Archive through July 22, 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 22, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through July 22, 2001

Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 04:31 am
Hi Jon, Leanne, All, A 'pool' of blood definitely argues against wood, and for stone, in my humble opinion. I agree with Jon, and think that blood would have soaked pretty quickly into wood. I also think a pool of blood on stone would be more slippery - just right for Dew to come a cropper. The two-up, two-down Victorian end-of-terrace (with no basement or cellar, but a modern extension at the back for the kitchen and bathroom, and original sash windows in good working order) where I lived from 1978 to 1996 had concrete floors throughout at street level. Don't know if that helps. Love, Caz
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 05:57 am
Jon, when I commented to you about the floor in Kelly's room, and your saying the floor was solid,I never gave it a thought that the floor could be anything other than boarded. I should have known better, I live in a Victorian house, 1898, and there is only one boarded floor on the ground floor, that is because there is a cellar under that room!. There has never been any talk of a cellar under Kelly's room, so I shouldn't think there was one, and so Kelly's room had a solid floor. Thinking back, if the floor had been boarded there would have been no pool of blood two feet square under the bed, it could have spread lengthways of the boards, but not widthways, I don't think they had tongue and groove boards in those days. Just flat edged boards butted up to each other, the blood would have gone through the joints or cracks between the boards. Jon, was the water supply on the backyard a tap or a hand-pump. If it was a hand pump, maybe none of the houses had plumbing, or at the most a small hand-pump over the sink in the kitchen. I'm also inclined to think it's possible the lavatories were not water lavatories but pan type that had to emptied by hand occasionally. Regards Rick
Author: Arfa Kidney Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 09:57 am
Jon, Thanks for clarifying and I apologize if I sounded like I was condescending when trying to understand what you were saying. Now,this business about the blood found on MJK's floor.Maybe the fact that it was a pool rather than a stain,tells us more about time the murder was committed,than the material the floor was made out of! Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 10:57 am
It's always been described as a "pool", Mike, never a stain,(if my memory is correct). A two foot square pool!! or should that have been, a pool two feet across. A pool though, not a stain!! Rick
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 01:48 pm
A very common floor covering for the poor in Victorian times was LINOLEUM , maybe the floor was covered in this. Or maybe there were scraps of rugs on the floor , or poor carpet. Either way I would say that the floor was stone , if there was a cellar at all it would have been at the front of the house , with a hatch to allow coal to be put down into it.
Author: sean patrick day Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 02:05 pm
Going back to the much discussed mystery of the missing key to number 13. Mary Ann Cox testified that on the night of the murder she sees Kelly at 11.45 in the company of a man carrying a pail of beer. Cox tells the inquest that Kelly and the man went up the Court �a few steps in front of me�. Cox says: �Goodnight, Mary�, and Kelly turns around and bangs her door. Kelly then says she is going to sing. Now, the point I am trying to make is this. If Cox was only a couple of seconds behind Kelly would Kelly (very drunk) have had the time to walk round to the window, reach inside (in the dark), unbolt the door then walk back again to open the door before Cox heads up the stairs to her room? Or did Kelly use the missing key to let herself in? When Barnett left on October 30th after a very heated argument with Kelly, I find it hard to accept that Kelly would give him the key to her home. When tempers calmed and Barnett returned a day or so later, possibly asking Kelly for the key I would be surprised if Kelly would simply give it to him. The logical thing for her would be to tell him it was missing. Kelly had Barnett take the room in her name, and would assume that he had no right to the key. Also, Kelly had finally got him out of the room, she would not want him to have the means to come and go as he pleased. But Kelly, having the key, could insure that Barnett did not enter the room when she was absent! Returning to the night of the murder when Cox sees Kelly and says goodnight. It seems unlikely that Kelly would bang the door closed then say (to Cox?) that she is going to sing! More likely Kelly has swung the door open and the bang heard by Cox was the door hitting the table by the bed that was later to be piled with removed skin from the murdered woman.
