Archive through May 1, 2000

** 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 May 1, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion: Mary kelly: Archive through May 1, 2000

Author: Jeffrey Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 05:15 am
Hello Leanne, SImon & Everyone ! I commend your campaign for further enquiries into (poor ole) Joe Barnett Leanne, and also your commitment to staying within the boundaries of facts. After reading a few Ripper books and spending quite a few minutes myself pondering this mystery, he is still on my top list of suspects (but then what do I know?!?!). With regard to entry into the room, and when or how the killer entered, remember that Mary Kelly was clad in a simple white chemise, with her clothes folded neatly upon a chair. This suggests to me that she had retired for the evening. Earlier on that evening she had entertained one-or-two guests. Whether Geo. Hutchinson ever saw Mr. Astrakan or not, he certainly did wait outside Kelly's for a good period of time, which takes us up to about 3:00 am by the clock at the brewery. If Kelly had undressed and gone to bed around this time, she would have had time to doze off, maybe fall into a deep sleep or whatever, then according to witness testimony, (screams) and possible near to 4:00am the killer arrived. This leaves us with 2-possibilities for the manner in which he entered. 1) The killer knocked on the door, and Kelly answered. She is possibly dazed, half-asleep and dressed very scantily (especially for Victorian standards). She let him in and the rest is history. It is possibly upon entry or soon after that Kelly screams Oh Murder ! 2) Kelly was asleep, and the killer knew how to gain access. He did so very quietly, and did not force the door, though if he didn't have a key, he must have reached through the window. The killer being in the room, then Kelly coming hazily out of her sleep would actually make more sense of "Oh murder" which Kelly could have yelped when she discovered this person and realised his intentions. Kelly was virtually naked, and I don't think she would have presented herself like this to an ordinary punter. Both of my scenarios above however, could indicate some familiarity with Kelly or her habitat at Millers Court. Jeff D
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 06:55 am
There is another possibility Jeff , that the killer actually undressed Mary Kelly and that he dressed her in the nightdress for some reason , after she was dead or unconscious. Remember the neat and tidy pile of clothes on the chair , this could well be the hallmark of an obsessive-compulsive organised killer. Perhaps the nightdress belonged to his mother and he made Kelly dress in it at knifepoint. Perhaps the sheet over the face was to depersonalise the victim so the killer could make the victim out to be anyone he liked , his mother or a former lover for instance. Remember his previous MO centred on killing middle aged women , which Kelly was not , thus the killer may have needed to bring a prop along to help him out with fulfilling his fantasies. This is an interesting speculation and I don't think anyone has made it before ; don't clap , just throw money !
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 07:40 am
From Sugden p.325 : " The report ( from The Western Mail , 12th November 1888 - SJO ) reads : ' Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murder. He was , perhaps , 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by [his] showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar , the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag. " Now this is seemingly contradicted by Bowyer's inquest testimony which states he last saw Kelly on the Wednesday afternoon , but is it? We have to define night here ; could Bowyer have actually seen Kelly in the early hours of Wednesday morning instead. It would have been dark , been night and would have been Wednesday - but Bowyer might not have said this was morning , in that that referred to the period between when he got up and when he had lunch. If he had said ' I saw Kelly on Wednesday , just after midnight ' its easy to see how that could get changed by a reporter into ' Wednesday night '. Similarly , there is a statement by John MCarthy in The Daily News of 10th November 1888 which goes as follows : " At eleven o'clock last night she [Kelly] was seen with a young man with a dark moustache. She was then intoxicated. " Sugden wondered why MCarthy did not mention this at the inquest , but I think that is fairly obvious : it was not MCarthy who had seen Kelly but someone else , some gossip that he had heard in his shop probably. Nevertheless , there were sightings of Kelly with such a man because The Times makes the following statement about George Hutchinson on November 11th 1888 : it states that George Hutchinson's description of the man seen with Kelly "...confirms that given by others ". Thus from this we know that other people had seen Kelly with a similar man , and this is before Bowyer's statement appeared in the papers. Thus we have a potentially fascinating link to the murders of Stride and Eddowes in the description of this man.
