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 April 14, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Barnett, Joseph » To Suggest That Barnett is Guily Is To .................. » Archive through April 14, 2004 « Previous Next »

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

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1502
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 7:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Robert,

"He moved the head from the far corner to the near side of the bed - probably to make it easier to mutilate the face - and therefore it's possible, isn't it, that instead of the organs being placed under the head, the head was placed on top of the organs?"

Good point, Robert. That is a possibility.

All the best


Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1503
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 7:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Leanne,

"GLOENNA: Do you want Jack the Ripper to be 'representative'....common?....normal....average? This, I feel, can be an obstacle in solving his crimes."

Firstly, that's me, in case you didn't notice. I made an error during the actual posting.
Secondly, can you elaborate on what you mean here. I didn't quite see what you meant.

And what do you mean with "normal", "representative"... ?

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1504
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 7:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mikey,

If Mary Kelly folded the clothes herself -- which I can't see why she shouldn't have -- the clothes are no clue at all. Just an item on the crime scene, indicating that Mary Kelly had already gone to bed before she was killed. That's all. Hardly a clue to the killer.

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1288
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 1:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Glenn or Gloenna, (whichever you prefer),

'Representative' is a word that you used. I took it to mean normal for a serial killer, (common behaviour of). Everyones lives are different.

One argument for the case against Joe being the Ripper that I can't argue with is the lack of a criminal record after Mary Kelly's murder. There is no record of his exact whereabouts anywhere, until 1929.

People say that serial killers can't stop unless they die or are locked up, but that is based on our knowledge of serial killer behaviour after, studying recent cases. Can a serial killer that is known by one name: 'Jack the Ripper', change his MO and the frequency of his murders?

I'd say that Mary folded the clothes and placed them there herself, as she had plans to go to the 'Lord Mayor's Day' celebrations.

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

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1506
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 5:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Leanne.

Aha, Now I see. Well, although I believe that each murderer is an individual as well, I think what we know about lust murderers so far don't fit an idea of the murders being performed on such complicated grounds. Since I see Jack the Ripper as a true lust murderer (the lust or whatever we shall call the grounds for his need or compulsion, being expressed by the mutilations and the over-excessive post mortem violence), I believe he did them out of an urgent need to do so, not as a part of a plan or agenda.

I am not sure whether a serial killer of compulsive order can stop on his own behalf; I would think not, but as you say, this is tricky, since the information we have is based on those who are known or caught. It still makes most perfect sense in a psychological way, though. But still, you never know... At least I think other cases have pointed at the possibility that it at least is not unrealistic to expect a longer "break" on some occasions.
I do think a serial killer of Jack's disposition can change his MO, but within some boundaries. If he changed his MO, it would be because of the circumstances invited or forced him to do so, but it would still be important for him to get the same satisfaction or gain out of it -- therefore I don't think the Ripper for example could have changed into a systematic poisoner and so on -- that would not give him the same amount of result. However, some slight changes in MO I think could be considered, but I think we stumble in the dark very much on this point as well. All we have to date as far as the Ripper is concerned, is the forensic evidence and facts and that is what we have to deal with on first hand basis.

"I'd say that Mary folded the clothes and placed them there herself, as she had plans to go to the 'Lord Mayor's Day' celebrations."
I agree.

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559

Post Number: 271
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Glenn,

Ah, but if Mary did fold them it's still a clue as it tells us something. What, we may never know. 1. Mary knew and was comfortable with whoever was in the room with her. 2. Mary was already fast asleep when the killer entered the room. 3. Mary was sober enough to neatly fold her clothes and take care of where she put them. ALong with many, many other possibilities. So, you see, the folded clothes are still a clue, just like every single item at the crime scene.

Crime scene analysis must always take in the whole scene and give it a value - more weight or less weight to each item. In this way all the clues are looked at and used to solve a crime.

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

Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko

Post Number: 269
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Robert,

It’s been a long time…

You wrote: “He moved the head from the far corner to the near side of the bed - probably to make it easier to mutilate the face - and therefore it's possible, isn't it, that instead of the organs being placed under the head, the head was placed on top of the organs?”

That is perfectly possible and although I didn’t do much with it in my last post I did think about it while I was writing. But even though the Ripper might have moved MJK’s head over the organs after he had put them on that part of the bed, it doesn’t really change my point that there do seem to have been some elements of control.