Author: Arfa Kidney Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 02:12 pm
Hello Rick, I believe that Kelly was Killed mid-morning and not during the night(3 or 4.00am). The fact that a blood pool,rather than a stain was found,tends to support the argument that Kelly was Killed much later than many people suppose.Surely nine or so hours,would be sufficient time for blood to soak into wooden boards or concrete floor,or is it? Maybe I should set up an experiment using pigs blood,concrete slabs and some planks of wood! Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: Christopher George Ray Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 02:23 pm
Which brings us back to the fact that there was a lot of blood around and that Jack's clothes would have been heavily stained. If there was no washing facilities in the room itself, is it reasonable to think that the killer would have washed himself outside? That has to be doubtful. However, is it possible that there was a bowl or bucket in the room in which he could got water before the killing? All this, I know, presumes a very cool head and more time spent in the room. Given the nature of the crime our Jack seems to have considered himself unlikely to be caught red-handed (literally) - Why? Chris Ray
Author: Mark List Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 03:28 pm
it seems to me that if there's no reason to worry about interruption, then it would make sense for JtR to take his bloody time. Why he didn't worry about being caught is obvious: he's indoors. The police were looking outside for the ripper. and he would surely lay in wait before leaving the room. Also, there's no reason to think that he didn't take care in the murder as to not get blood all over him. yes, it's most likely impossible for him NOT to get bloody. but is there any reason why he wouldn't carry a flask of water and a towel to clean himself afterward? He had ample time to do so or perhaps since Mary was naked, he could've used her clothes and then thrown them in the fire. Mark
Author: Christopher George Ray Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 03:59 pm
Mark Sorry I can't agree. Even indoors a criminal must be apprehensive about possible detection and capture. In a heightened state of apprehension most people would feel that every sound they make will be heard by the whole world. The window is broken, the room was shared and who can say if some former customer might not pick that evening to bang on the door? Yet Jack apparently takes his time with little or no concern. Is this the simple arrogance of a killer who feels he will never be caught, or does he know something that none of us do? As for cleaning himself up - I agree - my original argument was that the killer was naked that is all. Chris Ray
Author: Mark List Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 04:21 pm
Chris Ray, I agree about the cleaning, but I don't about concern of indoors. If he was quiet enough to kill in the street and not get caught, then he would feel both safer and more concerned about being confined to one place. Out in the open or in a small room, possibility of detection is virtually the same. I don't think that there was a large amount of pre-planning on ANY of the killings (stalking the victim and stalking out the area) and this is no exception. As for the visitors, are we to understand that Mary had frequent visitors at all hours of the night? If so, then yes, the killer might need some knowledge before hand. I think that he was concern with the killing and was lucky enough to not get caught. If it was Joseph Barnett, that even leaves other visitors such as customers, roommates, etc. to come banging. Mark
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 04:29 pm
Mark, Mary's clothes were found folded and placed on a chair at the foot of the bed. Mick, what time do you say Jack the Ripper entered Mary Kelly's room?. Rick
Author: Jon Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 08:12 pm
Well, thankyou all for indulging me in this bit of abstract trivia. I raised the possibility of the floor being stone because Chris. G. Ray suggested a naked killer, and my point was it must have been very cold in that room, plus a stone floor. I had made an assumption the floor was stone based on the several points I subsequently raised. I still think its a real possibility but am by no means convinced either way. I guess its a subject best left as is, for future consideration, as we cannot determine either way at present. Sorry for boring you all to tears. Regards, Jon
Author: John Hacker Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 08:19 pm
Chris, I don't think Jack was in that much danger of being caught in the act at Miller's Court. In regards to possible visitors, he could have simply asked Mary if she was expecting anyone. "Will we be interrupted?" wouldn't be an inappropriate or suspicious question. I don't believe that she would be taking "walk-up" business. She had her usual walking turf down by the Britannia. And Barnett wasn't likely to be turning up at that hour. If someone DID turn up and pound on the door, he likely could have gotten away with either ignoring it or simply saying "She's busy, come back later." A strange male voice probably wouldn't be too remarkable there. There would be a small possibility of being overheard, but cutting and slicing isn't all that loud, and there was a coat hung over the broken window which would muffle any sounds. He would also have been able to hear the footsteps of approaching people on the street while they were still a good way off and could moderate his noise accordingly. John
