|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Was it really Mary Kelly in the room?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims:
Was it really Mary Kelly in the room?
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Saturday, 03 August 2002 - 08:21 pm |        | Hello everyone,
I would say that Mary Kelly probably did service clients both in her room and out on the streets. I know that buying sexual favors from an East End prostitute was very cheap, but does anyone know who the average customer was? Was the average customer also poverty stricken? Or did "gentleman" sometimes use their services? I mean, Divia wonders if Kelly would charge more for services in the privacy of her room, but do you think a customer would go for that if they were poor? Just curious.
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 03 August 2002 - 11:34 pm | | Divia,
I have little doubt that Kelly could have asked clients she felt could afford it a little more money for the privacy of an encounter in her dwelling.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 03:09 am | | G'day,
I believe that Kelly was doing 'qickies' in the street, as well as bringing regular clients (whom she thought she could trust), home for private 'quickies'. Jack the Ripper wasn't at the time known to kill indoors.
Joe Barnetts job at Billingsgate required him to start work at 5:00am, so he'd go to bed early. Mary would go out drinking without Joe, and '"often came home at night the worse for drink" (McCarthy).
Julia Venturney: "I have frequently seen Kelly the worse for drink but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone."
If Joe had to be up at about 4:00am and Kelly came home drunk at about 1:00am or 2, woke Joe forcing him to leave early to avoid a fight, I wonder where he went, what nights/mornings he went and what he did?
I'd say this was going on ever since they were together, because the pair never remained long at any one address. They first lived in George Street but had moved three times within a year. They were evicted from one place for "going on a drunk" instead of paying their rent.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 03:37 am | | G'day Bob,
Barnett told the press outside her room that morning: 'we lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected and Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there. I left and took lodgings elsewhere.'
In a statement of Barnett's given to Inspector Abberline that morning, his reasons for leaving Kelly were: "in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution." (Coroners Files).
At Kellys inquest when he was asked why he had left her it was because: "she took in an immoral woman, me being out of work had nothing to do with it."
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 03:43 am | | G'day again,
Kelly obviously chose her prostitute friends over Barnett....isn't that enough to send an unstable mind over the edge....I mean to kill a woman he once loved, with the sheet over her face to make her 'anonymous', like the others?
LEANNE! |
Author: R Court
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 05:21 am | | Hi Leanne, Hi all.
Greetings after such a long time, Leanne.
Barnett changed his story several times, as we see. Either to protect himself against charges of living off immoral ernings or suspicions of being involved. That was and is normal and doesn't mean anything IMHO.
I don't see anywhere in our sources that Barnett ever showed signs of being ga-ga. His own words in the inquest and those reported or reliably attributed to him seem to be completely sane, fairly consistant and normal. Nowhere do we see any shadow of suspicion that he had an unstable mind, Abberline would certainly have investigated in depth if that were the case and consequently sources would have been there. Of course, however, he could have been schizo...
I think we can safely assume that Kelly 'serviced' clients away from home. Either 'house visits', on a street corner or where-ever. I have a vague suspicion that Kelly charged nominally 6d. I say that only because Hutchinson claimed that she tried to borrow that sum from him and it may be that she tried to solicit him instead. Most lowest of the low prices seemed to have been 4d if my general impression is correct. That Kelly could charge more would lie on her youth and looks more than if she had a room or not, although the room would probably help market prices.
I would suppose that clients would be normal working men with a few pence to spend on a quickie. That doesn't seem much, but in my childhood the '10 bob whore' was certainly not unknown, even while not partaking of this particular 'luxury' myself.
