Archive through 08 January 2003

** 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 08 January 2003

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through 08 January 2003

Author: Dan Norder Monday, 30 December 2002 - 09:50 pm
Diana, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the intended victim was MJK. Why? Let's look at our two options... If Jack accompanied MJK into the room (as a customer or otherwise) obviously he'd know she wasn't Maria Harvey. If the killer was not let in by Mary Kelly herself, he had to have observed the room long enough to know what to expect and that he wouldn't be interrupted if he broke in and took his merry time slicing this one up. I don't see how he could have watched it long enough to know whomever was there was definitely alone and staying that way without also knowing that the sole occupant was MJK. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: Brian Schoeneman Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:35 am
Diana, Okay...this took a bit of doing, and it is by no means the conclusive answer - if Chris Scott could verify my data here, I'd appreciate it. According to Abberline's witness statements (found on page 407 of the Ultimate Companion), Maria Harvey was a "Laundress" who was living at 3 New Court, Dorset Street. The address doesn't really matter because I'm sure it changed a lot. In the 1901 census, there are 19 women named "Maria Harvey" in London. 1901 was 13 years after MJK died. 3 of the women were under age 25 during the 1901 census, so they are out - they would've been teenagers when MJK was killed. 7 of them live in the wrong areas (like Suffolk or Notting Hill - not the East End), so they are out. One is 88, so we can rule her out. Of the remaining 8, there is only one that has an occupation that fit with being a "laundress", that of Maria Harvey, aged 53 with an occupation of "shirt ironer". That would have made her 40 when MJK was killed. Now, this is assuming that I've got the right Maria Harvey and that she was alive in 1901. But it's a good start. Chris Scott has access to the 1881 census, so he may be able to pin it down a bit more. If Maria was 40, Diana has a better case - although I disagree with the basic premise underlying her argument. Wow - actual research tonight, not just ramblings. B
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 06:27 am
Hello Diana, You know that if you put forward the Ripper killing Kelly in mistake for Harvey, then that really means that the Ripper entered No.13 and killed Kelly in the depth of darkness, he very likely did not give her time to scream "Oh murder", and he could not have killed at a later time of morning,--(08:30-09:30,-- it had to be dark!!, and he was working by touch, until she was dead, when I believe he lit that stub of candle. Rick
Author: Diana Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 11:06 am
He goes in. He sees a figure on the bed in the dark. He grabs her and she wakes up and yells. He slits her throat. Then he lights a candle and discovers it isn't Harvey.
Author: Diana Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 11:08 am
PS. Brian, thanks for all the work!
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:02 pm
Elementary my dear Diana, elementary Rick
Author: Jon Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 02:10 pm
Mary Kelly = Black Mary? The earliest consistent mention I can find, after only a rudimentary search, is that by Tom Cullen (Autumn of Terror), he devotes a chapter to 'Black Mary' and in that he offers no firm solution to the origin of the nickmane except to imply it was a reflection of her temperament. Tom tells us that he talked to a retired market-porter named Dennis Barrett who, as a boy, knew Black Mary by sight. "She was a handsome woman", Barrett recalled, "tall and rather stout. She had her pitch outside the Ten Bells pub in Commercial St., and woe to any woman who tried to poach her territory - such a woman was likely to have her hair pulled out in fistfuls". (Cullen adds), in short Black Mary was a bit of a terror. regards, Jon (Believe it or not)
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 02:34 pm
Dear Diana, One from the archive! Mary Kelly locks Jack in the room and quick-as-a-flash...before Jack can grab it, she swallows it! The viscera is the key? Rosey :-)
Author: The Viper Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 03:40 pm
Yes, Jon. That's the earliest reference I'm aware of too. If you compare the description given by Dennis Barrett to some of the more detailed press descriptions of the time, such as those in the Daily Telegraph, it sounds like a different woman. Tom Cullen's book was a good read, but in addition to being dated it is none too reliable as a source. For example, Cullen made up conversations between the characters in the Ripper story. And, just to pick a random example, how about this for a bit of third rate drama... "But gods other than those at the Cambridge now intervened to give his [Hutchinson's] hopes a cruel twist. Before the watchman could open his mouth to pour out his woes, Kelly was on about her own troubles. The rent was due; she had had nothing to eat; could he lend her half a crown? She promised to repay it before the weekend was out. Wordlessly, like some serio-comic mime, he pulled out his empty pockets, spread his hands in a gesture of mock despair." Unless and until somebody can come up with a reliable sourcing for "Black Mary" prior to Cullen in the mid-60s, it would be much safer to forget about the name. Regards, V.
