|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through January 4, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through January 4, 1999
Author: Ron Taylor
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:32 pm |        | Just because I happened to be using the records I did do a little checking on Joseph Barnett.
Harrison in his book (which I did not find convincing) says he was born in 1860 and Paley says 1858.
Yet according to the 1881 Census Joseph was 18. He had an older brother Abraham who was 20 in 1881.
Harrison goes on to say (with no source for his info - which is typical of his book) that Joseph was reminded by Mary's "Soft Irish Brogue" of his mother. Yet according to that same Census, Maria, his mother was born in Holland.
I might just pursue Joseph for a while (not that I think he appears a viable suspect for the murders, with the possible exception of Mary Kelly) but just because there seems some confusion as to his ultimate fate. Paley says he died in 1926 Harrison says 1927 in Old Ford.
Harrison also claims to have met a descendant in a pub. I'd like to check if any descendants can be traced, although it appears as if he may have had an illegitmate child with a woman known only as "Goldie"
None of this will advance Ripper Scholarship a great deal but it may just tie up a few loose ends |
Author: Ron Taylor
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:33 pm | | One thought just crossed my mind.
It relates to the "Dear Boss" letter.
I've seen a number of references to the "Americanism" of the word "Boss".
Nowhere have I seen any reference to the fact that "Boss" was actually introduced into the English Language by the Dutch.
A variant of it is still in wide use in Afrikaans.
Joseph Barnett's mother was born in Holland.
I'm sure this of little significance but it probably belongs in any discussion of Barnett as a suspect or of Tumblety for that matter.
Personally, having done a little reading since I discovered your site I find it hard to see him as a serious suspect, except possibly for Mary Kelly herself. I wonder about that possibility after discussing some of the data with my own Dr socially. He rightly says he is a GP not a pathologist but his reaction was the mutilation of the bodies was by no means identical in each case. |
Author: Colin Heaton
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:34 pm | | I have read most of the well known books on Jack the ripper , visited the sites , sent of for a copy of the original map of the time you name it . looked at all the practical suspects. Kos' Drui' you know I even looked at Mayb' for a second or two and through it out as a hoax another hitler diary. Iv been a policeman in England 17 years spoke to murders rapist various types of psycos and prostitues, read offender profiling studies,the circle hypoth' if your not familiar read criminal shadows by d canter and a whole lot more. I think the person who fits the circs best is Joe Barratt , Bruce is right. I think he is the prime suspect I dont say he's the man but he fits it best. Read Jack the Ripper the simple truth.
Further to the points made in the book the police all thought it was Kosminski and the conspiricy was to keep it quite so there would not be any riots. The were wrong he was not that familiar with the area he doesn't fit the discription and no prostitute would go with a scruffy looking jew they all thought a jew was responsible sheer race prejadice . Joe fits the discription to a tee, he lived near to all the murder sites before the happened he was well known he was above suspicion. The first two women were to frighten kelly into staying with him and off the streets No 3 also but couldn't finish . went looking for no 4 made a mistake he was seen at the corner of duke st and church pass' by 3 men one of them knew him no not him it was Levi the butcher from huchinson st aldergate Lawende described him but didn't know him Levi was scared to death of him and was very vague at the inquest . the butcher had seem joe may be in the shop or at the fish market. At the time he saw him with eddowes he didn't think anything of it but the next day or two when he found out the woman had beed do in by the ripper and the ripper had seen him also and he knew where his shop was and he had brothers and the jews would not be believed in any event he decided to keep quiet. Further the boss letter was now out the post card to followed shortly by the threat in the paper to rip him up if he helped the police. result silence. the final job was angry jealous rage. the only young girl the only indoor murder infact quite abit to set it appart. then nothing it all fits. its the only suspect that fits all the evidence . well thats it so far good hunting. |
Author: D.D. Trbovich