Author: Arfa Kidney Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 08:33 pm
Hello Rick, I think Jack must have entered Kelly's room some time between nine o'clock and half past ten,that morning. Although in the past I have speculated that Jack may have entered No.13 whilst Kelly was asleep,I think there is also a strong possibility that she took a man back to her room.The man I am refering to Is the person described by Caroline Maxwell,as wearing "A sort of plaid coat". Now Kelly probably wasn't "plying her trade" that early in the day,so the man in question could have been a friend or admirer(Joe Fleming?). I am also of the opinion that Jack probably spent about 15 minutes Killing , slicing and arranging Kelly's body parts. Of course it is extremely difficult to say how long in total, Jack spent in Kelly's room. Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 10:10 pm
You raise an intriguing point Mick, but do you have any reason (aside from the testimony of Mrs. Maxwell) to suppose that Drs. Bond and Phillips were both so grossly wrong in their estimates of the time of death? Something else I've always wondered about-if the door was so easy to open through the broken window, then why would anybody bother to lock it at all?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 05:06 am
Hi Jesse, All, Equally, if the door was so easy to open through the broken window, then why did the police have to break in? I think Mary probably left the door unlocked when she went out (nothing much worth stealing, no worries about missing keys, no fear of cutting herself to ribbons reaching through broken windows on her return), and only shut the door when inside, preventing access from the outside while she was entertaining, sleeping etc. Maybe Joe Barnett only used the window trick in emergencies, after the key was lost, if he or Mary ever found themselves locked out. Then, while Jack was with Mary, I think he would be relatively safe from unwelcome visitors. If he could hear footsteps approaching, he would also be able to stay quiet until he heard them retreat. If anyone did happen to knock, got no answer, then tried the door and found it locked, they wouldn't automatically suspect that Mary was inside, or being hacked to pieces, would they? Even if they knew the dodgy window trick, there would be no good reason to use it, only to find the room empty, or risk disturbing a busy or sleeping Mary. So, unless they heard or saw something to arouse their suspicions, chances are they'd simply go away and try again later. Then when Jack left, he simply pulled the door closed, where Mary would have left it unlocked, and the police had to break in. One reason why the doctors at that time might have had trouble working out an accurate time of death is simply the unprecedented nature of this particular body. How much previous hands-on practice could the doctors have had with this type of murder victim - so extensively mutilated? Not a wonderful lot, I'd say. What were they using for comparison? If this was something way beyond their own experience or knowledge, it's a pity they couldn't admit it, and qualify their opinions accordingly, when it came to estimating Mary's time of death. Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 05:17 am
G'day Jessie, We debated so much over what type of lock Mary had installed and it was decided that she had one that automatically locked itself once the door was shut, and could be opened without a key by reaching through the window to pull back a catch! It is believed that, as only Joe would have been tall enough to be able to reach it, he opened the door to let Mary in when he came to visit her, daily. Mary's 'time of death', was based on the fact that witnesses heard the faint cry of "Murder" at about 4a.m. I don't know what to believe about the time of death, I keep changing my mind. Let's not forget that the morning her body was found, was the big 'Lord Mayors Day', so the streets would have been busy pretty early with people setting up stalls and whatnot! Leanne
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 06:01 am
What evidence is there to support the outrageous claim that Mary Kelly was a prostitute?
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 06:15 am
G'day, For those who have yet to see a layout plan of Miller's Court, Stephen Ryder posted one here in Casebook. Go to 'The Missing Key to Kelly's Room'/Archive through September 23, 1999 and scroll down the page. Leanne
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 06:45 am
G'day Rosemary, When Joseph Barnett first met Mary Jane Kelly she was staying at 'Cooney's Lodging House' in Thrawl Street, and she was known to walk the Streets around Aldgate and Leman Street. At Kelly's inquest in answer to the question: "Where did you first pick up with her?", Barnett replied: "In Commercial Street. We then had a drink together, and I made arrangements to see her on the following day. - a Saturday. On that day both of us agreed that we should remain together." They both lived together until the 30th of October, when Joe left after a 'heated row' over Mary letting her prostitute friends live with them in that tiny room. Without Barnett's income, Kelly had no choice but to return to regular prostitution. At her inquest Caroline Maxwell said: "Since Joe Barnett left her, she obtained her living as an unfortunate". Leanne!
