|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 291
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 8:41 pm: |       |
Peter, no I didnt mean it, it was to show you that you can be sarcastic, and another can see it and you dont need to add any additional punctuation to do so...
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 72
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 8:50 pm: | |
Shannon,
How do we know that those words you just wrote weren't sarcasm? Okay, the person was not being loud or anything, but perhaps it was an “unrolemodel" like teacher who was imitating a kid's stupidity.
When Barnett had said,
No, sir. Our own quarrels were very soon over
Who knows how he was speaking? I can give you the tone of voice I’m thinking only in audio form, not words. That is my point. There are so many different ways to interpret it.
That is why in books, after a person speaks, they usually give the tone in which that person spoke.
Unless Abberline noted Barnett’s tone, there is no right or wrong answer.
He was the only one who heard him.
-Peter-
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 73
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 8:51 pm: | |
Shannon,
Did not see the second post you just wrote.
I think, in conclusion, we will never know how he spoke. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 292
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 10:52 pm: | |
Peter: "Unless Abberline noted Barnett’s tone, there is no right or wrong answer. He was the only one who heard him."
Peter, everyone at the inquest heard him, question is, who was paying attention to what he said? Take the entire text of Joe's testimony at the inquest and you will notice several facts:
1, not one answer he gave can be verified.
2, his responses were so vague that if anyone else gave testimony, he would be able to say, "see there gov, that what I meant..."
3, his response to the coroner about "our own quarrles" shows (me) a bit of a slip that should have been investigated, problem was, this was only an inquiry into her death, and not a trial where he was a defendant.
Shannon
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 74
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 11:07 pm: | |
Shannon,
1) not one answer he gave can be verified
Of course they can't be verified. It was the polices’ fault. Thing is, if they felt that they needed to verify it, they would have done so. Leading you to think they were suspicious of him. Obviously, they weren't. That is one of my problems with Barnett.
2)his responses were so vague that if anyone else gave testimony, he would be able to say, "see there gov, that what I meant..."
It was the fault of the police. They should have got into more detail. Maybe Barnett felt he didn't need to go into detail. If he didn't do it, why would he waste time getting into detail if the police didn't even seem to care much? If I were Barnett, I wouldn’t speak of things if I wasn’t asked.
3)his response to the coroner about "our own quarrles" shows (me) a bit of a slip that should have been investigated, problem was, this was only an inquiry into her death, and not a trial where he was a defendant.
There you go. If Barnett was her killer, why would he even mention this? He knew he was innocent and I think he felt like he could answer questions honestly. But, if he was her killer, he would have never admitted that they got into quarrels.
-Peter-
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 293
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 11:51 pm: | |
Peter, if the police wernt suspicious, why was Joe questioned for a number of hours? That makes me believe the police were interested in him. Problem is, the police did not have the right evidence before they questioned him.
Had the police known that Mary was alive well past when the inept doctor stated she was deceased, they would have been able to pin Joe to the time of the murder and find out where he was then. Now, had the police known the real time of death, and cleared Joe, so would I.
Had Barnett been innocent, he would have provided as much factual information as possible to make sure there was no question of his guilt. The fact that he skirted the issue is what bothers me. I have seen this in real life in court, and without a good barrister, it would have gone unsaid and the guilty would have gone free.
Barnett felt that he had to address the fights between the two of them because others in court would have told the inquest that they did fight. After the revelation that the two had serious quarrels within days before she was murdered in their room the police would have questioned him further. By stating that the quarrels were soon over it gave the impression that they were more lovers spats than a knock down, drag out, break the window fights which they really were...
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 76
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 3:18 am: | |
Shannon,
They questioned him for that long because he was closely related with Mary. Even if they were interested with him in a serious suspect type way, it was only temporary. Obviously, that's why they released him.
Are you saying that Mary died at the time Elizabeth Prater heard "Oh, murder" or when Mrs. Maxwell or Maurice Lewis claimed to have seen her?
Either way, do we have full verification that Joe actually went to see Mary at your preferred time?
Barnett and Mary may have been seen at the bar on the night of the death, but where do we have a witness that claims to have seen Barnett actually go inside Mary’s room?
Didn't Barnett provide enough factual information? He was interrogated for four hours. He answered the questions they asked him-what else to you need?
