Author: graziano
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 01:13 pm |        |
Hello Harry and Jesse,
yes, I think that Hutchinson could have told a little lie to the police in saying that Mary Kelly asked him for sixpence.
I could very well imagine that he wanted sex with her and she refused saying that she had an appointement.
I suggested in a message above that feeling humiliated, a bit angry and jealous and desiring very much that night Mary Kelly could explain why he waited so long.
But another reason could have simply been that Mary told him something like that: " Oh dear, not now, I've got a rich guy, but come as soon as I finish with him and I will be nice with you", so getting in fact an appointement with Mary.
Of course, with the coldness of the night and the tiredness (is that english ?) of a day spent in travelling, after waiting for an hour the sex appetite could very well disappear.
The fact that his version to the police is different could be explained by the shame he could have felt saying for everybody that he went with prostitutes.
He was a local and had his family and friends in the vicinity.
This could have been an aspect of his personality that he would not look forward letting others know.
This could also explain why it took him three days to go to the police.
He had to think how to change this detail.
But in no way I agree that his statement taken as a whole seems to infer that he was not telling the truth.
He was a local, a labourer and the very little we know about his life tend to confirm his honesty.
A pimp ? He had his girls in Miller's court ?
Do not confuse Hutchinson and Mc Carthy.
Unless you compel your wife to the prostitution, pimping is a business, often a big one and as every other business you can't start it if you do not have already a lot of means.
The refusal of his testimony on the fact that it was too precise to be true is very similar to the dismissal of the Matthew Packer's one on the basis that he was only an old man seeking for publicity and glory.
It gives way to a prolific field for excelling in intellectual reasoning but it rests on supposition and hypothesis quite hard to swallow and on faith more than on facts.
Two of the factors that have been adduced to prove that Hutchinson could not have seen what he told to the police as I remember (unfortunately I have not been able to obtain Bob Hinton's book for six months and all my recollections are from the messages of these boards) where:
a) not enough light in the streets and time at disposal to see all the details he claimed to have seen,
b) the man he saw was dressed in such a way that first it seems impossible to dress in such a way and then it would be very dangerous to walk so richly dressed in such a tough neighborood at that hour.
Really ?
for a) for the lights enough have been said on these boards since 1999 to dismiss any impossibility to see the details as stated by the non-believers in Hutchinson's reliability. One for all the similarity made by Stewart Evans between the red handkerchief seen at the entrance of Miller's court and the red flowers seen on the breast of Elisabeth Stride in Berner street.
The nights in November are longer and colder than the nights in September, but not darker.
Mary Kelly and Mr "Astrakan-jewish looking stood for three minutes at the entrance of Miller's court. Enough to be seen and even observed, enough for the eyes to get used to the intensity of the light whatever its feebleness.
Then Dorset street was a narrow street full of lodging houses. One could expect that there was more light in this street than in Berner street.
for b) of course it would be dangerous for a normal citizen to go in a tough neighborood with a gold chain, with a gold horseshoe pin, with a red stone gem (is that correct ?) and stinking wealth at that time of the night.
But if that guy was there it is because he was not afraid to be there.
There are two explanations of that:
i) he was a tough guy living in this neighborood who nobody would have dared to touch,
ii) he was not alone, other guys were there on which he could have leaned in case of problems.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 03:39 pm | |
Hello Rick,
you make a good point in saying that it would have taken a lot to dress up.
And in no way I believe the murderers could afford to lose time, they were not invisible and the more time it took, the more the danger to be seen or even discovered.
So, whatever he did with Mary Kelly, at the time of the murder it should have been better for him to already have put his clothes on.
Unless he did not have the same clothes when going back out.
Or unless he was not there to cut but just to enter the room.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 04:19 pm | |
Hello Rick and Leanne,
why did I say that Hutchinson went up the court ?
It seemed to me obvious from the reports on the newspapers:
The Times 14.11.88 (citing Hutchinson):
" ...they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them but I could not...."
Manchester Guardian 14.11.88:
"...They went into Miller's court together, and some time afterwards Hutchinson also went up the court, stayed there a couple of minutes, and seeing no light in Kelly's room, returned to Dorset street...."
