Archive through July 17, 2001

** 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 July 17, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through July 17, 2001

Author: sean patrick day Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 02:00 pm
Good evening everybody. Firstly may I take this occasion to thank both Graziano and Christopher T. George for their kind help towards my finding a site plan of Miller's Court. Many thanks Gentlemen. If I may add a thought towards the murder committed in 13 Miller's Court, has it never struck anybody strange that Jack would spend so much time with Kelly's body? Miller's Court was a cul-de-sac, the only way in and out was through the passage leading to Dorset Street. If, as has been sugested, Jack stripped off to 1: Put Kelly at ease and climb into bed with her (The cut sheets by Kelly's head would suggest that the killer pulled them over her head before using his knife through the sheets). And 2: To avoid the gore that must have covered at least his hands and arms. The point I am trying to make is how did Jack know he would not be disturbed by anyone? He must have spent over two hours cutting her to pieces, by all acounts taking his time, with little or no fear of anyone (Barrett for example) walking in the door! There must have been some sign that Kelly did not live there alone (some mens clothes that Barrett could have left). This might suggest that the Ripper KNEW that Barrett would not be returning that night, and if he knew that then he must have known either Kelly or Barrett socially.
Author: Jesse Flowers Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 02:25 pm
Hello all- Christopher, regarding the missing key, Inspector Abberline's inquest testimony makes it clear that this had been missing for some time before the murder.
Author: graziano Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 02:53 pm
Hello all Chrisses, I really made the confusion and I thought that it was Chris T George and not Chris George R. Sorry. But that do not change anything. I think you got it right CG Ray, with Mary Kelly "he took is time" because he was inside and for one reason or another he probably didn t fear to get caught. With Tabram (if you think as I do that she was also one of his/their victim) he/they could just have wanted to stop there, with Nicholls and Stride probably he/they did not have the time to finish and as far as Chapman and Eddowes are concerned they were butchered far enough in not such a long time to think that maybe he/they did not need so long as it is believed to do what he/they did to Kelly (what I mean is that there was a certain dexterity shown with a knife). I think what is important here (but take in consideration that I am not an expert of the case) speaking about the modus operandi is that some of the victims were not drawn, nor hanged, nor downgunned or suffocated with a pillow but they were all cut with a contundent weapon with a lot of brutality aside to all the other common points that have already been discussed in long and in large on these boards. The only difference concerning how far they have been cut coming probably from the will of the killer(s) and the time he/they had to his/their disposal. That s my opinion. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Christopher George Ray Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 03:09 pm
Sorry I didn't know there were so many Chrises - My name is Christopher George Ray from England and I am indeed a newcomer to this site. My background lies in Modern International History, but I have always had an interest in Ripperology. (Is that the right term?)Anyway, what I am suggesting is that the extent of the butchery inflicted on Mary Kelly might be a method of hiding a lack of skill. I believe that, at the the time, it was generally thought that Jack was skilled and could have been either a doctor of, perhaps, a butcher with some anatomical knowledge. If the killer was not Jack, then perhaps he went to such extremes to hide his lack of expertise. As far as the key being missing for some time before the murder - exactly! And who had it last? - By the way, are there any other sites like this one that discuss other subjectsnof historical interest?
Author: graziano Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 04:55 pm
Hello Sean, 1. Are we sure that it took a long time to do what he/they did to Mary Kelly ? It was a real butchery and it do not seems to me that it was made in a very orderly way (for the cuts, I mean it looks like he/they cut everything he/they could). 2. To avoid the gore that must have covered his/their hands and arms the sheets of the bed could have sufficed once the job terminated. For the rest it seems that he/they knew how to avoid the splitting of the blood (the bulk of it was on the other side of the bed). 3. How do we know that he/they knew or did not fear that nobody would come to disturb ? From recollection I remember that some persons were seen just outside Miller s court at the (presumed) time of the butchery. One man standing just on the opposite side of Dorset street (Hutchinson?). A couple passing by. Ready to raise the alarm in case of necessity ? That in any case could suggest that they knew Joseph Barnett or other acquaintancies of Mary Kelly, and in fact it is very probable that they did, but it is in no case an evidence that Jack(s) knew Barnett or Kelly "socially". It just could mean that Jack(s) did not took his/their victims at random but that he/they planified their killings. Of course this is only an opinion. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Christopher George Radka Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 09:24 pm
Hmmmmmm.....