Serious quarrels? I would not take it to that extreme. As far as we know and what the others in Millers Court know-Barnett did not show any physical abuse and did in fact treat her well and with respect.
-Peter-
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 4:06 am: | |
Hi Shannon
We don't know, do we, in what order the police's information came in? There was the questioning of Barnett, the two reports of murder cries, and the doctors' estimated time of death. Why do you assume that the police interrogation of Barnett came after the other two?
Again, I would have thought it would have been good practice for the police to establish Joe's whereabouts for the whole period up to the discovery of the body. When they heard Maxwell's story I imagine they'd have been particularly interested in doing this.
Why do you say Joe and Mary had "knock down, drag out, break the window fights"? We know they had one bad quarrel when Joe left. Any others? For what it's worth, a neighbour said that Joe always left her to quarrel alone.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 294
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 4:39 am: | |
Peter, I believe it was at the time after Mary was seen by Carrie and Maurice (approx 09:30 - 10:00) and I base that on the fact the the blood on the sheets and floor was not dried out by the time the post mortem was done at about 1:30 or so in the afternoon, and that Mary had food in her stomach at the time of death that takes no more than a couple of hours to digest.
If we had a witness that saw Barnett enter her room, you would have your smoking gun now wouldnt you? Well, here is the next best thing:
Mary was found in bed with only her nightie on, the candle on the table had not been lit, her clothes were burned in the fire place, and you know the condition she was found in so I wont describe it.
1, if Joe were about all the time, which he was, how did the killer know he wasnt in the room with Mary when he entered? You can not see the window of the room from outside the court on Dorset Street, so the killer could not have viewed the contents of the room unless he were in the court. Even with the door open, all you can see is the wall with the windows.
2, before entering the room how did the killer know Mary was asleep on the bed (regardless of the time of the attack) or know that she had at least enough time to change her clothing and get ready for bed?
3, how did the killer know where the bed was and which end Mary slept on as it was hidden behind the door, and in the darkened part of the room as the door swung the other direction so who ever it was would have to open the door step in, close the door and then make his way to the bed in the dark not tripping over the table on the way.
4, Once on the bed he had to find Mary, grab her by the throat, kill her before she could make a sound that would alert the neighbors, then exit the room without being seen.
5, Had it been a stranger who murdered her, she would have been killed, or the murder would have started at the door when Mary greeted him. If it were a client Mary would not have been in bed clothing, she would have let her clothes on and removed only what she needed to complete her business and return to the street looking for another customer.
Sorry, this all adds up (to me) to be an inside job. The killer knew her personal habbits, the layout of the court and room, and took the time to destroy her clothing after he had murdered her instead of trying to make his escape back to Dorset Street.
If destryoing her clothing was more important then making his escape what does that tell you about the killer? What reason would a killer find in taking the extra time to burn something worthless to anyone since the owner was now dead and risk attracting attention instead of a quiet quick espcape out of the court?
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 295
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 4:43 am: | |
Robert, just how does one quarrel alone? Takes two to tango. If Mary ranted and raved and carried on to the point that a neighbor knew she was having a fight, and Joe left her alone, and Mary continued to have the argument with the four walls, what does that tell you about Mary's temper?
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1488
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 5:43 am: | |
Hi Shannon
What it tells me about Barnett's temper is that he was a remarkably patient man. Mary? I would not want to meet her down a dark alley when she was drunk!
I've already said that I think the burnt clothes are a plus for the Barnett theory. But why do you keep saying they were Mary's clothes? As far as we know, they were Harvey's.
We don't know that the candle hadn't been lit. I think that IF the Ripper wanted some light, then he'd have lit the candle, rather than burn clothes for light. When he left, he may have blown the candle out.
Anyone seeing Mary saying goodbye to a client would have known that she was on her own. Any loony who walked in to get out of the rain wouldn't have cared if there was anyone in the room at all.
Taking your morning scenario, and bearing in mind the botched nature of the killing, it seems you're saying that Joe had trouble doing in daylight what he'd done perfectly well at least 3 times out of 4 previously - or 3 out of 3 for you, since you discount Stride.