Author: Jon Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 05:03 pm
Hi Viper. While we are on the subject of Cullen....I wonder if you recall where he tells us that prior to the murder of Tabram the military were allowed to carry bayonets while out on leave. This practice was stopped following the murder of Martha Tabram, at least according to Tom Cullen. Another detail I was never able to substantiate. I stumbled across that statement while researching the history of Llewellyns dagger (Bayonet?) a couple of years ago. Cant understand why I cannot find it again, I'm sure it was Cullen. Best regards, Jon
Author: The Viper Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 06:45 pm
Well now you've really got me at it, Jon. However, it's always a pleasure to revisit one's old Ripper books - you know, the ones you read when the case first grabs hold of you. You are quite correct about the Tabram/bayonet issue. In a footnote the information that soldiers stationed at the Tower were forbidden to carry bayonets and other sidearms on leave is attributed to James W. Bousfield, 83 years old when interviewed by Cullen and the son of Martha's ex-landlady. This subject came up a long time back, and you were certainly involved in the debate. At the time (summer 1999) I made some enquiries at the National Army Museum on the matter and for those who weren't around at the time received a reply from a Ms. Sara Jones... "Thank you for your enquiry concerning edged weapons carried by off duty soldiers in 1888. In 1888 no soldier, irrespective of their rank, was issued with a sidearm. They may however have carried a personal knife which would have been purchased privately. Officers of higher rank would have carried a stick or cane rather than a bayonet. I am unaware of any new regulations brought in by the army in reaction to the Jack The Ripper killings. In response to your query regarding the Lee Metford rifle and bayonet, I can confirm that this weapon was introduced in 1888 and therefore only very few would have been issued in this year. The Martini Henry rifle was the most commonly used at this time." Since then I have seen reports in the newspapers for 1888 describing trials for the new infantry rifle. These must refer to the Lee Metford. It must therefore be doubtful that any operational units were using them in the autumn of 1888. A new sword pattern bayonet had just been approved. So it was presumably compatible with the existing rifle (the Martini Henry). The whole matter of serving soldiers carrying bayonets is still an open one to my eyes, but I feel the probability is that it was both uncommon and against regulations. As such, Cullen and his source were probably wrong on that too, but with old bayonets apparently bought and sold in secondhand shops in the locality I'm not sure how much of an issue this really is. If Dr. Killeen was correct in his judgement that one of Tabram's wounds was likely to have been inflicted with a sword bayonet, then the weapon need not necessarily have belonged to a soldier. That said, my personal view is still that Tabram's killer was most likely a serving soldier. Regards, V.
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 11:08 pm
Viper--This was brought up Dan Farson, too [p. 22] "Surprisingly, soldiers took their bayonets with them on their evening's off--a practice that was stopped afterwards." Cheers, RP
Author: The Viper Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 10:02 am
R.J., True enough, but on checking the publication date of Farson's book it is listed as 1972, several years after Cullen. As was normal then, Farson didn't list his sources, so we don't know where he got his information from. It must be a possibility that he relied on Cullen's work. Somewhere in one of those older books there is another reference which purports to quote a prostitute who claims to have been "run though" with a bayonet. Trouble is, the quote first appeared in Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor, which dates from a much earlier period. The expanded edition of Mayhew, which contained four volumes with a section on prostitutes in Volume 4, appeared in 1862. Afraid I'm still firmly of the view that the statements made by Cullen, Farson and others about this point are highly suspect. Regards, V.
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 04:56 pm
Viper--No doubt you're correct. But let me persist for a moment. In Inspector Reid's report, dated 24th August, 1888, he states "On 9th I was present at the Tower at 11.30 pm when Corporal Benjiman returned. This man had been absent without leave since the 6th. I at once took charge of his clothing and bayonet, and asked him to account for time. He stated that he had been staying with his father, Mr. Benjiman, landlord of the Canbury Hotel, [etc.] ***I examined his clothing and bayonet but could find no marks of blood on them." Can't we deduce from this that the soldiers were carring sidearms while on leave? Best wishes, RJP PS. I'll email you about another matter, if I might
Author: The Viper Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 05:41 pm
Yes, fair point R.J. That's the best evidence yet on the matter. Regardless of whether or not it was allowed, you have now proven that at least one soldier was out of barracks and carrying a bayonet that evening. It sounds as if this matter is ripe for a new investigation. Regards, V.