Like Leanne, I also have the feeling that Kelly did not hold Joe Barnett in such estimation as Joe might have liked. His complaints about the other women being allowed to stay may well have been complaints of her trying to get rid of him by doing so, as this occurred after he had lost his job.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 06:27 am | | | The night Mary was killed: I think she pulled the bedclothes over her head very tight,-- like a headgehog, the ripper couldn't get to her. He cut through sheet to get to her throat, thats how she was cut so bad on her forearms, she had her forearms up in front of her face holding the sheet over her head tightly. Thats how the sheet came to be cut and bloodstained.I don't believe there was anything over her face when he did eventually get to her throat,otherwise her blood would not have spurted against the wall on her right. The cuts to her arms would have made her let go of the sheet. When he cut her throat I believe he had his hand over her mouth preventing her from making another sound after the "Oh murder" cry she made as she took her cut arms away from her face. I dont think he covered her face to mutilate it, he would have cut her eyes if he had done that, anyway there was a certain order in the face mutilations,-- nose cut off, eyebrows cut off, cheeks cut out to show teeth, ears cut off, lips cut, but eyes,-- untouched! |
Author: R Court
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 07:15 am | | Hi Rick
Interesting, although we don't know if it did happen that way. I have always been a bit sceptical about the 'Oh murder!' cry. As we know, this cry was usual in those days, it seemed to be used, at least by women, very regularly and therefore is not the sort of cry I'd expect of Kelly in her death-fight.
It could be that she gave up such a cry as Jack first grabbed her (bit about the sheet over her head could pass), her not aware of the danger she was in, and had no time for a scream as Jack ripped her throat and silenced her. Barnett-enemies often use this particular sort of 'Kelly seeming to know and trust the killer'- theme and indeed there seems to be some grounds for it, although why just Barnett alone is me not clear.
If Kelly knew the person as more than just a client, that could explain why the cry and not a panic-stricken scream as he first attacked her. One of my theories is that maybe Kelly believed the client was a hoped-for possible future partner as Barnett had been and would later pay the rent etc.
The bit about the eyes is also true of the others, none had their eyes mutilated. If this had any special significance is not clear to me. If, as it seems with the MO on some of the victims, a ritual was being carried out, then maybe. Perhaps the victims should symbolicly watch themselves being ripped or the ripper ripping.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 08:05 am | | Bob, are you perhaps surmising to yourself that the killer was Fleming?. If so, was he there in the dark as an intruder or was he there in a lighted room as a client. As I've said, I think it was Barnett, he would have known the layout of that room in the dark, and if he had kept silent Kelly would not have known who was in the room with her, but I think Jack the Ripper would have been on her mind.
Rick |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 08:23 am | | G'day Bob,
Barnett had no reason to fear being charged for 'living off immoral earnings'If you believe he may have changed his story several times to protect himself from suspicion, surely it's not hard to believe he could have lied to Abberline to clear suspicion altogether.
The press noted that he spoke with a stutter and had a curious habit of 'begining each of his answers by repeating the last word of every question asked'. This wasn't recognized at the time, but is nowadays recognized as a disorder common to autistics and schizophrenics.
WARWICK: 'The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood...'This indicates that the bed clothing to her right, was covering her throat when Jack made the fatal cut. Spurting blood dripped to the floor. 'The wall by the right side of the bed & in line with the neck, (no higher), 'was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of seperate splashes'.
Even if it was Jack who was holding the sheet over her face, she would have used her forearms in self-defence!
LEANNE |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 08:37 am | | Does Sickert's painting, "The Camden Town Murder" have any connection with the Ripper murders
Rick |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 09:26 am | | As it was opinioned at the time that Kelly's throat had been cut as she lay on the far side of the bed against the partition, we are inclined to suspect that she would only be in that position to give room to another to also lay beside her.
She was wearing a chemise and may well have been sharing her bed at the time of her murder. The killer lacerated her face and, apparently, took away her heart. These slight indications may lead us to believe her killer was no stranger but a well known aquaintance, therefore, in my opinion, we are bound to consider her murder as possibly not one of a series but a very gruesome copycat in the style of what the killer believed 'Jack' might do.
Now, contra to this we must wonder what her intentions were with the beer-drinking-man, did Kelly usually undress for her clients?, if so, is this not 'more work' than what the usual prostitute does to provide a 'service'?. Taking clients back to her room takes more time than a quick 'knee-trembler' up a back alley, so did Kelly charge more?, the chemise may have been an attempt at some 'french mistress' facade for her clients, acting out a fantasy for them.