Barnett is supposed to have flipped, and killed Kelly in a fit. The trouble is, he keeps flipping, and takes the trouble to skeletonise her - while laying everything neatly on the bed and table. He alone knows that he'll be the first person the police will want to talk to. He knows how easy it would be for anyone to look through the window. He knows the rent man could very likely be knocking at any moment. Yet he carries on with his fit of rage, getting himself bloodier, wasting precious cleaning-up time, leaving a bigger gap in his whereabouts to be accounted for, until it's time to flip back again.
Now he is cunning devious Joe once more. He cleans himself up, and puts on a performance that fools Abberline.
He's also lucky that no one has seen him go in or out.
Is it all likely?
Mary had finished with him. Why would she get undressed in front of him?
And what about the heart? What on earth was he going to do with that?
Robert |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:27 am: | |
Shannon wrote:
"Dan, if there is one shred of evidence that Martha was a Ripper victim, I would have considered it. There isnt."
[...]
"I am always open to new evidence, and if it exists will consider it and if I find that I have made a mistake will admit it..."
Others here have quite skillfully shown you wrong on this count (making my intended reply unnecessary). The established authors on the case and this very website point out this evidence as well. Now she may or may not actually be a Ripper victim, but for you to claim that she wasn't "PERIOD" you need to prove it to everyone else's satisfaction.
We now await your promised admission of error. If you instead seek to make more unsupported generalizations about the Tabram case I suggest you move it to the appropriate thread where we can all continue to tear them to shreds. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:51 am: | |
Leanne, you not only have to try to show why this supposed Dorset Street connection makes sense versus the actual scenes of the murders, as Caz points out, but why this would point to Barnett and not one of the many other people living there.
Even if you hunt for facts (and twist them all out of shape as you've done on these boards) to claim that Barnett was sometimes violent, possibly hated jews and foreigners, had sexist attitudes towards women, etc., that still is no different from the vast majority of the men living in the East End at that time.
(Man, if John Wilkes Booth had successfully avoided capture after killing Abraham Lincoln and been less direct about the attack, I'm sure we'd have a bunch of people arguing that Mary Todd Lincoln actually shot her husband because her and the killer both followed news of the Civil War, liked the theater and were at the same location on the day in question.) |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 296
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 1:02 pm: | |
Dan, move over to the Tabram board for my answer...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 298
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 1:58 pm: | |
I've already said that I think the burnt clothes are a plus for the Barnett theory. But why do you keep saying they were Mary's clothes? As far as we know, they were Harvey's.
Maria states that she thought the clothing in the grate was hers, but she wasnt sure. According to Maria she left a hat, jacket, two men's shirts, a boy's shirt and a child's petticoat. According to Abberline "There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt." Key word being large quantity. Maria only left a few clothes, I belive the others that were burned belonged to Mary.
We don't know that the candle hadn't been lit. I think that IF the Ripper wanted some light, then he'd have lit the candle, rather than burn clothes for light. When he left, he may have blown the candle out.
If the candle was lit, what was the purpose of lighting the clothing on fire in the grate? Jack did the other murders in near darkness, a candle would have been more than enough light for him to see what he was doing.
Anyone seeing Mary saying goodbye to a client would have known that she was on her own.
And this could be seen through a three foot archway in a dimly lit court from across the street? This would mean that the killer sat across the way and monitored the house to know when it was safe to enter. If so, how is it that not one of the people living in the court noticed (unless it was someone they wer acustom to seeing around the court)?
Any loony who walked in to get out of the rain wouldn't have cared if there was anyone in the room at all.
The "loony theory?" This is a new one, please fill me on on this one...
Taking your morning scenario, and bearing in mind the botched nature of the killing, it seems you're saying that Joe had trouble doing in daylight what he'd done perfectly well at least 3 times out of 4 previously - or 3 out of 3 for you, since you discount Stride.
No, quite the opposite, Joe didnt have any trouble gettin in, doing the muder/mutilation and making his way out to Dorset street. Joe is one of the only ones who could have just come up to the door without caring if someone was inside or not. If he interupted her, he would make an excuse and leave. If she was alone, he would have been allowed in her room while she was in her nightie (especially if most believe that Joe is the one who made the decision to leave, and that Mary would have allowed him back once he had a job and could support her as he had done in the past). Once the murder was done, a view of the yard from the windows would had told Joe the coast was clear. A quick peek out the door would have told him the passage to Dorset was clear, once on Dorset, turn in whichever direction has the least amt of people, tuck up tight and walk away. Seeing as how it was Lord Mayor's Day, no one would have given him a second thought as they went about making preperations for the celebration.