The fact that MJ Kelly and "Mr Astrachan" went into Kelly's room should be confirmed by the reports of the canadian newspapers that do not contradict the previous ones (where it is only stated that Hutchinson did not see them):
The Montreal Daily Star 14.11.88:
" After the couple entered the house Hutchinson heard sounds of merriment in the girl's room....About three o'clock the sounds ceased and he walked into the court but finding that the light in the room had been estinguished he went home".
The same report (more or less) is published in the Ottawa Citizen.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 04:41 pm | |
Hello graziano
Apparently there is some discrepancy between the transcript of the Kelly inquest given in the Telegraph (which you are using) and the one from the London Metropolitan Archives (which I'm using). Mine does not contain the exact wording to which you refer.
While your theory may well have some merit, the main logical stumbling block for me is the way in which you carve up Hutchinson's statement, using part of it to bolster your theory and discarding those parts which would cause it to collapse (e.g., his conversation with Mary, and the fact that the well-dressed stranger appears to accost her as they pass each other on the street). In the absence of anything more substantial than this I continue to feel that it is more probable that Mary met her murderer in the usual way that street prostitutes meet their clients-on the street.
And on behalf of Aristotle, I accept your gracious explanation... 
Ciao
AAA88 |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 08:36 pm | |
John,
thanks for the tip. I went to the address you gave me. I printed out the words, the melody I had heard before. I hope Jesse and Graziano found it interesting, the information on Dorset St was interesting also, thank you John.
Best Regards Rick. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 03 August 2001 - 09:33 pm | |
Graziano,
It seems I haven't read the newspaper report you have on Hutchinson. To tell the truth I don't suppose I've read a newspaper report at all!!, just the AtoZ. My impression is they met in Commercial St, she turned and came back, with the Jewish gent toward Dorset St.They stopped at the entry to Miller's Court, and stood there for about three minutes. They both then went up the entry to the court. Hutchinson then went down Dorset St to the entry,looked up the entry, and though there was a gas lamp on the wall opposite Kelly's door, which must have illuminated it to anyone at the street end of the entry,- he saw no one outside Kelly's door, so he took up his stance on the opposite side of Dorset St directly opposite the entry, and waited there for 3/4 hr. He saw no one come out of that door during that time so then he went away. Graziano, I know it may sound a bit pompous, but the report of the Manchester Guardian and the Montreal Daily Star sound a bit like made up news. The Times sounds more down to earth and factual.
Regards Rick, |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 03:51 am | |
Hello Rick, Jesse and John,
I must aknowledge that reading the words of the song and hearing the melody I doubt that it would be used for a wedding ceremony.
But we speak about Irish people here, not Italians or Greeks.
Has ever been a period of their history when they where happy ?
In any case this would confirm that Mary Kelly was definitely Irish.
And would tend to prove that Mr "carroty moustache" was also (who else if not an Irish client could accept to hear such a sadness in those particular moments)
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 05:23 am | |
Graziano,
Except for Hutchinson's statement,there is no information on which to make a judgement of the person.You say 'What little is known of him',but what is known of him?.
Far from disassociating himself,he speaks of giving Kelly a shilling on occasions.
If I for instance,disbelieve his observation qualities,it is because I cannot remember as well as he.I am at a loss to describe such detail even 15 minutes afterwards,and so I think are the majority of persons.I have seen it demonstrated.
In an area of increased police surveilance,with the added help of vigilance commitee members,those three people walk and meet in Commercial street,and no one is witness to this happening.Then Hutchinson stands for 45 minutes at Crossinghams,and no police patrols pass and notice him.
I think there is ample reason for disbelief.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 05:35 am | |
G'day All,
Graziano: I don't think an expert prostitute would have turned down a regular customer by telling him that she had someone better waiting just down the road. She could have just said: "Not tonight, some other night".
Hey maybe he did tell a little white lie and instead of her asking him for sixpence, that may have been her asking price for 'favours'. Since he didn't have it, she turned and headed to seek another client.
The well-dressed foreign looking man with the dark moustache, could have been the 30ish, man with fair hair disguised so no one would correctly identify him.
He could have gave Hutchinson a stern look and put his hat over his eyes when they passed, to distort his features in case he was recognised at close range.
That song doesn't sound too unhappy to me! Remember it was 1888!
