|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 18 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Local Suspects The Answer?.:
Archive through 18 January 2002
Author: Jill
Monday, 06 September 1999 - 02:54 am |        | Hi all,
I would not let the speech impediment make a conclusive case against Barnet. Stress and pressure (the death of your loved one) can have strange effects. I have no problems talking until I stand for a jury and have to defend my project. Even when I'm convinced of the succes and rehearsed my speech, a lot of 'Euhs' (and I mean a real lot) and mix ups creep in.
When our king Albert II had to sign the oath of obedience to Belgium law and was crowned, some years back, he was trembling all over. The rumour that he was a sufferer of Parkinson disease lingered for months, although the trembling wasn't perceived on any other occasion.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Katya Z
Monday, 06 September 1999 - 03:47 pm | | Dear Bob,
Thanks for clearing up the "key" mystery for me. By the way, I've been interested to read the message board discussion re Barnett's speech impediment. I recall reading one of John Douglas's books (it might have been Obsession) in which the author describes profiling and how he once anticipated that a particular killer, when caught, would prove to have a speech impediment. I wouldn't be surprised if that specific source proved to be the grist for the mill of Barnett's candidacy.
All the best,
Katya |
Author: Leanne
Monday, 06 September 1999 - 06:45 pm | | G'day everyone,
Ahhhhhhh, 'The Key', 'The Key', my favorite nightmare.
BOB: If MJK's door 'locked automatically when pulled to' and she was using the 'hand-through-broken window' method to lock and unlock it, how come this method of entry didn't work on the morning her body was found?
If the key went missing before the fight with Barnett (during which the window was broken), what method was Mary using to lock & unlock her door?
Robert K. Ressler, (who was the F.B.I.s foremost criminal profiler), said that isolation (lonliness) solidified during the ages of 8-12, is the single most important aspect of a potential murderer's life.
JB's childhood was traumatized by the death of his father, then the abandonment by his mother.
JUDY: Reading the 'Daily Telegraph' report on Kelly's inquest, it says that JB said "I identified it (the body), by the ears and the eyes".
Reading a book that was written by a man, who resided in Whitechapel at the time, and wrote from eyewitness accounts, it says that he identified it "by the perculiar shape of the ear and the colour of the eyes".
I think the eyewitness wouldn't have been fooled by the accent and he wouldn't have said "by the perculiar shape of the HAIR"!
LEANNE! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 12:18 am | | Dear Leanne,
In answer to your questions.
It has been wrongly supposed that it was a simple matter to reach in through the broken window and rotate the catch to open the door. This is not so. I built a replica of the corner of MJKs room to try this out (I did this many years ago after I read Bruce Paley's article in True Crime, unfortunately like an idiot I didn't photograph it)
The only way I could slip the catch was to stand on the sill, steady myself using my right hand on the drainpipe, and reach in using my left arm. However since in the real situation this meant balancing on a narrow sill up to your armpit in broken glass, this was not an exercise I would recommend.
Now I did this because I knew what type of catch was fitted and that this was possible. However the police, on arriving at the door would not have an idea that this could be done, and would not attempt it. Don't forget Barnett didn't come up with this nugget of information until long after the door had been forced open.
As already stated the door locked automatically so there was no need for MJK to reach in through the window to lock it.
How did MJK open the door? Either by using the method already outlined or by pushing it. There is absolutely no evidence that MJK bothered to lock her door when leaving her room for a short time, and a very strong indication that she didn't.
I often hear people cry out 'How did the murderer enter her room when the door was locked?' My answer to that is how do you know it was locked? You are assuming facts not in evidence and basing your deduction on nothing.
I believe that MJK used to, like a lot of us, leave the door on the latch, so that a mere push would open it. I believe it was on the latch that night when she returned with Hutchinsons man and intended him to slip the catch on his way out, which he failed to do. When the murderer turned up the door was unlocked.
I wouldn't place too much reliance by accounts written by people 'who were there at the time' Usually they turn out to be wildly inaccurate.
