Author: Diana
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 01:28 pm |        |
| I think she picked up men at night because it was that or starve, or worse lose her room so that she would be that much more exposed to Jack. I think it was the lesser of two evils in her mind. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 01:44 pm | |
Hi Michael
I was really refering to the matter of the missing key & access through the window. Neither which I would suggest had anything to do with the crime itself.
Kelly brought a customer back to her place, she opened the door in the normal manner (it was not locked) and after the crime was done, the killer lifted the latch and left by closing the door behind him, and it latched again.
Nothing more mysterious or complicated than that.
Diana,
Maria Harvey was a laundresse, ....Kelly wasnt looking hard enough, she resigned herself to her lot in life. Many women resorted to 'prossing' as a way of supplementing their menial income (Harvey), others resigned themselves to it full time.
We all have choices, so did a young, attractive 25 yr old, she just lacked initiative maybe.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Michael Lyden
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 02:05 pm | |
Hello Diana,
Firstly apolgies for teasing, when I last spoke to you(MJK's accent).I think your idea of the two step process employed by Kelly to open the door could not have worked.The reason being that when the bolt was pushed back, whoever was reaching in through the broken pane would have had to hold it in that position against the pull of the spring whilst turning the knob and pushing the door open with the other hand(more difficult for a left handed person).Altogether, looking more tricky than Barnett made out.
regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 02:33 pm | |
Hello Jon,
I understand what you are saying and agree that Kelly's last customer could easily have been the murderer and that she let him in and he let himself out and that was that--the missing key mystery vanishes into thin air.But I am trying to cover every angle, looking at diffent scenarios and seing which fits best.But yes the most simple solutions to the various puzzles surrounding these murders should be sought first.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Davidoz
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 05:10 pm | |
| Jack was Joe...and Joe was Jack. But who was Joe when he was Jack? Or, Jack when he was Joe? |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 05:22 pm | |
Hi, all:
I find it unfortunate that Joseph Barnett is convicted in absentia of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. I find the scenario that either Joe or George Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper, and that they killed the other women to frighten MJK off the streets, most unlikely. If MJK was the focus of it all, you can't work backwards in time and fold the other murders into the frame. It's illogical as well as impractical since there is nothing to link Joe or George to the other murders. The only murder with which they have any link is MJK's.
Chris George |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 06:09 pm | |
Hello Davidoz,
I'm glad you're back. I hope the unnecessary exposure of your name hasn't deterred you from speaking your mind. What ever you do, don't let anyone run you off or put you down.
age quod agis |
Author: Michael Lyden
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 06:17 pm | |
Hello everyone,
Just a quick one, I do not think Joe Barnett was the killer.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 06:33 pm | |
| Michael, I thought your tease was very funny! (-: |
Author: Davidoz
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 06:57 pm | |
I AM THE KEY!
...who can open what no man can shut, who shuts what no man can open. |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 09:33 pm | |
Ah....lets see, open...no man can shut, shut what's open?????? I've got it.
Benny Hill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 08:17 am | |
Hi All,
(some of my post is copied from another board)
It seems likely to me that the broken window trick was saved for the odd occasion, possibly only once or twice, when Barnett or Kelly had accidentally locked themselves out, through forgetting to leave the door on the latch when departing. Then Barnett simply recalled the emergency method he had used to regain the couple entry.
I can imagine Mary nagging Joe, "There, you silly sod, you've locked us out. Now let's see you get us back in", then watching him try not to rip his arm to shreds in the process. If Joe felt pleased with himself for succeeding, this may explain why he recalled it later as quite easy.
No one else need ever have seen it done, or known about it, and the killer simply left by the door, letting it lock naturally behind him. No mystery.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 09:01 am | |
Chris,
If you think about it a little more,-- don't you think if the police were investigating these crimes today they would be investigating forwards,backwards, upside, downside, in and out?. It can't be wrong to bring Barnett under suspicion, he's the man who was nearest to the last and main victim, that can't be disagreed with. Some ripperologists like yourself and Jon (perhaps) will say the only murder Barnett can be attached to is Mary's. Okay, but if Barnett could be guilty of killing Mary in such a way, ( and I would say he had a good reason to kill her), then you have to look back at the previous killings especialy Eddowes and see they were the same brand. Because Mary was killed indoors doesn't make her killing different, it's just the fact that Mary had a room of her own, the others were dosshouse tenants. I can't believe there was a man who lived in the same vicinity as the Ripper,-- and a lot of people believe the Ripper was local,--who could have outdone the Ripper in mutilating a human body. If he killed Mary, he killed them all, the missing heart is the giveaway I think, why didn't he take her uterus or a kidney?, I personally think Mary's killing has Barnett's name written all over it, and like I've just said, if he killed her, he killed them all. I think it's unlikely that a man who killed out of jealousy only, could have copied the Ripper--He'd done it before!. If it had been Barnett killing as Barnett, I think he would have cut her throat ONLY,--if he had been a normal man. To my way of thinking Barnett belongs in the suspect group as much if not more than the others, like Druit, Tumblety, Kosminski, Kaminsky or Chapman, or any other outlandish name people can come up with. My belief is Jack the Ripper was right under their noses.