Kelly may have viewed herself as a 'better-class' of streetwalker, and therefore, the possible sharing of her bed and the chemise may be only indications of her perceived status rather than indications of her familiarity with her killer.
If's, but's & maybe's.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 10:21 am | | Jon, I don't like to appear to disagree with you each time we contact, so I say this is just the way I see it, I could be wrong . When my wife and I are apart I carry on sleeping on the same side of the bed, my wife does the same,--same side as always. I'm just saying that you get used to which side of the bed you sleep on and only that side will do. Don't you think it could have been that way with Mary Kelly?--she was used to sleeping on the right, besides which, during their time together Barnett would have been first to get up!
Grazziano, if Millers Court was a working place as well as a residence, why would Barnett agree to live there when he wasn't,--supposedly-- willing to live with Kelly if she walked the streets.
Rick |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 11:11 am | | Hi Rick.
Disagreement is fuel for the fire and good for the brain cells, heaven forbid that we should all agree on something. And here on these boards I know that will never happen
However, I agree with you about the bedside territorial habit, I suspect most couples are the same.
In a round-about way what I was saying is that her killer is not likely to have attacked her in a standing position and then laid her down along the far side of the bed to slit her throat only to pull her body nearer to him to mutilate her, that makes no sense.
So, it appears she was laid on the bed with a client or with an aquaintance, either way this is not the 'blitz-style' of attack that we have come to know as indicative of the killer of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 03:09 pm | | Rick, I do not know what kind of guy Barnett could have been, I never met him and what we know about his character only allows us to speculate.
What we know about his real life is not so much either but:
-he had already been evicted for not paying the rent,
-he would have been drunk and disorderly,
-he did not have a regular job,
-he did live with a professionnal and usual prostitute,
-he did live in one of the most harsch street of all the East End;
All this makes what likely that he was not the kind of weak and kind guy he tries to appear at the inquest or that Bruce Paley suggests.
For the rest, Miller's Court was a residential and working place.
See the testimonies of Prater, Cox, Lewis among others at the inquest.
Nothing to speculate about it.
Only the residential part of it was incidental.
You went there primarily to work.
This is what still happens today (more or less, see Amsterdam/Antwerp/Hamburg/Nüremberg and so on).
Good Bye. Graziano. |
Author: R Court
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 03:23 pm | | Hi all,
No, I didn't mean to suggest that Fleming was the murderer, especially as they had already lived together and then parted. My thoughts are on some new person whom Kelly could have been hoping on.
Leanne, I didn't mean his getting charged by the police. But who likes to admit, at least in public, that he lives off a prostitute's earnings? I know about the 'stutter' report, but that appears to be a newpaper 'scoop' only and is inherantly suspect. Correct me, anyone? He may have stuttered, but that in itself means nothing.
As for simply lying to Abberline to clear himself of suspicion, exactly that is what would almost certainly have trapped him. An expirienced police detective like Abberline would have easily have caught him out. This didn't happen. As you yourself pointed out, Barnett is reported as having changed his mind a number of times, but I do too. We all report things slanted this way or that, according to need or circumstance.
The 'curious habit' is known today, as you say. It can been a result of mental disorder, of course, but like stuttering, it can be just a result of stress. There is no real evidence that Barnett had any sort of problem, especially as this is supposed to have been noted at the inquest only. No other sources refer to it although he was in the news a large number of times.
As Jon says, she lay originally on the left bed side and this could indicate that someone was in bed with her. It could also just mean that she remained where she was as the last client left or even that she just happened to sleep that way. I have a suspicion, no more than that, that Jack it was who lay there, if anyone did.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 07:46 am | | G'day,
I am single, sleep on a 'Queen-size' bed and always favour the left side. I always thought that a married couple had to sleep as they stood in front of the priest, at the marriage ceremony.