Barnett is supposed to have flipped, and killed Kelly in a fit.
Flipped yes. I believe he did. Organize the room afterwards, again yes, but while still flipped.
The trouble is, he keeps flipping, and takes the trouble to skeletonise her - while laying everything neatly on the bed and table. Only a psychotic understands the movements and rituals they do before, during or after a murder. Its their fantasy.
He alone knows that he'll be the first person the police will want to talk to. He knows how easy it would be for anyone to look through the window. He knows the rent man could very likely be knocking at any moment. Yet he carries on with his fit of rage, getting himself bloodier, wasting precious cleaning-up time, leaving a bigger gap in his whereabouts to be accounted for, until it's time to flip back again.
While there is no proof of the timeline and I am sure Dan will "shread" this theory, I believe that Joe completed the murder/mutilation in under 5 minutes. If you have ever seen someone in a blind rage, not only do they have super human strength, they move at the great speed with uncanny precision.
Now he is cunning devious Joe once more. He cleans himself up, and puts on a performance that fools Abberline.
You have to remember, Joe has the perfect ailbi for his behavior. He can claim that after having seen Mary so mutilated he cant focus, cant think, cant do anything. The police would have no choice to believe what he is saying as they themselves are having a hard time dealing with the sight of the carnage and they are trained officers.
He's also lucky that no one has seen him go in or out.
Not lucky, quick glance out the windows into the court, coast clear? Open the door slightly, archway clear? Step out the few steps to Dorset street, look right, look left, coast clear? Step out and ...
Mary had finished with him. Why would she get undressed in front of him?
To go about her business whether he was there or not. To tell him she was going to bed, and unless he had the fourpence to join him, there was the door.
And what about the heart? What on earth was he going to do with that?
You tell me? You cant get much more personal than taking another's heart (unless your a Zulu warrior and its your first kill and you are drinking the spirit of your enemy to gain strength).
Shannon
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 2:49 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
I don't know why he burned the clothes. That's why I had it as a plus for the Barnett theory. It seems a bit like spite. They would only have provided a brief light. Nor do I know what melted the kettle spout. We do know that Harvey's clothes were missing. We don't know that any of Mary's were. Yet you say that he burnt Mary's clothes too. How much is a large quantity?
I didn't say anything about anybody seeing someone leave from outside the passage - they could have been inside the court. Why would they be noticed in the middle of the night?
What's so difficult about the loony theory, Shannon? Loonies are capable of doing and believing virtually anything.
It looks to me as if Joe had trouble. He doesn't seem to have been able to strangle her. There were defensive wounds. There were stab marks in the sheet. And she seems to have retreated into the corner of the bed.
After he's flipped back, he's supposed to have been alert enough to peek round corners, and pull the door to, yet in this mood he still takes her heart? When he knows he'll soon be questioned?
Five minutes???
Abberline must have come up against wife-killers who were "too dazed" to tell a proper story before. He was an experienced officer. Sure, the police would have been sickened, like everyone else. But they would also, I believe, have simultaneously felt great anger at the murderer.
I don't think they'd have given Joe an easy ride.
Take Harvey's statement on Nov 9th, about the previous day :"They seemed to be on the best of terms." The police were looking at Joe for the murder.
I still don't see what's particularly personal about a physical heart. Maybe it's just me!
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 299
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 7:53 pm: | |
Robert, "We do know that Harvey's clothes were missing. We don't know that any of Mary's were. Yet you say that he burnt Mary's clothes too. How much is a large quantity?"
To me, a large quantity is more than "a hat, jacket, two men's shirts, a boy's shirt and a child's petticoat." Which is what Maria left.
I didn't say anything about anybody seeing someone leave from outside the passage - they could have been inside the court. Why would they be noticed in the middle of the night?
First if it happened in the middle of the night why didn't Mary Ann or Elizabeth see anything? Both came and went from the court from about 11:00 - 03:00 and made no mention of anyone being in the court, let alone anyone that didn't appear to belong there. Elizabeth claims to have heard a cry of murder but took no notice of it, nor did anyone else in court (which is strange given the climate after the double event and the kidney being delivered to George Lusk).