Best Regards Rick
Davidoz! I take back my critiscism of you, you don't talk piffle, Rick. |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 09:30 am | |
| So...Jack and Joe...and Tumblety...and a Druit, and a cast of thousands!? Beyond the imagination, is it not? |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 12:39 pm | |
Hello Warwick,
For a while, I too suspected Joe Barnett but of course there is this huge stumbling block given the fact that Joe lived on for another 38 years and during this time no similar murders were commited.
As has been stated many times before,Barnett wouldn't have given up serial killing to become say a philatelist.After all it is common knowlege that philately will get you nowhere!
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 01:53 pm | |
| You were sent an e-scroll like the others, but you hid yours under a bushel, Michael. Who will share their little delicacy with you? |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 02:23 pm | |
E-scroll? Davidoz,
why not use the new fangled telegraph system that's all the rage and ... - --- .--. - .- .-..
-.- .. -. --. -... --- .-.. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ...
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 03:00 pm | |
| An e-scroll???!!!! Does Davidoz speak in tongues? |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 03:36 pm | |
| Even those not yet discovered! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 03:39 pm | |
Mick,
In answering you I'm going to get under someones skin because I've said this before. I'm sorry Jon but I have to explain myself to Mick. As soon as I post this I shall imagine a response from you rumbling over the Atlantic, because I know how you feel about it!. But,--S or B, here goes, I believe besides there being people who kill because they like to do it, have an urge to do it, and when once started, can't stop, there are also people who will kill and stop at nothing to get what they want, and keep what they have. When that reason has failed, succeeded or faded they will stop, I don't call these kind of murderers serial killers, more like killing for gain, and when there is no longer anything to gain they stop. This is the kind of killer I think Barnett could have been. He was killing to frighten Mary, and cause her to cling to him, he was protecting his interests! Please don't tell me that is a ridiculous reason,people have been killed for less by persons who would never kill again. The mutilations to the first three victims, Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were to create fear, the mutilations to Mary were the result of a combination of anger, brainstorm, and pent up feelings of being wronged, deceived, and tossed aside, he also had to make sure JtR was going to answer for this killing, not Joseph Barnett. Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 03:47 pm | |
| It's no good telling them to sod off, you just cant offend em |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 04:03 pm | |
No man can offend me who has yet been born. I am a stone of offence.
Here is wisdom: How can one man be many? How can many be one? |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 04:45 pm | |
Hello again Warwick,
Correct me if I have got the wrong end of the stick,but what you are saying is Barnett carried out the five murders with the sole intention of frightening Kelly but once he'd "removed" her his murderous urges stopped?
As you expected, I totaly disagree.There is no doubt in my mind that Jack was a serial Killer, he killed impulsively and his killing fulfilled no ultimate purpose.He was a maniac who got his kicks from slicing open women and wallowing in the warm blood and viscera.
You say that Barnett mutilated these women "to create fear".But what about all the other details like the taking away of various organs or the querky act of arranging Chapmans belongings?More to the point why would Barnett go to the trouble of mutilating Kelly so exstensively and then arrange her organs in a pretty patern around the bed?She was dead!!! Who's he trying to frighten?
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 05:01 pm | |
| There were EIGHT murders in White-Chapel. Ask Chris to share his knowledge with you. |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 05:15 pm | |
| Solution: An actor...A GREAT ACTOR! |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 05:16 pm | |
Davidoz,
A happy new year to you sir.
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 06:10 pm | |
| Mr. George, will you share your knowledge with us? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 06:25 pm | |
Mick,
I think IF Barnett was the Ripper, a reasonably sane man---but not completely so, then I think that you are thinking exactly how the Ripper wanted people to think,-- that a raving homicidal madman was creeping around the backstreets looking for victims to butcher and anyone would do, anyone could be the next victim. I don't believe it was that way, up to a point he chose his victims--all known to Kelly, all hasbeen prostitutes, except Kelly, and all from the same tight area. He wasn't trying to frighten anyone with his arranging of Kelly's body parts on the bed, he had killed her as Barnett, but he was making sure that only the Ripper could be blamed for it. As for Barnett getting rid of his urge to kill, it could be said, if Barnett was the Ripper, then these killings would never have happened if he had never met up with Kelly.
Regards Rick and a Happy New Year, Mick |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 06:25 pm | |
A timely intervention Joseph. But I suspect Mr George may keep the 'Orion Thesis' up his cyber-sleeve for the moment. Indeed, the rest of the gang have known for ten years a great deal more than they have so far admitted knowing. They think the very idea is too terrifying to discuss.
You still have to find Khufu's Horizon!