Author: Bob Hinton Friday, 21 April 2000 - 04:48 am
Dear Everyone, I covered the saga of the locked/unlocked door in my book 'From Hell'. The lock almost certainly was not a Yale as they were very expensive but a type known as a night latch. They were very cheap and had been around since Georgian times. It is unlikely that a mortice lock would have been fitted as well as they were not only expensive to buy, but expensive to fit as they are not surface mounted but cut into the wood and frame of the door (in a mortice - hence the name) Clay pipes were given away free by tobacconists when you purchased tobacco. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 21 April 2000 - 08:34 am
G'day Jeff, The first Ripper book I read was the 'Diary' and I was convinced that that was it! When I got onto Casebook, I realised how easy it would be to forge such a document. I've read many books since and the Barnett book stands out. People say "poor-ol-Joe", but I try to look behind his outward personality and strongly believe that the Ripper was someone who hid behind a goodman personality. Simon: Why on earth would Mary's killer undress her and then redress her in a nightdress? I think you may be drawing too many possibilities into this; the killer hid under the bed, then redressed her. This is typical of that whole conspiracy thing. If Mary's killer made her undress at knifepoint, I think she would have managed more than a single cry of "Murder"! Yes, the other victims were older and I think this indicates a disliking of his mother. The grape seller, Mathew Packer, changed the details of his story several times and he was also to surface again, after Mary Kelly's murder, with another tale of 2 men approaching him with knowledge of who Jack was. His appearance after Kelly's murder came just after Hutchinson's. I'd say he was just after publicity. Packer's man, before Strides murder was: "a young man from 25-30, about 5'7", with long black coat buttoned up, soft felt hat, rather broad shoulders, rather quick in speaking and a rough voice, no gloves." He says nothing about his moustache nor his 'very perculiar eyes'. Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 21 April 2000 - 08:40 am
G'day, THOMAS Bowyer, (not Harry), stated at Kelly's inquest that he saw her "on Wednesday afternoon in the court". He was employed by Kelly's landlord, to collect rent and discovered her body at 10:45am on Friday morning. I'd say he did see her around midday, (maybe a few minutes before or after), on Wednesday, as he said he did! Leanne!
Author: Jeffrey Friday, 21 April 2000 - 09:44 am
Hello All ! Great to see you posting here Bob ! I refer to your information on the lock on Kelly's door as an excellent source regarding this matter. I am sure you are right, there was no Yale lock on this door. I think you have provided some very good information, and we've had some good discussions here in the past, on the door, the lock and the window. As well as the distance, and method they probably used for opening the door without the key. Simon, I can remember (only once, maybe twice) in my sheltered life, where I might have ended up in a ladies bedroom, and d'you know, on both occassions where the lady somehow ended up naked, I never bothered to fold her clothes and place them in a tidy pile for her. Is that selfish of me or what? The more I consider Hutchinson's vigil and his suspect, the more Mr. Astrakhan does look like a fantasy. Reading his description, this guy would have been the exact stereo-typical image of the kind of monster the people in Whitechapel felt must have been responsible. Certainly one of their own kind couldn't be responsible for such an outage! The killer had to be a Jew, and probably a wealthy one at that. I still think my two possibilities have to be considered as viable options for the killers entry into Kelly's room that night. Even the blazing fire that melted the spout on the kettle, might have happened another day, so we do have to be careful when speculating here. I think we can accept that the clothing was burnt in the fireplace that night, but surely this would have given only a small, smouldering fire, not a great blaze hot enough to melt the spout of the kettle. Maybe just enough to provide a little warmth for a chilly November night and for Mary to dry out her boots. It could be that the clothing had to be burnt for some reason by the killer, but due to the fact that Kellys boots were placed in front of the fireplace, I assume that it was Kelly who lit the fire. Jeff D
Author: Glenn Baron Saturday, 22 April 2000 - 06:50 am
A strange discrepancy in Sugden: While estimating the time of MJK's death, Sugden relates the opinion of Drs Phillips and Bond. Phillips' estimate was some 6 hours before his examination, which Sugden takes to mean 6 hours before 11 a.m. (approx), this being the time Phillips was called to Miller's Court, making time of death between 5 and 6 a.m. However, we know that the room was not entered until 2 hours after Phillips' arrival. This would move Phillips' estimated t-o-d. back to 7-8 a.m. This varies dramatically from Bond's estimate of between 1-2 a.m. Has Sugden just miscalculated ? Cheers Glenn
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Sunday, 23 April 2000 - 01:27 am
Ah, full marks Glenn! Sugden's information comes from The Times, 12 November, after apparently interviewing Dr. Phillips. None of Phillips's notes on the Kelly murder have been found and his testimony at the inquest did not enter into time of death. We do, however have this strange quote from the Times. No medical man, especially one of Dr. Phillips's skill and expertise, would ever give an estimate on time of death based on a look through a window, he would only be holding himself up to ridicule and scorn from the medical community. So what was meant by the quote? It is possible that Dr. Phillips was totally misquoted of course, but I have always believed that this article is only a partial misquote, one which gives us the true feelings of Dr. Phillips. That, in his opinion, Mary Kelly had been dead from between five or six hours from the time in which he had entered the room (2:00 P.M.),rather than the time from when he had arrived at the scene, (11:00 A.M.) Is the Times article telling us that Dr. Phillips believed that Mary Kelly had been killed between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M.? We can't say for sure but it does tally almost exactly with my own feelings as to time of death in the Kelly murder, (as many of you well know). Food for thought. Wolf.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 04:50 am
Thank you very much for drawing our attention to this Glenn , an excellent piece of detective work ! I agree with Wolf that this does put the time of death to around 7.30-830am and Bagster seems to be at least generally right about these things. The estimation of TOD must come from checking the temperature of the body and checking for rigor. This dates the TOD to a much later time than Dr Phillips estimated : also see James Tully's book for a consensus on a later TOD.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 06:03 am
I mean this dates the TOD to a much later time than Dr Bond estimated. Sorry !