Leanne! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 08:32 am | |
Graziano, in your opinion, whose footsteps were heard leaving Millers Court at 06:15am?. On the topic of footwear, do you wonder about what sort of footwear JtR wore. No footsteps were heard at Nichols murder, none at Chapmans,-- down an "echoey" enclosed entry, ESPECIALLY NONE heard at Eddowes murder, down the length of Mitre Square, and at least one person almost listening out for Jack the Ripper,--(the warehouse-man). If Jack was wearing soft leather shoes and walking quietly, how did he keep his victims from walking noisily, they could have been wearing studded
boots. And what class of man was JtR, to afford and wear soft leather shoes. Was he a working class "dandy" wearing his best shoes,-- or was he wearing pads!. Or was he a middle-class type who always wore that kind of foot wear?
Regards Rick, |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 11:28 am | |
Hello Harry,
opinion is opinion and I respect yours.
It is interesting to notice nevertheless that Hutchinson has been put in doubt by researchers (I think the first have been yourself and Bob Hinton) because of the extreme precision of his account, but it has always been put a lot of emphasys on the importance of Schwartz deposition even if there were considerable differences between the version given to the police and the one released to the press and with no other witnesses corroborating him (even if quite a lot of people were in the near vicinity or in the hearing distance).
It was also said that he was very courageous for him to go to the police.
What a courageous man in fact he was.
He sees a woman mistreated by a drunk man and probably an accomplice and he flies. Not to fetch a policeman, but to go and hide leaving the poor woman to her fatal destiny.
Should we say that aside from the "canonical and non-canonical victims" of JtR, researchers on the case have decided that there were not enough of them ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 11:44 am | |
Hello Leanne,
"Not tonight, some other night" is exactly what "an unfortunate" could tell to a client because she is waiting for a more interesting one.
Yes, I think it could have been said by Elisabeth Stride to a client.
Yes, I think it could have been said by Mary Jane Kelly to Hutchinson (probably though Mary Jane Kelly told "later" instead of some other night, thus Hutchinson waits).
I think that they both got an appointement and since you put the finger on it I think there are striking similarities between the preparation of the two murders. Suffice to look at the quantity of people around the sites (and their quality).
That Hutchinson disturbs the murderer (or one of them) and the murder is very likely.
That the song is not a sad one you better know than me, so I believe you and it makes me happy with my belief that Mary Kelly turned that night from beeing sad to beeing rejoiced.
But if in Ireland the happy songs speak about death what do the sad songs speak about ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 04 August 2001 - 12:02 pm | |
Hello Rick,
the footsteps in Miller's court: absolutely no idea.
On the topic of JtR's footwear: absolutely no idea.
On the topic of why no noise with the footwear on the murder sites (with the exception maybe of the Berner street murder and certainly of the Swallow gardens one): the victims were rendered unconscious not at the spot were they were killed (with the exception of Mary Kelly and Frances Coles) but not very far away from it.
Thus the killers did not have to walk a lot to come and to go away from the killing spot.
Why no noise with the heavy boots they wore by the victims when they were attacked ?
And I know that you got aware of that problem with the traditional explanation of the assault.
You answered in proposing the best solution had the killer been one ("crime scenes"). Since in practice I find your solution not feasable it was for me another way to deduce that the killer could not have been one.
No noise from the victims boots because a second man was grasping them tight.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Remember that everything is my opinion and I do not claim it to be the truth. |
Author: Frost demot
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 09:04 pm | |
| what do you mean? there were two killerS? i thought JtR worked alone |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 10:45 am | |
Hello everyone,
I am just nearing the end of Bob Hinton's book,and
a very fine read it is too.
Primary source "Facts only" books are all very well,but I like to hear an author's own theories and deductions using such material,as well.
I think the real problem with Huchinson's statement is that,Innocent or guilty,he was forced into a position where he felt he had to lie.
on the face of it,it all sounds very suspicious.The fact that in one statement he gave,he described the man he had seen with kelly as walking with a very quiet step and carrying a parcel,sounds decidedly fishy.In fact what Hutchinson was actually trying to say to the police is "I saw Kelly with Jack the Ripper so I cannot possibly be Jack!
The fact that he only came forward 3 days after Kelly's inquest doesn't exactly work in his favour!
However, even if Hutchinson's statement(s)is total fabrication,it still doesn't mean that he was the Whitechapel murderer.