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:34 pm | | | I think the Barnett theory is a very convincing case, but what about the fact that the killer had high knowledge of human anatomy as the coroners testified? His porter backgroung won't supply that. Also, why did the types of murders finally stop AFTER the suicide of Druitt? |
Author: Debra Shaw
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:35 pm | | | On the whole I am inclined to find the Barnett theory reasonable. However, I can't help thinking that too much is being made of a torn envelope. It would have simpler and more sensible for the killer to take the entire envelope with him rather than just tear a portion off. Also, "M" and "S" are not the most uncommon letters in the alphabet. It's also possible that the earlier victims (4,5,6, whatever) were killed so that Barnett could urge Kelly to keep him around for protection and to give up her profession. The final argument could have been the time when he realized it just wasn't going to happen. Possessive obsession turned to hate and he killed her. It's also interesting that the killings stopped after the Kelly murder. Barnett being interrogated for four hours might have intimidated him from more random killings to throw off the police from the Kelly event. After his questionning, he may have not dared and just counted on not being charged. But I don't think it's necessary to focus too much on envelopes. |
Author: R. Crawford
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:36 pm | | | I find Debra Shaw's theory of Joe Barnett killing other prostitutes to frighten Kelly into giving up streetwalking to be entertaining but irrational. While this *would* explain the alarming coincidence between Mary's name and Catherine Eddowes' pseudonym, the coincidence could also be attributable to sheer fantastic chance or other reasons. |
Author: Ken Suminski
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:36 pm | | Even if Barnett DID have a motive, and weapon to kill Mary Kelly did he posess the education to disect his victims so swiftly and skillfully? If he were working class Irish of the time I would think not.
Even with the presence of detailed anatomy books, to disect a human with what some witnesses said 'one clean sweep of the knife' would be improbable at best. |
Author: Erik Nylund
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:37 pm | | Perfectly correct that Barnett must be the prime suspect today. However, a number of points:
(1) Jack the Ripper was certainly a serial killer. The number, and type of post-mortem mutilations inflicted confirm this beyond all doubt. By assuming he had some 'rational' motive for disposing of 5-6 ladies of 'unfortunate repute', one is heading away from all conventions in modern forensic psychology, and back into never-neverland again .. Dr Walker need not imitate Philip Knightley.
(2) The wounds on Mary Kelly's face have not been remarked upon, even by Mr Bruce Pailey in his otherwise excellent book, "The Simple Truth". Standard FBI Behavioral Science Unit practice has it that the closer the mutilator knows the victim the greater and more abhorrent the degree of mutilation. In short, and to popularize the matter, the serial killer wants to erase his victim's identity, in order to reach a 'verfremdungs'-effect, to distance himself from his crime and literally objectivise his victim (make the victim more like an object). Mary Kelly's wounds were by far the most extensive. This in itself makes Joe Barnett interesting. The other victim with extensive facial mutilations, Catherine Eddowes, may indeed have known the Kellys/Barnetts, and again, statistical data would point to her killer knowing her to some degree ...
(3) Barnett seems to have lied about the last time he saw Kelly alive. According to what Barnett told a reporter the day after the murder he last saw her at 19.30-20.00 the night before. Maurice Lewis, a witness, stated that he saw "Dan", her common-law husband, i.e. none other than Joe Barnett, have a beer with Kelly between ten and eleven, i.e. three hours later. Why would Lewis lie about this (Lewis not being a suspect), and indeed, why would Barnett lie lest he indeed was the murderer?
(4) Lewis interestingly identified Barnett as an orange seller at Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets. Now when Elizabeth Stride was murdered, the physician in attendance, Dr Phillips believed some stains on the large handkerchief found nearby was fruit. He was also convinced the victim had not swallowed the skin or seed of a grape for hours before her death (Manchester Guardian, October 6, 1988). Similarly witness Matthew Packer of 44 Berner Street, a fruit shop keeper, insisted onto investigating police that two grape starlks were found near the body of Elizabeth Stride, and that the grapes were sold by him to the man who murdered Stride. Barnett seems to have worked both as a fruit and fish porter at Billingsgate and Spitalfields, the former accounting for the finds near Strides body, the latter for his dexterity with a knife.