Author: Alegria Mendes Tuesday, 25 April 2000 - 08:36 am
Hello! I am new to Ripper lore so excuse any gross illogicality in my statements due to my ignorance. It seems to me that JtR was the type of man who enjoyed flaunting his crimes in front of the police. Isn't it possible that he entered through the door which was unlocked, exited through the door and then just to tweak the police locked the door through the window? He was already a legend in his own mind and the locked door mystery is the quintessential crime.
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 12:20 am
G'day, I reckon a TOD of 7:00-8:00am sounds good and Mary could have left the door unlocked on purpose because she was expecting someone! Also that someone knew that someone, would be around to try to collect rent soon. That's why he locked the door, before he disappeared! Leanne!
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 27 April 2000 - 04:05 am
Is it fair to assume that in November it would still be dark at 7:30-8:30 a.m., making the fire in the grate necessary for extra light?
Author: Diana Friday, 28 April 2000 - 08:59 pm
The more I think about it, the more I suspect Kelly was scared. She keeps moving other women in to stay with her. We only have Hutchinson's word for why he followed her home and lingered outside her door. Could it be she asked him to do it? Then I have to ask myself who she was scared of. If she had waited for Barnet to move out before inviting Venturney to stay with her then I would say she had noticed an unknown stalker on her trail. But she does this with Barnet still there. In fact this was why Barnet moved out. If she was scared to death of an unknown stalker then why irritate Barnet into leaving her? Wouldn't she be safer with Barnet than with Julia Venturney? Unless, of course, it was Barnet she was scared of?
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 07:05 am
G'day Diana, Julia Venturney said: "I have frequently seen her (Kelly) the worse for drink, but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone". I wonder where he went and on which nights? Barnett said: "We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left and took lodgings elsewhere." Maria Harvey was asked to stay with Kelly, on the night of the 30th of October, which is the same night Barnett left. Sources: 'Coroner's Files, Kelly's inquest' and 'Barnett Central News Agency statement, Lloyds Newspaper, 11 November'. Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 30 April 2000 - 04:51 am
G'day everyone, If Julia's statement wasn't 'mis-reported', it shows that Barnett frequently left the 'love-nest'. As he had somewhere to stay, the night of their fight, chances are that he never returned to Millers Court. Barnett's statement showed that their 'comfort' ended as soon as Julia popped up. If this was causing all the trouble, why did Kelly invite Mrs. Harvey to stay? All this, plus the fact that Kelly's former lover was hanging around, would have been very frustrating for Barnett. In my opinion, he just 'flipped', or rationally thought: "Oh well, I'm going to lose her anyway"! Leanne!
Author: Diana Sunday, 30 April 2000 - 08:36 am
I believe Barnett stated that Kelly was afraid of the ripper and had him read her all the newspaper items. Why in the world then would she alienate Barnett until he moved out?
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 01 May 2000 - 08:54 am
G'day Diana, Yeah, that was a statement Barnett made at Kelly's inquest after the Coroner asked: "Have you heard her speak of being afraid of any one?" The Coroners next question was: "Did she express fear of any particular individual?" Barnetts answers went straight from Kelly's concern about the murders, to: "Our own quarrels were very soon over". Yeah they were over alright, because he would take off! Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 01 May 2000 - 09:07 am
G'day, A quick thought: I wonder if he took the key with him to get back in the room? (It wasn't lost until the 30th) or maybe Mary got into the habit of leaving the door unlocked for him. Jack the Ripper wasn't then known to enter his victims rooms. Leanne!