|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 18, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The missing key to Kelly's room.:
Archive through November 18, 1999
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 14 November 1999 - 03:47 pm |        | Good evening, one and all
Wolf is correct to point out that the Kelly Inquest transcript reproduced on both the Casebook and Casebook Productions web sites is taken from the Daily Telegraph of 13 Nov. 1888. This, however, does not mean that it should be regarded as unreliable. Granted, general newspaper coverage of these murders cannot be accepted uncritically but, on the whole, coverage of inquests in the likes of the Times and Daily Telegraph corresponds well with official papers where these exist for comparison.
It should also be remembered that the official inquest papers do not record verbatim testimony. They merely contain notes of testimony given, with little indication of questions asked. In view of this the Telegraph report of Kelly’s inquest offers a far more comprehensive and detailed account of proceedings than the surviving official papers.
Best wishes
alex |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 15 November 1999 - 07:38 am | | Hi Alex,
Food for thought. I tend to take contemporary official records of given testimony at face value, while not knowing, or not fully knowing, the question that provoked the answer, or the conditions under which the questioning took place. That caution is needed here is evident.
As Bob Hinton recently so admirably demonstrated, answers to questions depend deeply on not only if the answerer e.g. has just lost a dear one under tragic circumstances, but also if, e.g. a shell has just come through the bulkhead.
Perhaps we should start a sort of data bank with all contemporary evidence, filtered and graded as to reliability, source and comparison for access. Maybe a new topic?
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 15 November 1999 - 07:51 am | | ...and I knew that little bugger Sooty wouldn't be far away from such shameless, brazen circles. He still has the shadow of guilt upon him but his seeking protection from the Devil and his other companions of Hell will not save him...
Bob |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 15 November 1999 - 08:23 pm | | Alex, I still stand by my remark that the newspaper reports are unreliable when compared with the official transcripts. This caution is especially necessary here on the boards where the slightest word slip can send posters into a fit of apoplexy. What was said is often molded into what a certain poster thinks, or hopes was meant and all of us deal in a sort of micro investigation of the whole Whitechapel case, I suppose we have to in the face of the dearth of actual information.
I concede that the newspaper reports offer both questions and answers and are therefore very helpful in that respect but I find it hard to accept your comment that, "... on the whole, coverage of inquests in the likes of the Times and Daily Telegraph corresponds well with official papers where these exist for comparison." I personally find it hard to jibe the two on certain important sections where understanding exactly what the witness said can be of paramount importance. I am thinking specifically of the testimony of Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater and the cry of "Murder" in the night.
Sarah Lewis: inquest testimony from The Daily Telegraph -
Coroner: "What woke you up?" - Lewis: "I could not sleep. I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female's voice shouting ‘murder' loudly. It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at our door. There was only one scream."
Sarah Lewis: inquest testimony from the official transcripts -
"I sat awake till nearly five, a little before 4 I heard a female voice shout loudly one Murder! The sound seemed to come from the direction of the deceased room, there was only one scream."
According to the newspaper report, Lewis thinks that the voice is that of a young woman (a neat trick) and that it seemed to have come at the door (outside?), while the official transcript makes no mention of supposed age but does add that it came from the direction of Kelly's room. The differences may seem minor but as you know, we could open up a separate section on the boards and endlessly debate the two versions complete with name calling and invective. Elizabeth Prater fares no better;
Elizabeth Prater: inquest testimony from The Daily Telegraph -
"A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four. As I was turning around I heard a suppressed cry of ‘Oh - murder!' in a faint voice. It seemed to proceed from the court."
Elizabeth Prater: inquest testimony from the official transcripts -
"...a kitten disturbed me about 3:30 to 4 I noticed the lodging house light was out so it was after 4 probably. I heard a cry of oh! Murder! As the cat came on me and I pushed her down, the voice was in a faint voice, the noise seemed to come from close by."
Again, the differences may appear minor but did Prater hear the voice "from the court" (outside!) Or from "close by" which has been interpreted as coming from Kelly's room. So Alex, what standard do we use to judge which is more reliable? I suppose it is just a matter of personal preference, I prefer the official versions and am wary of the newspaper accounts.
