Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 04:43 am |        |
The problem I have with JB as a suspect is the lack of motive for Chapman, Eddowes, Nichols +/- others. Circumstantial evidence is certainly there for MJK in the same way that any murder investigation should exclude partner's from the onset. However, other than the fact that he knew MJK and had access to her room; may have had the skill (although fish filleting doesn't really come into my terminology of skill and have always maintained that none was needed anyway); and has some tentative relationship with the letters on the envelope, there is little else to put him in our list.
I agree, he remains on out list of suspects. However, I wouldn't put him top of that list. |
Author: kelly jones
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 04:55 am | |
hi
the name of the pub i just do not know. my mother might but i need to be sibtle in the asking but i know ot was a coaching inn and quite large.
Thanks to theose who give support and to theose with "boil in the bag, off he shelf" theories,...tough. I know what i say is right and thats all that matters.
And to the "person" who says i could still tell the name of JTR, well yes i could but whats the point. People like you have ready formed "bomb proof" theories and if the name i give you is different to your theory.... well need i say more
yes i have been collating and i do mail fromk work. should have a lot done for tomorrow poss wednesday.
regards
kelly jones |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 05:26 am | |
Look forward to hearing from you tomorrow or wednesday.
However, humor me. Give us the name anyway. Is it one we have already heard? |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 05:51 am | |
G'day Thomas,
I thought that a 'serial killer' was one that didn't have an obvious motive!
Mary Kelly was frightened by the earlier murders of prostitutes and clung to Barnett for emotional as well as financial support.
He lost his long-time, well-paying job, just before the murder of Martha Tabram. It became obvious that he was losing his battle to keep Kelly 'Off The Streets' and the continued visits of Kelly's former lover, added to the stress.
Joseph Barnett was born in the East End and by 1888 had lived near all of the murder sites. Jack the Ripper was probably known by sight at least, to all of his victims, given the ease at which he approached them and the fact that none of them put up much of a struggle.
Joseph Barnett matches two of the eyewitness descriptions given to police.
I can just imagine what 'Kelly's' going to say to that! Tell me 'Kel', why did you wait so long to come forward?
Leanne! |
Author: Michael Lyden
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 09:28 am | |
Hello again,
Leanne,I totally agree that serial killers just don't have motives for their crimes.They are driven by compulsion and delusion, often claiming that they have heard "voices" or that god has instructed them to carry out these awful deeds.There is no point trying to rationalize the irrational!
Another characteristic of serial killers is that they never stop killing until they are either caught or they die.I know I'm covering old ground here, but it serves to illustrate my point that Barnett is an unlikely candidate.
Kelly,please feel free to call me Mick and no I don't have any such "bomb proof" theory.Also it's not just skeptics like myself that you are trying to convince.Why not give your "supporters" Jack's identity?Infact I don't actually have a firm candidate for who the killer was, although if pushed I would plump for David Cohen.I admire Martin Fido's sober and methodical approach to the 112 year old mystery,[no silly royal conspiracy here].However that is not to say that Martin's theory isn't without its flaws, but then aren't they all?
Now, anyone for cod in butter sauce?
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 10:22 am | |
Mick and Leanne.
You can't have your cake and eat it!!!
You can't on one hand say Barrett is a good suspect for MJK murder on the basis that he murdered her after she got rid of him for losing his job as a fish porter. Then on the other hand say that serial killings are motiveless killings. I agree with he last statement but then you can't suddenly turn the last killing into one with a motive. If Barrett was just an ordinary serial killer without motive, why did they stop after MJK. |
Author: Jeffrey
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 11:16 am | |
Hello all !
Though I do not believe in a conspiracy/cover-up theory, I have long felt that there was some sort of a connection, however slender between the victims. The names Mary, Anne, Mary-Anne, etc., etc., do keep cropping up, whether real or alias and I have wondered if this did mean anything to the killer. Mary Ann Kelly of Fashion Street for example, being murdered in Mitre Sq., within minutes of being released from jail is quite an extraordinary coincidence.