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:50 am
MJK vs MH - Yes, that would make sense - he's sized up the person, MH is 40+ and meets the 'needs' - gets rid of some of the inconsistencies. But - I can't quite see how it works - his other pickups are on the street and he immediatly 'follows up' so to speak - here he must identify his victim and come back later. So we swap one set of inconsistencies for another... I'm sure this kind of thing is why there are so many strongly held opinions about the case - there are so many imponderables, and then a line of thought, a theory, seems to offer progress - but in fact simply brings in other problems of its own. And all the time one feels that, like a puzzle or jigsaw, by arranging things in the right way all will become clear.
Author: Harry Mann Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 04:24 am
A couple of comments on items that might provoke some thinking. Kelly,s murder was the only one in which the victim was able to cry out before being silenced?. That is, if like me, you believe the cry of murder heard in Miller's Court,came from Kelly.If it is true,then for a few seconds,she must have been aware that the person in the room was intent on killing her,and,unlike the other victims,was not taken completely by surprise.Now how would she realise she was a target for a killer. If ,as some believe,she took or invited her killer to her room,why couldn't she be silenced without being allowed to cry out.A person in bed with her could surely have placed his hands near and around her neck without inviting suspicion.Or straddled and smothered her,again without causing alarm and allowing her to shout out. I have an opinion that the murderer was not in bed,and what she saw was a man standing near the bed with a knife in his hand.In this case there must have been light to see by,and the killer had let himself into the room or made an excuse to get out of bed,ignighting the means of illumination as he did so. If the murderer had been in bed,why lie there with her if his only intention had been to kill,and how long had he lain there.Would the person reportedly seen by Hutchinson have waited so long. Why pick a young female like Kelly,who might fight back.It must have occured to the killer that unlike the others,she might not be so easy to handle unless complete surprise could be managed.Having failed the last,why did he remain. Why take what appeared unneccessary risks.What did he know about Kelly. Well if he was the person who entered her room with her at midnight,and was the same person otside Crossingham's around two thirty,these questions might be explained.
Author: Caroline Morris Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 05:32 am
Hi Harry, The difficulty for me and the cry of 'murder', heard by at least two people, is that if it did come from Kelly, just before she died, her killer would have been, unlike with his previous attacks, far more vulnerable from that moment on. With his previous victims, he at least had a chance to leg it from the scene sharpish if they had screamed out. If he was careful out on the streets to prevent this from happening, he threw this caution to the wind inside with Kelly, when, at any moment, someone could decide to satisfy their curiosity and investigate that cry. They could even bring a bunch of people for support - and the murderer would be trapped in that little room with 'Jack the Ripper' written all over the scene. Was Jack so reckless and fired up by this point that he ignored the danger, or didn't stop to think about it? Did he imagine himself strong enough to have tackled anyone who came to gate-crash his party? Can anyone honestly see him saying to himself, "Oh, cries of murder are so commonplace, anyone hearing that is sure to go quietly back to sleep and leave me to get on with it"? Or was the compulsion to fill his boots this time so irresistible that he would have happily been lynched in the process? Love, Caz
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 06:58 am
Hello Caz, I think it would be feasible to believe that after the Ripper had let himself into the room, he did something that made a noise, (as I have said before), he made some accidental sound that alerted Mary Kelly to the fact that there was someone in the room who should not be there! Like a lot of girls would, and in those days too, she screamed out "Oh murder" and took a dive under the bed clothes. The Ripper then made his move for the bed, in the dark, but instead of finding Mary's head and neck easily, he felt a curled up human figure that he had to fight with to get to her throat. I think, Caz, that after she made that cryout she didn't make another sound, she was too busy fighting for her life. When her throat had been cut Jack could have lain on her body, keeping still and quiet, concious of the noise that may have been made. But I think he would have known that nothing would come of Kelly's cry, it was said by one of the neighbours,---"we hear those cries often, but take no notice",-- Jack would have known that. Rick
Author: Caroline Morris Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 09:05 am
Hi Rick, I don't know how anyone could have 'known' that nothing would come of Kelly's cry, even if her killer recognised it as being of the type that would be heard often but generally ignored. My point is that it still seems to me one hell of a risk to take - if the cry did come from Kelly. At any time, one of the women could have been tossing and turning in bed, unable to sleep, thinking to herself "What if there was more to that 'oh murder' than I thought? Perhaps I'd better get someone to check just in case - what with this killer about who rips up unfortunates". Love, Caz
