|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 9:52 am: |       |
Sergeant John,
The police did care what details were released to the public, (evidence: their attempts to prevent the public's knowledge of Mary Kelly's missing heart, because it was considered too shocking.)
If Abberline had have said the pipe-evidence was in pieces in the ashes along with the women's clothes, the newspapers would have printed that, and people would have assumed that the killer had thrown a pipe in there too! Now do you get it?
John, John, John, when Mary Kelly's inquest opened at Shoreditch Town Hall, there was an immediate protest from a couple of jurors who said that it should be held in Spitalfields where the victim lived, rather than where the mortuary was situated. The Coroner said: "Jurisdiction lies where the body lies, not where it was found."
In his summing up of the inquest, the Coroner said: "My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary for two courts to deal with these cases and go through the same evidence time after time, which only causes expence and trouble. If the coroners jury can come to a decision as to the cause of death, then that's all they have to do." The pipe wasn't considered relevant, because it wasn't used to kill her!
ABOUT ANDERSON:
In 1907, Sir Robert's book 'Criminals and Crime' was published and on page 81 he put: 'When I speak of efficiency [of the CID] some people will claim "But what about all the undetected crimes?...'
Robert Anderson continued in a similar vein in an article for the 'Daily Chronical' in 1908: 'As a contribution to the public on the obstacles that Scotland Yard Officers had to overcome...' and that brings us to the article over the pipe that we are discussing. And John....1908 is 20 years after the murders!
Now I hope to have a pipe free weekend, while you go and do some more homework!
LEANNE
|
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 10:19 am: | |
Leanne,
"The police did care what details were released to the public, (evidence: their attempts to prevent the public's knowledge of Mary Kelly's missing heart, because it was considered too shocking.)"
And the missing uteri and kidney WEREN'T shocking????
"If Abberline had have said the pipe-evidence was in pieces in the ashes along with the women's clothes, the newspapers would have printed that, and people would have assumed that the killer had thrown a pipe in there too! Now do you get it?"
Yes Leanne, I DO get it. We know a pipe was broken in Alice's case. It was in the papers. It was mentioned that it was broken by a mortuary assistant. So no one thought the killer threw it.
So WHY ON EARTH wouldn't they just say the same thing in this case? "The pipe was broken by a doctor". No confusion at all. (Don't bother replying if you cannot answer this question. I've had about as much pipe silliness as I can take.)
I am aware of the dates of Anderson's statements. Oddly enough, I've actually read them. And I notice that you utterly fail to adress the point I raised regarding Anderson's reliability. Even if as you suggest, he was lying to deflect some bizarre pressure he felt from the "critial public", he couldn't even manage a consistent lie. Not a strong indicator of a reliable witness. (Especially when he wasn't present for the events he's describing, which were 20 years in the past)
Enjoy your pipe free weekend. As I've said, I've done my homework. Nothing in your post is news to me. However you might want to try and spend SOME of the weekend putting together a single coherent pipe theory, because you're arguing all over the place at this point. Any more and we'll have to keep you after class.
John |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 546
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 7:05 pm: | |
Sergeant!!
That's a fact! I didn't just make it up!!!! - About withholding the mention of Mary's missing heart, I mean! When you do your homework next.....read a Ripper book!
Ask the 1888 police why they thought a missing heart was more shocking than a missing uterus, not me!
Why would they confess if a doctor had broken crime scene evidence, when the 'husband' said it was his? 
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 7:12 pm: | |
OK Jeff,
If I've forced you to do more research on this pipe business, would you care to do a revised edition for 'dissertations' on Casebook?
LEANNE
|
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 7:37 pm: | |
Leanne,
Yes Leanne, I am aware that there was no mention of her heart in the contemporary press... What I question is the REASON for the suppression. (If you're aware of any contemporary evidence that suggests that that was the reason it was supressed I would like to know about it, because I don't recall ever seeing anything to that effect. I could certainly have missed something.)
