|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 6:14 am: |       |
Now how did I know that Richard and Leanne would be onto me like a shot? And Leanne has armed herself with a flame-thrower! Looks like I'll be burnt to a crisp after all.
Richard, don't forget that during their time together they were both evicted for going on a drunk. Barnett doesn't seem to have been strait-laced in that department. Then there was Fleming. I'm not sure when he started to visit Kelly, or whether Joe knew about the visits, or even (since we only have Kelly's word for it) that he visited Kelly at all. But in any event, it seems a strange thing for her to tell one of her friends, if she didn't want it to get back to this supposedly jealous and possessive man.
Barnett sure jumped to extreme measures very quickly, if Tabram is included in the list. He must have started killing almost straight after he was sacked. And surely if he wanted to scare Kelly off the streets, a note from "Jack" telling her she was next would have been a good move.
Leanne, people do go missing for a variety of reasons. But I have no problem with the idea of her walking out, which seems a plausible scenario.
When you say that he didn't have much choice but to try to reform Kelly, surely he wouldn't have got involved with her in the first place? Or do you mean that there were no other potential girlfriends around - that he had to pick a prostitute? I find that hard to believe.
I'm off to try and buy an asbstos suit.
Robert
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 6:26 am: | |
Hi AP
I've always felt that Joe couldn't have been quite as nice and quiet as he's often made out to have been, simply because he lived in Miller's Court. If he hadn't known how to defend himself, he would probably have been driven out, or else been forced to resign himself to handing over his wages each week to the local thugs.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 185
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:26 am: | |
Robert: " girl from the Sally Army, you know the sort of thing. But he would probably be very jealous, always wanting to know what she was doing, who she'd been speaking to and what about, etc etc. And he would always be seeking reassurance that he was Number One."
Look at what we know of Joe's history... You have just described him to a "T"
Shannon
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:51 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Eh? How do you make that out? All we know about Barnett is that he quite understandably didn't want his girlfriend on the streets.
And if he had such a bad view of women, why did he team up with Kelly, of all people?
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 127
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 10:07 am: | |
Richard
Then Chapman[ reports indicate that she and kelly were friends]
Now I know that you are trying not to give too much away with regard to things which will be in your book but.... I'd really challenge you to point to one report that indicated that.
Other than the fact that they lived in close proximity, and may have drunk in the same public houses, I know of not one contemporary report which suggests that any of the victims knew each other.
On which subject, in less than an hour I intend to go to the pub round the corner from my flat to watch the afternoon footie (come on you spurs!   ). Almost everyone in there will be people who live in close proximity to me, some of them in the very same building, and I doubt very much whether I will know very many of them.
|
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 12:35 pm: | |
The argument for Barnett is compelling but I have a few concerns. If the motive for Barnett is that he wants to scare Kelly into giving up prostitution, why does he take the time to nick the eyelids and specially place a portion of Eddowe's intestines near her body? The Ripper was sending a message. Certainly, nicking the eyelids is not going to scare Kelly any further. If Barnett decides that his tactics are not working and Kelly is not afraid, why then does he wait as long as he did before killing Kelly? If he planned to kill Kelly inside her apartment, he really didn't need to worry about a cooling off period for the police, all of the previous murders had taken place ouside. Why does he take the time to write the message at Goulston Street? The message would not throw doubt to someone else if he was suspected by police. I'm sure that the police at that time knew very well that most murders are comitted by someone who is an acquaintance of the victim, so why was Barnett not suspected more seriously by Abberline and others? I would think he would have become a prime suspect right away.
I just think that he went through a lot of trouble to keep Kelly off of the streets. Wouldn't it have been easier for him to find another job?
I am interested in anyone discussing some answers.
Thanks,
Rod |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1100
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Yes, Rod, why didn't he take up petty theft, or burglary, or mugging? It's a bit of a leap to go straight to disembowelling women! The word "overkill" springs to mind....
Of course, the Barnettists will reply that Joe was also compelled psychologically to commit these murders, so that he had, as it were, a double motive for the killings.
Sort of like killing one bird with two stones.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 186
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 1:43 pm: | |
Robert, not a bad view of women. Only a bad view of the ones that reminded him of dear old mum. The one that deserted him after his father died leaving him to a life on the streets of Whitechapel...
Kelly was the ultimate find for Joe. She was young, pretty, and at a point in her life where she may have looked like mum; but, at an age where he beleive she was able to be saved. Oh, and Mary being the dominant one in the relationship was a dream come true. He could now be seen with a young beautiful girl who "wasn't like the others" in her profession...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 187
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 1:59 pm: | |
Rod: "The argument for Barnett is compelling but I have a few concerns. If the motive for Barnett is that he wants to scare Kelly into giving up prostitution, why does he take the time to nick the eyelids and specially place a portion of Eddowe's intestines near her body? The Ripper was sending a message. Certainly, nicking the eyelids is not going to scare Kelly any further."
