|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 804
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 2:39 am: |       |
Hi,
Although she may have on occassions drank beer,i believe her normal tipple was gin.
According to Mrs coxs neice,'Many a time my aunt saw her bringing a sailor back to her room, with a bottle of gin under her arm'.
With reference to Mrs Maxwells sighting, she made a point that it was unusual to see her up so early, which indicates clearly that she knew kelly well enough , not to have made a mistake.
As there is no evidence, that Mjk visited a local pub that morning, maxwells point about kelly stating that she had drank some beer ,and brought it up, would also point to maxwells honesty, for Mrs cox stated that the last time she saw kelly , the man she was with was carrying a quart of ale.
Therefore she could have had a gulp of leftovers.
But the main point still is ' oh i have lost my hankerchief' and'Her eyes looked queer, as if she was suffering from a heavy cold'
Both of these quotations were made six hourspart, with kelly being killed [as thought] in between, yet they both relate to each other, which indicates strongly that both parties were telling the truth.
To be honest if the police had any intelligence, they after hearing on the monday , that kelly made reference to a hanky, should have asked her friends in the court , and Barnett/ McCarthy, if to their knowledge was the deseased suffering from a cold. if the answer was 'Yes', then it should have become obvious that mrs Maxwells statement was true.
As I have said before, part of Maxwells statement has gone missing, the point about her eyes, was when she was answering questions refering to her clothing and general appearance.
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Suppose you are right and Mary survived the night and suppose Maxwell knew her well enough. I feel she would of had known Joe well enough. She stated that even tho she knew Kelly for only four months and only talked to her twice she knew her well enough to know her name from just seeing her around. I believe shw would of known Joe well enough from seeing him around to know his name or at least be able too identifiy him as Mary's boyfriend from 25 yards away. She stated Kelly kept to herself. Even if she did not know Kelly well enough to mention she took in other unfortunates from time to time. She would of known she had a boyfriend named Joe.
Maxwell stated that when she came back Mary was talking to a man. She could not Identify this man from 16 to 25 yards away. I dont know if you are familiar with football but you can probabley throw a football 25 yards. I feel if she knew Kelly well enough too identifiy her she would of known Joe well enough too identifiy him as the man she saw talking to Kelly or atleast she would of mentioned Kelly was talking to her boyfriend. They had not been broken up or exsranged for very long I mean Joe stopped by often to visit. She would have made some sort of identification of the man Kelly was talking to around 9:00 in the morning. If that man had been Joe.
If the man Kelly was seen talking to was not Joe and if you believe Joe was JTR then you are pushing Kelly's time of death back further. Just when do you suppose Joe killed her?
One more thought. If Joe did kill her around say 9:30 or 10:00? Dont you think someone would have seen him leaveing? Someone who knew and reconised him. I mean look how many people saw Kelly that morning.
All the best,CB |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 323
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Hi CB,
I don't think Kelly was hungover, unless she was killed the next morning. What I'm trying to do is examine things from the notion that Mrs. Maxwell saw her just after she vomited. If she did, then Mary was hungover since a cold doesn't make you vomit, but maybe she had a flu! Regardless, the proposed "Mary of the morning" says she has a hangover, the horrors of drink are upon her. The problem is that there doesn't appear to be any oppertunity for the "Mary of the Night Before" to have obtained enough drink to end up suffering from such "horrors". etc.
Anyway, because things start getting very complicated to explain as soon as I assume she was spotted the next morning, I tend to find it hard to accept that the sighting is accurate. I think it more likely that the women spotted was not Mary Kelly. As you've pointed out, the description is wrong, the behaviour is wrong (hungover when not that drunk the night before), the food she eats just before being killed is more consistent with an evening meal than a morning one, etc. In other words, the evidence points more towards Mary being killed at night more than in the morning. And that suggests the sighting is not of Mary, which also explains why the description of the women does not match the other descriptions we have of Mary. Notice how once we assume the sighting is in error, the "story" becomes quite simple. Because the mistaken identity story is much simpler and captures much of the evidence, Ocam's Razor tells us to go with it.
- Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 677
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
I agree with you Jeff we just dont know who Mrs Maxwell thought Mary Kelly was-it could have been another Mary.She wouldnt have been lying on oath -just mistaken.
It could also have been something to do with the "jumping on the band waggon" phenomenon that happens when people have something like this happen unexpectedly in their midst.Over keen to help and a bit traumatised themselves they declare sightings etc to try to be helpful and involved.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Hi there,
CB says:
"If Joe had a deep rooted hatred of prostitutes like you say then why was he with Kelly in the first place? She was a prostitute when he saw her and if his hatred ran so deep why did he just stop killing."