After reading that he had been spotted milling around Millers court on the night 8/9th/11/1888,Hutchinson probably said to himself "Blimey this doesn't look good.I was only waiting for a bit of action with Mary Jane and now if this Mrs Lewis has given the police a good description of me,They'll think I'm Jack.
I think Hutcinson may have got his description of this man
with the gold watch chain,by simply studying a picture in a book.This may explain why he was so consistent with each statement he gave-he just visualised the picture in his book.He then added details like the soft step and the suspicious parcel to try and convince the police that he had seen Jack the Ripper Himself,but wasn't silly enough to say directly.
To conclude then,although Hutchison remains an interesting suspect,he could so easily be innocent and found himself having to concot an elaborate lie because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 07:53 pm | |
Dear Mick,
Maybe he was adding some spice to his life...authors do it...policemen do it...even Jack the Rippers do it...hell, we all do it? And there's the rub! Why believe ANYBODY? Well... because then there would be no STORY, see.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Kevin Gallagher
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 03:01 am | |
My biggest wonder on Mary Kelly is why her. She has little or nothing in common with the other victims but she is officaly the last. The other four victims were over 40, Mary was 25. 1-3 faces were left alone, 4 & 5 were disfigured. Mary most of all was taken a part peice by piece. The only thing in common the five have is that all or some of them may have been prostitutes
Also why take her heart? #2 had her sexual organs disappear. What is Jack trying to say?
I'm new so cut me some slak if these questions are stupid
gallagher |
Author: Kevin Gallagher
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 03:04 am | |
My biggest wonder on Mary Kelly is why her? She has little or nothing in common with the other victims but she is "officaly" the last. The other four victims were over 40, Mary was 25. Victims 1-3 faces were left alone, 4 & 5 were disfigured. Mary most of all, she was taken a part piece by piece. The only thing in common the five have is that all or some of them may have been prostitutes at one time or another.
Also why take Marrys heart? #2 had her sexual organs disappear. What is Jack trying to say?
I'm new at this so cut me some slack if these questions are stupid
gallagher |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 08:27 am | |
Kevin,
I guess it was about opportunity. It arouse and our Jack grabbed and made the most of it.
The one common thing that she had with the victims was that she was a prostitute and they are fairly easy targets.
The disfigurement of Kellys face is (in my opinion) only because the murderer was in a secluded spot with very little chance of being disturbed. He had the time and security to carry out this one out as far as he wanted.
Why Kelly?? Beats me.
Monty |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:19 pm | |
G'day Monty,
Ok, so how did Jack know that someone wasn't going to knock at Kelly's door any second, or what's worse, reach his hand through the broken window to let himself in?
Leanne! |
Author: Kevin Gallagher
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 01:57 am | |
Monty thanks for the reply and it makes sense. Except for one point he took the time to cut up victim fours face and this is after cutting threes throat the same night a few block away. This in it's self isn't strange for a serial killer they tend to get more daring and horrendous as time goes by. Then again for some reason the Jack the Ripper murders stopped after Kelly. Which may show that he was not the typical serial killer. I'm not one to go for the crown conspiracy theory. But I keep looking at the crimes as a puzzel with peices missing. This of course is an obvious statement
HMMMM. Like I said before I'm relativley new at this. This must be what people since 1888 have felt, Like looking at one of those poster with the hidden picture in them. Or maybe it is all just jibberish, and there is no method. But I don't think the story would have lasted this long if everyone belived that it was all random and there was no motivation beyound dementia.
Well Good night gents
Gallagher |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 06:57 am | |
Aye up Leanne,
I didn't say there was no chance of being disturbed. A lot less likely than being in the street though. Of course he didn't know if he would be interrupted but knock could be ignored.
Someone letting themselves in didn't happen did it?. He took a chance and got away with it.
With the total destruction of Kellys body it seems to me that he was fairly confident that there would be no disruption.
Hi Kevin,
You are assuming that Stride (your three) is a victim of Jack. Theres a fair argument that she wasn't. Out of the five excepted victims I feel that Stride could belong to another.
Take care all.
Monty
 |
Author: Kate McGee
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 04:59 am | |
Call me crazy here, but in the autopsy report on Kelly, looks like she might have had some self defense wounds on her hands like she was trying to fight off the attacker which suggests that she was kicking and screaming. Any thoughts for the new kid? ;)
-Kate,
Dallas, Texas |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 10:38 am | |
Hi Kate,
The Kelly murder is different than the other murders in series in several respects - including the fact you mention.
