|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 575
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 6:02 am: |       |
Leanne,
How was it decided that she had that type of door lock then? Who managed to do a bit of time travelling and work that one out? I don't see how anyone can know these minimal facts without actually seeing the thing with their own eyes which no-one alive today has.
How do you know that the bit about the boy living with her was a lie?
I can't wait to read your book when it comes out but just because your opinions will be published it doesn't make them any more than your opinions.
I agree that some parts of his dissertation was slightly inaccurate, for example saying Joe wouldn't work to support them but I'm sure that he wouldn't say any of those things without doing some research first and coming to his own conclusions regarding it.
Sarah
P.S Just read that back and parts may sound a bit rude, sorry if you read it that way as it's not supposed to be. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
I know you're not being rude, neither am I. we're just having a good debate!
I take my understanding of things from Bruce Paley's: 'Jack the Ripper, The Simple Truth', as Bruce studied the case and Joseph Barnett for over ten years. He get's sufficient acknowledgement in our book!
The only mention of a boy living with Mary Kelly, comes from a newspaper report that was written on the morning that her body was discovered. On that morning lots of Mary's friends were there, and one had a little boy. It wasn't a deliberate lie, just hurried reporting.
Saying that Joe wouldn't work to support them, is very harsh! Work was extremely difficult to find at the time. Joe was earning a top wage as a fish porter, and his earnings would have been about one-ninth of that when he was a casual-labourer/fruit costermonger. I wonder where this guy did his research!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 577
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Leanne,
I know you weren't being rude, it's just that sometimes some people think I'm being rude when I'm not so I just wanted to clarify. I don't mean you by the way when I say "some people".
I would love to ask this guy how he came to these conclusions too but I have to say that I was always under the impression that she subletted her room for the short time between Joe leaving and her death before I read his dissertation, although I can't really remember why.
When Joe visited her after he left her how long did he stay for? The fact that he visited her can't be solid proof that she didn't sublet her room as I'm sure he didn't stay too late especially if he had to get up early in the morning.
One thing that always puzzles me too is that they were living in a street which had one of the worst reputations at the time and yet Joe was on a top wage as you say. I don't understand why they couldn't have moved away from that area or why they moved there in the first place if he could have afforded somewhere better.
Could you also explain about how the type of lock Mary had on her door was worked out please.
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 649
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
The Boy issue, has to be taken seriously, she told her friend , she could not stand by, and see her son starve, it was reported that on the night of her murder, the boy stayed in a neighbours house,Barnett told the Star newspaper, that she had a boy six or seven staying with her.
It was reported in a newspaper, in 1894, that Kelly like mckenzie, had connections with a blind boy[ it was reported that she had a passionate intrest in him].
I have always felt it was entirely possible, that this boy lived with another person, all the time she lived with Barnett[ her mysterious trips to the Elephant and castle district] and whilst Barnett was supporting her , she was able to fund his care, but since the money dried up, the boy was returned to her, and was staying with her at the time of her death.
But out of respect for this boys welfare, the police hushed up future reports on this, although some details managed to leak out.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
G'day,
Back to that Dissertation: (I'll look up what Paul Begg told me about the little boy, when I get home from shopping).
'But someone had collected those scattered garments, [her clothes], and folded them tidily together.' Who said they ever were scattered? She was so comfortable with her killer that she removed all of her clothes, and folded them herself, before hoping into bed, as if to retire for the night. Her killer only burnt the clothes that Maria Harvey left, because he saw Maria and Mary's prostitute friends as the cause of all his 'pain'. For ruining the woman he loved.
Does this guy believe that Mary falsely said she lost her key a week before the murder, because she predicted there would be a perfect opportunity soon for her to disappear? She must have had a wild imagination, to think that a missing key would help her escape!
If Mary spent the rest of the morning trolling round her 'favourite drinking dens', how come no one saw her? Everyone in Spitalfields was out trying to drown their sorrows and fears that morning!
This guy can't be serious!!!!!!!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 9:32 pm: | |
G'day,
.....and you know why Joe was so sure that the body on the bed was Mary's?.....because he was responsible! Otherwise he would have been so determined to find proof that it was someone else.
