Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through November 22, 2003 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Mary Jane Kelly » Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly? » Archive through November 22, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 386
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 7:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sarah,

a) This man may be Jack the Ripper. How high do you think the chances are that they would cover his ass? The most wanted man in London...the one who is bringing so much unwanted Police attention.

b) Possible.

c) There were Nightwatchmen (ie Timothy Donovan at Crossinghams). He/she would have noticed.

d)...Secretaries dont work 'really hard' !!

Monty
:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 39
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 9:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Monty,

a) I meant that if he SNEAKED out then people would have backed up his alibi as they wouldn't have known that he wasn't there.

b) Do I hear a possible agreement??

c) I'm not sure about the nightwatchman. I suppose he might have been there, but what if Joe had killed Mary in the morning?

d) Oi! Cheeky!

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 388
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 9:38 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sarah,

a) Depends on the set up at Bullers

b) You may....but keep it to yourself !

c) Morning ?? Blimey, you have another 'possible'.

d) Moi ?

Monty...who is now getting back to work !
:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 45
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Aha! I have reduced your answers to the bear minimum. I also should be getting back to work, but...erm why? I'm going home in just under an hour.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 395
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 12:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sarah,

Im on my way now.

Please do not be under the illusion I am crumbling.

Barnett is all 'ifs' and 'buts'...pretty big buts at that.

Monty
:-)

PS SHARK CARTILAGE ??!!! What the heck am I supposed to do with that ???

(Message edited by monty on November 20, 2003)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 916
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 4:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Monty, Sarah,

MONTY:
a) What do you know about Bullers Lodging House?

b) How do you know it had a govenor?

c) How many people do you think used it?

d) and would one man's absence have caused alarm at any time, when peoples wages paid for their lodgings?

I have researched Buller's and think I've found the best possible description of such a place!

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 396
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 4:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

LEANNE,

a) It was a lodging house...people lodged there...labourers I think judging from Barnett Statement.....erm thats about it, not as much as you obviously. Id be interested in what you have found.

b) When I say Govenor I mean persons in charge that night. Not Govenor in terms of someone who is in supreme authority.

c) More than one.

d) I cannot see the relevence in that. If he was missing he was missing....wages comes in where?

when peoples wages paid for their lodgings

How would that work in Joes case???

Curious Monty
:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 46
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Monty, I think Leanne means that his wages had already paid for the room, so if he was in it or not doesn't really matter. I think that's what Leanne meant anyway.

Oh I also know that the Barnett is full or if's and but's, that's why I'm trying to work my way through it step by step to see if it's plausible. The case against him being the ripper is also full of if's and but's though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 926
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Monty,

Well, What about those lodgers who had to leave at about 2or3:00a.m. to find work? Those who had no fixed income. The next morning was the big 'Lord Mayor's Day' event! No Govenor could restrict the movement of the lodgers. Even if someone did check all the beds to see who was in or out, why would he look up the name of that missing person if the bed was paid for?

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 927
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

If the police did check out his alibi, they just would have made sure his name was in the books! They didn't want to waist time interviewing each lodger!

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 398
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

LEANNE,

Excellent point.

But Joe was playing cards till midnight.

That means he was setting himself up for 3 hours kip.

Ideal preperation ?

The Police surely would have done more than just ran through the books. Joe would have been Prime suspect.

Monty
:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 50
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 6:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Monty,

I don't understand your point about Joe playing cards until Midnight? Maybe he was playing to calm himself down after arguing with Mary or something, we don't know what went on before he was playing cards. Maybe he had every intention of going to bed but once he was in bed, decided to pay Mary a visit because she was still on his mind.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 930
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 7:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Sarah,

Barnett told the police he was at Buller's playing whist, (a card game), until half past twelve and then he went to bed. Checking out his alibi, the police would have made sure he was playing the game. That being verified, would indicate that he was telling the truth! He may have even gone to bed at twelve, then got up at 3:00a.m. and said: "Well gov'nar, I'm off to make money for tonights lodgings...bye!"