The inquest testimony of Barnett states 'I identify her by the ear and the eyes' . Nothing about shape.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 07:00 am | | G'day Bob,
I am not trying to disprove your theories or anything, I am just trying to finally settle my 'KEY' nightmares.
Mary Anne Cox, said that at 11:45pm, she saw Kelly and a man enter her room, "very much intoxicated" then "turned round and banged the door", (probably so that it would automatically lock).
Cox left her room at 1:05am.
Hutchinson saw another man approach Kelly at 2:00am in the street and go to her room. He watched until 3:00am and Cox returned at this time.
The cry of "MURDER", was heard at 3:30am!
Cox heard footsteps, but no door closing at 5:45am.
Bowyer went to collect the rent at 10:45am and the rest is history!
From your above post, it doesn't sound like you place much importance on Hutchinson's suspect. Is this so? Also in your opinion did Barnett say "EAR and eyes" or was it "HAIR and eyes"? From the photograph of Kelly's body, her hair looks like it's covered with blood.
LEANNE! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 11:35 am | | Dear Leanne,
Lets hope I can help solve the key nightmare for you!
The important bit about Mary Cox'x testimony is the following:
'...she went up the court a few steps in front of me...... I saw them go into her room......and the man banged the door.'
Now this means that she was right behind Mary and her companion. Mary opens the door and they go in. What Mary does not do is go round the corner and start swinging off a drainpipe thrusting her arm through broken glass to draw back the bolt.
Now she doesn't mention anything about Mary using a key to open the door, and since we have another source to state that the key was missing we have no reason do disbelieve this. The only way Mary could open the door therefore would be if the door was actually unlocked and open.
The other interesting thing is the expression 'banged the door'. Try an experiment. I assume you have a spring type lock on at least one of your own doors (Yale or similar) Leave the bolt out so that closing the door will lock it. Now close the door sharply. The spring loaded bolt soaks up some of the force. Now lock the bolt back and close the door, notice how much louder it sounds now with the door banging back into the frame?
I don't believe the man Hutchinson saw was anything but a normal customer. He certainly did not bear any resemblance to the description given by Hutchinson. If you want to put this man in JTR's shoes you have to explain why a murderer who has taken so much trouble in the past to escape detection would go through with a killing after
a, being seen with MJK
b, Being clocked by Hutchinson outside the Queens Head.
c, Being followed by Hutchinson back to the victims room.
very sloppy.
After he left I believe Hutchinson entered the
room, door still on the latch, and killed her. On leaving the room he slipped the catch off the bolt and the door locked behind him. It is more than possible that Hutchinson had been in MJK's room before and knew the working of the lock (they were a very cheap common lock called a night latch), after all he admitted he had known her for several years.
As for your question about the 'hair (ear) and eyes' I really don't know or have any opinions about it. If I had to make a guess, I think I would go for 'hair' as MJK had long fair hair and was possibly a feature. Against that it does say 'ear' in the records, I'm afraid I just don't know.
I would be very interested to read your further comments.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Katya Z
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 02:32 pm | | Dear Bob,
Your depth of knowledge and application of logic is impressive! I'd always taken it for granted that Kelly opened her door by reaching through the window, because that's what so many books tell us. You cited Cox's testimony which clearly indicates that Kelly opened her door without any such trouble.
I am pretty new to the message boards, so forgive me if I ask a question most people know the answer to. I'm assuming that you believe Kelly's murder was separate from the Ripper series. I don't infer that you think Hutchinson was the Ripper. Do you think that H. was taking advantage of the Ripper murders, killing Kelly in a way that would be attributed to Jack?
Regards,
Katya |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 11:34 pm | | Dear Katya,
Many thanks for your kind remarks. I often found that one of the best investigative tools is to 'run through' a situation and see what happens.
This is very simple to do and requires the help of a few friends. Treat the incident as a minature play. Mark out all the neccessary props, buildings etc, give parts to various people and just run through it.
You will be amazed at what you find out. When I ran through the testimony of Schwartz for instance it became obvious that there was no way he could have seen his mystery attacker clearly. Given the width of the entrance to Dutfields Yard, and the height of the buildings, he was past it and gone in less than two seconds. Now add in to that the fact the passageway was pitch black, and it soon becomes obvious what is or isn't possible.