I think CB here raises a very interesting and valuable point. It is not unusual for killers who hates prostitute to receive their services on occasion, but hardly involve themselves romanticly or start a serious relationship with them. At least I find it rather unlikely. Barnett did obviously care a great deal for Mary Kelly. So, if he hated prostitutes -- why bother to get involved with her in the first place?
CB,
Well, I actually don't have a favourite suspect at all, so it would be hard to agree with me anyway on likely suspects. I really don't favour anybody in particular these days.
However, I do have opinions regarding who I don't think he was.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
G'day,
Oh Glenn, CB and anyone else with the same thoughts: Barnett met a young, attractive, desperate female that he probably thought he could save from such a life.
He moved in with her without delay, and straight away tried to bar her from walking the streets. But she probably continued behind his back!
LEANNE |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 11:55 pm: | |
Guys,
Alright. I can't stop. I really am a masochist.
I don't believe there is any possible, logical way that Joe Barnett could be the killer. No matter what kind of things we can speculate about, there is literally no evidentiary link between him and any of the victims. Not only that, but I would love if any of the Barnett people could find me an example of any behavior similiar to what you are claiming of Barnett in the annals of crime.
I just cannot accept that Barnett killed 4+ women, mutilated their corpses and took their organs in order to get MJK to stop whoring herself, and the killed her and did the same thing when she didn't. I just can't logically link those things in my mind, no matter what his background is.
Of all of the tenuous suspects, Barnett is one of the worst.
B |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 326
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 1:36 am: | |
Hi Brian,
I don't think anyone would suggest I'm in favour of Barnett as being the Ripper, and it's on record that I tend to rank him pretty low as a suspect; almost, but not quite cleared, I think I've said.
The biggest problem with the Barnett theory is the proposed motive is just too "Hollywood" sounding. A point on which I agree with you, as do many others who do not feel the Barnett theory sits well.
Now, that aside, if we drop the proposed motive that doesn't equate to being able to drop Barnett entirely. We could, for instance, be miles off with respect to motive but paradoxically "have the right suspect". Serial killers motives do not always "make sense", which to me is the problem with the Barnett motive, it's trying to force a "sensible" motive. Ironically, it's that attempt to make sense of the motive which makes the least sense in terms of the case against Barnett.
Barnett, like Kidney and Kelly, are good suspects because they are partners of a victim. Hutchinson is good because he places himself in the vicinity of one of the crimes at the proposeed time of one of the crimes. Etc. The search for motive seems to be the stumbling block, and is probably the wrong way to go in my opinion.
Unfortunately, we are missing the one bit of information that would really give us insight into Barnett's validity as a suspect. And that is a transcript of what the police asked him about during his interview. We can probably assume they asked him for alibies not only for Mary's murder, the one he was most closely linked to, but also for the others. We know they did this for John Pizer very early on in the series, and that his partly how he was cleared of being the Ripper. It would be a surprise if they did not do this for Barnett as well. We can be sure they checked into and verified his alibi for the time they believed Mary to have been murdered, but there's always the small possibility that she was killed in the morning. Although I argue that the "morning Mary" is likely a mistaken identity, that's all based upon logical arguements and probabilities. There is always the possibility that my conclusions are wrong, which is why a police investigation has to investigate so many leads, however improbable those leads seem to be. It's not sufficient to try a case on "this is the most likely" explanation, but one has to be sure the alternatives are shut down beyond a reasonable doubt. At the moment, I don't claim the "morning Mary" possiblity is shut down beyond a reasonable doubt, only that the "preponderance of the evidence" is against it.
However, if we assume that Barnett's alibi checks out for a time of death at night that means he's unlikely to be the Ripper. We may assume they asked about the previous victims, but we have no idea what his responses were. Was he, for example, able to prove he could not have killed Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and/or Eddowes? If he could not have killed any of them (barring perhaps Stride as her inclusion is highly questionable), it stands to reason that he's not the Ripper. All that's left is whether or not he copied JtR in the singular murder of Mary Kelly.
For the record, I'm not flipping over to support Barnett as the Ripper. I do think the connection between him and the murders is limited only to him being Mary Kelly's ex-lover. Beyond that link, however, nothing seems to connect him to the act of murder itself. However, to ignor him entirely would also be a mistake. I think the proposed motive does not work, and it's the emphasis on the motive that makes most presentation of Barnett as the Ripper weak.
Take away that motive, however, and the case against him is still weak since now all the evidence is to suggest he was questioned, and released. Because we cannot evaluate the basis upon his release, it's hard to go much further as of yet. If a recorded version of his questioning still exists, and if it ever is found, then maybe we'll have something.
- Jeff |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 3:21 am: | |
Jeff,
Whether or not an extant copy of Abberline's notes on the questioning of Barnett exist, the simple fact of the matter is that none of the police involved in the case ever considered him a credible suspect.
Look at it from this perspective: what else did the detectives of the time period have to go on? There was little if any forensic science methods in existance - plaster of paris, and photography. Fingerprinting was still a decade away. The ONLY thing that folks like Abberline and the other detectives had to go by was their ability to question a witness.
