|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 8:02 am: |       |
Hi Leanne
When I say "night" I mean, before daybreak. I don't believe she was killed on 8th.
I think that not everyone could have gone to the Lord Mayor's Show. It wasn't a Beatles concert - or a Rugby final  . There were residents still within Miller's Court, and the police wouldn't let them out until quite late in the afternoon.
Robert |
Luxy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 8:21 am: | |
Shannon
Who said Abberline didn't consider the testimony of mrs Maxwell? I believe he read the statements of Lewis in the newspapers and he examined Joe's whereabouts thoroughly. And why should Joe take the risk to kill MJ between nine and ten a.m. when there must have been a lot of people in the streets who must have known him? And when MJ received him in her bed clothing she probably didn't have the intention to reject him or to throw him out of her room; so there was nothing to offend him. On the contrary he could have seen this as a first step of reconciliation. And when she still ignited his lusty fire and he would have assaulted her, she must have made a lot of noise (streetcat she was).
Regards
Luxy |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 250
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 7:30 pm: | |
Robert, if Mary were in bed and the killer walked in, regardless of whether it was light or dark outside, it would have been dim to dark inside. How did he find her, prevent her from screaming, and cut her up in the dark without knowing the layout of the room? Also, how did he know she didn'tr sleep with a knife under her pillow for personal protection?
Had Jack taken hours to do the killing, the blood about the bed would have been dried considering the room was heated by the fire from the clothing buring. She died within an hour or so of the body being discovered.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 251
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 7:43 pm: | |
Luxy, had anyone seen him going into the room, his alibi; I am just going to check up on Mary (then he aborts the killing to wait for another time). Had they seen him leaving the room; MURDER! Someone has just killed my beloved. All I could do was hold her and cry... yada yada yada... (explaining how he came to be covered in blood).
Time of day was perfect, everyone is out and about in preperation for the Lord Mayor's Day celebration; which means that they are all hurried about their own affairs and not likely to notice someone that had been a constant sight the court. Its called hiding in plain sight...
Ever wonder how it was that he could ID her body without having a gag reflex and losing breakfast? How would you react to seeing your spouse in that condition. I know that I wouldn't have been able to put two coherent words together for days after. The sight was one of the most gruesome of all time, and even the vet police officers had a hard time keeping their senses after seeing the sight in #13...
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 8:01 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
But did he prevent her from screaming? Two people heard a scream from somebody. I believe it's quite possible that Jack walked in, and made some noise - perhaps the door knocked against the table - which awakened Mary. Alternatively she may have been awake already. At any rate, she would have had time to scream. Then the killer would have thrust the sheet over her face and stabbed her through it.
Mary's murder looks to me like a bungled job. It looks as if she was stabbed through a sheet, and that she hadn't been strangled before her throat was cut. The pool of blood under the corner of the bed seems to suggest that she was cowering away from the killer, and she bore defensive wounds. Add to that the reported cry of murder.
If Joe killed Mary in this manner, in a room whose layout he was familiar with, the victim being a woman who trusted him, then all I can say is that it was a very amateurish performance after the uncanny demonstration he'd given in Mitre Square.
I don't think the murderer would have been put off by the possibility of a knife under her pillow.
I'm not equipped to go into the dried blood issue - I don't know how long it takes pools of blood to dry. I've often wondered why the doctors couldn't date the time of death by the extent of coagulation of the pool under the bed. Obviously there's a reason why they couldn't. But if the blood was still wet, and this indicates recent death, then wouldn't the doctors have jumped on this?
PS Have sent you an email, Shannon. Thank you very much indeed!
Robert
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 252
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 8:18 pm: | |
Robert, a cry of "oh murder" is a lot different than a SCREAM of bloody murder by a victim fighting for her life. With half a dozen families in court, someone would have heard if she really did scream or fight off her attacker and came to investigate; especially since the double event and a £500 reward to the one(s) who identified the killer.
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 8:33 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
But she would have been fairly groggy from the booze. It's very complicated, but in any case doesn't the same argument aply to Joe killing her in the morning? No one heard anything then, yet it doesn't look as if she died peacefully.