Author: Jesse Flowers Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 11:40 pm
I think you make a good point, Graziano. I see no reason to believe that the Kelly murder took an inordinately long time to execute. After all, look at the injuries that were inflicted on Kate Eddowes, in a space of time that could not have exceeded five or at the most ten minutes. In short, I don't see any reason to suppose that the extensive mutilations visited upon MJK constituted a departure from the murderer's modus operandi. Rather it would seem that the relative security of an indoor location allowed him to carry his sick fantasy to its logical (or illogical, if you will) extreme. Just my opinion Jesse
Author: Christopher George Ray Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 08:08 am
Interesting point about the gore Graziano. Have you considered that the killer may have been naked? There were similar objections in the case of Lizzie Borden - Victorian society (on both sides of the pond) could not accept the idea of a naked killer. However, in the case of Mary Kelly, would this not be a logical conclusion considering the nature of her occupation? That might also account for those people out in the street who did not raise any alarm - they might well have known better than to disturb her while she was "working". As to the time it took - this is not the source of my objection. What I am suggesting is that it was a deliberate attempt to put the blame on Jack while disguising any lack of skill. Jesse - I take your point that it does not necessarily mean a different modus operandi - but it might and that places both the killings and the Maybrick diary in a very different light.
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 08:39 am
G'day everyone, JESSIE: Regarding the missing key and Inspector Abberline's testimony...Abberline said: "Barnett informs me that it (the key), has been missing for some time". The key disappeared the night that Mary and Joe had their heated argument on the 30th of October, ten days before her murder! This has to be so because that night the window was smashed, leaving it possible to open the door by reaching through the window. If it went missing before, how would she have gotten in? GRAZIANO: I have Bruce Paley's book right here in front of me! I too, fail every time I try to post an image here, but I can email it to your address. Why did the murderer have no fear of being caught red-handed by a returning Joseph Barnett? Because the murderer WAS Joseph Barnett (who could have taken the key with him, when he moved out!) He covered her face with the sheet, before the deadly cut, so he couldn't see who he was killing! The other victims didn't need to have their faces covered and he had no sheets to 'avoid the gore' spilling or splashing on him! Leanne!
Author: Christopher George Ray Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 10:07 am
Hello Chris Ray here. Oops! I've just read the "Hello, I'm new here..." section and see that I might have gaffed. I had no idea that you had had so much trouble in the past with bogus posters bent only on causing trouble. If you go to the section mentioned above I've posted a potted biography. If you still have further doubts I can give you references for my published articles. Failing that I can only say that my postings will, I hope, convince you all that I am genuine and not a hacker or whatever. As to my last message - I am serious about the killer being naked. It is believed that is how Lizzie Borden could have killed her parents with an axe and yet leave no traces of blood on her clothes. That such a scenario was never considered at the time gives some idea of how narrow-minded Victorian people could be.
Author: Jon Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 10:20 am
Chris G. Ray Have you considered that Kelly was murdered in early November, the room was undoubtably cold with two or possibly three broken pane's of glass and the room itself had a floor of stone flags. Previously it had been part of the backyard of No.26. I am not discounting the fire in the room for warmth, but I seriously doubt it would have offered much to alleviate the cold of the room. The fire was not apparently made up of coal & logs for heat, but had been made up of quick combustables like clothing. This offers nothing in the way of heat. Outside it was only about 39 deg. F, I seriously doubt any killer would strip off naked, especially as they didnt need to. Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher George Ray Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 10:55 am
Jon Interesting but somewhat puzzling too. Was not Mary Kelly a prostitiute? Surely a naked man in her room would not be unusual in her line of work. I take your point that it was November and probably cold outside, but I think that any killer determined enough to do what he did to Kelly would probably put up with the discomfort. I should think that, for a normal human being, dismembering someone else would prove uncomfortable in itself. It's not easy to discount the amount of blood that would have resulted and parts of her body were literally strewn across the room. No amount of hiding behind bedsheets, I think, would have protected him from blood spattering. Then he would have had to make his way home through a city where everyone was looking for him without arousing suspicion. However, if he had removed his clothes, all he would have had to do was wash. There's a thought were there washing facilities in Kelly's room?