As far as the whole "pipe" thing goes, it's obviously pointless to discuss this further with you. There is no consistancy to your position (other than Joe's guilt) and it seems to me that you're arguing in circles now. Frankly I don't have any interest in wasting my time any further trading childish barbs with you.
We obviously have very different ideas about what constitues research. I think of research as actually gaining new facts. You seem to use the word to mean speculation as to what those facts COULD mean.
I have no problem with speculation. I indulge in it myself. Often. But I don't base my conclusions on a series of longshot "could be's" and that is where we differ I think. We simply have different approaches to the case. Both in how we approach it and why.
As far as my "Homework" goes, I'll probably settle down with Unfortunates. The latest Barnett bashing book, and revel in the wild speculation therein.
No hard feelings, and enjoy your weekend Leanne,
John |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 5:30 am: | |
G'day John,
I'll give you a quote from 'The Simple Truth': 'Although the fact that Kelly's heart was missing was withheld from the public, the information was almost leaked by Dr. Gabe, who had viewed the body at Miller's Court and had initially told the press "a certain organ was missing". ('Halfpenny Weekly' 10 Nov.)
'Evidently he was reprimanded for saying this, for he told a different story the very next day: 'In reply to a question put to him, the doctor declined to give any details.' (Lloyd's Newspaper 11 Nov.)
The 'Daily Telegraph' 13 Nov: 'We are enabled to state that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing.'
Why do you think that Gabe declined to give any details to 'Lloyd's', and why do you think the 'Telegraph' published only what they were enabled to? Why do you think they were prevented to publish which organ was missing, and who prevented them?
LEANNE |
Wallis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 8:29 pm: | |
The pipe buisness is insignificant to the whole Ripper case. |
Slugg
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 9:55 pm: | |
G'day John,
I'm posting this from our other computer, so that's why I'm suddenly an unregisters guest.
I'll give you a quote from 'The Simple Truth': 'Although the fact that Kelly's heart was missing was withheld from the public, the information was almost leaked by Dr. Gabe, who viewed the body at Miller's Court and had initially told the press "a certain organ was missing". ('Halfpenny Weekly 10 Nov).
Evidently he was reprimanded for saying this, for he told a different story the very next day: 'In reply to a question put to him, the doctor declined to give any details.' (Lloyd's Newspaper 11 Nov).
The 'Daily Telegraph' 13 Nov: 'We are enabled to state that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing.'
Why do you think that Gabe declined to give any details to 'Lloyd's' and why do you think the 'Telegraph' published only what they were enabled to? Why do you think they were prevented to publish which organ was missing?
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 19
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 11:14 pm: | |
Leanne,
I'll probably update the dissertation article when I get some time, but the basic gist of it will be the same. The update will primarily to provide a few more source references, and will try to tidy up the presentation a bit. However, as nothing we've discussed has convinced me there's any reason to change the basic conclusion, then it's not high on my priority list just now (too much to do with lecture preparation these days).
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 8:49 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Fair-enough!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 10:29 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Has the thought not occurred to you that the police may have wanted to withhold news of Kelly's absent heart from the public in order to a) prevent hoaxers from writing about it or sending one through the post and b) tempt the killer into having a genuine heart-to-heart with the authorities to prove it was his work?
Even if they spun a 'too shocking' line, it wouldn't mean this had to be the real reason for wanting the heart kept under wraps.
Love,
Caz
|
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 21
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
It's my understanding the police were generally reluctant to release the details of the missing organs for all the murders. Also, Dr. Phillips wanted the details from Chapman's murder with-held because he felt the mutilations were post-mortem, and too shocking, for public release. It was the coroner who insisted that these details be put before the inquest, and therefore made public.
With MJK's inquest, however, the coroner was more sympathetic to the police and didn't press for details. In other words, I don't think we can say the heart detail was with held because it was considered more shocking than the missing uteri and the other mutilations, but rather the corner was simply willing not to press for information. If the police could have their way, they probably would have wanted all the information pertaining to missing organs and mutilations kept secret from all the murders.