Rod, by escalating the amount of horror with each new crime, he ups the ante in the hopes that the carnage will be enough for Mary to not want to risk it any more. Its also why he chose Annie as the second victim. His message there: if you keep up this lifestyle your going to end up just like the lady that lived across the street. When that didn’t work he upped the ante again by mutilating Kate’s face. From what I can gather Mary was a young pretty and somewhat vain woman, and for her to believe that even if she did survive the attack, her face would be mutilated like Kate’s was is pretty horrific.
If Barnett decides that his tactics are not working and Kelly is not afraid, why then does he wait as long as he did before killing Kelly? If he planned to kill Kelly inside her apartment, he really didn't need to worry about a cooling off period for the police, all of the previous murders had taken place ouside.
Giving her another “last” chance. Remember the last murders happened on the last day of the month. So the Ripper was due on Oct 30th. The day he supposedly left or was thrown out. Want to bet what the last argument that resulted in the broken window was really about?
Why does he take the time to write the message at Goulston Street? The message would not throw doubt to someone else if he was suspected by police. I'm sure that the police at that time knew very well that most murders are comitted by someone who is an acquaintance of the victim…
Blind luck that he tossed the apron into that building on his way back to Miller’s Court. I believe the graffiti was there before the killer ever tossed the apron through the doorway,
so why was Barnett not suspected more seriously by Abberline and others? I would think he would have become a prime suspect right away.
He was. Freddy interviewed him for several hours. Problem was that the moron, Dr Phillips made a gross error in fixing the time of death. Had he listened to the evidence and the eye witnesses, the doctor would have known that Mary was murdered between 9 AM and 10 AM and not at 4AM. Inspector Abberline had to go by what the doctor told him, and for that time frame Joe had an alibi.
I just think that he went through a lot of trouble to keep Kelly off of the streets. Wouldn't it have been easier for him to find another job?
He tried, but noting paid as well as the one he had. I believe he was only hoping to scare her off the streets for him to find another or get his old job back and then everything would return to the way it was…
Shannon
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:24 pm: | |
hi Shannon.
You are on the same wavelength as myself i put myself on record saying that she was killed between 9am - 10am to be fair my co author disagrees with that. but that hopefully will be the success of this book, two educated enthusiasts, disagreeing then it will be up to the indervidual reader to decide.
Richard. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 189
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:31 pm: | |
Richard, the problem with MJK's forensics VS eye witnesses is that there are more than one eye witness and they saw her alive on a day that they are not likely to be mistaken about (Lord Mayor's Day), at a time that is consistant with each other, and 5 hours after her "official" time of death.
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:43 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
To me without sounded conceited, it is obvious that M.J.k. was killed on the morning of the 9th nov 88. the vast majority of readers of this site, seem to go with the flow, I Do not, I analyse every point of evidence we have availiable, and it is clear at least to me . that the stronger evidence points to a later date , then medically asumed at that time.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:15 pm: | |
Hi all
So Joe is supposed to have gone to Kelly's room in broad daylight, taking a chance that no one sees him go in, then he kills and mutilates Kelly, taking a chance that none of the people out and about will peep through the window, and also taking a chance that McCarthy won't send Bowyer round for the rent, then he leaves, taking a chance that no one will see him leaving, with a knife in one pocket and a heart in the other, and wearing bloody clothes, knowing that as soon as the body is discovered the police will want to question him, and strolls off to some suitable place, there to hide the heart and knife and attend to his ablutions, and spend the rest of his time practising his fainting.
It's a bit implausible, Shannon and Richard.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 192
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:17 pm: | |
Richard, the pubs open at 6AM, she was seen alive at 8:30 by Carrie, and had an undigested portion of fish & chips in her stomach. The meal she had takes about 90 minutes to digest. If she had eaten at about 8:30 or so as Carrie indicated, it would have been about 1/2 digested at about 9:30; so allowing for a few minutes either way from the time Carrie saw her, it makes very good sense that MJK died sometime around 9:30 - 10:00. Without a liver temp (which they didnt know about at the time) we cant fix the time of death any closer than that.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 193
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
Robert, its not much of a chance. First, its Lord Mayor's Day and everyone is going about their own business. Second, Kelly's room is the first one in the court. All Joe had to do is look out the window into the court yard to verify the coast was clear, open the door and take 3 steps to be on Dorset street and disappear. If anyone sees him, he will claim he just discovered the body and is on his way to the police. If they don't, he gets away.