Author: Jesse Flowers Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 11:31 am
CG Ray- If I understand correctly, your hypothesis seems to presume that Kelly's murderer would have been drenched in blood. This is not necessarily so. Dr. Bond's report says that one corner of the sheet was bloody, that there was a small pool under the bed and some spatters on the wall. He further states that probably only the killer's hands and arms (for the most part) would be bloodied. It is true that the butchery of a live person in such a manner would spill a large amount of blood, but evidence suggests that the Ripper's standard technique was to manually strangle his victims, slash the throat, and then inflict the mutilations postmortem. He further reduced his chances of being bloodied by cutting from the right side, away from the carotid artery. Because of the position of the bed he probably had to cut from the left side in this instance, which would explain the sheet being cut through-it was used to stanch the flow of blood from the severed artery. Finally, a certain amount of bloodstaining would not necessarily mark a person for suspicion. There were a large number of abbatoirs in the area, and the sight of bloodstained slaughtermen was probably not an uncommon one. By the way, where was Lizzie Borden that night? :-) Jesse
Author: Christopher George Ray Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 12:04 pm
Jesse - That covers the problem of blood spatters. However, though once a person is dead they do not bleed, blood is still a liquid and will seep. Admitedly the pressure exerted by a beating heart is absent, but, considering the extent to which the body was cut, I can't believe that there would not have been large amounts of blood. The whole lower part of the body was defleshed, if the photos are anything to go by, and there are many major arteries in this area. Surely not arousing suspicion would be dependent on looking like a slaughterman. If the killer was well dressed, wouldn't he stick out like a sore thumb? As a matter of interest, what do modern psychologists make of all this? I understand that serial killer fit certain profiles - what profile would fit Jack the best?
Author: sean patrick day Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 12:31 pm
Whereas it is true that we will, in all probability, never know the exact details of what occurred within that shabby little room Kelly called her home on the night she was murdered, I still believe there is a case for assuming that her killer spent an inordinately long time with her, both before and after she was murdered, with little or no concern for the danger the cramped conditions would have left him in should someone come calling at Kelly�s room. Let us examine the evidence of witness�s who were abroad in Dorset St/Miller�s Court that evening. Mary Ann Cox of number 5 Miller�s Court testified that she saw a very drunken Kelly enter Miller�s Court at about 11.45 in the company of a man carrying a quart can of beer. Kelly informs her that she is going to sing �Only a violet I plucked from my Mother�s grave�. Cox goes out about 12.00 leaving Kelly singing and returns an hour later to find Kelly still in good voice, and a light burning in number 13. Cox goes out again within minutes and when she returns at about 3.00 she notes that � There was no light in her (Kelly�s) room then and all was quiet.� At 12.30 Catherine Picket is so angered by Kelly�s loud singing she is going to visit number 13 to complain, but her husband stops her. At 2.00 George Hutchinson is accosted in Commercial Street by Kelly who asks if he can lend her sixpence. Hutchinson claims poverty and Kelly moves away to be stopped by another man a short distance away. They make their way to Miller�s Court (after Hutchinson has made his presence very obvious to the man by stooping to look him straight in the face!) where they stop at the entrance to talk loudly and for the man to give Kelly a handkerchief. They then disappear and Hutchinson waits in the doorway across from the Court because he feels something is not right. He remains there for upwards of 45 - 60 minutes before boredom or fatigue prompts him onwards. At 2.30 Sarah Lewis, who was staying with friends at number 2 Miller�s Court, returns and notices a man standing in Dorset Street watching the entrance to the Court, this must be Hutchinson! Lewis also notices that nearby is another man and a �drunken� woman. At 3.30 � 4.00 both Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater hear a faint cry of �murder�. At 5.30 Mrs Prater was downstairs in the courtyard but saw no one except two Carmen harnessing their horses in Dorset Street. At 6.15 Mary Ann Cox wakes and hears heavy footsteps leaving the Court. She believes they are a policeman�s because she hears no door being shut. As can be seen, far from being a safe and secluded spot where the killer can relax and have no fears of interruption, Miller�s Court was a busy place with people coming and going all through the night. How was the killer, inclosed with his victim by now possibly lying dead and bloody, know each time footsteps came echoing down the passageway that they weren�t heading for number 13? That at any moment a hand could have reached through the broken window, pulled aside the covering and looked the killer in the eyes! If, as I believe, the killer was naked, or at least in his undergarments, by the time he would have had recovered from the shock of somebody looking through the window, grabbed his clothes and made for the door, the witness would be in Dorset Street screaming for all they were worth. The killer would not have made it out of Miller�s Court before being surrounded by an angry populace and patrolling police force. We can, I think, dismiss the man Mrs Cox saw with Kelly at 12.00 as being the killer. Although the only person to have claimed to have seen Kelly after this time is Hutchinson, I believe he is telling the truth about meeting her in Commercial Street and her being accosted by another man. Why would he lie? In telling the police this information he is putting himself in a very dangerous position. He is admitting to being (if the man he claims he saw does not exist) the last person to see Kelly alive. He is admitting that he loiters about Dorset Street for no legitimate reason in the vicinity of the murder, and lastly