My position on the killings is as follows:
I believe JTR had seven victims, two survived (Millwood and Wilson) five didn't, Tabram, Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I further believe George Hutchinson was the killer.
I wrote a book about it published last year called 'From Hell - The Jack the Ripper Mystery'
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 12:19 am | | G'day Everyone,
BOB: Mary Cox, didn't say that she saw how Kelly OPENED the door. As she was 'very much intoxicated', maybe the man reached through the window, moved back the catch, then together they walked around and entered her room.
About Hutchinson's man: Maybe he was disguised, so prefered Hutchinson to give a description.
It's good that you suspect Hutchinson himself. If he knew Kelly for 'several years' and murdered the other older victims first, why did he murder the younger Kelly, and make her his final victim? Was she his 'final victim'?
I'll try to get 'From Hell'.
LEANNE! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 10:17 am | | Dear Leanne,
Mary Cox said 'she went up the court a few steps in front of me' (NB In Smithkeys translation he wrongly transcribes this as 'she lived up the court')she then describes the man which shows how close she must have been to get a good look at him, she then says 'I saw them go into her room'
There is nothing about the pair of them or one of them dissapearing round the corner fiddling with something then returning to open the door. If that had happened Mary Cox would have passed the pair of them when they were reaching in through the window.
Run it through yourself. Get two friends to walk down a marked off passage way with you a few steps behind. Have them go round a corner and fiddle with something for 10 seconds. I guarantee that before they return you will be long passed them.
The man Hutchinson saw with MJK was just an ordinairy punter, the description was pure fabrication. Why? If Hutchinson had accurately described the man he saw it is possible someone could recognise him from the description, or the man could recognise himself and come forward. The last thing Hutchinson wanted was the real man to come forward and clear himself.
If or when the real punter read Hutchinsons description he would realise that it wasn't him and assume someone else had been with MJK after he had, in which case there was no need to come forward.
As for why Hutchinson saved Kelly for last I'll leave that for the book to explain. (my three wives and twelve starving children need the royalties!!)
I do hope you don't mind me saying but you do come up with some very good points, I can see I'll have to keep on my toes.
all the best
Bob |
Author: Des Owers
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 10:50 am | | Help!
Can someone please point me in the right direction to get a copy of Bob Hinton's 'From Hell - The Jack the Ripper Mystery'. Is it only available by mail order?
Cheers, Des |
Author: Nell
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 05:10 pm | | | I haven't been around here for ages and it's fun to be back! A few points: the 'missing key' has always fascinated me because there is a question no one seems to have asked. Unless I have completely misremembered my information, McCarthy the landlord 'broke the door in' at the request of the police. Wouldn't he have had a key? You bet. Did he feel like admitting it? I doubt it. I do think that McCarthy is an excellent candidate for Kelly's killing because of the key and the backrent owing. I can't see this guy letting a tenant off the rent. I think she was blackmailing him possibly because she'd seen something incriminating and told him she'd make life awkward for him if he didn't come across. I think it's possible he was the Ripper but I doubt Kelly ever took that possibility seriously. Also I am extremely wary of the evidence of the man Hutchinson. What was he? Harry the Human Camera? All the writers talk about Sarah Lee corroborating him but her evidence comes at the inquest. Hutchinson turns up after. In fact he corroborates her... I like McCarthy for this because he was present on night of Kelly's murder. He had means and opportunity. He could have gone into her room and then back into his own shop without going into the Court or the street. He would have been a wellknown man in the area. Prostitutes would have felt safe with him. |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 07:47 pm | | G'day Nell and everyone,
OHHHHHH...Here we go again!
We debated the 'key', issue, 'the type of lock' and whether or not 'McCarthy had a spare key', in July this year. Check it out, under 'Specific Victims', 'Mary Jane Kelly', 'The missing key to Kelly's room'.
It was seen that spare keys and master keys, would have been very expensive, for someone living in Whitechapel in 1888.
Somebody also pointed out that Barnett had signed a written statement, to say that he identified the body by 'the ear and the eyes'!
