the graffiti instead.
If we are going to invent a 2nd pipe in Kelly's room as evidence, how come no one ever mentioned it?
I am very interested in what Jeff said about Alice McKenzie being known by the name 'KELLY', because Catharine Eddowes gave her name as 'Mary Ann KELLY' and 'Jane KELLY'!
SCOTT: No, Abberline's inventory of the contents of Mary Kelly's room hasn't survived, but at her inquest he said: "a pipe was there and used by him."....'A' pipe, 'A' pipe.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
G'day,
LEANNE |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 9:56 am: | |
Leanne, the (drain) pipe was there and used by him (to balance himself as he reached through the broken window pane to unlatch the door) |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 253
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Scott
It's possible to interpret the Sourcebook version that way, but in the "Daily Telegraph" Nov 13th version, at exactly the same point in Abberline's evidence (just after he spoke about the door, key and window) Abberline is reported as saying "There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it."
Robert |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 4:41 pm: | |
Hi,
Leanne:
A few things
1) I explain how Alice McKenzie's pipe would be a clue pointing to a suspect in her murder. You even give the important information: she was known to borrow pipes, and so she may have borrowed this one. If they could identify the owner of the pipe, and the owner wasn't actually Alice, then this person would be a "person of interest" worth investigating. Probably it would end up by clearing that individual of any wrong doing, but possibly not. Because it MAY have led to her murderer, it was an important clue.
To suggest that the doctor threw it into the fireplace before the police arrived is absurd. Unless, of course, you want to suggest the doctor was the ripper (how else does he get there before the police do?). Memory, and journalistic licence, embellishishes and confuses things at times (note how pipe man becomes Knife man in the press).
I have no idea where you get the notion of a 2nd pipe in Kelly's room from what I wrote? I'm clearly talking about the pipe Barnett identified as his.
- Jeff
|
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the sources on Anderson's being at the Kelly scene. I missed those in my search.
I would like to point out that I suggest why Anderson has "remembered the pipe", and also, why he rejects Alice specifically. I don't think he's changed his mind. Basically, I think that in the 1908 article he's remembering "lost clues pertaining to the Ripper case". Alice McKenzie was initially thought to be a possible Ripper victim. Anderson asked for, and recieved, a report from Dr. Bond where he felt this to be the case. Dr. Phillips did not agree, but not so strongly as to refuse the possibility if other evidence suggested the same killer. And, by Dr. Phillips admission, the pipe was broken while Alice McKenzie's clothes were being searched by his assisstant.
So, before Anderson had time to decide McKenzie was not a Ripper victim, the pipe is broken. This makes the loss of the pipe associated with the Ripper murders in his memory. When he laters decides that McKenzie is not a Ripper victim, that's not going to erase the strong memory trace of "Ripper murders - lost evidence - pipe".
In otherwords we agree in part, Anderson isn't changing his mind about Alice. He doesn't think she's a Ripper victim. But we disagree about the pipe. He has associated the event of her pipe getting broken with the Ripper murders. This, after the years, becomes remembering that "a pipe that might have been a clue to the murderer was broken during the Ripper investigations".
Also, despite the other doctors in the room with him, his report clearly places the blame on a "mortuary attendant" and that the pipe was broken when thrown on the floor. It's also sounds like the pieces were subsequenly "lost", so even the broken pipe couldn't be used to try and locate it's owner.
I don't think there ever was a broken pipe in Kelly's room. Barnett confessed to owning the pipe in Kelly's room, but that was never broken as far as I can tell.
It appears that I may need to update and re-write a few sections of my essay. Some of the points are obviously not as clear as they could be it appears they are being interpreted in a mannor I did not intend (i.e. a 2nd pipe in Kelly's room). I don't mean that disagreement with my conclusions is wrong, but some comments seem to stem from things I don't think I said (like a 2nd pipe in Kelly's room). So, I may have some ambiguous sections that need cleaning up.
Still, let's just list the points Anderson makes about the pipe.