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 11:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne,

Joe forbade Mary to walk the streets but he did not have to threaten her with violence. He could have just threatend her with leaving witch he did.

I have made an effort too read up on the case so I Can write a more informed post. There is nothing to suggest that Joe was the ripper. He offerd some information that was not asked at the inquest but that could just have been nerves. Sure he fit the profile but we are talking about the Eastend alot of guys fit the profile.

I have always posted that I think to come up with a viable suspect some speculation is needed but the case against Barnett is pure speculation. There is nothing to suggest that Joe was the ripper nor that the police ever considerd him a suspect.

I believe Mary folded her cloths. I dont think the ripper would have folded them. I do think the ripper was in the room when she undressed.

All the best,CB

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko

Post Number: 270
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Glenn,

To keep it short for a change, I agree with most of what you said.

The Ripper was undoubtedly guided by fierce anger. The facial mutilations are probably a good indication of that. The bodily mutilations to me seem more like some sort of exploration, while at the same time they were a way of trying to destroy Mary. The placing of body parts on the bed as opposed to tossing them around seem to suggest some self-control. The fact that no body parts were found on the floor might even seem a sign of tidiness, but we can’t draw any such conclusion from it.

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1509
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 3:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mikey wrote:
>Crime scene analysis must always take in the whole scene and give it a value - more weight or less weight to each item. In this way all the clues are looked at and used to solve a crime.

Jesus Christ. Tell me something I don't know. Of course they tell us something (I admit I exaggerated a bit), but hardly anything about the murderer. Yes, those three points you mention are exactly the kind of information the folded clothes tells us. To me they suggest that Mary Kelly either were asleep when the killer went inside or she folded them herself when he was there with her. The last option do indicate that she felt rather secure with the killer on that point. But then what?

As I said, it is one of those items found on a crime scene that one must study and take into account to get a broader picture of the course of events -- but a big and important clue (as has been discussed here)???? Nah... I wouldn't think so.

All the best

(Message edited by Glenna on April 13, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 655
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 4:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The strange thing about the folded clothes for me has been the fact he didnt use them to clean his hands.Ofcourse there were items of clothing on the fire and he may have used these to clean up with.
It has also been for me the pointer to her being in bed [asleep]when he let himself in[having stalked Mary or having been a previous customer and knowing how to].
I suspect too that Mary avoided undressing as though to go to bed[chemise/nightdress whatever].
she came and went several times that night if the various accounts are to be believed so my guess is that she completed her "transaction" as quickly as she could to get out there and find the money for the rent-avoiding whenever possible time wasting undressing.
Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559

Post Number: 278
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 4:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Glenn,

I wasn't meaning it was a big clue. I only meant that everything was a clue. I understand that you know that and that I wasn't telling you anything, but not everyone does. My hope is that people learn something from our dialogue, not whether you or I learn anything new from each other. I might see more from the folded clothes, someone else might see more from the jacket across the window (the obvious being to keep the cold out, I know that). These are the small things that tell us about an individual. The more we know about the individual, the more we will hopefully know about the perp.

With all respect,

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

Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 310
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 4:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Glenn,
The folded clothes may actually be important to one particular mystery. The most reasonable explanation is that Mary folded them herself. The "long-shot option" is that Jack folded them. The long-shot is an interesting twist, but as we've all mentioned, there's little to justify accepting it over the more likely option that Mary simply folded up her own clothes. Since none of the reports indicate the clothes are bloody, or have bloody hand/finger prints on them, we have no direct evidence that JtR touched them at all. And, given that the clothes are mentioned, such marks would be indicated if they were there.

So, going with the more likely option, it's Mary who folded her clothes before going to bed. This also fits with the fact that she's wearing her bed clothes.

That tells us that either her killer was in the room with her, and waited for her to undress. Normal behaviour if he's posing as a customer, and it's not unusual for serial killers of prostitutes to employ their services either. Perhaps not what we would normally expect of JtR based upon the other murders, but the other murders were outside where the "window of opportunity" is smaller; if he's going to kill, he's not got time for other activities.

The other option is that her killer enters the room while she's sleeping and attacks her in her bed.

Regardless of which option one takes, if Mary folded her clothes, and got into her night clothes, the evidence suggests Mary was killed when she was in bed for the night. It's much harder to imagine that a vomiting and hungover Mary went home, undressed, folded her clothes, and got into her night clothes just to sleep off a hangover. Especially if Leanne's correct and Mary was intending to go to the Lord Mayor's show, which is a very reasonable suggestion.