What's so difficult about the loony theory, Shannon? Loonies are capable of doing and believing virtually anything.
Actually nothing wrong with it, just never had it presented as a possibility.
It looks to me as if Joe had trouble. He doesn't seem to have been able to strangle her. There were defensive wounds. There were stab marks in the sheet. And she seems to have retreated into the corner of the bed.
Defensive wounds? Not quite sure what you mean. There was one superficial wound to the thumb, no wounds to the palms of the hands, and the wounds to the forearm and arms bare no significant sign of blood loss, nor do the lacerations to the legs, which indicates those wounds were inflicted post mortem.
The fact that there is blood spray in line with the neck on the right wall leads me (doesn’t have to lead anyone else) to believe that the cut to the throat was first since she had to be alive for the blood to spray all the way to the wall (remember the other victims; Polly, Kate, & Annie had almost no blood on their neck from the cut because their heart had stopped beating before the throat was cut).
If she had defensive wounds to the arms there would have been a lot more blood as her heart would have been pumping, and her arms would have been waiving about as she fended him off, which does not appear to be the case.
After he's flipped back, he's supposed to have been alert enough to peek round corners, and pull the door to, yet in this mood he still takes her heart? When he knows he'll soon be questioned?
Why did he have to flip back to be alert enough to check before he left the room?
Five minutes???
Have you ever been to a slaughter house? I watched a man completely slice up a side of beef which weighted over 400 pounds in about 5 minutes.
Abberline must have come up against wife-killers who were "too dazed" to tell a proper story before. He was an experienced officer. Sure, the police would have been sickened, like everyone else. But they would also, I believe, have simultaneously felt great anger at the murderer.
Yes, and complete empathy for the next of kin of the victim. Remember, to the police it was a monster named Jack the Ripper that killed Mary and not her distraught lover. During the "autumn of terror" everyone found murdered with a knife was believed to have been killed at the hands of Jack.
I still don't see what's particularly personal about a physical heart. Maybe it's just me!
No, it’s not just you, its any sane person. We can’t fathom the mind of a killer (serial or otherwise). But, to a trained psychologist schooled in the arts of abnormal psychology it means the killer took a personal interest in the victim beyond the "normal" souvenir collector taking a memento of the murder to relive it later.
The subconscious mind does things in a particular way whether the person is mentally stable or not because the actions are generated at a subconscious level that all humans share. In affect, it’s hard wired into the person's psyche.
Example: Rich or poor, black or white, young or old, make or female, we all have certain inherent traits regardless of mental state. We select foods we like, people we are attracted to, colours we enjoy, and clothing we feel comfortable in. We don't know why, we just enjoy them.
When a killer mutilates a victim there are two forces at work. The conscious mind which is aware of the surroundings, and the subconscious mind which is focused on the killing; either the actual kill or the signature.
When a killer attacks the womb of the victim it indicates a hatred of the place they came from, their hatred for the one that brought them into the world, or it indicates a wish they could go back, meaning they wish they had never been born.
When a killer attacks the eyes of the victim, it an attempt to take their sight away, indicating the victim could possibly identify the killer.
When the killer takes a persons heart, it states that the killer either doesn’t believe the person had a heart in life, and doesn’t deserve one in death, or it’s the one thing the killer wanted from the victim in life and couldn’t have, and now has it for all eternity.
Warped, yes, that’s why they call the science, "Abnormal psychology."
Shannon |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 54
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 8:49 pm: | |
Shannon,
In regard to Elizabeth Prater's lack of interest in a cry of "murder!" in the night you wrote "(which is strange given the climate after the double event...)"
As she explained in her inquest testimony "It is nothing uncommon to hear cries of murder so I took no notice." She was more specific in her police stament, saying "I did not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging house where the windows look into Millers [sic] Court." Indeed, in her statement she said she heard "screams of murder two or three times."
This indifference to such cries seems common in the area at the time, double events notwithstanding.
I'd very much like to get to some of your other contentions, but right now where I am we are in the throes of a blizzard -- foot and a half of snow and high winds -- so my time and energy must be directed elsewhere.
Don.
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 302
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 9:05 pm: | |
Don, the conversation can wait, take refuge, make sure you have all the things you need if you get snowed in...