that he has no alibi for the rest of the night or very little recollection of where he spent it. Sarah Lewis supports Hutchinsons statement, if it was he she observes in the doorway of Crossingham�s Lodging House at about 2.30 waiting for not even Hutchinson knows what. If the man Hutchinson saw was the killer he would have had to be blind to have failed to notice the interest Hutchinson takes in him. At Miller�s Court the Ripper loiters for a moment by the entrance to the Court talking to Kelly but also checking to see in Hutchinson has followed. He finds that Hutchinson has trailed them to Miller�s Court and both he (the killer) and Kelly vanish into the darkness of the passageway. Looking out into the Street from the darkness the Ripper would be able to see Hutchinson take his stand in the doorway opposite. At 2.30 when Sarah Lewis returns she not only observes Hutchinson but also another man and woman (my italics). Could this have been the Ripper and Kelly seeing if Hutchinson was still at his post? And finding that he was, returned to Kelly�s room to wait him out? This would seem to be the likely course of events otherwise why would the killer wait until 3.30 � 4.00 to finally strike against Kelly? This would mean the the Ripper spent upwards of one and a half to two hours in number 13 with Kelly before launching the murderous attack as testified by the cry of murder heard both by Lewis and Prater. Following this he then spends another two and a half to three hours dissecting the body. The Doctors testified that the mutilations would have taken upwards of two hours to perform. This would make the footsteps heard leaving the Court at 6.15 or thereabouts by Mary Ann Cox as belonging to the Ripper. I would suggest the following possible scenario following the killer and victim entering Miller�s Court: Knowing that a strange man was watching the Court the Ripper displayed an almost contemptuous disregard for his safety. This man could have been his victim�s pimp waiting to burst into the room and demand money. Also he could have been a plainclothes policeman waiting for reinforcements before knocking at the door and asking questions that the Ripper would have been pressed to answer. He had two choices. 1. He makes his excuses and leaves to find another victim. Or 2. He waits until he feels that he is unlikely to be interrupted. As he chose the second he must have felt very sure that he was secure. It seems strange that Kelly was prepared to spend so much time with someone before retiring to bed for the offering of her favours. Yet if it was Kelly with the Ripper watching Hutchinson at 2.30 then that is what she has done. Although we have no witness�s it would seem probable that the Ripper would have looked out again to ascertain if Hutchinson had left and gone on his way. Once the Ripper felt that he had indeed gone (and more importantly) that he was not returning, then he would have struck. If the killer had looked out at 3.00, one half hour after Lewis may have saw him, and observed that Hutchinson was gone, he could have been canny enough to wait another 25 � 30 minutes to make quite sure his watcher had quit. This would place the time at 3.25 � 3.30. Finally undressing, climbing onto the bed next to Kelly (who at that time would have probably been sleeping if she was as drunk as witness�s say she was), pulling the sheets over her head and slashing out with the knife. As Kelly starts to rouse from sleep, still unsure of what is happening she manages to cry out �murder� softly as she struggles in the darkness with the knife slashing wildly about her throat, cuting her hands as she tries to protect herself. As she struggled the blood would have been spraying in all directions. The heart beating wildly would have made the escaping blood spray with even more pressure and must have covered the Killer and whatever clothing he wore. Once Kelly was dead he might have waited in the dark, listening for any sounds of movement from upstairs or outside before lighting the fire for warmth and illumination to perform the mutilations. Once finished he would have dressed, covering whatever bloodstains were on him, and left the room.
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 01:11 pm
Jon, you surprise me quite a bit, and it's interesting to hear you say the floor of Kelly's room was stone flagged. I took it for granted that the floor was boarded. I'm not trying to put you on a spot, but where did you read that please. Leann, I've been of the opinion that around 03:45-04:00 Nov 9th, Kelly woke realising someone was in the room with her. She had Jack the Ripper very much on her mind, she called out quietly, "Joe, is that you Joe?",-- now, suppose Joe Barnet, because thats who I'm saying it was!, answered quietly"no its Jack". Mary would have screamed "oh murder" and taken a dive under the bedclothes, and held on tight to the bedclothes over her head. JtR unable to unclench her hands, found her face, pushed it back against the pillow and cut her throat through the sheet, also cutting hands and arms as he did so. Harry, you have the shift movements of a coalmine close by a village well taped, thats exactly the way it was. I remember my mother taking me to visit my dad, he worked in the power house, and sometimes we would meet the morning shift coming up the road,--all those black men, and you couldn't recognise anyone with all that pit black on their faces. Take the same road at any other time and it would be quiet and deserted. Harry, I think it was me who said what did posters think JtR would have done if he had been surprised with both hands in the till so to speak. There was talk at the time of equiping constables with rubber soled boots so that they could take the Ripper and any other wrong doer by surprise. Now, I think that was a very good idea, but call me a coward if you like, that would have been the last thing I would have wanted if I had been a constable in 1888, as far as catching JtR went. Finding Eddowes body disturbed P.c.Watkins mind for quite a long while afterwards. BUT if he had arrived quietly and surprised JtR in the process he could possibly have lost his life!! Regards Rick. P.S. does anyone have any information as to why Dr Thomas Bond committed suicide by taking a fall from an upper floor window. I've wondered if his mind was affected by his work, JtR murders in particular.