1) it was broken
2) it was broken by the doctor
3) it was broken by being thrown
4) it was broken by being thrown into a fireplace.
5) it was a clue to the murders identity
6) because it was broken, the clue could not be followed up.
What pipe fits?
1) Getting broken fits Alicce McKenzie's pipe.
We have independent verification that it was broken
We have no evidence to suggest that the pipe found in Kelly's room was broken at all, so investigatable statements 1 through 4 (2-4 are details about the breaking) are all out for the "Kelly Pipe".
How do the details fit pertaining to the breaking?
2) by the doctor : strictly incorrect. Loosely, the Doctor's attendent does make for a connection though.
3) broken by throwing: fits
4) thrown into a fireplace: Doesn't fit, it was thrown onto the floor.
5) clue to possible suspect?
Fits both
6) this suspect's identity could not be determined because the pipe was broken/lost?
Doesn't fit Kelly's (Barnett admitted it was his, and there's no evidence it was broken). Fit's Alice's pipe (she may have borrowed it from someone. They couldn't determine who the owner of the pipe was because it was broken and lost)
In otherwords the only thing in Anderson's 1908 statement that fits with the pipe found in Kelly's room is the fact that it's a clay pipe. However, the details surrounding the pipe (broken, etc) describe the pipe found at Alice's crime scene. The bulk of the details fit exactly or contain semantic connections with factual details (doctor rather than doctor's assisstant = while in the doctor's care - making him responsible for his workers actions). There's no doubt these details from Anderson's statement are describing the broken-owner unknown-pipe found at the Alice McKenzie murder scene, and have absolutely nothing to do with the intact-owner identified-pipe found in Mary Kelly's room.
That given, because Anderson flatly rejects Alice McKenzie as being a Ripper victim, the only resonable conclusion is that he simply forgot the broken pipe incident was a detail from Alice McKenzie's murder.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 11:09 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
You say that the person who Alice borrowed that pipe from, would have been a "person of interest worth investigating". Imagine how much time the police would have wasted investigating every single person that she had encountered that day! That pipe was not an important clue that would have easily secured the Ripper. Hey, maybe Maria Harvey, who left all those clothes in Mary Kelly's room, really killed her! That could be why she burnt them - to hide evidence!
There were several doctors inside room 13 Millers Court, before Anderson turned up!
I wasn't specifically refering to you when I mentioned that 2nd pipe.
Alice McKenzies pipe was found under her body, along with a farthing. It could not have been a vital clue to the killer's identity, unless it was thought that her killer lifted her up and placed it there!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:32 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I'm afraid I disagree that investigating 'every single person' that a murder victim encounters during the last day of her life is a waste of police time. It may be the only process of elimination that could lead to the killer, who may then give himself away when challenged.
So, in your view, Alice's pipe was not a vital clue that could have pointed to her killer's identity, and possibly even the ripper's, yet Barnett's pipe, again in your view, should have pointed straight at Kelly's killer, Jack. Pity London's finest just didn't appear to get it.
Love,
Caz |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 7:09 pm: | |
G'day,
Alice McKenzie could have borrowed that pipe on the day of her murder, the day before, the week before,........
As I've said before, that pipe in Mary Kelly's room could have been recently smoked by anyone, (Joe or not) depending on it's condition, but it was thrown into the fireplace by a doctor, not a mortuary attendant, not a detective, not by one of 'London's finest'!
LEANNE |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 9:02 pm: | |
Leanne,
You're using a circular argument. You simply cannot use your assumption that Anderson is talking about Barnett's pipe as your proof that Barnett's pipe was "thrown into a fireplace by a doctor". First, you would have to establish that Anderson was actually talking about Barnett's pipe. But he isn't. Many of the details in his statement can be independently verified through other official documents as being connected with the pipe found with Alice McKenzie. The number and kind of details that don't fit with the McKenzie pipe are of the sort one might expect after 20 years. There is simply nothing in Anderson's statement that at all indicates he's talking about Barnett's pipe and a lot of information that indicates he's talking about the pipe found with Alice McKenzie.