Later,
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 77
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 2:00 am: | |
Shannon,
If we had a witness that saw Barnett enter her room, you would have your smoking gun now wouldn’t you? Well, here is the next best thing
That's the problem Shannon-no one did see him enter so how in the world are you sure Joe was the one who killed her?
And why would Mary having her pajamas on signify that it was Joe in the room? If it were someone she knew and was comfortable with, it did not have to be Joe.
Have you thought about this?
Maybe Joe did visit her and had left. Sometime later JTR could have snuck in the room and killed her with her having only enough time to scream "Oh Murder!" But who knew if Mary even said that.
That's just an assumption.
I really don't see what a non-burnt candle and possibly her clothes in the fire can mean to point the finger at Joe.
if Joe were about all the time, which he was, how did the killer know he wasn’t in the room with Mary when he entered? You can not see the window of the room from outside the court on Dorset Street, so the killer could not have viewed the contents of the room unless he were in the court. Even with the door open, all you can see is the wall with the windows.
So, the killer didn't view them from outside the court. He then could have poked his hand through the broken window and he would have moved the curtain to view what was going on. Not just that, he could have seen shadows through the window if enough light was projecting through or he could have even heard noises.
before entering the room how did the killer know Mary was asleep on the bed (regardless of the time of the attack) or know that she had at least enough time to change her clothing and get ready for bed?
He could have done the same exact thing like I had just said-it would not have been difficult.
how did the killer know where the bed was and which end Mary slept on as it was hidden behind the door, and in the darkened part of the room as the door swung the other direction so who ever it was would have to open the door step in, close the door and then make his way to the bed in the dark not tripping over the table on the way.
The geography of the room was extremely small and very "uncomplex." Unless the killer had terrible eyesight, he would have been fine. Maybe the candle or fire place was still on. Perhaps she had forgotten to turn it off. I’ve had that happen many times to myself. Or again, he could have looked through the window.
Once on the bed he had to find Mary, grab her by the throat, kill her before she could make a sound that would alert the neighbors, then exit the room without being seen
It would not have been difficult for an experienced killer or even an amateur to accomplish that task. If she was sleeping, a sound would have been a slim chance and the "oh murder" probably was Mary, yet no one did anything about it. These sounds were very common and do you really think these people cared enough to "check out" what was going on?
Had it been a stranger who murdered her, she would have been killed, or the murder would have started at the door when Mary greeted him. If it were a client Mary would not have been in bed clothing, she would have let her clothes on and removed only what she needed to complete her business and return to the street looking for another customer.
Once again, the stranger could have come in while she was sleeping or falling asleep. And who says some of the prostitutes would have not gotten comfortable with the clients?
Mary probably felt a lot of stress-she had just broke up with Barnett and she could have felt like she needed somebody to comfort her, yet still make some money. Maybe even more if she kept the client there longer and had satisfied him enough.
Sorry, this all adds up (to me) to be an inside job. The killer knew her personal habbits, the layout of the court and room, and took the time to destroy her clothing after he had murdered her instead of trying to make his escape back to Dorset Street.
The personal habits would not be much of a factor and the layout of the court did not look like a maze. I’m sure JTR could have made it.
Also, burning the clothes would not have taken much time. He could have just placed them in and left.
If destroying her clothing was more important then making his escape what does that tell you about the killer? What reason would a killer find in taking the extra time to burn something worthless to anyone since the owner was now dead and risk attracting attention instead of a quiet quick escape out of the court?
Perhaps the killer hated her enough to do so or he did it the first few minutes he was in there after killing her. Who really knows the reason. I just think it was random and too much thinking is looked into it.
In the end, when you look into it more, you can say that the killer could have been:
1)A client
2)A stranger
3)Somebody she knew besides Barnett
-Peter-
(Message edited by Peter on December 07, 2003) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 4:30 am: | |
Hi Shannon
If any of the clothes burnt were Mary's the police don’t seem to have received verification of that from Barnett, or any of the females. He may have burnt her clothes. We don’t know that he did.
If someone killed her in the night, and that person had been hanging around the court, he'd have been hanging around closer to 4 AM. If Mary had been entertaining Hutchinson's man, she would have been out of her clothes. A man with any money would surely want more than a quick "hitch up the skirts" job. Which presumably is why Mary bothered to take him back to her room.