The physicians at the time interpreted the cuts on Kelly's hands are defensive wounds.
The other victims had bruises apparently from choking but lacked cuts on the hands as you correctly note. Due to the extensive nature of Kelly's wounds, it wasn't possible to determine whether she had been strangled.
Rich |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 02:32 pm | |
| Since Mary Kelly was the youngest and most attractive of the victims, and was the only one who lived in a private situation at that time, did the Ripper know her previously and even select the spot for his crimes in relation to her dwelling. Did he choose this spot because he had found out where she was living?It was said that she was afraid of some particular person. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 04:57 pm | |
David,
I now believe that the Ripper is likely to have known Mary Jane Kelly, but what I mean by that is that he was probably a client of Kelly's on occasions before November 9th.
The reason that I definately believe that Stride was a JTR victim is because I think that after the murderer narrowly escaped from Dutfields Yard then killed Eddowes at Mitre Square, he decided on a change of tack. He decided to play as safe as he could for his next kill.
I will also go further and suggest that he had at least once lodged in Dorset Street, and knew of John McCarthy. I base the opinion on the fact that if the killer was a local as I personally have no doubt he was, then McCarthy's so-called tough reputation would be known to him also.
And from my own experiences in the place where I grew up, you wouldn't have considered venturing down a street in the middle of the night where someone with a tough reputation and a gang ruled with threats. And it would be even more inadvisable to try and get to know any of the girls that lived down that street.
And that's why I believe that if McCarthy or any of Kelly's friends had seen Mary Jane with JTR, he knew they would not be suspicious of him. But this is not an accusation against Jo Barnett, Joe Flemming, or George Hutchinson, because I believe that the police probably made a thorough investigation of all three.
I feel that it's unlikely that the murderer chose Kelly because she was always an intended victim, rather that she became a convenient victim because of where she was living at the room in Miller's Court. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 06:14 pm | |
| Mary, though was not in the class with the others.In some way she stands out.Ivor thinks the Ripper killings were plotted on a map beforehand.Mary Kelly's murder stands out from the rest.After reading Ivor's conclusion it seems a real possibility that the murder plan was concocted with Mary Kelly in mind.She did say she had gone to France while she was working the West End, but when she returned she wound up in the East End. It was certainly because of age or looks that she fled there.Was she afraid of someone? She said she was to Barnett. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 08:07 pm | |
A very good question David , what was Mary Kelly doing in the East End - she was still young enough and pretty enough to have made a living in a West End brothel. She didn't have any venereal disease either and she was pretty well educated too apparently.
The East End was the home of the lowest form of prostitute , broken down old women who had been abandoned by their menfolk , many of whom were resorting to cheap tricks simply in order to get a bed and some gin. Since Mary owed so much rent , one wonders why she didn't run somewhere else. Something compelled her to remain in the East End even at the height of the murders.
There were pretty young prostitutes in the East End - Frances Coles is the other obvious example - but Mary definitely could have done better. |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 01:31 pm | |
| I hope Neal Shelden is able to get a handle on Kelly.Suppose she was from France and could not read English? |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 01:56 pm | |
You could add to that question David : was Kelly actually a Catholic ? If she came from Wales , it would seem unlikely : but if she wasn't , did she really work at Providence Row as the oral tradition goes ?
I don't think she was from France ; although she used a French name the people who knew her would have remarked on her accent if she had have been.
I think she just liked to mention she had been to France to give herself a bit of an air of sophistication. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 04:07 pm | |
Absolutely, I think that it was all part of Mary Jane the show off to be able to say to her friends that she had been to France.
I would have to say though that just because pretty and young registers some significance to us about Kelly, it wouldn't necessarily matter to the killer. He might have murdered a younger woman on previous nights if opportunity had come his way?
I would have to question whether Mary Jane was a better class than all the other women if that was what was meant, unless it only meant looks. Because Annie Chapman probably came from the same class background, as in something like upper working class as Kelly probably did.
As for Kelly being afraid of someone, I thought I'd put a mention in for her father who on one occasion was said to have gone to the East End to find Mary Jane. She was said to have been warned by her associates that he was looking for her and so avoided him. There are of course some father's who would go to extremes in order to keep control over their daughters, especially in Victorian England. If Kelly's father was a strict religious authoritarian, could her way of life have been the last straw for him to have even wanted her dead?