So, if Anderson is talking about Alice McKenzie's pipe (with some of the details wrong) then obviously his statement can't be used as proof of anything about Barnett's pipe.
However, for those who dislike the idea of allowing for some errors of memory, then let's start with the premis that there are no factual errors in Anderson's 1908 statement.
With absolutely no factual errors allowed, then clearly, Anderson is not talking about the pipe found with Alice McKenzie because that pipe was not broken by being thrown into a fireplace by a doctor, but rather because that pipe was broken by being thrown onto the floor by the mortuary assisstent helping the doctor. This argument has been presented as the main rebuttal to my claim that the pipe is the Alice McKenzie pipe. The only way this can be considered a rebuttle is if we allow for absolutely no facts to be wrong. But.....
in the same 1908 statement Anderson also indicates the owner of the pipe was never verified. So with his very same statement with no factual errors allowed he also flatly rules out Barnett's pipe (the owner was identified).
And so once more we have nothing to support the notion that Barnett's pipe was "thrown into a fireplace by a doctor".
Now, if we say "Well, he got that owner not verified part wrong", ok, sure. But now we're allowing for some factual details to be incorrect. What that means is we have to compare the details and, using other sources of information, verify the details of Anderson's statements. Although some things may be incorrect, we still would expect a fair number of details from the statement to match up with other sources of information.
By looking at other sources of information I have found that the details match up with Alice McKenzie's pipe, and have presented that evidence already. Moreover, I have not been able to verifiy any his statements with evidence surrounding Barnett's pipe.
So, if we allow for some factual errors, it still comes out as not Barnett's pipe.
- Jeff
|
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 5:51 pm: | |
Leanne,
Ah, my confusion about the 2nd pipe. I was worried I may have written something that sounded like I was talking about a 2nd pipe. Sorry about that.
As for Alice's pipe, it was a piece of physical evidence found at a murder scene that may not have belonged to the victim. Alice was known to borrow pipes from people. I agree with you in that it's more likely than not that the owner of the pipe had nothing to do with her murder. However, neither of us (nor the police at the time) can make that claim as a certainty because the owner of the pipe could not be assertained.
For the same reason that police would be interested in who's clothes were burned in Kelly's fireplace, they would be interested in tracking down who owned the pipe found in Alice's clothes (even if only to be sure it was hers after all). It is because the pipe got broken (and possibly lost after that), that the police were unable to follow up on this. The police investigation led to the owner of the cloths. Had it not, they (and we) would have been left considering the "Jill the Ripper" theories much more seriously.
It would be part of the investigative process to follow up on such leads, even if only to close it down (meaning: this pipe goes nowhere). Being able to close down a line of investigation is very important early on because it leaves fewer lines in which to invest the limited resources of police and time.
By saying that identifying the owner of Alice's pipe would be a "great waste of time" is to assume something about the owner of pipe that has not been determined by the evidence or the investigation. The police would in fact be very interested in anyone they could be sure had contact with McKenzie within the past few days.
The pipe, for example, could be underneath her because it fell out of her killer's pocket during the attack. I.E. when he removes his knife from his pocket, the pipe and a farthing falls out, he rolls her over, etc. I'm not saying this had to happen, but because it's not implausible, if I were a detective in this case I would want to investigate to find out for sure.
In other words, the pipe found at Alice's crime scene is a piece of evidence that is worth the time and effort to investigate and I'm not clear as to why you would think otherwise? How could it not be important to identify the owner of something found at a murder scene? Especially when the habits of the victim point to the very real possibility that she was not the owner?
It's just like the pipe found at Kelly's crime scene was worth finding out who owned it. That one was simple because Barnett identified it as his. Alice's may or may not have been identified just as simply if only they hadn't broken it and lost it. Because it was broken (possibly lost) it could never be shown around with the possibility of identifying someone.
If they got lucky, and identified the owner, they would then have investigated that persons whereabouts on the day in question. If that person could account for themselves, then that line of investigation would be shut down. If not, that person would have been investigated further as a "person of interest".
