|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 962
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 8:59 am: |       |
G'day,
SARAH: I'm, sorry to read about your bad news. I wish you success with your book. GO GIRL!
ROBERT: What "connections" are you looking for?
EVERYONE: In Barnett's four hour interrigation, (two hour according to one paper), would the police have asked him everything he knew about Mary Kelly's lifestyle, asked him everything about his lifestyle and past, asked him about his employment, investigated it, verified his alibis for every night in question, examined all of his clothes for bloodstains, and got Lawende to take a look at him from a distance, all when they had to get back to Miller's Court? Now that's what I call thorough!
In 1888 nobody, not even the police, knew enough about mentally unstable people. No one knew that a person could not show outward signs!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 963
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 9:05 am: | |
G'day,
Abberline was at Mary Kelly's inquest, and heard every word of Barnett's testimony as he gave it! How come he never spoke up when Barnett gave a different reason for leaving Mary, to the one he gave in his initial statement?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
Hi Leanne
By "connections" I mean social connections, police connections, anything that would allow a person to pull strings.
The police would have examined Barnett long enough to satisfy themselves about him. They weren't trying to write his biography. At the same time, they were talking to the neighbours.
There would have been quite a few police working on this case, I should think.
I don't see anything suspicious about the "different" versions, and nor apparently did Abberline. Remember too that when Barnett gave his police statement, he was under incredible stress/shock.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 2:34 pm: | |
By the way, Leanne, I'm not saying that the fact that the police released Barnett and had no further interest in him, means he can be eliminated fronm the enquiry. If I thought that, I'd hardly have bothered to send posts on all the other evidence concerning him. I'm just saying that Barnett's release etc by the police must be a factor that counts towards his not being JTR.
Another thing : if Joe killed Mary in a fit of rage, he wouldn't have even needed to leave the doss house unobserved. But still no one saw him go?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 964
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 4:11 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: Joe appeared to have no "connections?" What about the fact that one victim lived across the road, one lived next door, one lived on the same steet, and another lived in the same room?
Barnett's quick release doesn't count as a very strong factor for anything. I've examined his doss house as best I can, and there were so many lodgers, coming and going at all hours and there were no set meal times.
LEANNE |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 22
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 4:15 pm: | |
Leanne,
That would mean that all the people living near the victims, like Joe did, could have been Jack the Ripper.
-Peter- |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1430
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 5:01 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
To add to what Peter said : are you still banging on about Kate living next door? She may have stayed there occasionally.
"I've examined his doss house as best I can." That could have been Abberline speaking! And he was there.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 965
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 5:53 pm: | |
G'day Peter,
That's right, they could have been! Point out another person that lived on the same street as FOUR of the victims. Not just one!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1432
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 6:03 pm: | |
Leanne, if you're right, there's McCarthy for a start.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 6:46 pm: | |
G'day,
Well that would have been good for business!!!  And he destroyed his door!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 29, 2003) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1433
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 7:02 pm: | |
Didn't destroy it, Leanne - merely prised open.
Good for business? Not in the very short term. But you're forgetting : crime of passion!
If Joe killed these women because he knew them - which is what you seem to be saying - then either
1. He just happens to bump into them during the night, and away from Dorset St. Plus, on Sept 30th he happens to bump into two within an hour.
Or
2. He engineers meeting them beforehand. That makes for a very tight timetable on Sept 30th.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 45
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 8:19 pm: | |
Leanne,
Repetition of a dubious assumption renders it no less dubious -- and your assertion that Eddowes "lived next door" is certainly a dubious assumption. We have been over this before and you evidently want to believe a one-time newspaper story about an incident that has an aroma reminiscent of Billingsgate. So be it, but even if everything in that story was absolutely true, Catharine at most sought occasional refuge in the shed. She did not live there.
Don. |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 23
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 8:42 pm: | |
Leanne,
A mere coincidence. How come Mary did not mention the fact that these people she knew were getting killed? Why didn't she go to the police?
Minus the fact that Barnett probably lived near the victims, what else to we have here against Barnett?
Did Barnett show any previous signs of physical abuse?-none
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on November 29, 2003) |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 25
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 9:02 pm: | |
Leanne,
"Would the police got Lawende to take a look at him from a distance, all when they had to get back to Miller's Court?"
I'm sure they didn't even need to have an arrangement for Lawende to view Barnett. I'm sure Lawende could have stumbled upon Barnett on accident. Barnett was "in custody." He was probably in the police station and was probably at the questioning. Now you are saying that Lawende, who probably saw Jack the Ripper, was not present at either of these moments? Purposely or accidentally?
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on November 29, 2003) |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 262
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 9:09 pm: | |
Leanne, all - (IMHO) what causes me to believe that Joe is guilty of at least the MJK murder, and if so, the possibility of being JtR based on the belief that who ever killed MJK also killed Polly, Annie, and Kate because the signature of the killer is the same for all of these women:
1, Whoever it was the killed MJK was welcome in her room or she would not have been wearing her bed clothing at the time of her death, she would have been dressed (if she were "working" she would have only removed her underwear).
2, If it were a stranger, the murder would have started at the door and not on the bed.