The short version, therefore, is that the fact Mary's clothes are folded, combined with her being in her night clothes, is more consistent with the murder occurring during nighttime hours than it is with the murder occurring during daylight hours after Mary got up and got dressed.

And, if Mary is killed during the night, then Joe must be considered cleared because the police would have checked on his alibi for the night in question and let him go because his whereabouts were known for that night. Joe's viability as a suspect is based upon the option that Mary is killed in the morning, after the time covered by his alibi.

So the folded clothes may not tell us who the killer was, but they may help determine who the killer was not. That's not too bad, given how hard it is to clear the suspect list these days!

Just to be clear, of course it's possible for Mary to have got up, got dressed, go to the pub, have a beer, leave, throw up, be spotted, go home, undress, fold her clothes, put her night clothes back on, and get back into bed. So, no, the evidence is not conclusive, but that explanation is more fitting the evidence to the theory than deriving the theory from the evidence.

- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1289
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 6:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Glenn,

Going back to your last post to me at 5:51a.m., April 13:

'Plan or agenda'? To claim that the Ripper was motivated by a deep down hatred of loose women, and fuelled by a desire to control the actions of his chosen woman (Mary Kelly), I fail to see as a complicated plan.

The over excessive post mortem violence tells me that he was 'fighting' something. Something that only he could see, something from his past maybe, something that was a threat to his future comfort....prostitution!

Then as the crimes progressed and terror gripped the world, his ego would have grown too, until the woman he loved became just another cheap prostitute and expendable.

MIKEY: If Mary folded the clothes, it tells me that she had no intensions of going out again to find another customer!

CB: Joe left Mary, yes, but he kept returning daily to give her money, so that tells me that he wanted to go back. Maybe he found out that Flemming was giving Mary money too so his atempts to 'buy' her back were failing, and she was just using him.

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

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1511
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 7:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Extremely good thinking, Jeff.

"Since none of the reports indicate the clothes are bloody, or have bloody hand/finger prints on them, we have no direct evidence that JtR touched them at all."
A very good point indeed. I agree.

I must admit I am a bit tempted by the scenario where Mary Kelly is attacked in bed after she had gone to sleep. If she was a Ripper victim, I have never felt that the idea involving a client waiting for her to undress and get ready as being very consistent with the Ripper's approach.
But this is an area of speculations and I am afraid we don't have enough information to find out which theory that is the most plausible one.

I am not so sure, though, that the folded clothes should be of valid importance for eliminating Barnett or other suspect. They can, as many other items on the site, tell us a bit about the probable circumstances before and during the murder -- that's all. I can't see any other relevance.

Mikey,
When I said that the folded clothing were considered a big clue I was referring to the status they have been given during the discussion in general here, not to your post especially.

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1512
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 7:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Leanne,

"'Plan or agenda'? To claim that the Ripper was motivated by a deep down hatred of loose women, and fuelled by a desire to control the actions of his chosen woman (Mary Kelly), I fail to see as a complicated plan."
For a lust murderer it is. Your suggestion of motive is still a scheme that I feel very unlikely for this type of killer. Once again, these types of killings are generally totally "motiveless", performed by a sick individual (although not necessarily sick in the legal meaning of the word).

"The over excessive post mortem violence tells me that he was 'fighting' something. Something that only he could see, something from his past maybe, something that was a threat to his future comfort....prostitution!"
A complete fabrication, unsupported by empiric facts or evidence, á la Cornwell. You can't know what went on in either Jack the Ripper's or Barnett's head. That is your own construction.
I'm sorry, it doesen't add up.

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 311
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 1:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Glenn,
I see what you mean, and you're correct that once we start describing events that created the crime scene, we are speculating and theorising. And, as my closing "alternative scenerio" indicates, I too would caution against the folded clothes being used in a "conclusive" manner to rule out Barnett.

That being said, however, at any point we go beyond a description of the crime scene we are moving into the realm of theory. Even to discuss the "validity/accuracy" of witness testimony is to theorise. If we avoid all theory, then we are left simply restating exactly what they said, no let me correct that, we can simply restate the written version of their testimony. And point out that the versions are rarely word for word exactly the same. As soon as we try and distill the common thread, we are theorising.