Author: Philip Rayner Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:31 am
Your last point is the most telling Caz. At least four recent murders would probably have heightened awareness and made people take more notice of a cry like that. However, JTR was the bogeyman of the time. Could this theoretical person have persuaded anyone to go and check if the Ripper was in that room. Self preservation is a powerful force. They would probably be aware that, if interrupted, the Ripper would turn his attention on them. I've often wondered if any witnesses actually saw a murder-particularly Deimschutz- but were too terrified to render assistance. He appears in time to find the body but if he had seen the murderer he could have waited until the Ripper had escaped then raised the alarm. I am not attacking these people if they did not act, anyone would be wary of tackling an armed man who had committed murder in front of them. Just something that has occurred to me from time to time. Phil
Author: Caroline Morris Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:33 pm
Hi Philip, If I were worried about a cry coming from a nearby room, I might try to get a man to check for me, and if he was afraid of confronting someone like the ripper single-handed he could find other recruits to go with him. While I agree that few would relish the thought of tackling Jack by themselves, mob-handed would be another matter entirely, especially as he would have been trapped in a confined space. The longer Jack stayed in that room, the more time someone on the outside had to become suspicious and summon assistance. We know this didn't happen - but Jack couldn't have known it wouldn't. Which makes me wonder if he was the cause of this cry at all. Wouldn't the spirited Kelly have made a sound that was a wee bit more desperate than the 'oh murder' that these women put down to nothing out of the ordinary? Love, Caz
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:43 pm
Hi all, Is it possible that Kelly screamed, the killer quickly murdered her, then fled, waited to see if any commotion occurred,then seeing none returned? Rich
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 02:16 pm
But Caz, the persons who did hear the cry didn't know exactly where that cry came from. Even Elizabeth Prater who lived above Kelly heard a cry from "somewhere". I think the most natural thing that was possibly done was a quick look through the window,--nothing to be seen, No13.was dark and quiet, forget it. Rick
Author: Philip Rayner Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 02:17 pm
Funny Caz , I have thought that every time I read that particular story. A loud high pitched scream is nearer what I would expect. A Barely audible 'Oh Murder' doesn't sound at all right if she were in fear of her life. The walls were thin but the witness only thought she heard the cry, therefore it can't have been that loud. See Caz we do agree on some things, it's just that Diary that causes us problems.
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 02:32 pm
You must allow for all possibilities, maybe the cry wasn't a piercing scream because it was coming from behind some layers of bedclothes, or even just a hand.
Author: Timsta Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 04:39 pm
Hi all. I think the circumstances of the other killings point to the fact that the killer really didn't give a damn about being caught (or else considered it somehow impossible or unlikely). I'm particularly thinking of Hanbury St here. Regards Timsta
Author: anthony pearson Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 08:03 pm
Hello everyone . . . Happy New Year and "God bless us one and all"! Just recently joined your ranks. I spent most of Chrismas/New Year trawling through hundreds of messages and threads (trying to get up to speed with you guys!). I thought I might start by asking a question or three rather than giving much in the way of opinions. Do you think 'Women of the Night' solicited business rather than had 'clients' call on them? If this IS the case then a rapid turn over of sixpeny 'shags' might explain the varied descriptions of MJK's guests that night. I might have thought that a 'service' was provided and then each paying customer would be courteously shown the door. . . 'time is money' (well that's what it's like where I live!). This is incidental but do you think perhaps that at the close of business the denizen of No.13 Millers Court (and the tenant of every other hopelessly insecure hovel throughout slumland) would set furniture against the inside of the door to prevent the sudden entry (or at least give warning of) unwelcome guests? (rent collectors, muggers, past clients who now have 'clap' etc.)I always wondered about the awkwardly positioned table by MJK's door. There is some suggestion that this is quite common practice with people that live close to the edge. Have you noticed how it always seemed to be heavy rain or showers on the nights of the 'canonical' murders at least. Would this clear the streets of most of the destitute kids and rough trade and would our scheming killer know that these conditions would give him a better than even chance of escape through the ill-lit squalor? Finally . . . how did MJK's last client know what was on the other side of the partition in the Death Room? (It had been used in the past as a lodging and could have had a complete army of sleeping, out-of-work prizefighters on the other side, for all 'Jack' knew!) . . . and how did he know that there wasn't a troupe of sleeping, knife swallowing Hungarian circus performers upstairs. That he came armed and intent on murder is certain, but there must have been easier, more desperate crones to kill if these were purely random slayings. Despite the emptier than normal alleyways but with only one way out of the Court, wasn't this taking just too big a chance on being rumbled and trapped IF he was a relative stranger to this banshee-like 'drab'! Regards . . . Tony P
