|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 307
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 6:41 am: |       |
Robert, all Joe would have to do is wash up, by killing Mary by cutting her throat, the majority of blood would stay to the right of the body between the wall, head of the bed and the floor by the wall/headboard and table. If you look close at the picture there is little blood towards the middle to lower part of the bed where he would have been during the mutilation.
Shannon |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 114
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 7:55 am: | |
People enter unfamiliar rooms in the dark and murder complete strangers all the time. People murder women when their live in boyfriends are away for the night. It happens all the time. Do a google search and you can probably find two dozen this year.
If the killer followed Mary back to her room, or was a client, he would obviously have known that she was alone. It's not that hard to watch a door and see who goes in it. And why would the killer assume she lived with anyone ? That would be presuming he knew Mary Kelly and knew she had a boyfriend. Which is highly doubtful.
Again, people enter unfamiliar houses ( a lot more complex than a one room shack) in the dark and manage to kill people all the time, one doesn't have to presume familiarity for the killer to accomplish this. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 7:56 am: | |
Hi Shannon
I'm not familiar with the series you speak of. I'd like to know how many serial killers have fooled the police straight after murdering a wife/partner/close relative as one of the series.
Remember Barnett would have had to act shocked (when according to you he wasn't)and the whole performance would have had to be just right.
If Barnett was in a fit of maniacal rage, he isn't supposed to have been worried about how bloody he was getting, surely? I sense the cunning devious Barnett making his reappearance here! Plus, he mutilated her whole face. Plus, he lifted the body and moved it closer to him.
Then he thinks "I must get myself clean. Abberline will want to talk to me. Still, I think I could cope with a bloody heart..."
Robert |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 81
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 12:21 pm: | |
Shannon,
Like I had said before, it would have been easy to notice someone in such a small room. How do you think serial killers do it today? Call the house and if no one answers, they come in?
And oh yes, I am serious about JTR looking through the broken glass. Do you think JTR would be afraid of Mary Kelly or even Joseph Barnett? At the moment, JTR was the most powerful man on the streets. If he had been noticed, he could have simply ran. Why would he be scared though of anybody? He had a knife with him.
Would the occupant really attack you so fast or even at all?
The occupant would become scared and the occupant’s reaction may have been so quick.
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.
1) What makes you say that a client would not have burned the clothes? I don't understand that logic.
2) What? Were Mary and Joe keeping watch of the court? If Mary had been sleeping, it wouldn't have been a problem or even if she wasn’t sleeping-it would have been fine.
3) Why would Barnett return? He was kicked out and I'm sure he wouldn't barge in Mary Kelly's home like that. Either way, JTR wouldn't fear Barnett at all-even if he possibly knew him.
Also, I think Ally hit it exactly-people do enter unfamiliar rooms all the time that are ten times more complex than a 12x10 foot room. I watched Oprah on Friday and there was a clear example of it.
-Peter-
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 1:16 pm: | |
Shannon,
"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."
He WAS suspected, and immediately placed under survaillance. Indeed, the FBI wanted to place him under arrest immediately, but he was released by the Atlanta police. Apparently he wasn't all that convincing...
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 241
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 3:11 pm: | |
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.
Well there's the most spurious argument I've seen yet. The Ripper entered the back yard in Hanbury street without knowing if it was a safe time or not. The Ripper entered Mitre Square without knowing if it was a safe time or not. What makes Miller's court any different? In fact it was less risky because he only had to pass through the court quickly and was then indoors, whereas in those other two cases he was out in the open in full view of the windows of several occupied rooms.
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 310
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 10:34 pm: | |
Alan, entering a yard is easy, all you have to do is pretent to be lost, or claim you need to use the privy. Not the same as walking into someone's home...
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 3:53 am: | |
Hi Shannon.
The blood issue ,is proberly the most vital peice of evidence, to have come to light, in recent times, I for sure have never even thought of that point, nor to my knowledge, has anyone else.
Could we have some expert opinion[ medical] on this issue, to clarify this for certain.
Richard. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 311
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:00 am: | |
Richard, nor to mine. First, best place to start is the most reputable lab in the UK. Contact Scotland Yard, forensic serology clinic to get an expert to assist you in the determination of the facts.