LEANNE |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 9:56 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I’m afraid the sources cited in the first paragraph of your post above, as support for the “Boy issue,” do not provide independent confirmation of this tale, as they all emanate from the same story.
At the outset it must again be stressed that Barnett did not tell the Star Kelly had a boy living with her. In fact the Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. 1888, reports Barnett confirming: “she had never had any children.” But this is not simply a choice of which newspaper to believe. As previously shown on these boards, the Star report, 10 Nov. 1888, (from which it is often assumed that Barnett claimed Kelly had a boy) clearly presents an evidently confusing conflation of two separate but consecutive reports that appeared earlier in the Times, 10 Nov. 1888.
It is in the second of these Times’ reports that the story of Kelly’s boy can be found. Although the Times appears on the Casebook Press Pages, it might be useful to reproduce the crucial portion of that 10 November report here:
"Another account gives the following details: Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving. There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset-street, who said to her that she had no money and, if she could not get any, would never go out any more but would do away with herself. Soon afterwards they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came up, and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man then accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, and the little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbour's house. Nothing more was seen of the woman until yesterday morning, when it is stated that the little boy was sent back into the house, and the report goes, he was sent out subsequently on an errand by the man who was in the house with his mother. There is no direct confirmation of this statement." (Times 10 Nov. 1888)
It seems clear from this that the “companion” to whom Kelly confided, “she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving” is the “associate” who saw her accompanied by a respectably dressed man “to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, and the little boy was removed from the room.” Knowing that Kelly’s lodgings were not on the second floor, it is unlikely that Kelly was the woman seen by this associate, and, consequently, the little boy removed from the second floor room to a neighbour’s house was not Kelly’s.
Even arguing that the report simply got the second-floor lodging wrong would do little to enhance the credibility of the story, which appears to be the main, shaky foundation for the claim that Kelly had a little boy.
The Star, 9 Nov. 1888, of course, reported that Kelly lived with her mother, a man who passed as her husband, and her little son about 10 or 11 years old, but I doubt if anyone’s going to place great reliance in the accuracy of that tall tale. 
(The A-Z entries on Lizzie Fisher, p.138, and ‘Margaret’ p.284, discuss aspects of the ‘second-floor lodging’ story)
Best Wishes
alex
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 3:26 am: | |
G'day Rich, Sarah,
Alex is spot on! Many newspapers and citizens were at Miller's Court on the morning that Kelly's body was found, all looking for an 'exclusive'!
The 'Times' of November 10 stated that Mary had a little boy, and the 'Manchester Guardian' of the same day coppied the lines word-for-word, as did other papers.
Two days later another newspaper put an end to this myth. To read more you'll have to wait for the  !
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 3:39 am: | |
Alex,
The trouble is, a lot of press reports were released after millers court, if one fed them all into a computer, and asked for some sence to be made , smoke would rise.
I Would say, that the majority of peoples statements , were truely given, but one somehow has to interpret them.
For eg. The report that the deseased lived with her mother, and a man passing as her husband, and a boy aged ten or eleven, could have been a reference, to when kelly brought home streetwalkers to stay with her and Barnett, one of them may have had a son, it certainly seems that this statement was in a past sense,as Barnett had been gone ten days.
I would say that there is a good chance , that kelly had at some point in recent days, been seen with , or had a boy under her roof, which does not of course mean the child was hers.
The report that , the boy returned to kellys room, in the morning, and was sent on a errand, is mindblowing if true, it would make sense, if the boy did stop at a neighbours, one would imagine, that he would be send back home, in the morning, and if kelly was in the room alive with a client, she would not want the boy, to interfere with business, and it is quite possible that the man, knowing this, sent him on a errand, and said dont hurry back, I need half an hour to talk .
Far fetched mayby, but if this did happen, it is more then possible that he saw 'Jack'and would have been a golden witness, and his identity would have been safeguarded, but bits of it reached the press.
Confusing, but the whole issue is open to interpretation.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 579
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
Leanne,
"and you know why Joe was so sure that the body on the bed was Mary's?.....because he was responsible! Otherwise he would have been so determined to find proof that it was someone else."