Author: Christopher George Ray Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 01:28 pm
Arfa Kidney According to the coroner the mutilations visited upon Kelly would have taken around two hours! Chris Ray
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 01:42 pm
Hello Mick, your theory raises a problem, (for me), you say, Jack the Ripper was killing and cutting Mary up sometime between 09:00am and 10:30am. It was light by then, why the fire?. I can't believe it was for the sake of comfort. Was there a fire?, Abberline thought so, but he thought it was to give light. A fire fierce enough to melt solder on the kettle and cause the handle and spout to fall into the ashes, that was some fire!! and then some would say the fire was made with fabric,--I don't think so! If there was a fierce fire sometime between 09:00am and 10:30am then there would have been a LOT of evidence of it when the body was discovered at 10:45am, and when the room was entered at 13:30pm. The room would not have been cold, the fire would still be smouldering and smoking. The fireplace would definately be hot, and there would be signs of other sorts of fuel besides fabric, (for a fierce fire). Regards Rick
Author: Arfa Kidney Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 04:05 pm
Hello Rick, I believe that there was a fire and it was probably lit by Kelly,simply to provide warmth. I think it must have been Jack who threw the hat and the various items of clothing onto the fire.Quite why he did this I don't now,although I have speculated about it in the past. The idea that the fire burned with such abnormal ferocity is,I believe a false one,and always seems to be based on the damage done to the kettle. We all know that a kettle that is left unattended will boil dry and become damaged.Any solder joints will quicky melt once the water has evaporated.Mary's kettle could of course have been damaged on earlier occasion. By the way Rick, I would be interested to hear how long you think Jack spent inside No.13 and at what time you think he left. Regards, Mick
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 06:48 pm
Mick, nice to have this little exchange with you. Of course I realise you could be as close to the truth as anyone of us. With all of us ,it's a case of speculation, the characters concerned have been dead a long time, and even if they were still with us, you couldn't depend on what they would tell you, memories would not allow. Maybe Kelly lit her fire before 09:00am, maybe, though Barnett had no money for Mary, he had taken her a bundle of firewood he had collected in the market to keep her warm,--little things count to poor people, we seem to look at them in a too matter of fact way. And maybe it was Fleming who came calling, and who went on the rampage. But your theory, Mick, is not mine, I think Barnett had the most reason to kill Mary. I do believe that the 04:00am call of "Oh murder" was from Mary, I think the Ripper spent time in the room after he had cut Mary up, I don't think he would have left as soon as he had finished. He'd want to drink in what he had done. The heavy footsteps leaving the court were not the Ripper's,-- no one heard him come or go. But I would guess he left Millers Court while it was still dark. Regards, Rick.
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 09:09 pm
G'day, ARFA: I'll give a reson why those clothes could have been burnt: They once belonged the Maria Harvey, and she was one of the prostitute friends that forced Barnett to move out! Mrs Harvey left them there so Kelly could sell them at the 'Lord Mayor's Day' festival. Because Mary was so behind in her rent payments, I don't think she would have burnt them. 'Jack' probably cleaned himself up with them, then threw them on the small fire that Mary lit to keep herself warm. Leanne!
Author: Arfa Kidney Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 05:37 pm
Hello Rick Good to talk to you too,even though you do think Barnett was Jack the Ripper(Ha Ha). I do concede that Barnett would make a good candidate for Jack,were it not for the fact that the murders just stopped.But then I also believe that he was a motiveless maniacal murderer. If I remember correctly Rick,I think you are a subscriber of Bruce Paley's "Barnett scaring Kelly of the streets campaign" theory. When we discussed this Idea before, I gave my reasons for rejecting Paley's theory.However it has just occurred to me that Kelly only went back on "The game" after Barnett lost his job,as there was now no other source of income,so why didn't Barnett just get a job instead risking his neck(literally) launching this murderous campaign! Hello Leanne,I know you are also a "Barnettite" and probably agree with Rick on a lot of things but it just makes no sense to say that all of a sudden Barnett became this, "Have a go" nutty killer and then,just as suddenly stopped.He was either a homicidal maniac by nature, or he wasn't Jack.We are talking about personality here. Surely Barnett's murderous passions would have been sturred again in his subsequent relationships. Regards, Mick
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 07:04 pm
G'day Mick, At the back of Paley's book, (and he did, I think, over ten years research on the guy), it says: 'There are no immediate records of Joseph Barnett's whereabouts following his appearance at the inquest into Mary Kelly's death.' We believe that The Whitechapel Murderer must have either died, been put in prison or another institution!...that's what the experts say, and if a suspect doesn't immediately fit into that 'profile', should we eliminate him? Paley did find the name 'Joseph Barnett' in the 1919 electrol rolls, living with a 'Louise Barnett', but is it our Joeseph Barnett I wonder? There were three I think, living in the East End. I say let's wait to see if anyone can trace Barnett's life after Kelly's inquest. Leanne!