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 01:39 pm
Chris, Actually, there was one early Victorian Murder (and a big one) where the killer was believed to have been naked. In 1840, Francois Benjamin Courvoisier murdered his employer, Lord William Russell, in Russell's home at 14 Norfolk Street (now Dunraven Street) near Park Lane (location discribed in Martin Fido's MURDER GUIDE TO LONDON). Courvoisier was the butler to Lord William, and was caught stealing from him, so he was going to be sacked without a letter of reference. As there was no apparent blood on his clothing, it was surmised that he had gone into his employer's bedroom naked, and cut his Lordship's throat. In fact, a person living across the street who awoke during the night reputedly looked at the windows of the Russell abode and saw (through the curtains or blinds) the dimly lit figure of a naked man descending a staircase - I have to admit I question that particular story. As far as I know, no other Victorian English Case has a naked murderer. Jeff
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 01:44 pm
Sean, congratulations, you wrote a very interesting post, not my theory, but very interesting, you put a lot of thought into that, thank you. Regards Rick.
Author: Jesse Flowers Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 03:07 pm
Rick- In the A to Z the authors relate that Bond committed suicide "after a long period of insomnia and depression followed by a painful illness." Hope this helps Jesse
Author: Jesse Flowers Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 05:26 pm
CG Ray- In response to your question about the Ripper's psychological profile, I have a copy of the profile done by the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI. I could forward it to you if you would like. Jesse
Author: Jon Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 06:22 pm
Rick The main floor was made of wood in most terrace houses of that period, this signifies that there was a room underneath, basically a cellar, typically known as a coal cellar. We can see grate's outside on the footpath against the wall of the houses where coal was poured into these cellars. We have no problem in accepting a wooden floor on the main floor level. But am I correct in assuming that room No.13 was built as a later addition attached to the back of No.26 Dorset St.?. If we are correct in accepting No.13 as an extension then we might wonder why an owner would excavate a room underneath the extension, and yet not install plumbing in the room. This would be a costly excercise and unless it was to be rented out then where would he retrieve his income for this expence. I see no mention of an access door to this possible room and no coal grate anwhere visible. There does appear to be a square box shaped object in front of the two windows at the back of No.13, but whether it is a coal grate or simply sewer access we cannot determine. I think if the floor was wood then this implies a room underneath, and as we have not been informed of the location of a door and steps to such a room then we might be left wondering if such a room existed. And if it didnt then we are left with the possibility that the floor to No.13 was either stone or cement. Please correct me if my assumption is wrong, but I have explained my reasoning based on what I know. Having said all that, I am aware that Sugden (pg. 314) refer's to 'floorboards' in the room, but it is easy to see from the context he is also only assuming this to be the case. By all means correct my assumption, but if it turns out that someone mentions wooden floors I would be interested in the location of the access door to the room below. regards, Jon
Author: Arfa Kidney Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 09:02 pm
Hello Jon, Kelly's Room ,No.13 was not an extension.Infact it was made into a separate room by partitioning off, the back parlour of No.26 and the floor was of course wooden. Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: Jon Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 10:33 pm
Yes, thankyou Mike. Back parlour it certainly was, at one time, but I am interested in why you say "(floor), was of course wooden", when we are not sure if there was a room beneath. I think my use of the word 'extension' is creating a misunderstanding. I was meaning 'not part of the original floor plan for the terrace houses'. Just a suggestion, and quite possibly wrong, but I meant the parlor may have been added at a later date. Sorry if this is confusing you all but I am reminded of the terrace houses I lived in as a child with parlor type rooms built off the back and all the houses had cellars underneath the main house plan but not under the extension. Just to confuse the issue even further, my first house I bought was an 19th century weavers cottage and the floors on the main level were all paving stones, yet underneath there was a coal cellar, the beams on the ceiling of which were huge, really huge. Regards, Jon
Author: The Viper Monday, 16 July 2001 - 04:16 am