(5) The absence of 'trophies' in the conjugal home need not mean much. Ostrog (or any other accomplice) certainly need not be called in. The Ripper doesn't seem to have kept trophies on the Jeffrey Dahmer scale, and it is doubtful if the constantly alcoholic Kelly would have known the difference between certain human organs and, say, the intestines of large fish, Barnett working at the Billingsgate market and undoubtedly filling the coffers with extra sea-food when the opportunity arose. If indeed Barnett was the Ripper, as seems likely, the last point is one of even greater horror.
(6) A final point, and a slight correction to Mr Hall's assertion: all evidence points to the Ripper indeed knowing most, perhaps even ALL, of his victims. The ease with which he could be alone with them at a time, particularly during the later killings, when women, even prostitutes, moved in twos and threes. The fact that they never even had the time to properly raise an alarm. The fact that he seems to have known his victims habits, thereby avoiding to be caught in flagranto delicto. Barnett was a local lad, and the fact that ALL victims seem to have lived, or stayed, at the time of the murder, near Flower-and-Dean Street, a stone's throw from Miller's Court, constitutes more circumstantial evidence.
In short, Barnett was most likely the Ripper, however, one should beware 'rational' explanations for his behaviour, any more than, say, Frederick West, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy or Andrew Cunanan had rational motives. If Barnett killed, it was for deep-rooted, twisted fantasies within his own psyche, much as for all other, contemporary serial killers. |
Author: SirusJunkaol.com
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:37 pm | |
The theory of Joe Barnett's guilt is quite convincing. The only question that raises in my mind is the fact that the coroners always maintained that the mutilations performed required a good bit of medical knowledge. As a market porter it seems unlikely that Barnett possessed such knowledge, unless I've missed something about his background. I will say that he seems the most likely suspect for sure, but that is just one fact that puzzles me and I think still warrants the consideration of other possibilities. |
Author: Dennis Johnson
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:38 pm | | | I believe Barnett is responsible for only on of saucy Jack's murders; Mary Kelly. Having the key, and a vendetta, puts him as the true killer of Ms. Kelly. The rest of the murders were not Barnett's work. |
Author: Peter McKeever
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:39 pm | | Before the 1982 article by Bruce Paley, which named Joseph Barnett, the leading FBI profiler John Douglas, considered by many to be the founder of modern profiling, took part in a theoretical exercise on TV during which he "profiled" the Ripper on the known evidence. He was not, unfortunately, given Barnett as a potential suspect, but his profile fitted Barnett very closely: he said that the killer would blend into his background without arousing suspicion, that he would be mentally disturbed, that he would certainly have been interviewed by the police and that he would be socially inadequate and "unable to hold his own verbally" (Barnett, as we know, had a speech impediment indicative of a mental disorder). It is common for serial killers to be arrested, interrogated and released, as they often appear outwardly normal. Douglas pointed out the increasing ferocity of the attacks and the extreme "depersonalising" nature of the assault on Kelly. I strongly recommend the book "Mindhunter", co-written by Douglas, and the short section on the Ripper exercise. Douglas, incidentally, also successfully profiled the Yorkshire Ripper before his capture. I am sure that, if asked, Douglas would favour Barnett as a credible, and perhaps the most likely, suspect.
If Barnett was the Ripper, one incident is particularly bizarre: the finding of blood in a public sink just off Dorset Street, possibly in Miller’s Court, the site of the Barnett and Kelly residence. The idea of the Old Bill staring dismally into the sink while Joe cleaned himself up, a few yards away in the anteroom of 13 Miller’s Court, boggles the imagination.
Interestingly, Charles Palliser’s meticulously researched novel "The Quincunx", set some decades before the Whitechapel murders, suggests that there was a man-sized entrance to the sewers just off Commercial Street (possibly in Dorset Street) where a man might have hidden. In those days, extremely poor people would, apparently, enter the huge network of sewers underneath the capital and forage for coins and other valuables dropped through gratings. (The long-term unemployed can probably look forward to this in future as "valuable work-training".) One would need to see 1888 plans for Dorset Street to examine this possibility, but open sewers were common in the poorer areas of London throughout the last century.