Once they (the police) "got through" the inquest without having to reveal some of the details about the crime, they would have been quite upset for one of their own to give away details. Police, even today, keep details about crimes from the public in order to determine the crack pots who confess (but didn't do it) from those who do confess and did actually do it. There's a lot more of the former than the latter in high profile crimes, unfortunately.
- Jeff |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
Leanne,
Sorry for the delay in my reply. It's been a horribly busy few days.
I think both Caz and Jeff raise excellent points. In general the police are not inclined to release detailed information. The coroner did not choose to press for information and so there was no reason for it to become public knowledge.
Also, it wasn't simply the heart that was not relased. Bond's report was not made public in any way, allowing the observations of the like of McCarthy to color our view of the crime scene up until the return of the notes in 1987.
As far as Dr. Gabe goes, I must confess that I know precious little about why he was there, what part he took in the examination, etc. I've seen him mentioned in a couple of articles (Dr. J. R. Gabe, of Mecklenburgh Square) as one of several surgeons that accompanied Bond, and read his comments in the papers, but I've never really understood what his official position was or who would have been able to pressure him.
So I really have no opinion as why he acted in the way he did.
Regards,
John |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 550
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 6:27 pm: | |
G'day,
Dr. John Rees Gabe was the Gynaecologist and paediatrician of Mecklenburgh Square, who was called to Millers Court to assist Dr. Phillips in the initial examination of Mary Kelly's body.
The 'Halfpenny Weekly' obviously hounded him as soon as he left the room, and he said: "A certain organ is missing."
Caz: I know that police wouldn't have wanted to let the public know that her heart was missing for more reasons than not wanting to shock the public, I just asked John because I wanted to read his analysis.
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 6:35 pm: | |
Leanne,
I was not aware that he was a gynaecologist or paediatrician. Thanks for the interesting tidbit.
Regards,
John |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 8:16 am: | |
G'day John,
Dr. Gabe only gets one mention in the official files, and that is in an inserted newpaper clipping of the 'Daily Telegraph' 10 November, when he said that 'he had seen a great deal in dissecting rooms, but he had never witnessed such a horrible sight as the murdered woman presented.' For that comment and the comments he made to other reporters, his name will go down in history!
LEANNE |
Wallis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 11:01 pm: | |
Did Barnett show any sadness when he was questioned by Abberline or when he talked to anybody else about it? Was he even suprised? |
Wallis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 11:02 pm: | |
Sadness about the death of Mary Kelly. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 5:38 pm: | |
G'day Wallis,
No one will ever know about his interrigation, because records, if they were made, have not survived to this day!
The 'evidence' that it took 4 hours, comes from his own statement to a newspaper. I reckon as this man stuttered, he could have said to a reporter: "They kept me there fffffor hours."
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 5:42 pm: | |
G'day Wallis,
He would have been upset and nervous. No one is theorizing that he planned to kill her!
LEANNE |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 201
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
LEANNE,
Barnett would have been upset and nervous ??
Over what ? the loss of Mary ? or the fear of being caught ?
Monty
 |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 9:57 am: | |
G'day Monty,
I think he lost her well before her death, and this was made worse by his inability to provide for her!
LEANNE |
Wallis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 7:13 pm: | |
Leanne,
Do you think that Barnett killed Kelly and the others or just killed her or killed no one?
Because you say:
"no one is theorizing that he planned to kill her!"
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 3:45 am: | |
G'day Wallis,
I believe he harboured a tremendous hatred of prostitutes, found a pretty one, couldn't keep her from returning to prostitution and killed her in his torment.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 4:59 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
So Joe met and immediately took up with a woman he knew to be a prostitute, even though he 'harboured a tremendous hatred' of such women?
This can only make sense because you also believe the man was barking mad.
The trouble is, you can make sense of anything you believe about a suspect once you use a 'barking mad' theory.
Love,
Caz
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