Bob C.. I can just imagine the knock down, drag out brawl that would occur if we tried to open a data base section on the reliability of contemporary evidence here on these boards. We couldn't all agree that the Sun sets in the West let alone what information is reliable or not. For some time, I have thought that it would take something like The Jesus Project to accomplish the data base that you have described. I am sure that they have their own little arguments but what harm can a group of theologians cause? The Jack Project would entail metal detectors, body searches and suites of armor!
Wolf. |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 12:15 am | | Hi Wolf,
Lovely! Just what we need on the board to weed the weak ones out! Smoking colts and chain-maces. I was, of course, not being too serious with the suggestion, but the basic thought was that even at the risk of world war three, it must be possible to bring something solid to book.
Just take a look, if you will, at your own work above. A base, containing all contemporary reports, put together and sorted according to theme just in the way you have here with the Telegraph report and official document, could be quite valuable indeed.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 02:12 am | | G'day All,
To say that Joseph Barnett should be eliminated as a suspect, because he "wasn't caught" is almost as weak as I think his alibi was.
Kelly's inquest began and ended on the same day, a juror protested about who the coroner should be, and the coroner said at the end: "If the coroners jury can come to a decision as to the CAUSE OF DEATH, then that is all they have to do".
(please correct me if I'm wrong Wolf)!
Evidently, Kelly was working at a brothel in Pennington Street, when she met Joseph Flemming. They planned to get married and why they never did, is unknown, but they remained on intermate terms. I have already said how Barnett met Kelly, in his own words: "in Commercial Street". After agreeing to remain together, they could live comfortably on Barnett's wages. For reasons unspecified, after 10 years working at Billingsgate Market, he lost his job. Kelly was slipping away and he knew it.
The above information was all found in Bruce Paley's book, and he has spent over 15 years researching Barnett, and even moved from New York to London to do it.
People that think life is like a fairytale, would ask themselves: "How could man that loved Mary, suddenly 'crack' and butcher her?" Healthy minded people wouldn't even dream about it, but was 'Jack' healthy minded?
Bob: Your remark about "hate", suggested to me that I have a personal reason for disliking this man, who died 35 years before I was born. Nice try!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 02:14 am | | Hello All !
... and thank-you Wolf for your excellent postings of the facts on testimony Vs newspaper accounts and such. It has very much highlighted that even the slightest anomoly, mis-quote or slant, can lead to mis-interpretation.
Being in my own world for sometime, and reading through so many things Ripper, I do place myself in danger of believing verbatim, the relevant authors' quotations, without considering further and placing appropriate credibility upon the sources for the stated information.
I am reminded now, why I have enjoyed reading and posting to these boards. There are those few out there, who do have an extensive understanding of the true facts of the case, and where those people are prepared to share their knowledge and experience, I am sincerely grateful. I have always had a high regard for your comments "Wolf", and seeing such other posters as Robert, Bob H, (sometimes anon, even) besides many other learned posters, does instil faith that I can gain a further grounding and build upon my own (admitted) "rudimentary" knowledge. I am allowed to fill-in many gaps in my own understanding of the case, while learning from objective comments and sometimes critisisms of relevant works I have read.
I would like it known that I am NOT a "Barnett-ite" if there is such a thing. I do believe however, that he is a viable suspect, and my own postings have just been to try and gain an understanding of what Joe Barnett was like. If he has no more of a relationship to the case, other than being Mary Kellys' boyfriend, this still is a significant connection, and therefore interesting study. I hope I have been able to get this message accross as intended. I do find sometimes that my comments are interpreted not as I originally intend, but then hey, a published author, I am not ! I do still think that Barnett went to great lengths to emphasize the positive aspects of their relationship, and take focus away from any negative points. This is simply a gut-feeling that I have. If many other points regarding Barnett are correct, he does deserve more in-depth scrutiny. He is certainly more likely to have a connection to the murders than many othes who have been put forward over the last century or so.