Jon, From the discussion above it is obvious that you are aware of the comments of Sugden and Rumbelow concerning Kelly's room; namely that it was the former 'back parlour' cut off from the rest of the house. It's a pity neither of them gives a source for the statement. There is also what appears to be a door behind MJK's bed in the famous photograph. The conclusion we must draw is that Kelly's room once formed part of the house and was not added purely as self-contained accomodation for lodgers. For all that, you still seem to be suggesting that it was an extension to the original house. If you are right I would contend that it must have been an old addition. However, for my money it was a part of the original building. That view is based on the brickwork, the design of the larger window and the fact that the surviving eighteenth century houses in Spitalfields have multiple downstairs rooms. I can't remember what the ground floors were made of in these buildings. For anybody wishing to comment further, take a look at the photographs in Rumbelow (between pages 116 and 117 of the 1987 hardback edition) and the plan on page 312 of Sudgen (paperback edition). Regards, V.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 16 July 2001 - 05:56 am
Hi All, For those who think the killer of Mary Kelly was not Jack, but was making her murder look like his work - to the point of upstaging - what do you make of this second man's psychopathology? How was he able to step into the role so briefly and so brutally, to rid himself of Mary, then resume a 'normal' existence - unless he was an utterly cold and calculating individual, of the no heart and no soul and no remorse variety - ie another classic type of psychopath? How likely is it that there were two such deeply disturbed personalities at work on prostitutes, during that short period of time, and in that tiny area? Love, Caz
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 16 July 2001 - 07:19 am
But Caz, thats just what I have been saying Joseph Barnett was like!. But most of you won't entertain the idea. You say you can't believe there were two killers who were capable of killing in such a way. There wasn't two, there was only one,- Barnett!!, and when Mary Kelly was killed,-- it was a case of JtR pretending to be JtR. I'm joking,-- it was Barnett/JtR, making sure Kelly's death could not be attributed to anyone else. It couldn't be thought of as a crime of passion, to Barnett's reasoning, he had to take his killing of Mary further, he had to make it look like Jack the Ripper got her, which wouldn't have been so difficult for Barnett. Regards, Rick.
Author: Harry Mann Monday, 16 July 2001 - 07:23 am
A question that someone may be able to answer. When was the first time that the description Prostitute was used to describe Kelly and the other victims.Unfortunates was the description most often used in those days.Trollop(disreputable or slatternly woman),or Slut,was the common term for such women in my younger days.They were not,as far as I understand,common prostitutes whose sole aim was the exchange of money for the services they provided.Rather they were noted for their liking and consumption of alcohol and the abusive and quarrelsome attitude that it induced. H.Mann.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 16 July 2001 - 08:06 am
G'day folks, C.G.R: There were no washing facilities within Kelly's room! There was a water tap outside. The 'Standard' newspaper, on the 10th November reported that her bed: 'was placed next to a disused washstand in the corner behind the door'. SEAN: It was Elizabeth Prater who returned to her room at 1:30 a.m., and noticed: 'no light or sound coming from Kelly's room'. WARWICK: I don't believe the 4a.m. cry of "MURDER" was Kelly's last word. I believe it could have been a cry of startlement at seeing a hand and arm reach through her broken window to unlatch the door. Then perhaps Joe said: "It's OK love, It's just me!" Remember there was only one faint cry. Mary wouldn't have just hid under her sheet to protect herself from a knife, she would have at least started to get up, cringing! I reckon he undressed, put his clothes next to hers, waited till she was asleep or drowsy, placed the sheet over her face so he couldn't see who he was killing and in case she suddenly woke and made a sound, then slit her throat! JON: I found out after reading Paley's book: Room 13 (Kelly's) was just 12 feet square, having been 'partitioned off from number 26 Dorset Street, a shed owned by the landlord John McCarthy, and often used as a nightly refuge by homeless women'. It had it's own entrance (which I'd say was made after it was partitioned). I don't think anyone would build a cellar under a shed or add one later to a 12x12 room that was partitioned off to make a lodging room for someone. About the 'square box shape': There was a 'water tap' opposite the 2 windows to Kelly's room, so I'd say that the square box was used as a basin. EVERYONE: Mary's killer wasn't worried about being caught in her room, because he belonged there, or thought he still did! Leanne!