For those unfamiliar with the Ripper sites, it takes very little time to cover them all on foot, even for those of us pampered by modern transport, and two of them are only a few minutes’ walk from each other. As a matter of incidental interest, on my first visit there I saw some prostitutes operating only a few hundred yards away from the street formerly known as Dorset Street. This street, once allegedly the most notorious in London, is very short and consists of a multi-level car park on one side and featureless, modern business premises on the other. Only the old houses in the street at the west end of Dorset Street give an impression of Victorian times. |
Author: Chris Vannoy
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:39 pm | | | Considering Barnett's attachment to at least a few of the victims, is it all possible that he could have been what we today call "a pimp"? Making these killing possibly ones of criminal enterprise? With the exception of Mary Kelly, of course... |
Author: Michael Rowe
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:40 pm | | | While admittedly new at the research of JTR (I have only begun to research this case 2 weeks ago after seeing a program on cable) I find a few bits of information useful. 1. Dexterity with a knife would seem to me to be the most useful traite for JTR. Even more so than anatomical knowledge. Being a martial sciences instructor for over 10 years I have some knowlege of the human anatonmy. I do not find it at all impossible for an individual to have made a few quick cuts, and that is all that is needed, to slice open the thorax and come accross the kidneys, If I remember my anatomny class, so long ago in high school, the kidneys would be visable if the intestines were pulled aside or out. Now mind you I have only read one book so far (The simple truth) and the information on this site. But I believe that Joe Barnett had the skill with the knife, a fish porter would be able to handle a knife very well. And there is no great need for medical knowlege to cut open someone, unless you are trying to remove something and stitch them back up and hope for them to live. I hope to continue my research, provided my new wife doesn't get worried about me and prevents it. I may learn more and have greater understanding as I go. Respectfully, Micahel Rowe mrowe@ids.sitel.net |
Author: SKeenan
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 01:40 pm | | | I'm not sure that Joe's excuse for killing prostitutes is at all convincing. Jack seems to have taken a sexual satisfaction in wallowing in women's entrails. Joe, simply interested in keeping Kelly off the streets, would not have gone into the overkill mode to get her attention. Unless someone can dig up evidence that he killed animals during his childhood or that he saw his mother naked as a kid, I don't think Joe was weird enough to be Jack. |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 18 November 1998 - 05:19 am | | My opinion, little weight it may have, is that if Joe killed MJK, he was the ripper. No person, even or especially a madman, could copycat a murder of such a sort, remembering that Joe had certainly not seen the remains of Eddowes and co. (He wasn't invited to any post-mortems) or probably even have known them.
No way could Joe, from late 19th century press descriptions or word-of-mouth, copy-cat Jack good enough to fool medical experts who knew Jack's work. Could any of us copy Ted Bundy's MO and signature good enough to fool just using details from e.g. ABC network, even with today's advanced visual coverage?
I do agree that Joe is not to elimate from the enquiries, however. Some things do tend to speak for him, but either he was Jack or he didn't kill Kelly. Or do I miss something big?
Bob |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:54 pm | | (previous reader comments)
September 1996
In the past five years, intensive study has been placed on Joseph Barnett as a suspect in the murder of Mary Kelly, and furthermore, as the Ripper himself. The theories vary from Barnett killing prostitutes to dissuade Mary from continuing the profession to his murdering the women because of Mary's infidelity, possibly with another woman, Maria Harvey. What credence do you place in these theories? Is Barnett a likely suspect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 17:17:37 +0100
From: koji@cd-online.co.uk (koji)
I really cant believe Barnett was the Ripper.
Here in England, a book has recently been released putting Barnett forward as the Ripper. I did a review of it for the casebook review conference and I'm sure anybody who reads it will agree that the evidence put forward is flimsy to say the least.
Is it really credible that Barnett would go to the trouble of killing about 4 other women solely to keep Kelly from the streets? Such a man would be terribly insane, but this was never reported by anybody.
The murder of Kelly was a typical display of the work of a serial sex killer. This means that the motives given for Barnett murdering people dont add up. Typically sex killers are incapable of love, yet supposedly Barnett loved Kelly enough to go to the extreme of murder for her?!