Cheers all, and I must say I'm happy to be here, and thanks again to those who are prepared to offer their highly valued expertise. It has helped me to focus again on the true, undistorted facts, and I am then able to form my own opinions based on the (too) little truth and fact that we do have.
Jeff D |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 04:06 am | | Hi all,
Oh-oh Leanne, the information to be found in Paley's book requires the same caution as any other source, and cannot simply be taken at face value. There are endless writings by endless authors, containing in part endless nonsense. Nothing against Paley, but he can only read the same evidence as available to all of us who seek and draw his own personal conclusions, nothing more. You can, of course, decide to believe his every word, if you wish. Don't expect others to do the same.
On the matter of Barnett and not being caught, I suggest you read my post there again. I made it clear that on evidence, Barnett fared no worse or better than others. 'For this reason alone, one could suggest that Barnett must be exonerated.' does not mean 'Joseph Barnett should be eliminated as a suspect, because he "wasn't caught"... It is, however, true that the police attributed their own failure to catch Jack to the fact that he was evidently a random killer. Barnett would not have been a random killer as far as Kelly is concerned.
Why do you think his alibi so weak? Do you believe that the police at the time didn't check his claims as far as possible? If his testimony was so weak and suspicious, why wasn't he kept under strong police obversation? As I said before, his alibi was no weaker than that of millions in London on that day, and stronger than some. Indeed, if he were the killer, why didn't he make himself a cast-iron alibi for the time. No problem for someone with the cunning of the killer of Kelly.
As for the assertion concerning some (personal was not said) 'dislike' of Barnett. If Jack were someone else, and were unmasked, would you like or hate this person? You cannot personally dislike Barnett, and I can't personally like him, because we have never met him. We can only decide on guilt or innocence fair and open-minded as we can on the evidence available to us, not what someone else may have happened to decide and write down in a book or not.
I do not believe that Barnet was Jack. It is your perogative to believe otherwise. If he was or not may never be proved. I do keep to the evidence as far as I can, however, and don't pay so much attention to what someone has wrote about what they think about what someone wrote etc. etc.
Giving your age away? I wish I was so young!
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Sara
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 08:20 am | | Bob H.: Your "is it trauma, or is it normal?" reference pricked up my ears regarding our own Dark Annie's demise.
"Mrs. Hardiman, sleeping in the ground floor shop, had been disturbed by the heavy traffic through the passage. She imagined that there must be a fire and sent her son to investigate. 'Don't upset yourself, mother,' he told her when he returned, 'it's a woman been killed in the yard!'" Sugdon, "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper", p.68.
Everything's relative. :-0
All the best, (and waiting for the Herculean task of the common, factual database to be generated...)
Sara |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 09:13 am | | Hello Everybody,
A note of caution must surely be sounded before we disparage ALL the press reports. After all, in recent times a pair of enterprising journalists were the catalysts for the removal of the US President from office.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 16 November 1999 - 11:47 am | | Hi, Rabbi:
I entirely agree that we should not disparage all press reports. However, Wolf's very useful comparison of the actual MJK inquest testimony with the way it was reported in the press brings up a very interesting point. Evidently the reporters of the day were not as careful about reporting word for word what a witness actually said as perhaps a court reporter would be in our day. Another alternative here of course is that the clerk at the inquest either misheard or mistranscribed the testimony and the journalist(s) might be more correct, at least in some instances and with some witnesses who did not speak well or loudly. I admit that the latter possibility is the less likely scenario, but it should perhaps be taken into consideration before we decide the journalist is the one who was wrong. Most likely though it is what I said earlier, the journalists were none too careful about getting the wording absolutely right. If they were at the back of the room they may not have been able to hear properly and transcribed the testimony as best they could, or if they did not personally catch it all they based on what others told them was said. I am assuming that the press did not have access to the testimony as recorded by the clerk at the inquest.
Chris George |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 17 November 1999 - 02:08 am | | G'day Everyone,
OK Wolf, Bob, you've convinced me to accept Paley's book as a well-written story. But I don't think that Barnett should be eliminated as a suspect completely!
The reason I called his alibi weak, is that Paley says that he told police on the morning of the 9th, that he was "playing whist there (at Buller's), until half past twelve when I went to bed". I thought that considering the time of Kelly's death, that can be cut to: "I went to bed".