I was a bit taken aback to see you using Joe's ability to function as an argument for his being the killer - for months now people have been trying to tell Leanne that his stammering etc at the inquest would have been understandable, and no proof of guilt!
Poor Old Joe just can't win.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 253
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 9:36 pm: | |
From Dr Bond's autopsy: "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of spearate splashes."
Dr Bond was very thorough in his documentation of the murder site, but made no mention of any of the blood being dried. The temp that day was in the mid 40's F ( 7 degrees C ). Depending on the humidity the blood would take up to 3 hours to dry (according to PEX forensic lab, American Board of Criminalistics, 3845 Brussells North Bend, Oregon, USA, 97479).
Considering that Bowyer discovered the body just before 11:00 and the doctor didn't preform the post mortem until after 1:30 in the afternoon, it would appear that the murder took place between 09:30 and 10:30 and not at 04:00 as the doctor stated.
Shannon
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 254
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 9:42 pm: | |
Robert, when Mary died it was extremely quick. Most, if not all of her wounds were post mortem.
(IMHO) Joe met her that morning at the pub, tried desperately to reconsile things with her, following her home all the while, and when he reached her place, she did the unspeakable. She started to get undressed and ready for bed, ignoring him all the while, then when comfey in her bed, told him to leave, lock the door, and not to bother coming back. The rest is as you see it...
SHannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 9:18 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Certainly I've always believed that the blood was still wet. "Saturated" is suggestive, but "pool" would seem conclusive. Also, I think Dew mentions something about slipping on the floor. It's possible of course that she was killed around 4 but Jack only ceased mutilating her (and hence releasing blood from the body) at some time well after daybreak - but I think this is unlikely. He'd probably have wanted to get away before it grew light, and the mutilations wouldn't have taken all that time. So I'll have to ponder your dried blood argument.
Re Mary undressing in front of Joe : I just don't see this. After all, she was trying to make their relationship more distant, or even terminate it completely. But if you must have this scenario, I think "I hope you've got fourpence" might have been a good trigger.
Re your point to Luxy, that Joe was too much in control after the murders, and this is very suspicious : doesn't the argument work equally against Joe's being the killer? If Joe was in love with this woman, but had ripped her apart in her room, would he be likely to be able to convince the police of his innocence just a few hours afterwards, and then deal with the inquest?
If this was a crime of passion, and not the cold-blooded murder of the sort committed by a sociopath, then wouldn't it have shaken Joe up as much as simply finding she'd been killed by someone else would have? Also, I don't think the police would have been so certain of the time of death by Friday afternoon that they would have just dismissed Joe as a suspect, however suspiciously he might have behaved during the interview.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 255
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 12:08 pm: | |
Robert, Had I been the detective on the case, I would have requested you be assigned to Whitechapel from whatever district you were working.
1, First point about the murder is correct. When a person is killed in a way that causes no blood loss, the blood inside the body gravitates towards the lowest point. If Mary were laying in the bed strangeled, all the blood would have settled in her lower back / buttox and there would have been minimal blood in her arms, neck, and lower leg which we know didnt happen. As you can see in the photograph, her blood flowed everywhere.
2, "Fourpence" may have been her last words. Those words and her tone of voice may have very well been what set him off.
3, Joe being in control... Joe couldn't accept MJK being a prostitute and having to share the bed of the woman he loved with anyone who had the money to buy her company. He could accept her being off the streets, safe, and in a much better place; which is where she was after she died. She no longer had to work the streets, sleep with other men, and Joe had kept his promise of giving her a better life. He would now be at peace with himself, and would be able to lead a normal life.
4, convincing the police of his innocence was easy, he only had to claim ignorance. It is much easier to claim to not know anything and if the police prove otherwise, use the pattended, "I somehow forgot that..." The problem Joe had at the inquest was having to go first; something he didn't anticipate. It may have been the police just wanting to have her lover give his testimony and be able to leave as the rest of the inquest would be to traumatic for him to deal with. If you look closely at his testimony, there are too many problems with it:
a, for someone who lived with her for a year and a half Joe didnt seem to know much about her. Not one of his answers is proveable, and all are just vague enough to be close to what anyone else would say at the inquest.