BOB: Mary Cox, may not have arrived on the scene, until AFTER the man reached through the window or perhaps Mary left her door unbolted, while she nicked out to get a client.
I am coming up with these 'good points' to help you 'polish-up' your theory.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 09:19 pm | | G'day again Bob,
If anyone suspected their friend/relo from Hutchinson's description, or if an innocent man recognised it as his, he would have been too frightened to 'own-up'. At that time, the East End was in a state of panic & terror.
That is, if he was innocent!
LEANNE! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 11:49 pm | | Dear Leanne,
Mary Cox was right behind MJK following her up the passage, there simply was not the opportunity for MJK to go haring round the corner fiddle with the bolt all without Mary Cox seeing her.
As for MJK leaving the door unlocked while going out to seek a client -exactly- thats what I maintain happened.
Your point about witnesses not coming forward is a good one, but there seemed to be a definite sense of civic duty in those days. Look how many witnesses did come forward, including those that weren't even known about, such as Schwartz.
Des Ower
If you are in the UK you can get it from Smiths
ISBN 1 874538 96 4
or if you have problems, direct from the publisher at
Old Bakehouse Publications
Church St
Abertillery
Gwent NP3 1 EA Tel 01495 212600
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Nell
Thursday, 09 September 1999 - 05:13 am | | | Thanks Leanne for your post. I read the string. However I must point out something: the general belief is that Whitechapel was an area of unrelenting poverty and for some people it was. However it might be misleading to suggest that everyone was at the lowest socio-economic level there. And certainly the shopkeepers led relatively prosperous lives. There is no evidence to suggest that McCarthy himself was poor and in fact the likelihood is that he was quite wealthy given that he owned property and what appeared to be a thriving shop. He was known as something of a philanthropist in the area. It's true that a number of extremely impoverished people rented rooms and then sublet them by sharing them with tenants of their own. And it's unlikely that these landlords had spare keys. But it's extremely probably that a primary landlord like McCarthy would have had keys to all his properties. And the cost of such a key would absolutely not be out of his reach. |
Author: Dave
Sunday, 19 September 1999 - 05:27 am | | Hello All
I'm not happy bout this "Key" business.
1. If the door could be opened through a broken window, what was the point in locking it.
2. If the Lock was a Yale type why would the Ripper need to take the key?.
3. If you look at the photographs taken of the outside of the building after the murder, there does seem to be a broken window. However the distance from the door is to far to reach in and open it.
4. The banging of the door could simply be caused by dampness (swelling of the wood).
Also trust me, even with a strong cockney accent, hair and ear could not be mixed up.
Was it the norm for a prostitute at that time to invite a customer home?.
All The Best
Dave |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 19 September 1999 - 03:28 pm | | It has been said that "hair" and "ears" could be confused if the speaker has an
Irish accent--as it has been argued that
Barnett had.
Simply a thought--it would have been almost impossibly difficult to identify Kelly by
her ears, considering what was done to her.
Barnett may have said "hair", or "ears", or
something else entirely--he may have been
stuttering, stammering, nervous or just
plain terrified. The quote says "ears" and
that was probably what was heard, but was
it heard correctly?
That's the question I'm asking--was Barnett
quoted correctly? Misquoting is a common
problem with newspapers; we see it today,
and it was probably seen then, too.
Regards |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Sunday, 19 September 1999 - 06:56 pm | | Hi Judith
I too find it difficult to see how Barnett could have identified Kelly by her ear. And it is certainly true that the accuracy of newspaper reports cannot be relied upon. But the official inquest papers recorded, "I have seen the body I identify her by the ear and the eyes I am positive it is the same woman."
The Star of 12 Nov., despite introducing the witness as "James Barnet," reported, "I identify Mary Kelly by the ears and the eyes. I am positive about it."
The Daily Telegraph of 13 Nov. reported, "I have seen the body, and I identify it by the ear and eyes, which are all that I can recognise; but I am positive it is the same woman I knew."
So at least three individual, independent, sources record Barnett’s words as ear(s) and eyes. Now while they may all have misheard, and therefore misquoted Barnett, such a possibility does seem less likely than would have been the case had the recording of ear and eyes been confined to a single source.