To be honest, I would be more likely to accept a royal conspiracy than Barnett as the murderer and thats saying something!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 08:38:19 +0100
From: Matthew Fletcher
I agree with an earlier posting that Barnett is an unlikely suspect. The book referred to is Bruce Paley's JtR:The Simple Truth. I remember an earlier request from a Casebook reader about a True Detective article by the same author - just get the book instead. I was initially dubious about buying a book written solely to accuse the author's pet culprit but the book is very well-researched. Paley is the only author to have seriously considered the timings, logistics and routes the killer took. I have spent some time myself walking from Berner Street to Mitre Square and up to Goulston street and I am in complete agreement with Paley about the real distances and times involved, every other book is inaccurate to some degree. [Ironically I disagree with him about routes.] Paley builds a strong case against Barnett, but only for the MJK murder. Paley only considers the possibility that Barnett was responsible for all murders but all his evidence also supports the theory that MJK was a copycat (by Barnett) but that he did not commit any of the other murders. This theory IS worth considering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:15:45 +0100
From: Koji
An earlier post went into detail about Paleys book and how he builds a case for the murder of Kelly being done by Barnett SEPERATE from the ripper.
Firstly, I really wouldnt recommend this book. Most of it is a total rehash of the same facts that have been documented by authors for years. Anybody who has seen my review of the book and the "evidence" Paley presents can see that it is entirely circumstantial and coincidental.
I do not believe there is any way that the Mary Kelly murder was anything but a Ripper killing. If she was killed (that is debatable) she was a ripper victim. It is known that serial killers gradually escalate in violence and risk taking. Mary Kellys body was brutalised more than any other, Eddowes was the second worst etc. so a definate pattern is seen here. Also, commiting the murder in a house is alot more risky than in the street. Even if Barnett had killed her, he would not have gone into such savagery. The Kelly murder could only have been commited by a sexual psychopath of which the ripper undoubtedly was, and Barnett wasnt by any stretch of the imagination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:17:15 -0000
From: Martin Wolverton
Barnett doesn't seem to fit. Although close associates are always the first questioned in homicide cases, the details of Kelly's murder just don't fit your garden-variety domestic-homicide. If barnett had of killed Kelly out of jelousy, I really doubt he would have mutilated the body in such an extreme manner.
More importantly, the fact that he was released by the police shortly after questioning, shows that they did not regard him as a serious suspect. He most likley had a solid alibi that has been lost in the years since 1888. I agree with the contemporary police investigators..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 00:32:29 -0500
From: ywillars@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu
First, to disagree with Martin, it is entirely plausible for a spouse or significant other to mutilate a body in a fit of jealous rage (just think about OJ Simpson, he nearly cut off Nicole's head and slashed the breats he "bought" her, but unlike OJ, I don't recall reading about Barnett physically abusing MK...The only reason I mention that is to offer some other motive than a jealous rage. Many murders by jealous men do involve some mutilation to the woman's body, but considering the savagery, and wasn't MK also pregnant at the time?, I don't think it was Barnett... |
Author: brycaustin
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 10:21 am | | Hello everyone;
I am a relavant newcomer to all of this, however since starting to dwell into this about 10 days ago i find it amazing and intersting that after so many years it still finds its way into so many peoples minds.
I agree that Barnett was a very likely suspect, but not the only one. However knowing a little of history I do know that the police and science abilities back in the 1800's left little to be desired.
While i'm sure they did a great job on cases that were simple in fact, I don't believe that they did an adequate job on the Ripper case. Possibly because this type of brutality was rare, and they were ill equipped to handle it.
So many suspects to believe, but remember that alot of the suspects only came to the forefront in recent times. I have been in the law enforcment field many years and can tell you that one thing is probable for sure. The police atthe time probably had an idea of who it was, they had their handful of suspects. I also believe that crime scenes were probably botched evidence was poorly sorted and sealed .
Over the years the addition of suspects only increased speculation and conjecture. My belief, and I repeat is is just my belief, Jack the Ripper passed through the doors of the police that autumn in 1888 and got away. Simplicity is an excellent start. Policework says this....don't make mountains out of mole hills.....for sure there was atleast some cover up being done, which could mean some type of royal conspiracy.