LEANNE

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 931
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 7:20 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

Hey If Mary Kelly was killed at 4:00a.m. or after, (how are ya Rich?), well then the police shouldn't have been worried about his night time alibi. They should have worried about where he was that morning. Were he went to prepare for the 'Lord Mayor's Day' festivities, what he planned to do and at how early he started!

LEANNE

(Message edited by Leanne on November 21, 2003)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 56
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 8:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne,

I know he was playing cards until midnight. I was just saying to Monty that we have no idea if he stayed in bed all night long after that. I don't think he said anything to the governor or whoever anything as he went out or they may have told the police that he left again at 3.00 am or whenever.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bjmarkland
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

a) Huh?

b) What!

c) Maybe but think of $$$

d) You must be kidding!!

Billy
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty

Post Number: 399
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sarah,

Joe had paid..or had paid for him a bed for the night.

If they were turned out at 3.00am then why would he be playing cards till 12/12.30am? Itís a waste.

The most amount of sleep he would be getting is 2/2 and a half hours. The least would be no hours. It may hold no relevance though.

If he was looking for an alibi then Im sure he would be searching for a more cast iron one. As Im sure that the Police would have tried to break it.

Do you honestly think the police would just leave it at that and rely on Joes word?

Monty
:-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 67
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Monty,

I wasn't saying that they were turned out at 3.00 am. I don't believe that to be the case. I was merely suggesting that Joe may have left about that time. If his heart/mind/inner voice was telling him to go to Mary then he would just go.

The police were trying to find a killer for all the victims so why would they suspect Joe that much to not take his word.

Actually, as I wrote that I was just thinking something. Maybe that's one reason they never found Jack. If the police were looking for someone who had killed all the victims because back then they thought more had been killed by Jack and not just the five we know.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1318
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 3:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all

I agree with Monty. I think the police would have thoroughly checked out Joe's story.

That aside, the "Telegraph" of Nov 10th reports Barnett as saying that he was indoors when he heard there'd been a murder. It's a fair bet that "indoors" meant at Buller's, where he was supposed to have spent the night. If Barnett left his bed at around 4 AM to go over to Kelly's and kill her, and then went back to Buller's to clean up and change into clean clothes (without being seen doing this!) he'd have been taking a risk that his clothes weren't stolen while he was gone. He'd also have to hope that he wasn't recognised going in or out.

Did he take his clean clothes with him to Mary's? Maybe he did, if the murder was planned. But all this isn't the way I'd have planned to kill Kelly - creeping in and out of lodging-houses.

On the other hand, if the whole thing was spur of the moment, crime of passion stuff, then he was terrifically lucky :

1.No one sees him go.
2.No one sees him come back.
3.No one pinches his clothes.
4.No one sees him clean up.
5.The police don't check his story properly.

I know Jack had all the luck, but really....

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 425
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 2:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Robert.
I had always believed that Barnett was on his way to Millers court , when he saw his sister-in-law, who informed him there had been a murder in the court,and when he got there he discovered it was his 'poor Mary'.
If Barnett was her killer, then I would say that the murder was premeditated, he knew kellys habits , and expected her to be in bed around 830am, I believe he thought that extensive mutalation, would render it hard to determine time of death, and by Kelly being found in bed, in night attire, police would believe she was killed during the night, and Barnett could account for his movements at that time.
It has been said 'Yes but' how did he prevent himself from being seen?.
One obvious answer Disquise..
Wearing clothes that were not his normal attire,hat pulled down over his face, false beard, or side whiskers, all he had to do was not to be seen as Joseph Barnett, entering, or leaving the room that morning, its as easy as that.
where did he change his clothing?.I would suggest he took a parcel of a change of shirt at least, and where he cleaned himself afterwards, I cannot say, but whoever the killer was , managed to do so somewhere..
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 937
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 3:12 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Robert,

Why would Barnett have remained at Buller's, till someone said "Hey Joe, you're wanted at Miller's Court!", when it was the Lord Mayor's big day and everyone was out early, preparing to 'cash-in' on the celebrations?

Note the 'Telegraph' reported that he said "in doors". He could have been at a pub!