Best wishes
alex |
Author: Judith Stock
Sunday, 19 September 1999 - 08:18 pm | | Dear Alex,
Thanks for the citations; they all appear
to repeat basically the same quote, and it is certainly possible that each of the
three reporters heard the same thing. The
thing that troubles me about Barnett's ID
by the "ears" (or "hair" if he dropped his haitches) is that Dr Bond reported that a good many bits of her face had been removed, including "her ears"--now
if that means ALL of her ears, there may
be a teeny problem with Barnett's ID; if
it meant only parts of her ears, the ID
might hold up.
None of this is in aid of starting an
argument about whether or not it was Kelly in that bed, or whether or not
Barnett killed her, or whether or not
Barnett is the Ripper; the question is
raised simply because this particular
question is driving me nuts!!! Sort of
like Stewart and the spelling of Eddowes'
first name. How in the hell could Barnett look at that mess that once was
his lover and ID her by her ears and eyes? Possibly the whole thing is
rhetorical and matters not a whit.
So, I wonder if Barnett did, indeed, have
an Irish accent, and if he did drop an
"h" or two, and if he did look at what
was left of her ears and say "yup, that's
Mary", or if he looked at all that lovely
hair and cried.
Sorry about the late night musings; it
must be after midnight......
Regards,
Judy
PS Hope I'll see you at the C&D in October. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 19 September 1999 - 10:46 pm | | Hi y'all.
ALEX C. & JUDITH: Pardon a dumb question, but why is Stewart Evans seemingly the only one who gives credence to the fact that Joe Barnett signed his inquest testimony - thereby saying the written down words matched what he actually said? If either of you have facts that show Barnett did not sign his statement, I'd be highly interested in hearing them.
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: Leanne
Monday, 20 September 1999 - 06:17 am | | G'day All,
JUDY & BOB: I am sorry that I argued so much that Barnett said "ear" and couldn't possible have said "Hair". I just re-read Bruce Paley's comments, at the back of 'The Simple Truth', and he says that Barnett had a habit of dropping his 'h's.
I too, would be interested to know if Barnett signed his statement.
LEANNE! |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Monday, 20 September 1999 - 07:06 am | | Hi Janice
As an infrequent visitor here recently I seem to have missed any reference by Stewart to Barnett signing his inquest testimony. While witnesses at Eddowes’ inquest certainly signed their testimony, the same does not seem to have been the case at Kelly’s inquest. In the copy of the papers I have, Barnett signed neither his inquest testimony of 12 Nov., nor his statement to Abberline on 9 Nov. But Stewart has the extensive access to original case papers that we lesser mortals can only dream of, so he may well know better.
Nevertheless, regardless of whether Barnett did or did not sign his inquest testimony, I have little doubt that he did actually claim to have identified Kelly by her ear and eyes. The number of separate sources recording the same testimony make the possibility of his being misheard and misquoted extremely unlikely.
I simply observed that I, like Judith, find it difficult to see how Barnett could have identified Kelly by her ear. This isn’t because it suits any theory I may have, it’s simply that, while I don’t think I’m any less observant or attentive than the average Joe, I know I couldn’t recognise my wife of 15 years by her ear. As Judith rightly points out, given the extent of mutilation, the task facing Barnett must have been all but impossible.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: S P Evans
Monday, 20 September 1999 - 11:22 am | | As my name has been mentioned I thought that I should make some comment here. There are two written statements of Joseph Barnett's, neither of which is actually signed by him, but they would have been taken at his dictation. The written version clearly shows the words "...by the ear and the eyes." It appears thus: -
This would seem to obviate a mistranscription by the press, and surely they all wouldn't make the same error anyway. It was (and is) common for East Enders to drop their aitches, so I am sure that such a mistake would not easily be made.
Also, in the 1920's booklet produced by Tom Robinson, who claimed to have been there at the time reporting on the murders, he stated: -
"The first witness called was Joseph Bennett [sic], a fish porter, of Portpool Lane, Gray's Inn Road. 'I lived with the deceased for a year and eight months,' he said, 'and she had always told me her name was Marie Jeanette Kelly. I have seen the body, and by the peculiar shape of the ears, and the colour of the eyes, I am sure it is the same woman...'"