Author: Arfa Kidney Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 07:39 pm
Now that is interesting Leanne, It's a good while since I read Paleys book,but I was under the impression that Barnett's whereabouts was known,right up until his death in Shadwell, In I think 1926. Are you suggesting that "our" Joe Barnett might actually have disappeared after Kelly's inquest or have I misunderstood something? I'll have to fish out Paleys book tomorrow and have another read, but in the meantime it's cocoa and bed for me. Regards, Mick
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 20 July 2001 - 04:47 am
Dear Leanne, I think you will also discover that Caroline Maxwell seems to disappear too...the Cheshire Cat Syndrome at work? Could Caroline Maxwell and Joe Barnett have been lovers...or even working for the Grand Occult Design by D'Onston? Or, a clever pair of liars in need of a means of obtaining Kelly's secret inheritance? Let loose the bloodhounds! Rosey:-)
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 20 July 2001 - 06:04 am
G'day, Arfa: Yes the murders just stopped after Kelly's, where the police and everyone were looking more closely at Joseph Barnett's activities. Barnett did get other jobs after he lost his well-paying one. At Kelly's inquest he said: "I was a fish-porter and I work as a labourer and fruit porter..." A Labouring and a fruit porter's job would excuse him for being anywhere in the East End, at early hours, carrying parcels of various sizes. Leanne!
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 20 July 2001 - 07:31 am
Mick, Yes, I belong to that school of of thought, and I would imagine there are quite a number of us. To me it's the only theory that makes sense. Who are we to say a man can't have an inclination to kill for gain, and then turn it off when that gain is lost to him? If you say that, your saying you can read a serial killers mind! very clever. This theory makes much more sense than coaches and a royal conspiracy, the masons, a Jill, a Toff, a diary, you name them, they've been wheeled out, I wouldn't think anyone believes, really, that JtR prowled around in tophat or slouch hat and cloak, but there was a time a long time ago, that I did think like that, and that he would kill any woman. Mick, by all accounts Barnett had a well paid job, which by my surmising he lost due to pandering to Mary's selfishness. He wasn't going get another job paying that kind of money down at the "labour exchange", and the kind of wages he could expect wasn't going to impress Mary Kelly into staying with him,-- or keeping him, whichever. Anyway Mick, get your Bruce Paley out tonight, turn to page 223, And while your having your cocoa and biscuits read up on what became of Joseph Barnett after Miller's Court. Regards Rick.
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 06:10 am
G'day Rick, People refuse to even think twice about Joseph Barnett being Jack, because they believe that he returned to a normal life after Kelly's murder! But did he? No one knows for sure, because we can't trace him, until he finally settled down with a woman and into anonymity. Some people want The Whitechapel Murderer to be someone famous! I believe 'Jack' was somebody who was 'nothing' and craved attention! Someone who needed to read his 'name' all over the papers and be on everyone's lips! (especially the lips of the person he loved). Leanne!