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1324
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 4:44 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Richard, Leanne

You'll both have dug into the newspaper reports a lot more than I have. I don't know how many conflicting versions there are of where Joe was when he heard about the murder. The "Telegraph" report was in the official files, so if Barnett wasn't indoors when he heard, the police would have been aware that he'd lied - unless of course he was simply misreported by the "Telegraph", which is perfectly possible.

You both seem to have different scenarios here : one says "premeditated in the morning", the other "crime of passion in the night" - so there's a lot to discuss!

I know that the murderer, whoever he was, had to somehow get himself cleaned up. The difference with Barnett, though, is that he would have known that the police would be questioning him next day, 100% guaranteed. So he'd have had to be extremely thorough.

Suppose he disguised himself, took a change of clothes (better make that all his possessions, to stop them getting pinched), killed Kelly, and then went round to the public baths and washed. Then let's say he never went back to Buller's, but went somewhere else instead. It's theoretically possible, I suppose. But is it likely? He's taking a chance that the body won't be found till he's made himself presentable (the rent was due). And if Joe was the Ripper, surely he didn't need to get himself so bloody? He could have just done what he did to Eddowes.

We still have the problem of why he took the heart, when he knew he was going to be searched. What on earth was he going to do with it?

Leanne, certain things you've said recently - e.g. calling Joe a sociopath - makes me think you're beginning to think Joe planned Kelly's murder. Is that true?

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 249
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 5:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert, all, the police did check out Joe's story. Problem is that the police had the wrong facts to go on.

Dr Phillips claimed MJK was killed at 4:00 AM (because someone said that heard a cry of "oh murder" at that time). And, at that time of morning Joe had an alibi. Had Abberline known the real time of death, or listened to Carrie and Lewis's story he would have had a more accurate time of death, and would have questioned Joe about his where-a-bouts.

Abberline fell victim to the inept doctor on two accounts; 1, that the killer had medical knowledge and Joe didn't and 2, that MJK was killed in the early morning hours, which she wasnt. With those two seemingly concrete facts to go on, the inspector had to let Joe go.

First question that should be asked is how did the killer know that MJK was alone when he entered the room?

Did she bring the killer in? if so and it was for prostitution, Mary would have been found on the bed with her skirt pulled up, not in her bed clothing.

If she was met at the door by the killer either by him being there (which goes back to the first question, how did the killer know the room was empty), or she greeted the killer at the door when they knocked, why was she not murdered there in her clothing?

The only way for her to get to the bed, and be murdered there in her nightie is that she knew the killer, and was comfortable being half dressed with them in the room...

Shannon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 938
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 7:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

ROBERT: Why is it a fair bet that "indoors" meant Bullers? If he was at Bullers he would have said he was at his lodging house. 'Indoors' would also apply if he was in a pub. It wasn't a lie! If he was at Buller's when he heard about the murder, I bet he was the only person there! Everyone would have been out searching for work on 'Lord Mayor's Day'.

Mary Kelly was not killed on the night of the 8th. Her estimated time of death was 4:00a.m. the next morning.

No I don't think Joe planned Mary's murder. It was something he had no control over. He was driven to it.

SHANNON: You say that Joe had an alibi for 4:00a.m. in the morning. What, that he was in bed? How good is that?

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1326
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 7:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Shannon

I very much agree that Mary is unlikely to have been murdered by a client whom she'd brought home. I think Jack would have started on her the minute the door was closed.

But of course, Jack doesn't have to have been someone who posed as a client. There are other scenarios which would allow Kelly to be undressed and in bed when she was killed. Jack may simply have opened her door and walked in! If he was totally gone mentally, he needn't have thought about whether there was anyone else in the room. Or, Jack could have seen her saying goodbye to a client at the door, and was then lured inside by her. Or he could have seen a client leaving, deduced that she was alone, and entered when he thought she'd be asleep.

I think there was an additional reason why the doctors put time of death during the night, and that was the sheer scale of the mutilation. It was believed that Jack must have been some hours about his work. Now, we know from the Eddowes murder that Jack could work phenomenally fast. In five minutes he'd disembowelled her, taken her womb and kidney, and started on her face and legs. Still, I think we have to allow Jack some time. The question is, how much?

Have tried to get your book by the way, but no luck yet.

Robert

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.