Now although Robinson's spelling of Barnett's name is wrong, the general factual aspects of his piece are generally quite good. It seems to be an odd thing to have invented if that was not the reason Barnett gave, at some stage, to explain how he recognised her by her ear.
It has been noticeable in the past that those who wish to promote the theory that the corpse was not that of Kelly are usually the ones who try to say that the word should be hair and not ear.
Whoever the woman who lived with Barnett and called herself Mary Jane (and Marie Jeanette) Kelly really was, I think that there is very little doubt that it was her body discovered in 13 Miller's Court that day. |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Monday, 20 September 1999 - 04:30 pm | | Thanks for clarifying that Stewart. I was beginning to think I’d missed a significant signature somewhere along the line.
In case my tangential wonderings gave the wrong impression, while I find it difficult to imagine anyone being recognised by their ear (unless exceptionally peculiar), I entirely agree that the number of sources recording Barnett’s words make it highly unlikely that he was misquoted. I also share the view that the body found was that of Barnett’s former partner Mary Jane Kelly.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: S P Evans
Monday, 20 September 1999 - 09:56 pm | | Thanks Alex, as Janice has pointed out to me, I did, in a past post, erroneously state re- Barnett's statement that "...the statement is in writing and signed by Barnett.", hence the confusion. Although written the statement is, of course, not actually signed by Barnett. Although this was unusual it was by no means unique as the rules of evidence for a coroner's court are much more lax than those for a criminal court (they even allow hearsay evidence). Sorry to cause such confusion.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 20 September 1999 - 11:42 pm | | JUDY & ALEX: Color me red. I 'umbly beg pardon.
STEWART: What - you mean there's no truth to the rumor that you're perfect?!? ;-) Thanks for the document scan ... very thoughtful of you.
I appreciate everyone being so nice as I stumble around the case. Now that this detail is worked out, I can go obsess over some other clue.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 21 September 1999 - 10:58 am | | Dear Everyone,
Just a small point about whether you could recognise someone by the ears. My wifes ears are quite unique in that the flap which curls round the larger part of the ears is actually pressed so close as to appear attached.
She always says that it was because of how she was laid down as a baby.
Another point is that if Mary, who was known for her love of a scrap, had ever had her ears bitten or torn in some way that could produce unusual features.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Judith Stock
Tuesday, 21 September 1999 - 03:22 pm | | Further to yours, Bob, the ears were used
as markers of identification during the
Anna/Anastasia dispute in the German
courts for umpty years. What was finally
determined was that Anna might or might not be Anastasia.
NOW, apropos of THAT particular argument,
I have always believed that it was, indeed, Kelly in the bed at #13. I've not
subscribed to the theory of mistaken identity, substitute bodies, etc, etc, so
I'm not sure where that puts my question.
As Alex rightly picked out of one of my
rambling posts, I find it passing strange
that Barnett ID'ed his former lover by
her ears. It IS possible, and Stewart has
put the final word to it. If Barnett said
"ears", OK. It's just that Barnett was
looking at what used to be a person and he
focussed on her ears and eyes--of course,
in rebuttal to myself---what ELSE looked
even approximately human?
Sorry to have started this at all.
Simplest answer is usually the best.
Thank you, Stewart and Alex and all.
Judy |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 22 September 1999 - 03:07 am | | Hi All,
Just to make things more confusing, I'm sure I read recently that Mary had unusual dentition too! Pity no one thought to ask Barnett if he recognised her teeth, if that was indeed the case. (Or were they knocked out in the dreadful assault on her face?)
I know ears are supposed to be a good mark of identification, especially if Mary did have something special about them (like a torn-out earring scar, was it Eddowes who had one of these?), but teeth have been used in identification for thousands of years.
What leaves me utterly frustrated are all the questions that were not asked at the time, or are simply missing from interview reports and inquest transcripts etc. If only we could go back and ask Joe about such things:
"What makes you so sure about Mary's ears?