Could the killer have been looking for such a specific person without having a clear description? Kelly's possible past of high class bawdy-houses, excursion to Paris, then decent into the gutters of the east-end slums could indicate a connection with someone higher up the social scale. This is a very interesting discussion and whether fact or fiction is one of the most interesting theories to come along in a while.
I apologise Kelly, especially if you are sincere, but I have developed a picture of Mary J Kelly as a great manipulator of men who would go to any lengths to serve her own ends and it is entirely possible that at some point she crossed the wrong man or became privy to certain information that she shouldn't have. Please don't think I'm heading off onto a crackpot conspiracy theory but do my comments have any bearing on your story in any way Kelly ?
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 12:08 pm | |
| Now let's see if this group publicly labels Jeff D. as a misogynist in light of his comments just above. That's what Allegria Mendes and Christopher-Michael DiGrazia did to me, for saying exactly the same thing about exactly the same person a few months back. But it will not happen to Jeff D., because the only person who is so treated on these boards is me. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 12:21 pm | |
David, do I sense a touch of sensitivity deep in that hard exterior of yours!!? I think we will have to have a 'be nice to David day'!! (But that only goes with a 'David be nice to everyone else day')!!!
Just taking the ****. Hope u don't mind! |
Author: Jon
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 12:39 pm | |
Kelly
You will use up a lot of patience before this is through.
But if your remark above "I know what i say is right and thats all that matters." is any indication.....maybe we just saw the 'chink' in the armour. |
Author: Diana
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 01:30 pm | |
| Have any of you ever been a parent? One of your jobs is to name that child and one of the challenges connected with that is in picking a name that is common enough that it is not thought wierd or strange, but unusual enough that there aren't one or two other children of the same name in the same class at school. Everyone who has taught any length of time has had at least one year when they had to address a child as either Billy N. or Billy T. because there were two Billys. If Mary was a common enough name at the time it would not be impossible for it to crop up more than once. |
Author: Alegria Mendes
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 01:34 pm | |
David,
A clarification. I did not label you a misogynist because you claimed MJK was a manipulator. She may very well have been..how am I to know? I labeled you thus because you said women were incapable of rational thought and second-handedly referred to them as the evolutionary equivalent of cows. And by the way..you never did answer the questions posed to you.. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 03:38 pm | |
Kelly , ignore the doubters and tell us the name of Jack anyway !
I'll try and do some more research in Stoke at the weekend , but if you can give me some more information about when Mary ran the pub , that would be helpful.
' The Plough ' pub in Wolstanton/Port Hill would be an ideal candidate for Mary's pub , its huge and its not far from the marshes either. I didn't have a look inside but I'll try to next time I'm down there. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 05:26 pm | |
Simon
How come I have to research knife wounds and your job of research is visiting pubs. Sounds like hard work to me!! |
Author: Jeffrey
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 03:42 pm | |
Hello !
David......... ouch! What have I ever done 2-U ? I've read a number of your recent posts and I can't understand why you are often so defensive or even antagonistic. You've got some good things to say in these discussions, then just as the rest of us, you make mistakes too. Please don't carry on thinking we (well certainly "I") are at such odds. I'm still awaiting your explosive theory so I can shoot it full of holes just as my own theories have usually been :-)
I do, firmly believe MJK was a great manipulator of men. She looks to have had at least 3 men in tow at the time of her death, besides her other relationships with the likes of Geo Hutchinson. She must have had a way with McCarthy for example, for him to allow her to accumulate such rent arrears. I would bet that there weren't too many local women living in McCarthy's rents who owed as much. There must have been something special about Kelly for men to have fallen under her spell the way they appear to have been.
Mary was also scared of something or someone, and I do get this feeling that there was someone closing in on her. She had a great interest in the murders (as did everyone, I know), but it is plainly obvious that she was very afraid of someone in the weeks before her death. The main problem with this line of thought is the fact that we've mainly considered the murders to have been without motive, so this line of enquiry would probably also lead to a cul-de-sac.
I do believe that it was Mary's body on that bed. Even with the severe mutilations, those close to her must have been able to recognise certain features (such as her "ears & eyes"), enough to make a positive ID. I've always wondered if she did ever leave a child though. The single, vague reference to the boy staying with a neighbour is very intriguing and by Mary's age, and with the risks of her occupation, there would be a good chance that she would get pregnant at some time.