How that line of investigation might have ended up, we just don't know because, once again, the pipe was broken/lost? so this could never be determined. It may, or it may not, have proved fruitful. We can never know for sure. And since Alice was initially thought to be a possible Ripper suspect, the implications in terms of Anderson's 1908 statement are obvious.
- Jeff
|
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 9:33 pm: | |
Leanne,
You pointed out
"Alice McKenzie could have borrowed that pipe on the day of her murder, the day before, the week before,........ "
100% correct. These are all very possible situations. Also possible is that she borrowed it from her murderer, or that her murderer dropped it during the assault (along with the farthing), etc.
Q: Why can't we decide between all these?
A: there are no reports available to us concerning police efforts to find out
Q: Why didn't the police try and find out when and from whom she obtained this pipe, especially since it's possible the pipe's owner could have been her killer?
A: The pipe was broken when it was thrown onto the floor by the mortuary attendant while assissting Dr. Phillips, as indicated in his report.
Q: Who owned the pipe found in Mary Kelly's room?
A: Joe Barnett.
Q: Why do we know who owned the pipe found in Mary Kelly's room?
A: It was identified by Barnett as being his.
Q: How could Barnett identify this pipe if we assume the pipe found in Mary Kelly's room was smashed beyond all recognition when it was thrown into a fireplace by a doctor before the police arrived as per Anderson's 1908 statement?
A: He couldn't.
Q: What must we conclude about our assumption that Anderson is referring to Barnett's pipe?
A: That the assumption is incorrect.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 416
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:33 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
You say that there was simply nothing in Anderson's written statement that at all indicates he was referring to Barnett's pipe. How about 'Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it ito the fireplace and smashed it beyond recognition.' Where does it say that Anderson was ever at McKenzies murder scene? By allowing for errors of memory, isn't everyone just trying to bend his statements to fit Alice McKenzie's pipe?
Where's the proof that the mortuary attendent who dropped the pipe, picked up the pieces that were put to one side for further examination, and threw them into a fireplace? Did he own up to doing this?
If Joseph Barnett wasn't shown the pipe, but merely told by Abberline that a pipe was found on the mantlepiece, how could detectives have concluded that it actually was his?
What evidence is there surrounding Barnett's pipe? It wasn't shown at her inquest as potential crime scene evidence!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 7:55 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Isn't it more than likely that Barnett, on being told that a pipe had been found at the scene, was able to confirm it as his own, simply by saying he left one last time he was there, and telling them exactly where he had left it?
No mystery, no need to show Barnett the actual pipe unless they imagined there could have been two of 'em, left in the same place, but at different times and by two different people.
As I've tried to explain before, the pipe was probably not considered to be evidence of anything, 'potential' or otherwise, and, in my view, reasonably so. It presumably couldn't, as Barnett's (on his own admission), prove anything about when he was last in the room, and whether he could have been present when she was murdered.
In short, there is no evidence surrounding Barnett's pipe. And I don't know what you'd expect there to be.
Love,
Caz
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 8:04 am: | |
Hi Caz,
I feel the pipe if found intact, may have been useful to the police, the contents of the pipe bowl[ if any] would have told the police if the pipe had recently been smoked due to the heat of the tobacco, and freshness, and on the knocking of
the mantlepiece, into the fireplace, this possible clue would have been lost.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 8:23 am: | |
G'day Caz,
If Barnett was told that a pipe was found on the mantlepiece of the woman he loved so much, and he wanted everything done to find her murderer, don't you think he too would have wanted to see if it had been borrowed by her murderer?...YES MYSTERY!
You're right, there is no evidence surrounding his pipe because it didn't 'survive'!!! The potential evidence was destroyed!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 418
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 8:27 am: | |
G'day,
If police were at all concerned about the pipe found underneath Alice McKenzie, why didn't they just ask residents of her Lodging House whether they had lent Alice a pipe that day? They didn't have to show it!
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.
|
|
|
|