Shannon
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
He can't see round corners when he looks out that window. There's the area outside the door to condider, plus the chance of being spotted by people looking through their windows. He wouldn't want to tell anyone he was going to the police while in that state - bloody clothes beneath his coat, bloodstained hands, and a heart in his pocket. He'd have had a job explaining later why he had been walking rather than running, and why he hadn't been screaming "Police! Murder!" at the top of his voice.Plus, there was always the chance that someone would see him, and not think anything of it, until news of the murder got out.
Robert |
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:28 pm: | |
Shannon,
Thanks so much for trying to answer my questions. Many of your answers make excellent sense. I am troubled by your explanation of the graffiti. I myself believe that the Ripper did write it. To me, it is to much of a coincidence to have no one notice the writing until the double event and then have the piece of apron there as well. I believe that the apron was left by the Ripper to confirm that he was the author.
I am also not convinced of the Eddowe's facial mutilation. Those nicks on the eyelids differ from the rest of the slashing of her body. The nicks were placed with particular care. If Barnett was the killer, perhaps there was a reason only he knew for the nicks. Imo, there was more to it than showing Kelly what could happen to her. The placed intestines is also a problem.
I appreciate your answers and you have given me much to think about.
Robert, you make a valid point. It sure does seem like an extreme for Barnett when easier answers could be found.
Great discussion all!
Rod |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 197
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:53 pm: | |
Rod, your welcome. Wont pretend to have all the answers, and honestly if I did, I would seek therapy... Nice to meet others with an open mind to the events and always a pleasure to chat with someone who will present and listen to alternative views of the events and not ram their suspect down your throat, or atttack a theory before it has been given a chance to be tested because it doesn't fit their text book mold of a case. There is an exception to every rule, even murder...
Now, about the grafitti, the one thing no one seems to have considered is that the killer would have had a fair amount of blood on his hands. How did he manage to write the grafitti and not stain the wall? That is the one sticking point I cant get past...
Usually when someone mutilates the face of the victim, they know them personally. It is possible that while Kate lived in the shed, she met Joe (not substantiated)
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 198
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:58 pm: | |
Robert, if you look at the picture of #13 Miller's Court, you see that it is a double window and from the courner of the far wall you can see the entire yard with the exception of one room directly across, and the space within the arch. What cant be seen from the window can be from cracking the door a bit.
So, look out the window, coast is clear, now look out the door and off you go. Again if you get caught in the act, look dazed and confused, mutter the words murder and your off the hook...
Shannon |
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:07 pm: | |
Shannon,
Fair question about the lack of blood on the wall. First, there is the piece of apron to wipe the hands (I know I'm stating the obvious). But, speaking as a teacher, I can tell you that if I was looking for a substance that would coat and dry out my hands, I would choose chalk. Chalk is an amazing drying agent as the layers of dead skin on the tips of my fingers would testify.
Rod |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 329
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:22 pm: | |
Hello All
A quick point about the graffiti. It may be a co-incidence that the apron was discarded in front of the graffiti. Graffiti about JTR may have been fairly common on the walls of the East-End. However, graffiti written in chalk is likely to be very easily obliterated or smeared by someone's shoulder or body as they are walking through a narrow passageway such as the one we are discussing. It also seems likely that any graffiti mentioning Jews would be immediately wiped out by a passing Jew whom I would expect would want to distance his people from the killings. This leads me to believe the graffiti may have been of recent origin.
If so, the purported coincidence of the apron leading its' discoverer to the graffiti becomes an indication that JTR may have been the author.
All The Best
Gary |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 200
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:29 pm: | |
Rod, if he had used the apron to wipe the blood, it would have only smeared it around more as it was soaked with the bodily fluids from the kidney. if he used chalk to absorb the fluid, there would have been traces of the blood in the writing...
I picture him walking down Goulston street on his way back to Miller's Court when he spots the PC making his rounds. From all the comotion in Mitre Square he would have almost had to know that Kate's body have been discovered, and not wanting to get caught with the evidence, tosses the bloody apron cloth into the nearest doorway without attracting attention to him.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 201
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:32 pm: | |
Gary, the writing was only about 1 - 2 inches in height and about 2 foot or so off the floor. It wasnt at eyel level or in large letters as some believe.
Shannon |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 330
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:45 pm: | |
Hi Shannon.
I wasn't aware of the height of the writing. However, I would be curious to know the exact proximity of the writing to the discarded peice of apron.
All The Best
Gary |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 202
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 10:12 pm: | |
From SIr Warren's letter: "The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once."
Constable Long: "The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119."
The grafitti was in the doorway and the apron had been tossed in past it laying near the stairs leading to the upper floors (had to be careful of the discription; as in England the first floor is the first floor about the main floor and not the ground floor, thanks Leanne  )
Shannon
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