But in ending I am only a hack at this because I am new. But my background and gut instinct tell me that if you want to find Jack the Ripper look no further than who the police believed were suspects back then. While they may not have had the technology and training that police do today, they were still police and had enough smarts to do the basics, and thats what this is all about, get back to the basics. |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 07:22 am | | Hi, Bry (I can't write out the rest all the time...hope you don't mind the foreshortening)
Many of us have defended the 1888 police and only find objectionable their summations or conclusions. And the objections are mild in themselves, only becoming more vehement when someone assumes that because they were police, and because they conducted some prolonged investigation, their conclusions/summations have an automatic logic attached to them. Very often, their conclusions are based on unproven assumptions, tenuous witness identifications, and their own theories.
The criminal often sets the pace of innovation in police work. The crime committed is so new (think of computer crimes today and typical police responses to it up until fairly recently...maybe even ongoing). The police are forced into new methods, new thinking, new procedures, whatever to catch up to the crime and the criminal.
I think that's the case here with JtR, at least. A new, motiveless series of murders where the "basics" of 1888 were stretched to the limit and couldn't quite catch up to the criminal. Maybe if he continued, he would have been caught eventually. Maybe that's why the murderer stopped. (A possible warning to myself, at least, that modern assumptions about serial murderers not stopping until they're caught or killed may not apply in 1888 or even today!)
From my reading in the area of serial/signature murders, even today's police have difficulty recognizing the series and capturing the murderer. The highest cause of arrest among serial killers is because they committed some other offense and were caught; they either confess or are confronted with police suspicions about their involvement in the OTHER series of crimes and confess. A high proportion of serial killers are caught by accident. That's pretty startling. In the cases of a Dahmer or Gacy, the murders they've committed might not even be known at the time of their arrest!
I don't think going back to basics helps much in this atypical, unconventional, motiveless, serial type of murder. My opinion.
Yaz |
Author: john speaking
Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 04:45 pm | | The theory, according to Bruce Paley, " that Joseph Barnett was growing tired of Mary Kelly
prostituting herself to other men.... In an attempt to "scare" Kelly off the streets, Barnett raged through Whitechapel and murdered a handful of prostitutes in the autumn of 1888. His plot didn't succeed, however, and tempers boiled in late October, culminating in their final quarrel on the 30th. Perhaps realizing that his love for Kelly was not completely requited, Barnett murdered her...", is not likely. It supposes the kinds of machinations that are so totally incongruous with the character of all serial killers, who slaughter out of sadistic impulse, and not with the sort of cold calculation that Paley tries to impute to Barnett.
We have a serious problem of Barnett living 40 years after the Whitechapel kiliings, without ever having been linked to other murders. This is a serious hole in the Barnett theory. We must remember that serial killers never stop killing until they are caught or die.
Albeit these notable exceptions, Barnett seems to fit the other criteria for serial killers rather well |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 04 January 1999 - 02:37 am | | Hi John,
There are, I believe, a large number of other reasons why Joe is unlikely to have been JTR, but the suggestion that Joe could have got tired of MJK leads me to remark that the opposite is much more likely. MJK had no more use for Barnett because of his lost job and subsequent financial crash.
I believe Kelly drove Barnett away by allowing women to stay with her, thus destroying the domestic peace with, and hurting Joe. There was only one room, so presence of another person would disturb all sexual relationships. It is a typical spiteful female (and sometimes male) ploy even today to get rid of a partner while keeping allegations of unfaithfulness at bay.
After Joe left, there doesn't appear to have been any other long-term 'guests', which would have interupted Kelly's trade in the room. Kelly was not so destitute as e.g. Nichols while she had at least (still) an appartment, miserable as it was. (Thanks to Joe, obviously)
Even after Joe left, he visited her almost every day evidently on friendly, or at least peaceful terms. Not the typical modus for someone raging at the filthy slut whoring herself with every bum in the street.
Regards
Bob |
|
|
|
|