At the back of his book, he says that unfortunately this, ('The Daily Telegraph', 10th Nov.), "is the only existing contemporary reference to Barnett's alibi".
Don't you think that Kelly's inquest, was too short, compared to the others? Barnett's inquest statements, were a bit 'sus'. As Jeff D. pointed out, he did go to great lengths to emphasize the possitive aspects of their relationship, and when the coroner asked him did she express a fear of any paricular individual?, he must have thought of himself straight away. After saying: "She did not.......", he immediately added: "except when she rowed with me", then he finished his sentence with: "we always CAME TO TERMS QUICKLY"!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 17 November 1999 - 02:44 am | | G'day Wolf,
I jumped at the chance to get Rick Geary's book, because of the cartoons, mate! I'm an artist!!!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 17 November 1999 - 04:45 am | | Hi Leanne,
If one's ex is found horribly murdered, and one is naturally expecting to be questioned about the relationship by the police, I should have thought it perfectly natural to play down (even deny dishonestly) any rows, fights, even minor disagreements, whether one is innocent or guilty.
I can't imagine an innocent JB, any more than a guilty one, saying "Oh yes, Mary was scared stiff of me because I'd threatened to wallop the living daylights out of the silly cow if she went back on the streets!" Not very likely either way, is it? Therefore it would be natural for anyone in Joe's situation to 'accentuate the positive' in the hope that they won't become a suspect in a murder case.
While JB's attitude, together with any answers he may have given the authorities (whether accurately reported or not), may make him look suspicious and possibly guilty in some people's eyes today (though not in anyone's apparently in 1888), others find that the same points actually work in his favour. It very much depends on what we individually find suspicious in a person.
I'm afraid none of the arguments I've heard about JB will convince me that he was Jack. Even the factors he had in common with other serial killers would have been shared with hundreds of other innocent Eastenders. It's just not enough....yet. More evidence would be needed before I could reconsider him as a suspect.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff D
Wednesday, 17 November 1999 - 06:22 am | | Hello Everyone !
... and Hi to Leanne ! I have to admit, I went through a period a while back, trying to promote Barnett as the best possible suspect (suspect "only"), and received similar responses. Where these responses were constructive and helped me to focus on the fact that we have such little evidence, and no real evidence against Barnett himself, I have still not heard any kind of definitive quote that would enable me to cross him off my list.
There are those who believe Barnett shouldn't even be on the list, but when you consider;
a) he lived in heart of Whitechapel (as we believe the Ripper did... OK so did 100k other people)
b) was acquainted with the prostitute classes (Ladies appeared dis-armed before their attack)
c) knew the area extremely well (Ripper definitely did)
d) resembles some eyewitness accounts of a man last seen with the victim
e) experienced with knives (victims also appeared gutted as you would a fish, apologies if this sounds crude)
f) had childhood upheavels (as per FBI-profile. Other possibilities may also fit profile)
g) murders started after he lost his job ? (co-incidence)
h) was interviewed by police in connection with the investigation (again FBI profile states there is a strong possibility the murderer was interviewed and is on file somewhere)
i) physical disability (questionable ?), mild speach impediment. (Ripper most likely had a major inferiority complex around certain women)
j) Eddowes' Apron (on route from Mitre Square to Dorset Street
h) definitely had an interest in the murders (read newspapers to Kelly, could have joined hunt for killer "Lusk" group)
........ and many other questions & possibilities. These are but a few off the top of my head.
The main point against Barnett being a suspect is the fact that the murders stopped so suddenly. Barnett went on to live out a full existence, remaining in or close to the vicinity up to 1926. This is the one that really holds me back. Profiling can (as 1-tool only) be applied to such a murderer, and if close to being caught, or the final act of Kelly's murder being the primary motive could account for the murders stopping without the total demise or incarceration of the killer
My main point is that there is more "circumstancial" evidence against Barnett than any other suspect, and the fact that he did resemble eye witness descriptions weighs strongly in considering him a suspect. Actually, I expected more from Paley's book, and felt disappointed seeing Barnetts name interjected in places where it needn't be, simply to emphasize some possible involvement. As I have said, there is a great deal of circumstancial evidence, and when you consider SK's have been interviewed and released many times, the 4-hour interrogation doesn't clear him in my book.