Author: Arfa Kidney Monday, 16 July 2001 - 08:16 am
Hello Jon, In your last post,you made it clear that you already knew that room 13 used to be the back parlour of No.26 and that you definition of the term "extension" was different than mine. I am simply saying that rather than an additional structure being built on to the back of No.26, Kelly's room was the old back parlour of No.26. It is clear to me from what I have read that the ground floor of No.26 was divided into two and that the front half("The shed") was used for storage. I don't understand were the notion that No.13 could have been an addition to the original stucture,comes from. Also Jon,you made the point that kelly's floor could have been flagstones, based on your assumption that an additional structure had been built over the back yard. Admittedly I too,was only assuming,that Kelly's floor was made of the bog standard back parlour wooden floor,but based on the information that the ground floor was divided into two sections and therefore,the original floor was retained. Viper, the doorlike partition behind Kelly's bed is,I think,just two sheets of thinish wood,but panelled to give them rigidity. Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: sean patrick day Monday, 16 July 2001 - 08:39 am
About the comings and goings in and around Miller's Court on the night of the murder. Mary Ann Cox claims that when she returned to Miller's Court at 1.00 a.m Kelly's light was on and she was singing. When Cox left a few minutes later Kelly was still being vocal. This would place the time at between 1.00 and 1.10 a.m. Yet Elizabeth Prater claims to have been standing just outside the entrance to the Court. She tells the inquest jury that: "From 1 a.m. to 1.30 a.m. no one passed up the Court. If they had I should have seen them." If this is the case how could Mary Ann Cox have passed by Prater without Prater's noticing her? This could be a case of 'the invisible man' syndrone. Basicly, if Prater had known Cox very well and was used to seeing her at all times of the day and night, the sudden appearance of Cox would not have registered as strange to Prater, unlike someone who would be a stranger to her. It is possible, therefore, that when Prater said no one had passed her she was meaning someone who would not be familier to her, and not someone who she may have thought had reasons to be there.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 16 July 2001 - 09:35 am
Hi Rick, Yes, I know what your theory is. I was addressing those who think Mary was not a ripper victim. Love, Caz
Author: graziano Monday, 16 July 2001 - 10:33 am
Hello everybody, Sean Patrick Day: "How did Jack know that he would not be disturbed ?" same Sean: "the killer had little or no fear that someone could walk the door" Leanne Perry: "Joseph Barnett had no fear to be caught by Joseph Barnett because he was Joseph Barnett" Chris George Ray seem to be hinting the same thing. But why should that be? Why would the killer not have feared the coming of someone ? Why Joseph Barnett would not have feared the coming of someone ? Has he not gone away because there were women coming to sleep in this same room at all hours ? Then we know that there were other men who were fond of MJ Kelly. They could have rendered her a visit. Who of us (I speak to the men on these boards) has never wanted one night, all of a sudden, to render visit to a woman that he wanted at this very moment and gone and visited her (overall if he knew that she was living alone). How could Joseph Barnett having been sure that a lover (Paley s theory is that he was sick jealous) could not have done that? Add to this the very realistic comment on the psychology side by Caroline (Caz). That the murder of Mary Kelly was a copycat killing acted by a jealous lover was certainly regarded as a possibility by the police of the time since moreover the claypipe of Barnett was found on the mantelpiece of the room at the moment of the discovery of the body (and he himself told to the police that it was his own). I think they came already to the conclusion that it was not. That Barnett was not only a copycat killer but was Jack I leave it to the very fascinating book of Bruce Paley, fascinating, very instructive and interesting but for what is the bringing of conclusive evidences.... To my eyes the only thing that could have rendered Jack(s) a bit more intrepid that night in butchering MJ Kelly is that he/they knew that if someone was approaching Miller s court, someone who could have rendered a visit to the 13 , there was someone else ready to raise the alarm. CG Ray that is what I hinted about the man standing on the opposite side of the street (Hutchinson?) or the couple seen by Sarah Cox, that they could have raised the alarm to get the attention of Jack(s), and so to protect him/them and his/their deeds. For the time it took. Yes the doctor said it would have taken him a long time to perform the butchery on the body of MJ Kelly. Because he thought like a doctor. The killer did his performance like a butchering killer. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Christopher George Ray Monday, 16 July 2001 - 03:17 pm
Jesse Thank you I would love to read it. Can you download to my e-mail address? Caroline I agree that the odds against two psychopaths being in one place at any time is remote. However, anyone disturbed enough to wany to kill prostitutes would go where they were. Considering the amount of publicity given to the Ripper killings, I would not be surprised if the area wasn't absolutely heaving with such people and acted as a magnet for them.
Author: graziano Monday, 16 July 2001 - 03:31 pm
Hello Sean, from recollection Elisabeth Prater stood at the entrance of Miller's court between 1.00 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. but during this period she went also into Mc Carthy shop thus making it possible for Mary Ann Cox to pass without seeing her. If I remember well she aknowledged so at the inquest. One mistery solved. Bye. Graziano.