What you will need is the approx temperature during the day of the murder, and if possible the humidity factor. With those two elements you can have the lab tell you specifically how long it would have taken the blood to dry on the sheets and on the floor.
When I spoke to the US lab, it was in general terms. You will be able to get a much more exact time of death with the factual data.
I would imagine if you explain your need for the information that you will be able to reach an expert on the subject who would be willing to assist with your book.
Good hunting and God speed,
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1510
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:30 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Isn't there another variable at work here? We all know that a rain puddle takes longer to evaporate than the same amount of water smeared widely over the ground.
Also the absorbency of the sheets and mattress might affect things.
All very interesting.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 313
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:23 am: | |
Robert, If it were absorbed into the sheet and spread out it would have dried quicker due to more surface contact with the air, warmth from the bed from the radiant heat of Mary's body having been there before she died as well as the heat from the fire place grate where the cloting was burned. The room was only 12 X 10 feet square feet.
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1512
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:33 am: | |
Hi Shannon
I meant that the pool under the bed wouldn't have dried as quickly as it would have if the blood was evenly spread.
Re the sheet etc, if the sheets absorbed a lot of blood they might conceivably stay wet.
I know I have a hell of a lot of trouble with my bathroom towels, anyway.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 314
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:37 am: | |
Robert, blood starts to dry in 3 - 5 minutes after exposure to air. Unlike water that needs to evaporate, blood has different properties and dries at a much greater rate of speed.
Shannon |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 255
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:39 am: | |
That's true. Just because the blood under the bed was still wet it might not mean she was killed later in the morning.
I'm not saying that the police/doctors were great back then but they must have come up with the time of death from something other than the cry of "Oh Murder" which was heard, especially since I don't believe that it necessarily came from Mary's room.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 243
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 6:57 am: | |
Sarah
Look in the Ultimate Sourcebook (I remember you saying you have this) in the chapter called something like "Dr Bond Profiles the Killer" (I don't have it with me so I can't copy the passage here.) In this chapter is a letter in which Dr Bond gives a thorough explanation of how he estimated the time of death. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 257
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 7:07 am: | |
Alan,
Thanks, will do tonight. I haven't read this in quite a while now.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 8:11 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Well, it will be interesting to see what Richard comes up with. You may be right, but if we get the same sort of disagreements over this as we've had over rigor mortis.......
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 244
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 8:16 am: | |
Shannon/Richard/Robert
I am currently compiling a list of questions which are going to be answered for me by a couple of pathologists at St James Hospital, Dublin. I will add this question to the list and let you know what they come up with. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 8:27 am: | |
Thanks, Alan. Unbelievable that this is still unresolved 115 years later!
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 481
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 11:19 am: | |
12 X 10 feet square feet
Is that square ???
Irrelevant I know...but
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 261
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 11:24 am: | |
Monty,
You read my mind. I was just thinking that as I was reading down the thread.
The room was actually 12 feet square. Just to clear that up.
Sarah |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:38 am: | |
Shannon,
1) You can't assume that the killer burned the clothes, as MJK might have done that herself earlier for warmth.
2) You shouldn't assume that it was MJK's clothes being burned, because we know that the clothes Maria left were missing.
3) You can't assume that someone describing the ashes as being from a large number of clothes means that they were all burned that night. They may have burned clothes on other nights as well.
4) You further shouldn't jump to the conclusion that large number of clothes means more than what Maria left.
5) If he were trying to burn MJK's clothes for personal reasons he missed the conspicuously folded ones right by the bed. Odd, that.
6) Assuming that only someone who knew her personally would burn her clothes, if in fact they were, is ridiculous.
7) 5 minutes to do the killing, mutilations, stacking the organs on the table, etc. is pure nonsense, and I'm shocked that even you could seriously propose such a thing.
8) You can't assume that only Joe would know Mary well enough to know she was alone or the layout of the room. Any man in her life recently (Hutchinson, Flemming, anyone who was a client that night) would very likely know these things.
9) As Ally rightly points out, you can't assume that even someone who didn't know these things wouldn't have been able to do it. Strangers can and do break in and kill people they don't know in areas that they have never been before. And any stranger that happened to be a client would have had an even easier time of it.
10) Your theory that MJK was killed in the morning by Joe is even less likely than it being a complete stranger, because Joe would have expected someone to be coming for the rent and would know the that person could look into the window in broad daylight and see the bed if nobody answered a knock.