I'm still waiting to hear something with a little more conviction from Kelly. I'm interested in her tail, but me-thinks there be not much chance of any real proof coming to light, somehow. C'mon Kelly, put us all out of our misery....... who wuz 'e? :-)
Regards
Jeff D
(_*_) |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 05:39 pm | |
Hello Everybody,
This query does not, strictly speaking, pertain to the discussion on the board but because it is about MJK I'll post anyhoo.
I always thought that the claim that MJK was pregnant came from an unspecified source in Donald Rumbelow's book. However, whilst browsing through Wilson & Odell's book I noted that they repeated the assertion of pregnancy and claimed that it came from one of Phillip's reports. Either the PM or some associated document.
So was MJK pregnant?
Now onto the more vexing matters of her personality. Was she some Macchiavellian schemer, some sort of lazybones sleeping in the sun, or a mixture of the two. I note Jeff D's consideration, "She [MJK] must have had a way with McCarthy for example," to explain the rent arrears. But perhaps this viewpoint does a disservice to Barnett. Bearing in mind that the rent was quite high for someone in MJK's circumstances it is fairly obvious that Barnett was the leaseholder. And perhaps it was Barnett who persuaded M'Carthy to allow Kelly to reside in the hovel on the promise that he, Barnett, would soon be in employment.
Finally, and here's a new one, I don't believe that Kelly was a prostitute in the purest (sic) sense. Whilst Cox liased with at least three clients, her neighbour who faced eviction was seen, blind drunk, in the company of one dodgy character. This behaviour hardly seems to fit in with that of a card carrying streetwalker does it.
Incidentally, has the last customer ever been identified? Doesn't his description fit someone in the final stages of tuberculosis? If so, could this point to the classic theory that the killer knew he was dying and so took many risks because he had no fear of apprehension?
Probably not.
Thanking you for your consideration and hoping the above forms some type of coherent pattern, loaded with antihistamine and disagreeably suffering from hay fever that I am.
Jim Leen |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 11:00 pm | |
Hi Kelly:
Perhaps you can help with some problems that I've come up with on your family tree.
You say that your Grandmother Beth House was married to John Robinson in 1938. I've checked records of marriage from 1937 to 1939 and have failed to find a John Robinson marrying any lady with the maiden name House.
You say that your Mother Margaret was born from this marriage in 1940. I have checked births 1939 to 1941 and find no Margaret Robinson whose mother's maiden name was House. I found one birth of a Margaret Robinson whose mother's maiden name was Kelly in 1940. She was born in Middlesboro.(See Elizabeth House birth.)
You say that your mother, Margaret Robinson married Charles Jones in 1966. I have failed to find that marriage from 1965 to 1967.
You say that Elizabeth (Liz?) married James House and had two children: Harry born 1914 and Beth born 1915. I have made a list from 1913 to 1916 of all Harry/Harold/Henry House births and all Elizabeth/Beth House births. I have found one Elizabeth House birth whose mother was a Jones. She was born in Middlesboro. Did Mary Jane Kelly's daughter Elizabeth take the name Jones when she married? None of the Harry etc. births fir in with this or have mothers maiden names that appear elsewhere in this story.
Is it possible that the information that you gave us could perhaps be a little wrong?
Peter. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 11:22 pm | |
| In my last message I forgot to thank Dr. Ind for inviting me to post, I'm doing so now. I don't think Barnet was a true dyed in the wool s.k, he was killing to protect his interests,ie, making Kelly stay respectable. It's possible he got no pleasure out of it at all, in fact the killings took so little time it's difficult to see what pleasure the Ripper got from committing them. I would think a being who kills and mutilates for sheer pleasure would want to spend more time with his victim.With Barnet being the killer it seems to me that with each murder he was forcing himself to make each one look more blood thirsty than the last, the reason being to put the fear of the devil into Mary Kelly, and if they were part of her circle of friends so much the better! He treated Kelly's body worse than his previous victims because he'd had the practice, he had the time, and he had the reason, hadn't she taken him for everything he had? She had taken his money,caused him to lose his job,caused him to kill, brought him to the gutter, and she had treated him with contempt. I think he took her heart, his view being, it was something she had deprived him of for the past 18mths Rick |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 01:35 am | |
Warwick
The problem I found early in this case was everytime you read a book, you are convinced that the culprit has been found. The Mammouth book of JTR is a good one for going through post of the different suspects. If you have done that, well I would agree that Barnett is a suspect but he is not top of my list.