The danger, as I see it, is that if the theory gets too far from the evidence, then it becomes unsupportable. As I pointed out with the "folded clothes", it's interesting to look at various ways in which the clothes "became folded". Obviously, Mary, her killer, or someone else altogether, did the folding.

The last, however, gets too far from the evidence to be supportable. It's "possible" someone came in and folded Mary's clothes for her before she was killed, either while she's awake or asleep, but there is nothing to suggest this. Even the witnesses who report seeing her in the morning indicate they did not go back to her room with her. The idea that someone gets into her locked room (the while she's asleep, or after she's been killed), only to fold her clothes and then leave is within the realm of physical possibility, but is so ridiculous an idea that I'm almost hesitant to write it. I'm doing so only to cover all the bases.

Anyway, that leaves either Mary or her killer to do the folding. Her killer doing it is an interesting idea, but it's pushing the boundaries of what we know. If there was some indication that the clothes were bloodstained, as if handled with bloody hands, for example, then that would change things. But, that is not recorded, and without that, the notion that Mary's killer did the folding is something to consider only as an unlikely alternative. More probable than the mystery folder, but a bit too distant from the evidence set to put forth as anything more than a "long-shot".

That leaves us with only Mary doing the folding as the most probable explanation, which is also the most plausible. All that's left is when she did the folding? At night, before going to bed, or late in the morning, after returning from the pub trying to cure a hangover?

Obviously both are possible, neither is entirely implausible either. However, the idea of getting fully undressed and then re-dressed in her night clothes seems inconsistent with the behaviour of someone with such a bad hangover that they are vomitting shortly before (the scene that we would have to accept if she folds the clothes in the morning hours). If she's simply trying to sleep it off, one would expect her simply plop down fully dressed, or only remove her outter wear and place her dress over the back of a chair, etc. Going to bed for the night, which places the murder before her going out to the pub (making all that testimony un-reliable), has no problem with her folding up her clothes, and dressing for bed, etc, which is how things are found.

As for her killer waiting, I agree, if it's JtR this is unlike his previous victims. But, Mary is also unlike his previous victims. She's younger, she's prettier, and she has a room. And, if GH is to be believed at all, she said to her last known client "Don't worry, you will be comfortable", which could suggest he's interested in staying an entire night. GH's description is far too detailed to be accurate, but if we take anything from it, her last client appears to be better off than the norm, which would suggest he appeared to be someone who might convince Mary he could afford her for an entire night. And GH does tell us that this last client was in the room for at least 45 minutes, far longer than the quickies in the street that one would expect was being "bought" from the other victims (again, assuming the pose as client scenerio here). Finally, since Mary's room key was lost, and the door was found locked, the idea that her killer was a client fits with the notion that she normally kept the room unlocked, and locked it when with a client. Again, there are alternatives for the locked door (i.e., Mary went to sleep without locking the door, the killer knew/figured out that you could reach through the window, etc), but the common idea of a client entering with Mary does seem to work for many, maybe even all, the puzzles. Many unrelated "things" all fit with one common assumption (i.e., when the clothes get folded, who folds the clothes, how the killer gets in a locked door, how the door gets locked, GH's testimony of a long staying client, etc).

Are these things/events "proven"? No, and I don't say they are. All of these statements are theoretical, they are all interpretations. But, what I'm trying to do as much as possible, is to interpret within the bounds of the evidence and to avoid contradictions. This way, the story (another word for theory but one that emphasises the fact we're interpreting facts, not presenting facts) travels through the path of the data without any sudden twists or jumps into events that left no impression on the evidence set.

I admit, the evidence set is thin to begin with, and some of it is of questionable quality. GH, for example, can hardly be taken at his word with respect to the fine details of his testimony. For me to include some of what GH testified to is to be viewed with extreme caution because we already know his testimony is too exact to be considered 100% true. Why, then, should I consider his recall of what Mary said to the client as being "accurate"? Even I'm not sure I should, but then, even I'm not sure my story is accurate. It works well enough to explain a fair amount of the evidence we do have, but notice it also requires the dismissal of the testimony that MJK was seen the next morning.

Obviously, the more time being covered by the "story", the more likely that some aspect of it will be wrong, or open to alternative explanations. However, if the alternative explanations start to contradict the evidence "further down the road" of our story then is it really an alternative?