But I admit it sounds too far-fetched. Kelly was probably afraid of a client that could have been Jack the Ripper? In fact, I think it's fare to suggest that probably all prostitutes had, and also have today, at least one client that they're afraid of out of all the characters they regularly meet. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 08:17 pm | |
Neal-
Your reference to MJK's father looking for her in the East End is quite intriguing. Do you happen to recall the source of this story?
Just as an aside, I would contrast the press reports of Mary's superior education with Barnett's testimony that she asked him to read the newspapers to her- which suggests to me that she was illiterate.
AAA88 |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 08:41 am | |
Ah no Jesse ! We had a long discussion about this somewhere else , it doesn't necessarily mean that Mary was badly educated because Barnett read to her.
She could have merely asked him to read for her while she lay resting or did some sewing ; also in Victorian working-class families , reading the newspaper by the fire was generally a ' man's thing ' to do. Presuming this was the evening paper , and both wanted to know the news , Barnett would read by the fire to get the light and the heat , so it would have been most convinient for him to read it to Mary ( many people could only read aloud in the 19th century anyway ). Plus it might have been a slight to Barnett's masculinity for Mary to read to him !
It might merely have been a romantic thing to do even , for Joe to read to Mary ! |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 09:55 am | |
| Since she was beginning to tire of him, perhaps it was a slam at his speech impediment (lisping or stuttering over the words).Mary had a mean streak so it seems. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 02:59 pm | |
Jesse,
The source that I've got written down for Mary Jane Kelly's father looking for her in the East End is Paul Begg's 'Jack the Ripper, The Uncensored Facts'. But I don't have the book anymore or the newspaper record that it was taken from. I'll get back on that point once I've checked again which newspaper that came from! |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 03:20 am | |
Neal-
Thanks a lot, I'd really appreciate it if you did that.
AAA88 |
Author: Chris Glover
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:54 am | |
I am a newbie on this message board so please forgive me if this has already been covered.
I cannot understand how Mary Kelly could be classed as being murdered by JTR. The MO is all wrong. All the other murders were committed outside. The only link to the others are the mutilations. I think Joe Barnett killed Mary but I do not think that he was JTR. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 08:05 am | |
Hello Chris,
If Jack had had the oportunity to murder each of his victims indoors,in the knowledge that he wasn't going to be disturbed,then I'm sure he would have done so.
Also there are actually many similarities between the Kelly murder and the others in the series.
For instance the position of Kelly's body was identical with that of Eddowes'.
In the murders of Chapman,Eddowes and Kelly,in each case,Jack removed part of the viscera and placed it around or over the body in some way.He also took away organs from each of these three.
I think there can be no doubt that Kelly was murdered by the person responsible for the killings of Nichols,Chapman,Stride and,Eddowes.
Regards,
Mick |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 10:13 am | |
| The first 4 murders were done in such a manner as to be found within minutes of perpetration. Mary Kelly's was not.There must be some significance in that. It is hard to visualize Barnett working himself into that kind of rage to completely demolish Kelly's body. They were together earlier in the evening on good terms.Is there any record that Barnett had a violent nature? He and his brother were on good terms with Kelly.When Mary threw a tantrum Barnett got the short end of the stick.If Barnett was so dominant why did he leave the apartment rather than throw her out? That murder implies a savagery uncrolled or else something more subtle. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 01:44 pm | |
Good point David , I think this little discussion is coming up with some top class stuff !
Mutilation of a victim in a murder case is pretty rare in itself , but mutilation in a domestic murder - as it would be if Barnett killed Kelly - surely has to be extremely uncommon indeed.Unless Barnett wanted Kelly to be thought of as a Ripper victim...
The clincher has to be the murder in the room then. Why would Barnett , if he had killed Mary , kill her in her room ? Its a different MO to the standard Ripper killing ( outdoors ) which might bring suspicion on himself. It would have been far better for Joe to have lured Mary to some deserted alleyway and then ' done her in ' , then it would have been easier to pass off her death as a Ripper killing.
After all , if we are saying Barnett committed the other Ripper murders , he could cut and mutilate a body in less than 5 minutes - because he did so with Kate Eddowes in Mitre Square. |