b, the speech impediment theory doesn't hold much weight because had Joe really had one, his life would have been a brutal hell growing up on the streets as a child where others would have seen it as a sign of weakness and tore him apart for it. I believe it was used at the hearing as a way for him to slow things, down, make sure of the question, formulate an answer, and not make a mistake by saying something that would give him away.
c, crime of passion... Yes, sociopaths dont burn your personal posessions and risk being spotted at the scene of the crime
d, dismissed as a suspect... MJK was seen as a victim of Jack the Ripper, for the police to prosecute Joe, he would have had to been viewed as Jack, which he wasn't. The police were blinded by the light of the murders and looking for one person who committed ALL of them. All Joe had to do was have an alibi for the time MJK was believed to have been killed, and for any other time which it was believed the killer struck. With such strict criteria to go by, no one could possibly fit the bill as the killer, and he or anyone else not caught with a bloody knife over the top of the body would have been dismissed...
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 2:31 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
Thanks for the compliment, although being assigned to Whitechapel would have been highly inconvenient for me - as the Assistant Commissioner, it would have interrupted my holiday!
Shannon, you may well be familar with Socrates, but I doubt if Barnett was. And even if he did feel this calm acceptance of Mary's death, wouldn't that be an ideal frame of mind in which to rehearse his story for the inquest? - he had the Saturday and Sunday to do it in. Why then should he be thrown into confusion because he's called first?
True, Barnett didn't know much about Mary's early history - but her friends knew even less. She doesn't seem to have told them much at all.
It's a mystery to me how Barnett did identify Mary. But then, it's also a mystery how McCarthy managed it too. One possibility might be the "waist-length" hair one report mentions. If she did have waist-length hair, she must have been the only woman in the area who did, as it would have been impractical in the extreme.
Robert |
Simon Owen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 11:48 pm: | |
Shannon , I agree with you that Mary's death took place later than most people would place it.
The murder of a young woman called Rachel Nickell took place in London in 1992 : she was stabbed 49 times by her murderer in woods on Wimbledon Common. Although killed outside she was a young woman of similar age to Mary , and the temperature was probably not much different either. In the Nickell case rigor mortis set into the jaw after 2.30 hours and was present in the entire corpse after 5.30 hours - there was no evidence of cadaveric spasm.
Thus when Dr Bond began his autopsy at around 2pm I think Mary had been dead at least 5.30 hours , but not much longer since rigor was still increasing. This would put Mary's death between 8am and 9am IMO. This would also be consistant with blood still being wet at 11am , although the mess on the floor may have been mixed with water ( did the killer wash ? ) which meant it hadn't congealed. |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 75
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 4:46 am: | |
Robert,
Many women had long hair back then as long hair was a sign of femininity. Most prostitutes would have their hair up (not short), but if they were asleep, they would have had their hair down (if they were lying on a bed).
I don't think Mary's death was premeditated at all. If Joe did kill her then I believe she had provoked him on the previous night, telling him that she didn't love him or that she wasn't going to stop her "profession", or something similar. he then went to Buller's where he played cards to try to calm down, he went to bed but couldn't sleep as Mary's hurtful words kept coming back to him so got up and went over to see her, but she rejected him again and he just lost it. I don't think he went over there with the intention of killing her. Most murders that occur between lovers are because it was during an argument. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 7:05 am: | |
Hi Sarah
Thanks for the hair info. Naturally I defer to you on this, though I must say you've got me scratching my head - just as Mary must have been scratching hers!
Robert |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 85
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 7:20 am: | |
It was very uncommon for a woman to have short hair in that time period. It would have been like a woman wearing trousers back then, a big no, no. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi Sarah, All,
‘Most murders that occur between lovers are because it was during an argument.’
I agree. And they are usually the easiest murders to solve too, particularly when:
the victim is killed in her own home;
no attempt is made to remove or hide the body;
there is no easy access to somewhere private where the killer can: conceal his knife and anything else that connects him with the scene; examine himself from top to toe and back to front, in good light, and so remove any traces of incriminating evidence;
the killer is taken in for questioning soon after the event.