How can you tell from the photo how much blood came from the wounds? The whole thing's a mess.
The position of the body at death, the cuts in the sheet, and his failure to strangle her suggests a botched job, and also suggests that the wounds were defensive wounds. They don't have to have been, of course.
After the botched job, he's supposed to have expertly carved her up in five minutes. But Joe wasn't a slaughterman.
I say "flipped back" when he checks to see the coast is clear, etc, because you've just had him in another dimension – butchering Kelly in 5 minutes! If he forgot about everything else, and just butchered her, then he would have had to flip back afterwards. If he knew what he was doing when he butchered her, then he must have been too stupid to fool Abberline – if he was Joe.
Barnett wasn't next of kin. He wasn't her husband. The police checked out people like him - John Kelly, for instance. During the autumn the police were obliged to waste thousands of hours investigating hundreds of stories from all kinds of folk. I believe they even investigated a Wild West Show. Do you believe they wouldn't have thoroughly checked out the ex-boyfriend of one of the victims, a man who'd recently left after a row? Do you think they wouldn't have suspected him?
We'll have to disagree on the heart. I tend to agree with you about wombs.
Don, hope you're OK with the blizzard. Burn Cornwell's book. Should provide some warmth, albeit no light.
Robert
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 304
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 4:40 am: | |
Peter: "That's the problem Shannon-no one did see him enter so how in the world are you sure Joe was the one who killed her?"
1, Joe was the only one intimatelly familiar with her habits, the layout of the court, and he is the only one who knew if "Joe" was there when he entered the room.
2, You cant be serious about the window, right? Your telling me that you would stick your hand through a broken window, move the coat that covered it, in the middle of the night, with one or more people in the room (mind you a 12 X 10 foot room at that) and not be afraid that the occupant would grab your arm believing it to be an intruder and rake it all over the broken glass still in the window frame...
FYI, the coat was made of pilot cloth (a military style P-Coat) which is a thick heavy material and would not allow the light from the room to pass through it, so no shadows.
1, a client would not have burned the clothes
2, a stranger would not have known when to enter the court without being seen by one of the occupants, or when to enter the room without being seen by Mary (until it was too late), or how many people were in the room.
3, if it was someone she knew besides Barnett, then it would stand to reason that whoever it was also knew Barnett - so how would they know when it was safe to enter the room since he could have returned at any time.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 305
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 4:50 am: | |
Robert: "If someone killed her in the night, and that person had been hanging around the court, he'd have been hanging around closer to 4 AM"
If that were the case, the blood on the sheets and floor would have been dried as it was 9 hours from then to the time the police and doctor entered the room to do the post mortem.
Robert: "After the botched job, he's supposed to have expertly carved her up in five minutes. But Joe wasn't a slaughterman."
Expertly? Please explain how he "expertly" butchered her?
Do I believe that the police would have investigated Joe, yes, same as they probably did Kelly, and Kidney. Problem with Joe is that the police went on the wrong information. Its really hard to have an investigation when the police dont have the facts, and all the questions they are asking about the murder relate to a time when Joe can account for his where-a-bouts.
Shannon
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 5:14 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Now we're back to the blood. This is the only objection I can see to the night time scenario. I need to look into it.
I call five minutes pretty skillful!
We don't know in what order the info came in. The
doctors' opinions, the neighbours' stories, and the Barnett interrogation may all have been happening simultaneously. Aside from the time of death issue, there is the simple fact that Abberline would have scanned Barnett's face, heard his tone of voice, and generally used all his experience to assess Barnett. Yet Joe manages to carry it off. He's also managed to remove every trace of blood from his person, and changed his clothes (where did he do this, by the way?).
Even after Maxwell's and Lewis's story, the police leave Barnett's details in a file marked "Barnett. Case closed."
I don't see it.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 306
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 6:35 am: | |
Robert, so have a number of other serial killer when questioned by the police. Not sure how they do it.
Wayne Williams (Atlanta child murderer) - Williams became a suspect in the string of murders in May 1981 when police staking out a bridge over the Chattahoochee River -- where some of the victims' bodies had been found -- heard a splash and stopped Williams as he drove away. Two days later, the body of Cater was found downstream. He was able to speak to the police just after killing a young boy and the police didnt suspect anything.
Shannon
(source: Atlanta Georga crime archive) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