Why would he be determined to find proof for it being someone else? Also, I know it is your opinion that Joe killed her but you have to look at it from all angles too. You don't want people saying that your only looking at things from one view like Patricia Cornwall. If you take away the "Joe killed her" aspect, then we are still left with him only identifying her by her hair and eyes whilst glimpsing through a window.
I'm confused a bit here. Richard, do you believe she had a son? I don't know what to think with regards to that. The reason I ask is because I thought you agreed with Leanne on that matter.
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
I would not dismiss the possibility of her having a child, the seven/eight year old would fit in with a possible marriage to Davies.
Although it would seem unlikely that she would come to London, on the game, with that added burden of responsibility, but we can not be sure.
It has been said that when she first moved , she operated from the west end of London, and would have been able to afford, to pay someone to care for the child, even when she took up with Barnett, who was reported to earn a sizable wage as a fish porter, she could have continued to pay the carer , however the last weeks of kellys life was desperate, she could not afford anything, and because of this the person , who may have been, looking after her son, would have returned him back to his mother.
The fact is we can not be certain, and should keep an open mind.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 3:44 pm: | |
G'day Sarah,
Richard and I have two seperate minds. We agree that when we come across any aspect that we can't see eye-to-eye on, we'll present both opinions and let a reader decide.
I think it's almost certain that Mary didn't have a child, but Richard appears to want to keep an open mind.
I think if Joe was innocent, he would have wanted to find the slightest clue that Mary wasn't dead on the bed. He would have looked for other ways of identifying her.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
G'day Sarah,
To avoid the 'Patricia Cornwell syndrome', one would have to keep an open mind about EVERYTHING and not come to any final conclusions! That way the case will never be solved!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 591
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 5:18 am: | |
Richard,
If she did have a son then where was he when she was being killed?
Leanne,
In a way people have to keep an open mind about most things though otherwise there is the danger that you could end up going down one road and if something comes up to throw your ideas into disarray then you tend to ignore it which you shouldn't.
By the way, when I say you I mean that collectively, not just you in specific.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
G'day,
I strongly believe that if Mary Jane Kelly had a child under her care or in a foster home cared by others, that fact would have been discussed at her inquest.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 525
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
For God's sake !!! re .the ubiquitous child..not only would it have been mentioned at the inquest,but also by Joe,Maria,Lizzie et. al. let alone Mrs Prater and probably Diddles!! These things don't go unnoticed!!Richard may be right to keep an open mind in fact that's a good thing in a man(!) but o.k. where was this child...The only thing/place that springs to mind is the refuge......hence all that nun stuff...kelly woman etc....Leanne don't you agree??
Cheers Suzi |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 597
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 5:18 am: | |
I may be making this up, although I'm sure I'm not, but isn't there an account somewhere saying that Joe said she had a child? I'll have to try to look that up, unless someone can enlighten me.
Sarah |
Vladimir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Leanne,
You said, "'But someone had collected those scattered garments, [her clothes], and folded them tidily together.' Who said they ever were scattered? She was so comfortable with her killer that she removed all of her clothes, and folded them herself, before hoping into bed, as if to retire for the night. Her killer only burnt the clothes that Maria Harvey left, because he saw Maria and Mary's prostitute friends as the cause of all his 'pain'. For ruining the woman he loved."
I have a couple of questions.
First, when you say "She was so comfortable with her killer that she removed all of her clothes, and folded them herself, before hoping into bed, as if to retire for the night." do you mean that the killer was there when she undressed? If so, and it was JB, whom MJK wanted out of her life, according to you, would you undress in front of him? Would you feel comfortable in a situation like that, or would you ask him to leave first?
Being a man, I am unsure how women think in these situations, but I would think that she would ask JB to leave.
Or did JB come in on here while she was sleeping after GH had left and Astrakan man was gone too?
Was JB watching her to see when they left?
I just do not understand your timeframe here?
I know how men think, especially about a woman they are in love with, and I think it would be uncommon for a woman to undress in front (clients aside) that she did not want around, as it might lead him on.
Just some more Ramblings,
Vlad |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 532
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Vlad!!