3, Whether it was dark or light outside at the time of the murder it would have been dark in the room since the windows were covered and the candle was not lit. This means that the killer had to enter the room, make his way past the table, find Mary on the bed, grasp her mouth before she screamed, and then kill her, unless he was welcomed in and a light was lit before the attack happened (the fire in the grate would have provided enough light, which wasnt lit until time time after Maryann went to bed near 3:00 AM).
4, Who other than Joe would have been welcomed in at or before 4:00 AM (if that is when the murder took place, which I do not believe it did because the blood was still in a liquid state when the police opened the door after 1:00 in the afternoon and had the murder taken place at 4:00 AM would have coagulated and dried on the floor and sheets) or after 9:00 AM (which is when I believe the murder actually happened) when Mary was recovering from a night of drinking and suffering from a hangover?
Who ever it was, it was someone she knew, trusted, and welcomed into her home. If the story that Joe is the one who left, and came back because he wanted to work things out is true, she would have welcomed him in...
If the truth is that she is the one who threw him out because he could no longer support her, which I believe is the more correct version of what happened, and he came to see her to tell her that he now had the means to support her once again, she would have also welcomed him in.
Based on the above, only one person fits the bill... Joseph Barnett.
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 26
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 9:16 pm: | |
Shannon,
"Based on the above, only one person fits the bill... Joseph Barnett."
I'm sure there were other men out there who Mary trusted and could have let them in at that time.
-Peter- |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 12:16 am: | |
G'day Peter,
Such as?
LEANNE |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 27
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 1:15 am: | |
Leanne,
Of course you are asking this question. You know I don’t have an answer.
My argument will not stand against yours very well due to the fact that it is nearly impossible to find out who that person was.
We should use logic and common sense here. Mary did trust other men.
What makes you think that Barnett was the only guy Mary trusted?
I know you trust more than one man in your life: Father, cousin, uncle?
Perhaps Mary had some of these relatives.
Or maybe even a good male friend of hers. I am sure she met many while working the streets.
-Peter-
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 968
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 3:14 am: | |
G'day,
Here's a thought I just had: Mary was seen to enter her room with 'blotchy face' by Mary Ann Cox. Mrs Cox only remained in her room for a quarter of an hour, then left. The time was 1:00a.m. Mary Kelly wouldn't have known that she left again.
Mary sang: 'A Violet I Plucked from my Mothers grave when a boy'. Mrs. Cox returned an hour later, (2:00a.m.), and Mary was still singing. Mrs. Cox warmed her hands then left again, returning to her room at 3:00 a.m. Kelly's light was out, and she had stopped singing.
I wonder if Mary sang while she was entertaining a client in her room, loud enough so that her neighbours would know she was alright! This means that she was not with a mere client at 3:00a.m., but was either alone or perhaps with someone she knew well.
Mrs. Cox was out between the hours of 2:00a.m. and 3:00a.m. George Hutchinson claimed that he saw Mary outside AROUND 2:00a.m. I wonder if she left her room just after Mrs. Cox went out for the second time, to find another client, (that would mean that Hutchinson was a few minutes out in his statement).
Sorry if someone has already suggested this. I just worked it out! I still think Hutchinson's statement was too detailed!
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 3:45 am: | |
Hi.
The argument is, surely Lawande would have been asked to pick out Barnett as having been the person he saw with Eddowes....
That would seem logical, and it may well have happened, if so he obviously did not identify him as the person he saw.
Which I believe he would not have done, for it is my opinion, that the man seen with Eddowes was not her killer.
Her killer was observing the couple from the square, and when eddowes rejected the man dressed as as seaman, and he departed,one of two things happened;
1] Eddowes not wishing to go off in the same direction as the man cut through church pasage, or the killer approached eddowes,and manhandled her to the corner.
This scenario, would explain why Barnett was not seen by Lawande.
Richard. |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 29
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 10:44 pm: | |
Richard,
Do you really think there was enough time for your scenario to happen?
What makes us think that Barnett was the man with Eddowes? The man could have been her killer and it didn’t need to be Barnett.
-Peter-
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 970
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 11:36 pm: | |
G'day Richard,
Lawende said he would not be able to pick the man he saw again. He identified Eddowes by the clothes she wore. What makes you think that the police thought he may have been able to pick Barnett?
LEANNE |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 30
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 11:44 pm: | |
Leanne,
Yet, Lawende identified the man in 1895.
-Peter-
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 435
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 3:01 am: | |
Hi Leanne, Peter,
Barnett was taken into custody, his alibi[weak] was checked, and his clothing examined, he proberly had a strip search to look for blood stains.
I would therefore imagine, that either Lawande, or Schwartz, even Mrs long, could have been brought to the station to see if Barnett was the person they saw with the respective victims.
That would seem the most logical thing to do even in 1888.
If this did happen, and we dont know if it did, then Barnett was not identified, therefore he either wasnt the killer, or he was not the person seen with the women, which in the case of Chapman , and Eddowes is extremely likely.
Richard. |
Luxy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 10:02 am: | |
Hi
can anyone tell me how it went on for Barnett and G.Hutchinson after Mary Jane's funeral. Did they get married? Are there any descendants alive?
Luxy |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