The Ripper obviously had a place to retire to after each killing. The room shared with Kelly could have been such a place. Maybe even Kelly (though spouses have been surprised before) knew something of these nocturnal activities. The roaring fire or remnants of, that were found in Kelly's room, even make me consider Barnett further. Getting rid of anything and everything that would connect him to the room and Kelly would have been the obvious thing to do if Barnett were the killer. Actually the best explanation I can think of for the fire, and the burning of clothes would be Barnett, somehow. Why would a serial killer, who had done all his work outdoors previously, light a fire and burn clothes or evidence ? People only light, or tend fires in their own homes or where they are familiar. (I do know that this is a flimsey argument, I just wish to raise the possibility)
No..... I'm still not any where near convinced of Barnett's guilt, and I would still love to hear from anyone who could confirm whether he had any kind of criminal record, but there are so many questions (that will probably always remain unanswered), that until they are answered, I won't cross Barnett off my list of suspects just yet. I do believe a man is innocent until proven..., but hang in there Leanne, you do post some good observations.
Cheers
Jeff D |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 17 November 1999 - 08:28 am | | Well said Jeff. You made some excellent points.
One thing though. How do we know Mary didn't light the fire herself to dry out her wet boots etc and keep warm on that rainy November night?
And I hope Leanne didn't think I was trying to discourage her thoughts on JB. I'm always interested in other people's ideas even if they are different from my own.
Keep up the good work all!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Wolf
Wednesday, 17 November 1999 - 10:25 pm | | Whoa, Leanne, I was not trying to attack you especially when it comes to Barnett. I was merely trying to clear up some misconceptions that you had and to steer you in the right direction. I hold Barnett as a likely candidate for being the Ripper, I don't say that he is the Ripper but that he is a lot more likely than some of the other suspects (Maybrick, Chapman, Tumblety for eg.)
As for Rick Geary's book, I have been a fan of his for a long time and have found that his illustrations are a real help in visualizing the murder scenes. I in no way knock the book.
Wolf. |
Author: anon
Wednesday, 17 November 1999 - 10:46 pm | | | Yes Wolf, I think that Geary's comic book approach would suit you. |
Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 05:11 am | | Hi all,
Sorry about the pause. I had to go on a sudden duty trip.
Jeff, about Barnett's possible criminal record, he may have been chucked out of Billingsgate for theft. If he just pinched a bit of fish for Kelly or ran a wholesale mafia business is not, I believe, to be proved any more, or even if he lost his job through theft.
I remember reading somewhere that Barnett was claimed to be a good-natured and respectable man. Of course that should be treated with the same caution as everything else. Although as porter at Billingsgate, he may have had experience gutting fish (or not, it does not necessarily follow), that puts him in the same position as 100ks of others, again.
Descriptions that may have applied to Barnett are difficult while we don't know what he really looked like. The sketches of Barnett that I have seen should be compared to the sketches of, say, Eddowes and her photographs, or Anne Chapman and hers. Not much to go on. We don't, of course, even know what Kelly really looked like, her face is too badly mutilated for us to be helped although in her case a photo is available to us.
'Jack' was so often described as 'having the look of a sailor'. If this could apply to Barnett is also not known, we don't even know if the so decribed was Jack himself. I have long had a light suspicion that Jack could well have really been a sailor. Maybe we should list all known WM-type killings abroad chronographically and try to see if a ship, or ships route,could supply some comparison of the killings and the possible journeys of a sailor.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 06:53 am | | Hi Bob,
One of the reasons for suggesting that JB could have been a serial killer is that he would have known his 'patch' inside out, and may even have been on nodding terms with the other victims.
Would a saucy Jack tar spend long enough in any one port to get familiar with his territory? Let alone so familiar with a certain group of ladies over a 3 month period that he got to know them inside out as well!
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