GRAZIANO: Joseph Barnett and Mary Kelly were evicted from Brushfield Street for not paying their rent. Barnett was at the time working at Billingsgate, had to be up early and sober, so I'd say the problem was similar to Mary's drinking problem at Miller's Court.
BOB: Barnett never lived off a prostitutes erarnings! He met Kelly as she was 'selling' herself, but from then on wanted her all to himself and tried to discourage her from prostitution. At the time he was earning a good wage at Billingsgate. Kelly's friend Julia said that Barnett was adamant that Kelly should not go back on the streets and he took great pride in having 'rescued' her from such a life.
Such inconsistencies as Barnett's statements are not definite proof of one's guilt, but if the police were as great as everyone believes, they should not have been allowed to go unchallenged.
Inspector Abberline was there at Kelly's inquest as Joseph Barnett spoke, yet when Joe contradicted a key statement he made to him a few days earlier, he said nothing! The 'key-statement' was his reasons for leaving her on the 30th.
The 'Standard'&'The Illustrated Police News'were amoung the newspapers that noted that Barnett stuttered, and the 'Daily Chronical' said that he stammered. The 'Cardiff Times' & 'South Wales Weekly News' noted his habit of repeating the last words of every question asked.
There was no reason for him to appear in the press before the inquest.
There is no doubt that Mary was on the side nearest the wall when she was attacked. Her clothes were folded on a chair at the end of the bed, and if she planned on getting dressed again to fetch another customer, I don't think she would have bothered to put on a chemise. I don't think they were into sexy night clothes 114 years ago!
The heart, the heart, the heart. With a choice of any organ to take as a mere souviner, why go to all the trouble of extracting her heart?
LEANNE! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 08:38 am | | I really don't see why/how Mary Kelly could be pictured on the right, left, or middle of the bed,-- or with anyone lying in bed with her!!If some one came to that bed in dark or light, and attacked her,--- which ever side of the bed she was lying-- there could have been one heck of a struggle over all the bed before she was subdued. Maybe the struggle finished at the top right hand corner of the bed! and she was dragged back to the left side after he had regained his breath and she had finished bleeding on the floor.
Leanne, you surprise me, if the killer of Kelly was Barnett, it's only natural that he would take the heart in preference to any other organ. The heart is the emblem of love,-- true love, --false love. If the Ripper/killer of Kelly, had been anyone other than Barnett, the heart would not have been missing.
Rick. |
Author: R Court
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 10:52 am | | Hi Leanne, Hi Rick,
No, Leanne, you're right. He didn't, and I correct myself to that he didn't want it to be thought, which was what I meant to have said.
The so-called 'Echolalia' (says my memory) is as the stutter/stammer, uncontrolled reactions of a poor nerve costume. This was, I believe, only mentioned by one source at the inquest. That he stuttered and stammered at the inquest can mean nothing. I might have done too, although I have no problem otherwise.
I agree about the clothes but the chemise could have been worn as an undergarment the whole day and night. It was not unknown. I also agree though that she probably had no intention of going out again, which leads me to believe that she had got money for the next day and intended to rest before the show.
Jack took a kidney as well, from Eddowes, and that was even more curious as the heart. While, however, in Kelly's case the similarity of the MO outweighed by far the disimilarity, we can well assume that Jack killed her. If that's the case and Barnett killed her then Barnett killed the others and that's the problem. Find a jot of evidence.
I don't read too much into the heart myself, although if Jack did have some sort of relationship with her it could have played a part.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 11:21 am | | Hi all,
My understanding is that Barnett did not stutter or stammer at the inquest. He actually had the habit of repeating the last word of every sentence uttered to him prior to replying.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: R Court
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 12:42 pm | | Hi Rich,
That was also my understanding over a long period, but he is reported as stammering etc. in a number of sources so it may be true that he did. Of course, newpaper reports were (and are) often so misleading or flatly wrong that one gets the impression that the reporter had been on the wrong continent.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 12:54 pm | | Bob,
That is very true - I could see how a slight speech irregularity might become a stutter or stammer due to press exaggeration.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: stephen miller
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 01:58 pm | | Hi Richard and Bob where I come from ie Lincolnshire England - Repeating the last words of a sentence uttered to you means that you are taking every thing in
It therefore means that you are a very nosey or prying person
best wishes
steve
 |
Author: R Court
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 04:17 pm | | Hi Rich, Hi Steve,
Rich, I was once at a scientific convention about non-invasive cardio-surgery in Berlin, not a big do but quite a few big nobs in the trade present. A day later, I read the newspaper report over it.
