| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 4:51 am: |       |
G'day Dan,
We have to sift through press reports, and sort out the 'attension-getters' from the issues that contain a grain of truth. Now take the myth that Mary had an 11 year old boy that was begging in the streets while she lay dead inside. That creates very powerful images in a readers mind. It appeared in newspapers overseas, so couldn't be verified. But no one ever mentioned Kelly's son afterwards. Whoever started that one, could have made an honest mistake I suppose. A reporter may have seen a boy begging outside Miller's Court, and rushed his story.
Then we have the one about the shed next door, that was sometimes the nightly refuge for another victim. If an error was made in October, it survived to make a newspaper in November and doesn't bring tears to one's eyes. I've read contemporary reports about the conditions of housing for the poor, and John McCarthy had an unlocked shed.
Please point out the posts that have 'holes enough to drive trucks through.'
In what way do you think Joe's alibi is strong? He told the police when he turned up that he was at Buller's playing whist until 12 midnight, then went to bed. Mary Kelly's most likely time of death hadn't even be established.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 7:38 am: | |
I don't believe in Kelly's little boy. But I do believe she could have become a mother several times once she was dead. "Jack killed my mum" would have been a powerful begging ploy.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 3:39 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Now that would sell newspapers!
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 235
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 3:03 am: | |
Leanne, When Joe was questioned by the police about his wearabouts, the police were under the (wrong) assumption that Mary had been murdered at about 04:00 AM thanks to the inept Dr. Phillips basing the time of death on one of the tenents reporting that was when she heard "a cry of murder" and not based on forensics, or the fact that Carrie and Maurice saw her alive a number of hours later.
(IMHO) Had the police been given a more accurate time of death, Joe would not have been able to provide an alibi.
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 3:49 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
I agree entirely, the reported cry, went a long way in estimating the time of death, his alibi would have been confirmed, and with no apparent sighs of blood on his clothing, would have been released, also I do not believe that he fitted the description of the man that they became aware of on the 9th , this is in our book.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 865
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 4:40 am: | |
G'day,
RICHARD: How can anyone confirm the alibi: "I was in bed at 12"? Did someone sit on the next bed watching him? It doesn't matter what Mary's true time-of-death was.
SHANNON: Without searching through my books, Barnett told police that he was at Buller's playing whist until midnight, when he went to bed. I thought Dr. Phillips hadn't given his estimated time-of-death until he did the post mortem on the body. How could the police have been under any assumption?
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 236
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 5:53 am: | |
Leanne, Joe was brought in for questioning after the crime scene investigation was done and a prelim post mortem had been completed. By then the inspector had been told by the doctor what the cause and time of death were.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 237
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 5:57 am: | |
Leanne, the Deputy of the lodging house would have known if Joe was in or out since he is the one responsible for the beds.
As for your comment, "It doesn't matter what Mary's true time-of-death was." If her time of death doesn't matter, what does? If a suspect has an alibi for the time of death, they are no longer a suspect now are they?
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 866
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 6:51 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
Hang on, we have to look at Buller's Lodging House. Was it a number of seperate rooms in a building, with one person at a desk out front? Or was it a single floor with lots of beds in the one room? Do you have an idea?
When I said: 'It doesn't matter what Mary's true time-of-death was', I meant it didn't matter if we took her TOD to be 4:00a.m. or later. It was after 12:00 midnight. Joe could have made sure he was seen going to his room.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1205
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 7:42 am: | |
Hi Leanne
What's with this "Joe could have made sure he was seen going to his room"? I thought your idea was that he killed Mary in a fit of jealous rage?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 867
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 8:40 am: | |
G'day Robert,
At midnight, Joe could have said "Ok fellas I'm off to bed." and walked to his room. Leaving later to go to Millers Court to plead with Mary. I'm now looking at descriptions of low-class lodging houses. It's 12:30a.m. here, so I'll continue this tomorrow. Good Night!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 868
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 8:44 am: | |
G'day Robert,
I think I understand your point: How did he know he was going to need an alibi? See what trying to think, late at night, can do to ya?
LEANNE |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
Leanne wrote: "Please point out the posts that have 'holes enough to drive trucks through.' "
Are you kidding? This thread (and its 25 archived folders) is like the Channel Tunnel. There's no need to run trucks through it when there's a high speed train service. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 6:03 am: | |
Shannon, that's very true but was there any record of the deputy confiming Joe's alibi though or anyone confirming it at all? |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 7:06 am: | |
Leanne,
If he made sure people saw him go to his room how did he sneak out again if indeed there were people about. If Barnett did kill Mary then I don't think it was planned so why would he have made sure people were watching him go to his room. If he killed her I think it may have been due to an arguement beforehand so after playing whist (to which there must have been witnesses) he would have left in plain view of anyone as he wasn't aware he was about to go and kill Mary. In view of this, if he had witnesses saying he went to bed then I don't think he did it. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 238
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 12:55 pm: | |
Sarah, only speculation at that point I'm afraid. What I wouldn't give to have Abberline's notes from the interview he conducted with Joe. No record (that I know of) exists to show that anyone from the lodging house where he spent the night confirmed his alibi, only a guess that someone would have had to or Joe would have at least dealt with another question and answer session with Freddy...