11) Further, the morning scenario is still very suspect. You seem to be basing it on the assumption that something described as a pool of blood under the bed would still be liquid and fresh. Dried or partly dried blood most likely would still be called a pool, as there is no obvious alternate desription of a quantity of dried blood. If you base the idea that it was still fluid on the fact that someone was said to have slipped on it, people can slip on dried blood as well. And in a large quantity of blood, an outer layer may dry with the inner section can still be fluid... Not to mention that there are other bodily fluids to account for, as well as semi-fluids like fecal matter, many of which do not dry at the same rate as blood. You've taken a few innocent words and tried to twist them into a grand theory of time of death even though you have obviously not fully considered the situation.
You're going to need a lot more solid evidence than what you have presented before your theories start having credible support. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 316
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 2:54 pm: | |
Dan: "You can't assume that the killer burned the clothes..."
Yes, I can. I or anyone else on these boards can assume anything we want. Some of us can even assume enough to write a book about it...
1, I am assuming that Inspector Abberline knows his job well enough to know when he states that a "large amount" of clothing had been burned that he knows the difference between freshly burned material and cold ashes that have been there for some time.
2, 5 minutes to do the mutilation is not only an assumption its a relatively accurate one. Lets say Mary was hacked 100 times by her killer with whatever instrument the killer used; knife, axe, meat cleaver, whatever... Now, your killer starts out by slicing her throat (blood spray on the wall next to the bed at kneck level indicates this was probably the starting point as she was alive at the time) and he swings the knife in a fit of blind rage for oh how about a minute, During that minute he would be able to swing the knife approx 20 - 30 times tearing her flesh with each swing. He stops for a second to catch his breath after 2 minutes, after all this is quite the work out, looking back at the body, he now goes to any spot that hasnt been cut to shreads and throws in a few more for good measure to make it a complete anhialation. Watch is still running, and our boy is barely at the 3 minute mark. Once he is done hacking her to shreads, he decides to place the organs, not much time there, all he has to do is grab a handful and stuff it where ever he feels like. Now, our boy has completed his masterpiece. Time: approx 5 minutes in a frenzy.
much as you would have seen someone in a knife fightling as having been done with at a rate of once every 3 seconds. This gives him an average of 20 swings per minute, or approx 100 swings of his knife in 5 minutes. Not that you have ever seen a knife fight or a person use one; but, if you ever do, you will know that the ammount if adreneline is unbelievable either from self defense or from the rush they get. A meat packer can completely disembowel a cow in 5 minutes and a cow is approx 4 times larger than MJK was.
About the blood, when have you ever slipped on DRIED blood? Facts about serology -
1, it starts to dry withing 3 - 5 minutes after leaving the body.
2, no matter how much blood flowed to the floor, it would have an even layer in the pool as would any liquid you pour on the floor. That layer would be between 1/4 and 1/2 inch in height.
3, the ambient temp was approx 45 degrees outside, with an average humidity in the 80% range (it had been raining that night). And the heat from even a nominal fire in a small room like Marys would raise the temp of the room approx 10 degrees. Under those conditions, the blood should have been completely dried in 4 hours or less. Yet, the doctor makes a specific remark about the blood being saturated, pooled, and nothing about it being dried. Had Mary been murdered in the night, all the doctor would have found is a dark brown patch on the floor. So, I would again say that while it may be an assumption, and we are waiting for Richard to get the specifics, its a pretty accurate assumption.
Shannon |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 55
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 4:34 pm: | |
Shannon, Robert,
Thanks for your kind comments the other day.I managed to to get dug out yesterday, but unfortunately this winter in New England is quickly looking like last winter -- and that was gawd awful.
My main problem the past 36 hours has been intermittent internet service. I twice tried posting and got disconnected before finishing. So I'll leave this short, but I do want to jump back into this thread as soon as the ISP problem stabilizes.
Don. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hi Don
Hope the weather abates and that you're back with us soon.
Shannon, what you have just described is a frenzied attack indeed. And Joe didn't get much blood on him? When he wasn't even trying to stay clean?
Joe wasn't a slaughterman. Even if he got into knife fights as a teenager, unless he skeletonised his opponents I don't see what expert knowledge he can be said to have had.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