An interesting New Year to you all. |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 06:35 pm | |
Rick,
Think photo-graphically! What are you doing and from what angle will you and your viewers, i.e., the world voyeurs, like you, have the essential image lodged in your noggins? Precognition? |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 06:47 pm | |
Davioz,
I know that this is new year but take more water with it mate.
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 08:06 pm | |
| Nothing here is hurried, indeed, everything is arranged, ordered, choreographed, posed, (stage-managed by a master of the visual arts, you might say); the sequence of its execution requires impeccable timing...the stage is set!Curtains! Lights! A hush settles over the audience. They are transported to another space and time. They see only that 'space'and that 'time' from afar...AFAR! |
Author: Davidoz
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 08:14 pm | |
| Joseph Barnett ceased to exist the same moment the Coroner's Court concluded its hopeless business. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 11:12 pm | |
Hello Davidoz:
Unfortunately I fear we are going to be plagued with your nonsense in the New Year as well, am I right? As for the Orion Thesis, as was Mr. Radka, I was leery of such a large file from an unknown correspondent, and deleted it unread. I am reliably told by my colleagues in Casebook Productions, Inc., who did open it that it did not make sense and did not relate to the facts of the case. At the moment, all I hear from you is a smug kind of patter that bears no relationship to the case under study. If you start to speak sensibly about the case, you will merit some reasonable responses. However, if you continue to speak gibberish you will get nowhere and you will only continue to amuse and (worse) annoy those who want to hold serious discussions on the case. I would ask you to act responsibly, if you can, and leave this board to those who want to hold serious discussions of the Whitechapel murders.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 11:34 pm | |
Hello Davidoz,
Khufu was the builder of the great Pyramid, and she who's name is on the lintel, etc, etc, may be a reference to Isis; ergo, Khufu's Horizon would be in Northern Egypt somewhere. He will be wearing many colors. How does that fit in? Are you trying to say that Jack was a colorblind Egyptian bricklayer from Brighten? Your clues seem a little too unconnected to me. I can't assemble a logical train of thought out of the answers you have given me. One of the problems is: I don't know the question they are related to.
I enjoy a good mystery/puzzle as well as anyone here, but I'm not privileged to the workings of your mind David, if you would like me, or anyone else for that matter, to offer an educated guess on your puzzle, you're going to have to, at least, state the question to be answered, otherwise Mr. Parminter's original diagnosis of piffle is looking more and more accurate.
Best Regards |
Author: Davidoz
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 06:38 am | |
If thine eye offend thee Christopher, pluck it out!
Since you did not read the ORION THESIS...how can you dismiss it? It appears you have no METHOD. It is not unlike...stabbing in the dark? |
Author: Davidoz
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 06:53 am | |
Joseph,
My good and faithful servant. "Isis" a good guess. But what is CARVED upon the lintel? Never have I come across such ignorance in so many individuals.
You all claim knowledge of essential forensic techniques: deductive and inductive logics...as modes of reasoning...When have you ever demonstrated them USEFULLY. But it has been so since 1887.
And the few pieces of evidence in the A-Z were supplied by me...long ago. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 07:16 am | |
Hello Joseph,
My humble apologies to you. I mistook your repartee with Davidoz as being serious,ie Tweedle dum and Tweedle dee. I'm not surprised you might feel indignant, I wasn't actualy being nasty -- half humorous. I didn't know I could insult so nicely.
Regards, Rick, or Mr Parminter, whichever. Rick is better |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 02:25 pm | |
I'm worried that we are seemingly discussing the Orion mystery on the Jack the Ripper boards ; this theory really does not hold up under scrutiny I am afraid to say. It was comprehensively debunked on the BBC Horizon programme and also in the book " The Stargate Conspiracy " by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince which is now out in paperback.
For those who don't know , author Graham Hancock is postulating that various ancient societies ( Mexico , Egypt , Cambodia etc ) had astrological knowledge given to them by survivors of Atlantis which sank c.10,500 BC and planned ancient monuments( eg the Great Pyramid of Khufu , the Sphinx , Angkor Wat , Macapichu etc )on patterns suggested by the position of the stars in the heavens at the date of 10,500 BC. A nice theory. It is however based on faulty reasoning and selective use of evidence as has been shown by the BBC program which Hancock objected so loudly to. Indeed the Horizon program managed to ' show ' that Manhattan Island was planned according to the constellation of Leo in 10,500 BC with places such as Times Square , Libertys and a police station being in the appropriate locations !!! It is this theory that I am worried DavidOz is referring to , when speaking of Khufu's horizon and the mysterious lintel.
I can only echo Mr George's sentiments in this matter , and request that DavidOz if he/she/it has a theory on the Ripper case to state it plainly and clearly here so that we may debate it , rather than talking in riddles that go nowhere ! And this coming from me too , as fond of conspiracy theories and the Unexplained as I am !!! |
Author: Jon
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 03:46 pm | |
| I'd recognize that Radkavarian outlook anywhere.....doppleganger? |