Anyway, this is getting to be a hugely long post, and so I apologise to anyone who's suffered through my stream of consciousness this far. In summary, I don't think the folded clothes are the "final solution clue", rather I think they offer one more piece to the puzzle. And, since the picture must be made from these pieces, the picture must consider who did the folding, and when the folding was done. Moreover, the explanation for this tiny event should fit into the bigger picture, which describes the events up to Mary's murder. Finally, that whole story should be compared with the even bigger picture, which are the Whitechappel murders. To the extent the story meshes with that of the other victims we would conclude Mary is a victim of the same killer, while to the extent her story does not mesh, we would conclude she's not a victim of the same killer.

- Jeff

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 659
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 3:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Very thorough and plausible Jeff.I certainly agree that IF some only of Hutchinson"s statement is what he actually saw as opposed to what he was "prompted"[by Abberline"s questioning,to have seen]then we probably have her killer.And that the remark ,"You will be comfortable" fits very comfortably with him wanting to stay the whole night!
Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 11:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Just another thought on Kelly. I would have brought this up in my last post but I wanted be sure I read right. Mary Cox stated at the inquest that she saw kelly enter her house with a man around 11:45 and she could still here Mary singing around one in the morning. This might suggest that Mary did make herself comfortable with her clients.

Take care,CB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brian Hall
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 4:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jeff

Well stated....... in fact, one of the best I've read on these boards in some time!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all

I am still toying with the 'lurker' approach, so my understanding is that JtR (who, necessariliy for this approach, knows Whitechapel well) followed prostitutes with their clients, waited for the client to leave, then attacked. The idea that Mary folded her clothes normally and went to bed causes me no problems at all. The client would have unlocked the door to get out - would Mary necessarily have got out of bed to lock it at that point? Someone commented she only locked it when actually with a client - is there any basis for that comment?

If GH isn't the lurker, perhaps the lurker waited for him to leave also before acting, thus giving Mary a chance to fall asleep. This fits the timescale of the 'oh murder' cry also.

Regards

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

Domenic Pasqua
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

New to the site. I have enjoyed reading many postings and maybe I'm thinking it is simple. The clothes are folded because she went to sleep. JTR had watched Mary Jane unlock her door through the hole in window and after Mary Jane went to sleep went in and killed her. He probably liked the idea of having all the time he wanted to have his fun and not being interupted. Joe didn't do it and I beleive it is reaching to suggest he killed 4 women to scare Mary Jane and then turn around and kill. Plus he had an alibi for the appearent time of the killing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 6:02 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

I was reading the Kelly inquest and doese not Sarah Lewis sort of back up what GH said? Maybe I misunderstood her testimony. Did she not claim she saw a man waiting across the court around 2:30am and down further she saw a woman and a man the woman being worst for drink? It could have been GH across from the court and Mary talking to the man he described.

All the best, CB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 11:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Thanks for takeing the time too answer my post Leanne! I realize that Joe wanted too get back with Kelly and he cared for her. There is know other reason for him too give her money. I was just suggesting other ways he could of threatend Kelly and force her of the streets.

I agree with Glenn about the cloths being folded. I think it tells us little. I mean we dont know if Kelly made a common practice out of takeing off her cloths for a customer or not. We dont know if the weather conditions had something to do with it or maybe she was planning on makeing this man her last client or not. We do know that she was seeing clients that night and none of the wittnesses claim she was with Joe. People who I think would have known Joe.

Just a quick story. I was watching Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid today. This will show you guys just how much I think about the case. Butch took a prostitute up to her room and she undressed down to her slip. Then she folded her cloths much like Kelly did. I thought maybe this was common for women who worked indoors. Women who did not have too pull up there dress in the street.

Take care,CB
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:06 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jeff,
There is no harm in theorising.The folded clothes were there and apparently untouched from the time they were taken off and folded.So it may be asked ,why did the killer ignore them?.They could have been used as fuel,to clean up before leaving,or both.That he didn't see them seems unlikely,so in some sense ,as Michael says,they can be considered a clue.To what,is the stumbling block.
Here is another bit of theorising.I suggest the killer would have been stood by the small table while doing the mutilation.Why?.Well he would have been more balanced for a start.He would have had the light of the fire to illuminate the body,and the placing of the body parts are at the head and feet,on the right side of the body,and on the table.There is only the spleen that is to the left of the body,so his work area is uncluttered and free,to me another indication of a controlled and orderly person.

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.