They got the venue wrong, the subject of the convention was described as Heart transplants (hardly 'Non-invasive') and to crown it all, a waiter was shown in a photograph and described as being the reading Professor.
Steve, if the reports of the times are true Barnett would have had 'Echolalia' (I think), a nervous disorder similar to stammering in its basics. Of course, he could have been as you describe, but most people reported seemed to have no bad opinion of Joe and no-one seemed to suggest he was nosey or prying.
What speaks for Barnett not being Jack in my mind is simply that he was one of the strongest suspects according to his history and circumstances, yet we hear very little contemporary suspicions about him. He was a witness, no more.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 04:42 pm | | Hi Bob,
Furthermore, it is virtually unprecedented that a serial killer is secretly motivated by rage and anger at a romantic interest then culminates a serial killer rampage with the murder of his lover.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 09:11 pm | | | There is no doubt that Kelly was interested in money from prostitution whether it went into rent or not.I believe that her relationship with McCarthy was a part of the take. Whoever killed her was not interested in an against the wall fling.Whether it was rage or something else she either knew him or was aware that he should pay the price of her services,which I believe was more than the price of a bed in a doss house. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 03:44 am | | Hi Rick,
'If the Ripper/killer of Kelly, had been anyone other than Barnett, the heart would not have been missing.'
But we have a very recent murder case that takes the heart out of that conclusion, don't we?
Again, if it's so obvious to people today, that Barnett was the only man likely to remove Mary's heart (yet he was supposedly copying Jack's previous murders, where other organs were taken but the hearts weren't touched), why was it not obvious to anyone at the time, once he had been questioned? The police certainly knew, as did the press, that a spouse/ex-lover was always the obvious prime suspect, regardless of how many previous unsolved and possibly linked murder cases they were dealing with at any particular time. But the main suspect theories that have come down to us all hinge on the idea that Mary's murder caused Jack to scarper, top himself or become so unhinged that they locked him away in a lunatic asylum.
And incidentally, what do you think Barnett did with the offending organ?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 05:06 am | | G'day all,
RICK: Why would 'Jack' sneak up in the dark and struggle with Kelly on the bed, to find her throat? Why would he run the risk of allowing her the chance to scream the place down?
Yes she was dragged more central on the bed after death, so maybe her killer wanted to hide the fact that someone shared the bed with her that night.
Rick, I know why Barnett would have taken her heart. I was trying to help others see the 'scorned lover' element.
BOB: Barnett didn't want it to be thougtht that he welcomed prostitution, did he? He was also determined that everyone was left believing that they lived together harmoniously, even though they fought when Kelly came home drunk.
I don't see why it's so hard to believe that Barnett could have killed other prostitutes just to deter Kelly from 'selling' herself. People can't accept that as a motive, but does anyone think they can understand what Jack the Rippers motive was? This killer was incapable of thinking rationally. Could anyone understand back then? All murders prior to the Rippers were solved because the motives were clear. That could be why there were little 'contemporary suspicions'.
LEANNE |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 08:15 am | | To all, take the best picture you have of Kelly on her death bed and then say, before this massacre began there were two people lying in this bed,--- or was it three or four.
I think Kelly was in bed alone! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 08:43 am | | G'day Rick,
It's only a small bed isn't it? But that was the bed that Mary and Joe shared when he lived there too. No wonder he moved out when Kelly invited her friends to stay!................It would have been cold sleeping on the floor!!!!!!!!!!
LEANNE |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 08:56 am | | G'day,
Hey, that's probably why Mary went out drinking alone / while Joe was sleeping before work, then when Mary came home drunk / Joe went for a walk-about!