What colour EXACTLY was Mary's barnet? (Barnet Fair, hair, cockney rhyming slang)
Why was she variously known as 'Black Mary', 'Fair Emma' and 'Ginger'?
What were her teeth like?
Where were you on the nights of.....etc."
Mind you, I still think Mary was killed in that room, and JB only really needed the eyes, those windows of the soul, to know he'd lost his one-time love to the Ripper.
Interesting discussion all the same.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 22 September 1999 - 06:16 am | | Hi All,
Caz: as I recall, it was Stride that had the torn-out earring scar. Regarding Kelly's various nicknames, I've read that "Black Mary" referred to her violent temper, and "Ginger" to her hair color. "Fair Emma" - "fair" could be a euphemism for beauty, or could refer to her complexion. I've really no idea - anyone?
As to dental identification, my understanding is that it relies on x-rays and records of fillings. I don't know that the state of dentistry in 1888 included such things (doubtful), or that people of MJK's limited means would even have access to a dentist.
I sympathize with your feelings of 'if only'. If only Cadosche had peeked over that fence to see what the commotion was about. If only PC Harvey had walked through Mitre Square instead of stopping at the end of Church Passage. If only someone in Miller's Court would have investigated the cry of 'oh, murder!'. Ah well, if any of those things had happened and Jtr caught red-handed, as it were, what would we all have to go on about? :-) :-)
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 22 September 1999 - 07:47 am | | Hi Jim,
I'm sure we'd all think of something :-)
What I meant about the teeth was that if Mary did have unusual dentition, like dirty great gaps, buck teeth (remind me to tell the joke about Mickey and Minnie Mouses' mucky divorce some time ;-)) or perfect pearly-whites (equally unusual in those days I'd guess), wouldn't JB have recognised them too?
And I wonder where the name Emma came from? It seems like most of these Eastenders had half a dozen aliases each.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Dave Sceats
Saturday, 02 October 1999 - 01:34 am | | Greetings All
When i started this way back, i did not think it would start a Great debate.
However if Mary did have odd shaped ears, then Barnett could have identified her without trouble (I may be wrong, but was there a study that showed that ear shapes, are as unique as finger prints). The only problem i have (knowing the people of the East End as i do) there has NEVER been any local stories in relation to the Ripper (Unlike previous and more modern local villians). You always seem to get the friend of a friend stories, but in the Ripper case "Zero".
Which means that the Ripper was possibly not a local man, in which case how did he travel through the area, without raising suspition.
There is the possiblity that people did not suspect Barnett because of his stutter, however people who normally stand out (especally in Victorian times)would have been suspected straight away ("not normal").I think we are looking for a suspect who would have been trusted without doubt in the area. Possibly a person who have a reason to travel with blood on them, a doctor, policeman (blood coming from a fight), or possibly a Midwife...
I like the idea of Barnett, but i cannot see him to be bright enough to carry out the murders, and especially being linked that close to the murders, having no rumours circulating about him.
All The Best To All
Dave |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 02 October 1999 - 04:55 pm | | G'day Dave and all,
I don't think Barnett could have identified her 'without trouble', even if the shape of her ears was unique.
Dr. Bond's postmortem report said: 'the face, hacked beyond recognition of the features'...'the face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows and EAR being partly removed'.
If 'Jack', (whoever he was), wanted to hack her beyond recognition and her ears were unique, I think he would have made sure to 'partly remove' the unique bits.
If he was someone that she didn't know intimately, like a visitor, (keep in mind that she may have had unique ears), wouldn't he have noticed the ears, while butchering her face?
You say the Ripper was possibly not a local man, because there were NEVER any 'local stories'.
Police and the local populace, held a preconception of 'Jack' being an odd and 'goulish' looking man. He obviously had a talent for 'blending-in'.
F.B.I. Agent, John E. Douglas, composed a 'phychological Profile' of JtR, which included:
'JtR was a white male, aged 28-36, who lived or worked in the Whitechapel area'.
Barnett was 30 and lived and worked in and around Whitechapel for his entire life.
'JtR would probably have had some type of abnormality, although not severe'.