There was at least one newspaper report that suggested the police were considering the possibility that Mary Kelly’s was a domestic murder, and not part of the ripper series. If a journalist could see the merit in such a possibility, I’m pretty sure the police were indeed considering it when interviewing Barnett - even if they didn’t actually say so to the press and this was just a guess on the latter’s part.
So if Joe was a killer, whether Mary was his first and only victim or his last, I have little doubt that he would have put himself under days and weeks of intense scrutiny had he blown his nose in a suspicious way. And what a great opportunity for the police - all they had to do was wear the poor bloke down then drag some sort of admission out of him, do him for Mary’s murder only, hang him and then wait. If the ripper strikes again, no problem – Joe’s was a one-off domestic, made to look like the ripper’s work. If there are no more murders – hey presto, they can claim the trophy for hanging Jack with Joe’s rope.
In other words, it wouldn’t have mattered whether Joe fitted anyone’s idea of the ripper or not.
Love,
Caz
PS I do agree about the long hair though.
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 91
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:06 am: | |
Caz,
Excellent points. Mary's murder does seem to fit the description of a domestic murder. It's a shame Joe never confessed although we're not sure if he was her killer.
What did you mean about agreeing with the long hair. It just sounded odd as you put "I do agree about the long hair though". I wasn't sure whether you meant that you disagree. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 3:50 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
Actually, what I meant was that the police would have routinely considered the possibility of a domestic incident, but obviously rejected it, satisfied that Joe was no killer, ripper or copycat. And IMHO they almost certainly had excellent reasons for their satisfaction. If Joe had been Mary’s killer, it should have been a piece of cake to crack it (see all the reasons in the first part of my last post).
I personally think Mary’s murder looks nothing like a domestic, all things considered, and thank goodness Joe was not pressured into an admission if the poor man wouldn’t have harmed a hair on her head. I was being a trifle tongue-in-cheek with my suggestion that the police could have done themselves a big favour by putting the rope round his neck, guilty or not. All credit to them for not trying to fit him up. Had he confessed (even a stammering admission that he felt responsible for her death could have been taken the wrong way), I’d have needed to see some much more tangible evidence that connected him with Mary’s death.
I agree with you about most women not favouring short hairstyles at the time.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 119
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 5:42 am: | |
Caz,
You say that Mary's murder didn't look like a domestic murder. Why would you say this when your idea of a domestic murder would contain the aspects below:-
"the victim is killed in her own home;
no attempt is made to remove or hide the body;
there is no easy access to somewhere private where the killer can: conceal his knife and anything else that connects him with the scene; examine himself from top to toe and back to front, in good light, and so remove any traces of incriminating evidence;
the killer is taken in for questioning soon after the event."
All this happened in Mary's case.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 6:30 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
Sorry, I couldn’t have made myself clear.
I was simply describing the factors that would have made it almost inevitable that Mary’s killer would have been charged and convicted - if – her killer was Joe.
In other words, this would be my idea of a domestic murder committed by someone who wouldn’t have had a hope in hell of getting away with it - unless the police were a couple of questions short of an interview.
In short, how not to murder your lover if you don’t want to hang for it.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 141
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 11:57 am: | |
Caz,
I think I know what you mean now. Basically, if Joe killed her then he would have been caught? Possibly. But then whoever did do it didn't get caught.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 1:02 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
Reminds me of a song: “I had you there, but then I let you go…”
Obviously, whoever did do it didn’t get caught because the police had no way of linking the swine directly to the Kelly crime scene. Could have been almost any male in Whitechapel at the time. Joe wasn’t charged because they couldn’t link him with the murder, despite his strong links to the victim and availability for questioning – a subtle but crucial difference.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 154
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 4:44 am: | |
Caz,
That was because he had an excuse for every connection to the crime scene. What about his pipe for example? He says he left it there when he had left her, he also had a weak alibi. Also, what sort of link to the crime scene would the killer have left? None if he could help it.
Sarah |
Mark Groak
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 2:49 pm: | |
I can't agree that Mary's murder fits the description of a domestic murder. I personally find it unthinkable that a one time crime of passion murderer, who lost his temper and lashed out would go as far as, or be capable of, destroying her in such a uniquely savage and brutal way. Can anybody point to any other domestic murders even approaching the horror of this one? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