LEANNE |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 10:24 am | | | When Kelly brought the lady friend home did Barnett move out the same day or was he forced to sleep on the floor.Did I read that this room was rented in Kelly's name? If so was it that way from the beginning when she and Barnett moved in? Though Barnett made money for a time did he or Kelly pay the rent?Also did I read that Barnett was fired from his job rather than let go because of hard times? |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 10:31 am | | Hi all,
I slept together with my wife in such a bed for nearly a year, no problem except her damn icey feet and occaisional dutch oven.
Leanne, I mentioned Barnett's apparent stress at the inquest just because of the being-made-public aspect of him and prostitution. I don't see how he could have kept the sort of blood-and-guts relationship you visualise quiet. If they were thumping seven bells of crap out of each other every five minutes the neighbours would have known and some would have talked.
Kelly herself was described as being noisey and troublesom when drunk and also that she was '..quarrelsom when drunk. When sober she was one of the nicest.. etc'. This doesn't mean that Barnett didn't quarrel with her, but he certainly wasn't noted for fighting by the neighbours.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 10:39 am | | Hi David,
Post crossed.
I believe he moved out the same day, but I don't know. The room was rented in her name from the begining, why is a good question. Barnett got booted out of his job, maybe for theft or some other matter.
If the payment of rent stopped at the time he lost his job, and we may well assume that, he paid the rent and Kelly didn't earn enough after he left to pay it either. I believe that Kelly expected to find someone who, like Barnett and a couple others, would support her, young and pretty as she was reported to be. She'd already had a couple of partners and would have seen no reason why she couldn't get another.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 11:05 am | | | It is interesting that the room was rented to Kelly from the beginning.Was that a usual practice there?If it was not the usual practice then the Landlord had some reason to make Kelly responsible rather than Barnett.If she was off the street while with Barnett she had no income, but still McCarthy rented to her.He was no fool.Why did he do it that way? |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 11:16 am | | Hi David,
I have often wondered if Kelly's relationship to Barnett were already so cooled that she actually only permitted Barnett to stay if he paid the rent, if he knew that or not.
It could be, however, that they rented the other places where they had lived just in her name too.
Sod it! Just received news that I have to make a duty trip until friday, must rush..
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 02:57 pm | | Caz, yes we do have the Angelsea murder, but I don't think you can compare, he hadn't killed before, and he didn't have a pattern to follow, it was all his own work. He was really nuts and he was caught in no time.
The heart I think he would have kept to his dying day, if anyone had found it after he had died, they wouldn't have known what it was.
Graziano, we think alike as regards Barnett's character and personality, I agree with you.
Millers Court, a residence and a place of work! Maybe,---but,-- a rainy night, Prater and Cox coming and going, both prostitutes, but only Mary took men into her room. Both of those women eventually settled down for the night, what remained of it , and I think Mary did the same, thats why I think she was alone. But why did Barnett take Mary to live there if it was a brothel and he prided himself on rescuing her from the streets. He was putting temptation right under her nose.
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 03:08 pm | | | of course I mean't Barnett kept Kelly's heart, not the Anglesea killer, sorry. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 05:51 pm | | G'day,
DAVID: Joe was still living there when Mary invited her friend Julia to stsy there. When Julia moved out Kelly let her friend Maria stay there. That was when Joe moved out!
Barnett and Kelly were living together when they moved in to Millers Court. The room was rented in Mary's name, and she was obviously the dominant one in the relationship, so I'd say it was her idea to move into the Dorset Street address. If they got evicted from one place for failing to pay the rent, I'd say Mary's drinking was to blame so Joe said: "OK, Next time YOU pick the house and we'll rent it in YOUR name!"
Bob: Barnett failed to keep his 'blood and guts' relationship quiet. I've written before about the testimonies of her landlord and friend Julia Venturney, who said Kelly frequently came home drunk and Joseph had to go out to avoid an argument......Gotta Go!
LEANNE! |
|
|
|
|