Author: E Carter Monday, 16 July 2001 - 04:57 pm
Examine the sheets between Marys legs, take your time to examine them properly, don't rush. The evidence of conspiracy is there. This is nothing to do with my earlier posts. She was lifted by two people ED.
Author: Arfa Kidney Monday, 16 July 2001 - 05:53 pm
Hello Ed, Can you elaborate for us please. Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: Jon Monday, 16 July 2001 - 07:23 pm
Thanks Viper. I really didn't expect to start a subject that would go off on a tangent The crux of the matter can be easily summed up by saying; if there was a room under the parlor then the floor was of wood, if not, then it was of stone. Leanne I think, by your quote, that your reasoning is also that the floor was of stone?. Mike I would just like to say that I have always assumed that the ground floor plan of No.26 Dorset St. was divided in two, front room & back room. If you see Sugdens sketch (pg.312) you see he makes the house almost the same depth as McCarthy's, which has a front room (shop) and back room (back shop). Across the passage the parlor (No.13) is apparently much deeper, like it is an add-on. Therefore, as I see it, No.26 may have had three downstairs rooms. Now, how on earth can this be checked out?. Its also quite possible that the two front rooms were knocked into one at some time, as represented in Sugden. Typically the plumbing in many old houses was at the back. Yet the parlor (No.13) had no plumbing. The house, No.26, must have had plumbing, the yard directly behind the parlor had plumbing so why not this parlor?. If we compare the dwg's of the Dorset St. side of the house we see three stories, yet looking at the back of the house from Millers court, we see only two stories. This parlor was an extension from the existing house but only two levels high, it may be a very old extension, it may be an original extension, but an extension nevertheless. Now, were all the houses in Dorset St. built with a two level extension at the back?, I don't have a Goads plan of Dorset St. but I would be interested if the ground plans were all the same depth. Sorry to have started this. Regards, Jon
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 16 July 2001 - 09:40 pm
G'day, Mary Kelly was quickly tiring of Joseph Barnett's 'haunting'. She was seeing and, (according to her good friend Julia Venturney), preferred Joseph Flemming, but Barnett continued to visit Mary every day. He would have been 'educated' about her daily habits and the risk of people popping in. It is my opinion that what happened to Kelly wasn't as planned and thought out as much as the other murders. Joe just lost his cool! He could have returned that night to pick up his clay pipe! GRAZIANO: Yes Elizabeth Prater did say at the inquest that she popped into McCarthy's shop, before returning to her room at 1:30, (which was directly above Kelly's). JON: I'm not certain what Mary's floor was made of. (Caroline Morris may be able to guess better), although the room no longer exists. This may be a hint: Dr. Bond described the scene at her inquest saying: '....and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square'. If her floor was made of stone, wouldn't it all be soaked up and not appear as a "pool"? Dorset Street was the poorest street in the East End, so I don't think Room 26 had a cellar. Leanne!
Author: Jon Monday, 16 July 2001 - 10:36 pm
Leanne, you say: This may be a hint: Dr. Bond described the scene at her inquest saying: '....and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square'. If her floor was made of stone, wouldn't it all be soaked up and not appear as a "pool"? What would it soak into? The blood around Nichols neck was described as a pool, and also the dwg of Eddowes body in the Square shows a pool of liquid blood by her neck. Both those bodies found on stone. I think if the floor was wood then the blood would soak into it to some extent, but if stone it may stay in a liquid state longer. Especially considering how many hours had passed since Kelly was murdered. I think the quote you cite argue's for a stone floor. You also say: Dorset Street was the poorest street in the East End, so I don't think Room 26 had a cellar. You must remember the houses were built when times were prosperious. I recall the Nov 17th newspaper sketch we have posted many times, the one showing the man with a tripod camera and the body on the bed. This sketch indicates a wooden floor, for what its worth. Regards, Jon
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 02:04 am
G'day Jon, Yes I see what you mean by the wooden floor in the Nov 17 sketch! When Mary Ann Nichols was found dead, Dr. Llewellyn said she had not been dead more than half an hour and was very little blood round the neck. Catharine Eddowes was found dead at 1:45a.m. She was seen alive at 1:35a.m. That's ten minuites! No one knows for sure the exact time that Kelly died, but I reckon it was greater than half an hour before her body was found! Sean: Elizabeth Prater also said: "Mary Ann Cox could have passed down the Court during the night without me hearing her". Leanne!