Just have to take issue with a couple of points here..I was cold and wet when Mary got back to her room,she would have taken off ,certainly most of her clothes and hung them on what passed for furniture because they were the only clothes that she had..may go some way to backing up Mrs Maxwell's statement that she saw her wearing the same red lindsey (!) shawl as she was the day before!!.As to Maria Harvey's leavings that's another story I guess but think, but maybe,just maybe...Maria holds the key....to the story..if not the room!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 603
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 5:29 am: | |
I think vlad has a point with regards to her getting undressed in front of Joe. I certainly wouldn't get undressed in front of my ex. I think it would be a bit contradictive of her to want him out of her life and then strip off in front of him. He certainly would be getting mixed messages, I know most men would get a little confused if their recently ex lover was telling him that she doesn't want him there anymore but then proceeds to take off her clothes in front of him.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 7:16 am: | |
G'day,
Hey, what if Mary wanted to tease Joe? - To give him the message that he better earn some money quickly, if he wanted to win her back! Mary was the dominant one, she probably thought that her sexual attraction was very powerful and she would always get her way!
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 8:07 am: | |
Hi,
First of all, we are not certain ,what kind of relationship, Barnett and Kelly had.
Was it normal sexual relationship?.It may have been, for the first part of them moving in together, but since Kelly returned to prostitute herself, and knowing as we do, Barnetts bitter opposition to that, I would suggest, any physical desire for her, would have collapsed, knowing she was going with any Tom, Dick, or Harry.
most men I would persume, would find that a turn off.
Another point is, the reason she undressed in his presence.
I would not believe, it was any attempt to turn him on, nor would I have imagined he would have been aroused, he would have surely, have seen her undress, hundreds of times.
It takes more then a woman undressing, for a man to want sex, desire plays a big role, and I doubt if Barnett had that at this stage.
I would suggest, that she simply undressed, to get back into bed, for she was not feeling well, mayby even at Barnetts suggestion.And I doubt she had any reservations in doing so, in front of him, Old reliable Joe'
Richard. |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
Just for the sake of it I would like to put my 2 cents in here on this subject. If I may do so? 
Who can claim when Mary Kelly undressed and folded her garments tidily; that she wasn't just getting ready to go to sleep alone? I mean is it so hard to believe that a hooker would call it a earily night with a mad killer on the loose? She likely felt safe in her room being that Jack the Ripper was killing women out in the streets? I can see her doing this not aware at all that JTR would be killing her indoors. I can also see JTR waiting until Mary Kelly fell asleep before he reached his arm in her broken window to unlock the door. It would take JTR mere moments to do so and then open the door to his sleeping victim. Of course at some point Mary Kelly woke up thus she had the defense cuts on her arms and that would explain the "Oh murder" that a witness heard that night.
Put yourself in Mary's bed for a moment, she's sleeping with the fire place going on a cold night. When she wakes to a sound or a movement that a killer makes. It's not hard to figure out how it feels when "SOMETHING" wakes you up in the middle of the night. We've all been there.
Sometimes when people are half awake they say things in a sluggish way. The 2 words heard by the witness would likely be Mary Kelly when JTR whoever he was pulled his knife on her. "Oh murder" Her last words on this earth before having her throat cut in her bed. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 608
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Richard,
he would have surely, have seen her undress, hundreds of times.
Maybe she was that type of woman but I doubt it. I know she was a prostitute but purely out of necessity not desire or because she liked to flaunt herself so I can't see why she would undress in front of Joe. I personally wouldn't undress in front of an ex no matter how many times he had seen me strip off.
You also say that his desire for her had gone but than I don't see why he would kill her with such passion if he had no passion for her.
Leanne,
To give him the message that he better earn some money quickly
But I thought you said she didn't want anymore to do with him, so surely she wouldn't want to bother teasing him to make him get more money.
M.Mc.,
There is no proof that Mary's last words were the "Oh Murder" that those witnesses heard. Apparently that cry just to be heard a lot around that way so it is quite possible that someone else had yelled it out, possibly to scare off someone who was giving her unwanted attention. Just an idea.
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 666
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
I would have imagined Mary would have had no scruples about stripping of in front of any paying customer, she was hardly a lady of strict victorian morals.
As for killing her , that is, if Barnett did, it was not passion that he killed her , but pure hatred.
Anyway where would she undress, in that tiny room, without Barnett noticing, she could hardly retire behind a screen, or did she insist he closed his eyes?
Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