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:44 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
I might be in the minority, but I am convinced Kelly was killed in the daylight hours of the 9th november, if this murder was premeditated, which I believe it was, then the killer, would have tried to convince the police that Kelly was killed in the night hours, the victim being found in a state of undress, with her clothes folded close by, would indicate that she was killed in the night.Therefore if the killer had a alibi for that period, it would give him some chance of survival. I believe albeit speculation that Barnett went to Kellys room about 830am that morning , finding here not in, which was not what he expected, waited till she returned about 9am, she informed him she was not feeling well, so he suggested she got back in bed, and she did down to her chemise, and the rest is unpleasant.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 869
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
G'day Dan,
No, you're kidding. You must be. Please point out the holes in this theory.
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 165
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 10:30 am: | |
Remember we are talking about a common lodging house here. People didn't have a cup of cocoa and be tucked up in bed by ten. There would have been people around all night, in the kitchen, on the stairs, moving in and out. Not to mention the fact that Barnett was highly unlikely to have a room to himself. Certainly he could have sneaked out after he went to bed without anyone seeing him, but there is no way he could have guaranteed that he would be able to do so. It would have been a very risky proposition and he would have been very aware of that. |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 27
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 11:22 am: | |
Good post, Alan. And just to add to your thoughts would be the desperation that drove someone like Polly Nichols to seek her doss money in the middle of the night. Clearly, there would be someone on duty in the lodging house to collect that money at all hours, prevent freeloaders from lodging and otherwise monitor comings and going. Certainly, someone could slip out, but then many things are possible if not probable. And, once we begin to admit too many "possible if not probable" ideas we quickly enter the land of fantasy.
Further, the investigation of Jacob Isenschmid, as described by Sugden, seems to indicate that the police were thorough and professional in checking on suspects. It is easier to believe that they vetted Barnett's story quite carefully than that they did not. Remember, they were under extreme pressure to find the murderer. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 12:57 am: | |
Leanne wrote: "No, you're kidding. You must be."
Sounds like you are in denial.
"Please point out the holes in this theory."
Please reread the various threads you have contributed to and pay attention this time. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 4:43 am: | |
Richard,
If Barnett was the killer I think it would have to have been done as you say but I find it hard to believe that he planned to kill her. Unfortunately if he did kill her in the night on the spur of the moment (which is more likely from someone who loved her but was very jealous) it doesn't make sense about the whole going to bed alibi. If he didn't know he was going to kill her then he wouldn't have made any attempt to sneak around and surely someone would have mentioned seeing him, especially someone in the lodging house because these were always busy with people coming and going at all hours.
If Mary was the victim and Joe was the killer then I only see it happening one way, the same as Richard. He had argued with her the previous night where she told him that she wasn't going to give up her "profession" whatever happened in Whitechapel. I believe she must have said something to this effect to make Joe think he had no option but to kill her. Therefore he went about setting his alibi and then come the morning go to Millers Court, wait and then as Richard says, kill her upon her return. It would have been very busy outside with the Lord Mayor's Show that day and no-one would have thought to look in at Mary's place.
The thing that gets me though is that, if he was going to kill her in the morning how could he have been sure no-one would see him. He killed all the others by night, so why kill Mary in the day? Also if he had been playing whist until midnight then when would he have had the arguement with Mary that caused him to want to kill her. If no such arguement took place I don't believe he would have killed her. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 4:44 am: | |
Leanne,
I think many people have mentioned many holes in this theory. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 9:44 am: | |
Grrr stupid unregistered time delay in posts!! I basically said the same thing as Robert. Must register and stop being lazy!! |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 3:40 am: | |
G'day,
Sarah: Have you read ALL of these Barnett boards? Or just browsed through them. Once again I ask: 'Please point out the holes!' The ones that haven't been filled I mean, because that will tell me where the weak spots are. I'm serious!
I've found a description of common lodging houses in the poorest part of London, (the type that 'Joe-with-not-much-money' could afford, and believe me, he could have snuck out, and returned for breakfast! I'll try to post a picture here. He didn't have to sneak out with full intentions to murder her, he may have snuck out because he didn't want people to know how desperate he was.
If Joe was aware that the next day was Lord Mayors Day, and the street would be very busy very early and Mary would be up early to attend it, he wouldn't have left it too late to plead with her to have him back.
LEANNE
|