Barnett had a speech impediment, which is a psychological disorder, didn't look out of the ordinary and locals would have trusted and perceived him as quiet, shy, withdrawn and obedient.
By 1888, Barnett had lived near all of the murder sites, would have drank in all the local pubs and may have been a familiar and 'trusted' face, to all the victims.
LEANNE! |
Author: Dave Sceats
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 06:14 pm | | Hello All I'm back
I've just seen the Francis Tumblety version on British TV.He seems a very good suspect, he seems to be known in the area and had a reputation of helping "local girls" with un-wanted babies.
Maybe there is a link between Barnett and Tumblety.
Tumblety carried out all but one of the murders, Barnett finding out the Mary Kelly had aborted his child..well you know the rest. Who know maybe Tumblety planted the idea into Barnetts head to remove some of the heat.
All The Best
Dave Sceats |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 05:57 am | | Actually, Dave, if you watch it again more carefully, you'll see that Tumblety is not thought to have been responsible for Stride's death in this scenario.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Jeff D
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 05:44 am | | Hello all !
As a brief tester, I would like to describe one very minor aspect of a theory, I have been working on for some time now. I hope to explain and go into further depth on these boards in future posts. I have greatly missed and really do welcome the criticisms and opinions of learned friends I have made here on these boards and anyway, I think it’s about time I started to expose myself :-)
On the 28th March, Ada Wilson – 39, machinist of Mile End, became a victim of what appeared to be an attempted robbery. At the door of her home, an unknown man with a “clasp knife” stabbed her twice in the throat.
The police were given a description of her attacker. He was about 5’6” tall, approximately 30 years old, had a sunburnt complexion and a fair moustache. He wore a dark coat, light trousers and a wide-awake hat.
At 11:45 on the eve of Thursday November 8th Mary Cox saw Mary Kelly return home in the company of a stout, shabby blotchy-faced man, in his 30’s with a carroty moustache and a billycock hat. He carried a quart pail of ale.
These descriptions are not much to go on, however I believe these two separate events are describing the same man. Witnesses, as we know can be notoriously unreliable and might easily describe a noticeable characteristic in different terms. Sunburnt/Blotchy faced, fair/carroty moustache. Are these not similarities worthy of further consideration? Different lighting conditions could easily explain the differences in terms used to describe the man. Regardless, we have 2-seperate incidents that describe an outstanding characteristic of the mans face.
If Mr. Blotchy face, ¼ pail-of-ale were the same person who attacked Ada Wilson, would this not put a whole new set of circumstances on the events of Nov. 8/9th ? Any police investigation would focus on the last person to have seen the victim alive. Other than Mr. Astrahkan, (who’s very existence sounds extremely suspicious, doubtful, even) Mr. Blotchy-face does appear to be the last person to have seen Mary Kelly alive.
I have only tried to think a little “outside the box” here and I would welcome your comments and even criticisms. I am certain people could rip this particular part of my theory apart. I have seen scenarios built up by authors and investigators using much flimsier evidence, however I would welcome constructive comments.
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Monty
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 08:05 am | | Jeff D,
I have no suspect as of yet but if I was pushed then the chap you have mentioned would be the one.
I too, am fascinated by the fellow. Was the Wilson attack one of the first by Jack ?
I have tried to check out any news reports with his description, in and around not just the East End but London at that period of time.
Your idea seems logical to me but I fear that finding out who is was is going to be very difficult.
Monty
 |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 12:08 pm | | Jeff,
You are forgetting the corroboration of Sarah Lewis, that "shriveled-up specimen of East End womanhood with the features of a negress." She described a man standing outside Cooney's Lodging House that likely was Hutchinson.
David |
Author: graziano
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 01:46 pm | | Jeff D,
does "sunburnt" mean "red face" or something darker ?
After how many days you get "sunburnt" ? 2 or 10 ?
The guy you mention who attacked Ada Wilson was said to wear a wideawake hat.
The same kind of hat worn by the guy standing opposite Miller's Court (outside Crossingham's, not Cooney's).
But the latter was likely to be Hutchinson, not Blotchy-face. |
|
|
|
|