Author: Jon Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 09:41 am
Leanne You are quite correct that we have turned up nothing on Barnett following the murder. You can't use that fact as support for Paley's theory, that is creating a negative without reason. However, for those who have looked for a trace of Barnett, it does offer some support towards the possibility that he had no criminal record. Discarding (as you) the 'someone famous' rubbish, we are left with a likely local man, middle to low class (East End standards), large ego, defiant, approachable, and I would say both organized and with purpose. I hope this is not considered profiling Barnett, may, just possibly MAY have killed Kelly, I have never ruled that out entirely. But Barnett as Jack?.....I still cannot see anything about Paley's 10 points that help this proposal. Personally, I dont think we can suspect him of anything in this case. Barnett is as much a victim of modern 'armchair detectives' as Druitt has been. Regards, Jon
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 10:47 am
Dear Jon, Sleuth Rule No 1....EVERYONE is suspect! This rule goes against the grain in the orthodox police detection processes, i.e., some are always above suspicion (especially policemen!). Rosey the Menace :-)
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 01:22 pm
Jon, like Rosey says, some can be above suspicion. I find it hard to put a policeman in the brackets of suspicion, but I have to realise,-- rarely, very rarely one can go wrong. Everyone is suspect looking at them in a logical, sensible view. Only when you have the guilty party can you really clear the others. I would say Jon that there is plenty to put Barnett in a suspicious light. He was at the very centre of the situation. There were a number of things that put the relationship of Barnett and Kelly on a very poisonous footing during the last three months,in spite of him saying it was all very friendly between them, I won't list them because you know them as well as I do. I think Barnett was a liar. And , really, if you can suspect Barnett even just a little, of Mary Kelly's murder, then, you have to suspect him of the Ripper killings also,-- one goes with the other!-- one wouldn't have happened without the other. As regards why Joe Barnett did not kill again,-- after Millers Court, quite a period with very distant, remote contact with women. When he did at last have contact with a woman, possibly it was Louisa, a completly different woman to Mary. More understanding, as to what he was able to provide, maybe they really loved and trusted each other. No problems,---- my surmising of course Regards Rick.
Author: sean patrick day Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 02:47 pm
Although I do not subscribe to the 'Barnett the Ripper' school of thought for a number of reasons, not least the rather flimsey excuse for murdering and mutilating four women just to frighten his girlfriend from returning to the streets, nontheless if the claim that Cathy Eddowes had on occasion slept in the storeroom of 26 Dorset Street - with just a thin partition dividing that and 13 Miller's Court - it may bring a whole new train of thought as to her claims shortly before she died of knowing who the Ripper was. Possibly, as she sheltered there, she may have seen or heard something from Miller's Court that identified the killer. Just another thought to toss in the pan.
Author: Jon Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 04:37 pm
Yes Rosie, everyone.....every healthy male between 16 & 60 with access to London in 1888. Where do we start? Rick I agree in part, you may be able to make a case for Barnett killing Kelly, but not as Jack the Ripper, not in my opinion at least. I don't think the evidence as it stands implicates Barnett in Kelly's death, he is only implicated by his association with her. And thats enough in some cases, but the police knew that then as they do today with modern matracides. They knew it and they cleared him, not as a remote suspect but he was cleared as the only reasonable suspect they had, it would have taken very little for the police to pin it on him, they didnt, not that they couldn't, they could, but they didn't. What we cannot appreciate is the face-to-face interrogation and that look in a suspects eye, a hesitation, a faltering, slow to respond, a look of either 'distance' or 'detatchment' on the one hand or the look of nervousness or hesitation. I'm sure if they had detected either he would at least have been held. I give the police the benefit of the doubt, they determined Barnett was not guilty and they were face to face with him. Regards, Jon
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 07:56 am
G'day, JON: After the discovery of Kelly's body, the police took Barnett to the station and kept him there: "for four hours". Whether this was before they belted down the door or not, is anyone's guess! "They examined my clothes for bloodstains and finally finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free". And what was that account?: "I was at [Buller's] Lodging House in New Street and was playing whist there until half past twelve when I went to bed". Considering Kelly's TOD,his alibi becomes: "I went to bed". Earlier that day he found out that Maria Harvey had taken lodgings elsewhere, yet he wasn't invited to return to 13 Millers Court. Do you think that Barnett went straight to bed and slept soundly? When the Whitechapel murders were shocking and baffling London, the concept of the serial killer, (motiveless murderer), was virtually unknown. Detection methods were crude, with no past examples to guide the police. 'Psychological Profiling' of serial killers wasn't refined until at least 80 years later. How do we know that police asked Barnett the right questions and 'tested' his alibi, during those 4 short hours? As for a direct link between Barnett and the other girls, let me remind you that a serial killer choses his victims at random. Everyone is trying to find a clear path that links all five victims with one particular suspect, but can't! I wonder did Jack the Ripper really exist at all? Leanne
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 08:17 am
Dear Leanne, I too have often wondered whether "Jack the Ripper" ever 'existed'... in the present format that we are commonly confronted with. But we must see 'him' as a metaphor...a rare mental abberation which impinges on our collective logico-deductive processes...(Radkabobbingianism?):-) To be or not to be?