Author: Diana Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 08:40 pm
Mary could have spotted Jack in the "dark" if there was a full moon. Anybody know what phase it was in? Or for that matter if there was a lamp anywhere near (outside) her window (like a gaslight I mean)? Re: the argument about how likely it would be for anyone to respond to "oh murder". How many of us have been walking through a parking lot and heard a car alarm go off? Have you ever called the police? Have you ever seen anyone else call the police? As to whether the witness heard Kelly clearly, it was the middle of the night and she had just awakened and was probably very sleepy. If she had been drinking before retiring she would have been even more "out of it"
Author: Harry Mann Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 03:05 am
We have reports that the cry of murder was heard by two different people living in the court.It is also evident that no person investigated the cries,or if they did ,did not enter Kelly,s room to see if it was her.So the killer,perhaps after an anxious wait, knew it was safe to stay. It was a rainy night indicating cloud,and one witness reports the court as being completely dark when she entered earlier.There was covering to the window,so small as the room was,nothing within would be discernable.Yet Kelly had forewarning of an attack,to the extent that she could cry out.She must have heard or seen something that frightened her,and the killer in such a position that he could not prevent the cries. If an intruder was Barnett,Hutchinson or a close associate of hers,they would most likely have been able to reassure her that they meant no harm.So I am of the opinion it was something she saw that alarmed her,and to see there would have to be illumination. Equally it would have been as easy to stab as to choke or smother,and the later mutilations would cover the stab wounds.So an intruder standing near the bed with a knife in hand might certainly cause a cry of murder. Now Rick and I differ but slightly,both favouring an intruder who knew the victim and her circumstances,and if a Ripper victim then Kelly's death narrows the canditates to more probably Barnett or Hutchinson.
Author: Caroline Morris Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:59 am
Hi Diana, I agree with the points you make. My point is that once Mary has cried out loudly enough to be heard by other residents, Jack has to think on his feet and weigh up the chances that no one is going to react for the sort of reasons you give. But Tony makes a great point. How does Jack know that 'a complete army of sleeping, out-of-work prizefighters' aren't on the other side? Or 'a troupe of sleeping, knife swallowing Hungarian circus performers upstairs'? Or even six six-foot coppers with 4 o'clock shadows and in drag, playing whist next door and drinking cheap gin, when they should have been out in Dorset Street, propositioning likely Jewish lunatics and listening out for the screams of the next victim? Hi Philip, 'See Caz we do agree on some things, it's just that Diary that causes us problems.' The diary doesn't cause me any problems at all - I love it! Why haven't you read it yet? Love, Caz
Author: Philip Rayner Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 07:08 am
Caz I could argue all day about the diary but I now you have deep and well thought out views about it so I shall just post this mature and diplomatic response. The diary is a big fat fake nernernernerner.
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 07:38 am
Hello Harry, how goes it? Good I hope. This lot about Kelly,---Mary Kelly lived in morbid fear of Jack the Ripper, Barnett says this at her inquest, that is of course if we are going along with that, --I am, and I'll bet you are too Harry. When she ended up sleeping alone at night,--short of money, future way undecided regarding her break-up with Barnett, and knowing that that terrifying killer could be padding around only a stones throw away, Jack the Ripper could be the top-most thing on her mind especially when she was alone and in the dark. If Jack had entered the room and was standing at the side of the bed about to reach for Mary's face, but Mary for some reason woke and looked over her shoulder, saw a dark shape at the bedside, she would have been paralysed with fear. The cry "oh murder" and the action of going under the bedclothes could have come together, so making the cry-out muffled. I've always been of the belief that the room was in complete darkness, the Ripper,--or whoever it was KNEW the layout of the room like the back of his hand,--- and it was the touch of a hand that caused Mary to cry out. Diana, like Harry says, there was no moon that night, it was a filthy night, cold and raining. The nearest light was a gas lamp on the wall opposite Mary's door, her windows were covered, so there was no light in the room except what could be made on the inside. Caz, of course Jack the Ripper knew there wasn't any Hungarian prize fighters or sword-swallowers above or on the other side of the partition. Just a mouse of a woman upstairs who barrackaded herself in her room at night,--no trouble there. He himself had got rid of the sometime tenant on the other side of the partition five or six weeks ago, no,-- Jack didn't need to fear if his name was Barnett, he knew he was SAFE. Rick
Author: Caroline Morris Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 10:23 am