Peter
Is it usual to come accross these blocks so early on in searches or is this looking not very hopeful? |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 02:04 am | |
David Radka -
I said that I felt you displayed a virulent strain of misogyny because of your statement that you saw MJK as a "black widow spider" who was "sucking out the essence" of Joseph Barnett, which I found a repugnant characterisation. It is not the same as Jeff D's vision of her as a "great manipulator" of men, and you - always eager to display your intellectual capabilities - are, I think, sharp enough to realise that.
If your characterisation at that time was merely hyperbole or fanciful description (though you never said such), then I would certainly apologise. If, however, that is your actual view of Mary Kelly (which was certainly my impression), then I submit I have nothing to apologise for.
Kelly - while, as a born cynic, I am watching this board with a jaundiced eye, I am looking forward to seeing what you have in the way of "proof" of Kelly's escape from Miller's Court. You must realise, however, that statements such as "I know I'm right" and "I could tell you [the Ripper's] name, but what's the point" are not going to encourage belief in your bona fides. Certainly, we all have our own ideas as to the Ripper's identity and cling more or less passionately to a number of theories, but we are all interested in the solution to the case - or if not a "solution" as such, at least in an alternate viewpoint based on sound historical reasoning that might allow us to look at the case from a fresh vantage point.
I would encourage you to put forward the name when you feel comfortable doing so rather than holding back because of expected unbelief; otherwise, it all becomes an annoying exercise in teasing, which solves the case not one bit and might well damage your standing.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 04:22 am | |
CMD
You've said in 2 paragraphs what my poor english could never articulate. Well written and well said. I am hoping we will hear tomorrow as Kelly said maybe tomorrow or Wednesday in her post on Monday.
I haven't really had a holiday in over a year and needed this one. I have given much of this one up to JTR mainly because of Kelly's post. I hope I haven't been let down. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 04:56 am | |
G'day Jim,
I and Bruce Paley believe that Kelly had persuaded Barnett to rent their Dorset Street room in her name.
She may have been seeking relief from Barnett when she took in her 2 prostitute friends to share the tiny room.
If it was Joes room, why would he allow the continued visits of her former lover Joseph Flemming? She had the freedom to have whoever she wanted there - further frustration for the man!
Bruce Paley says: 'There was the possibility that Kelly was pregnant, though this has never been confirmed'.
Leanne! |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 07:13 pm | |
Kelly
Where r u |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 12:23 am | |
Kelly , please don't go ! We need to know more !
If you don't post again , we can only conclude it was a wind-up !
Simon |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 10:37 pm | |
| Looks like the posts have dried up. Or, has anyone been getting private e-mails. Is more information flowing or can I assume the Worst? |
Author: Paul Branch
Thursday, 20 July 2000 - 04:10 pm | |
Hi Thomas,
I think we a have an uncomfortable lull while everyone waits for some response from Kelly.
My personal feeling is that Peter Birchwood's post may have something to do with it, a very challenging post if you ask me.
Kelly may be trying to pull some of the loose ends together or possibly was not able to get time to post ( pressures at work etc ). Then again all good things come to an end sometime !( not wishing to use the word hoax).It's also possible that Kelly has found out that Her MJK is not THE MJK. If this is true, it would be nice to get some kind of indication.
Regards
Paul |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 20 July 2000 - 04:55 pm | |
Hi Tom and Paul:
Possibly Peter Birchwood's probing questions have exposed a faked genealogy? Thus must all fairy stories end? :-) Kelly, I hope that it is not the case, that the family genealogy you have been telling us is made up.
Chris |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 20 July 2000 - 10:53 pm | |
| Nah....she's done a vanishing act, like her supposed great, great grandmother....it runs in the family, you know :-) |