Hi Philip, The diary is a big fat fake nernernernerner. We agree then! Why haven't you read the diary yet, or my views that it is a fake? Hi Rick, If his name was Barnett, how would he be sure that one of Kelly's female room-mates wouldn't arrive with a customer built like a brick shi* house carrying a lead cosh? How would he be sure that the mouse-like creatures who heard the terrified Kelly's cry didn't know just how frightened she was of the ripper, guess where the cry came from, and fetch help to make sure their neighbour wasn't in real danger? Love, Caz
Author: Philip Rayner Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 10:49 am
Hello my Dear Caz I am confused. This is not to say that I am any more confused than normal, life does that all by itself. This time however I have a specific reason to be confused and it is this. Why do you think I have not read the Diary? I read it cover to cover. Even believed it for a few days. The watch seemed particularly persuasive. Then, for the reasons specified earlier I decided that the lack of a history and the shady way in which it was 'Discovered' was just too convenient. As to your views- I am a recent addition to this board and I really haven't had time to trawl though the archives. Thus, when you defended so well against the Diary being the work of the Barretts or anyone else connected with the book, I took it that you were a Maybrickian. I can only assume that you, in fact, are of the opinion that it was an older forgery. Regards Phil
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 11:23 am
Well Caz, if Barnett was the person who killed Kelly, he would have known what sort of person Elizabeth Prater was, was she concerned only with her own well being, would she concern herself with another, or would she lie doggo until she heard something that could not be ignored, and perhaps thats what the other person who heard the cry did, and maybe the killer knew for sure that that would be the case,-- he knew who had he lived among! As for being taken by surprise, Barnett had visited Kelly the evening before, he should have known what her situation was and was going to be for the rest of the evening. There was a certain time in the early hours when the streets went quiet,I believe around 02:30 to 04:30, he would have known there would be no business done then, and thats when he chose to strike. If No13 was a open house whether Harvey lodged there or not, Barnett would not have gone back at around O4:00 on the ninth,---in my opinion. Rick
Author: richard nunweek Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 11:45 am
have any of you ever considered that hutchinsons statement the astracan gent was not in fact a observation from him but one police told him say so that kellys killer would believe the police were on the wrong track. dont forget the police were desperate to catch this maniac the last thing they wanted was a detailed discription released hutchinsons real discription may have been vastly different there was a mention i believe that he received a sum of five pounds for his help at the time about 4 weeks wages at the time regards richard.
Author: Brian Schoeneman Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:10 pm
Richard, An interesting theory, but there's no record of that tactic having been used at all during the case - at least not in any of the Met files that I've seen. I've also not heard that he was paid at all. Why he was paid - if he were - would be an interesting question to answer. I really wonder if Kelly had realized that Jack the Ripper was in her bedroom before she died. Here's my thinking - if she was so deathly afraid of him, why wouldn't she even try to fight back? What did she have to lose? She doesn't fight back - he kills her. She does fight back, she loses - he kills her. Either way, she's dead. Seems like if she had had any time to react, she wouldn't try hiding under the bedclothes. She'd be struggling, and there is some evidence that points to this happening. There are some wounds on her arms that appeared to be defensive wounds, and were noted in the coroner's report. Has anyone else read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker? It's a great book - he used to teach at GW as well, but slightly before my time here. An interesting theory, but I won't get into it now, unless someone asks and I'll move the convo to a new thread. B
Author: Caroline Morris Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:29 pm
Hi Philip, Ah, my apologies. I misunderstood what you wrote on another thread: Author: Philip Rayner Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 11:09 am I cannot bring myself to read the Diary of JTR and I have only just read Case closed both of which irritate me intensely... I can quite understand why you wouldn't read it twice! I rarely if ever read a book right through more than once, but I shouldn't have assumed you meant you couldn't bring yourself to read it at all! Wrong thread, I know, but the only reason I like to keep an open mind about when the diary was written is that if neither of the Barretts know who wrote it and when (and there is no evidence yet that they do), the shabby modern hoax theory only holds up if Mike found it in a skip, thrown there by its author who was too ashamed of his work to flog it or own up later. Hi Rick, 'If No13 was a open house whether Harvey lodged there or not, Barnett would not have gone back at around O4:00 on the ninth.' Quite. But in my opinion he didn't. Love, Caz
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:33 pm
I didn't say that she didn't fight back, her first reaction was to go under the bedclothes,-- (I am surmising),-- when the killer caught hold of her and tried to cut her throat through the sheet,-- then she fought, and received cut arms and hands in the process. but you nor I can really say what a third person would do, -- can we?