These guys were skilled interviewers. They weren't beat constables, who were hired to be imposing men capable of quelling a riot. So if Barnett was questioned and released, I'm willing to place my faith in them that he had an air tight alibi.
When it comes down to it, there is little or no information that links Barnett to the crimes, and only his relationship to MJK links him to her. That is not, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to place him any higher on the suspect list than Lewis Carroll, James Maybrick, or Queen Victoria.
B |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
G'day,
JEFF: What on eath do you mean by 'Hollywood' sounding? Is that a new term invented to make the suggested motive sound weak? or is it because love is involved?
Think of it as rejection, jelousy, a kick in the butt to his self-esteem, the feeling of being used for his money plus the feeling of being deserted by a prostitute for the second time in his life at least.
Let me remind you that Hutchinson is not a good suspect because 'he places himself in the vicinity of one of the crimes'. That is exactly the reason why I think he's not.
How could the police have found out Barnett's alibi, checked it out, learned everything about his past, the couples lives together, his employment history and more in the two to four hours: ("ffffour hours" that he was interrogated for? And this was all before Mary Kelly's most likely Time Of Death was established!
If the police methods were so good and Barnett claimed he was in bed at Buller's at midnight, how come there is no record that they re-interviewed anyone after it was established that her most likely time of death was four hours later?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 807
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:22 am: | |
Hi,
I obviously agree with Leanne ie. When Barnett met Mary, he found her attractive, and although he had a dislike of prostitution, for a period of time came to accept that prostitution was in the majority of cases ,forced upon these women by circumstances, as Mjk told him her hard luck stories.
But he came to realize that a leopard never changes its spots, and his hatred of prostitutes returned , he saw these unfortunate women, that kelly hung around with as responsible for her fall from grace.
The above i consider to be a plausible account.
I wish we had the full statement of Mrs Maxwell available today, it was quoted in full, in a past publication many years ago, i read it on the way to Hove greyhounds, [ by train] and within ten minutes i realized its significance, this occurd thirty years ago, and within a week i contacted Colin wilson in Devon, who agreed with me that it was significant, but we cannot prove for certain that she had a cold regardless of strong pointers.
To sum up.
I feel that two strange remarks ie' 'Oh i have lost my hankerchief' and 'Her eyes looked queer, as if she was suffering from a Heavy' cold' are statements which imply truth, and not something that suggests made up events.
Also we should not forget the statement to the press on the day of the murder by Maurice lewis, stating he had known the deseased for about four years, and saw her returning to her room , carrying some milk, a very damaging point to make, for if no signs of a recent purchase were present in the room, he could have been in real trouble, for making false claims in such a monemental event such as this ghastly murder, even if it was to the press.
Regards Richard. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:39 am: | |
Leanne,
What makes you think that Mary would have been prostituting herself behind his back whilst he was still working?
I believe that she really did want out of that life and that's why she was only too happy to move in quickly with Joe and also why their relationship quickly fell apart when he lost his job because it forced her back to the streets.
I don't see why she'd be so desperate to move in with him that fast otherwise. I wouldn't make any sense. Once he lost his job we saw what she really thought of him as she felt she didn't need him anymore and he was just getting in the way.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to.  |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
If we are to believe what George Hutchinson said, and that he knew Mary Kelly for a three year period, (I think he said three, didn't he?), then that could mean that he was a customer or pimp of hers over the twenty month period that her relationship with Barnett existed.
Mary Kelly may have found herself intrigued and attracted to a strange, yet dignified fish porter who promised to look after her. Then twenty months later she reached the point where: "she could no longer bear him." (Julia Venturney.)
LEANNE |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 2:45 am: | |
Hi all,
Glenn,Jeff and Leeanne, Thanks for takeing the time too respond to my post!
Jeff I do think there is reason for believeing that Kelly had alot to drink that night and if Maxwell did see Kelly that morning then she could of been hungover. I read the inquest again and Cox states that Kelly was "Very much intoxicated." Saraha Lewis States that she saw a man and woman "The later being in drink." I believe if Saraha could tell if the woman was drunk from a distance then she must of been drunk. I think there is reason to believe that if Kelly had ived untill the morning she would have been hungover. I feel that being hungover was common in the east end and the woman that Maxwell saw may have been worst for drink even if it was not Kelly.
I post to learn not to inform. I throw something out and hpoe I get a responce with a fresh view and Jeff makes a simple point but one that I had never thought of or read. The food found in Mary's stomach is more a dinner then breakfast. Great point.
I dont think that the problem with Joe being the ripper is the motive because who knows what drives crazy people. I feel the Joe supporters push the time of death up so far that it makes it unlikely it was Joe. We know that Mary was alive around 9:00 in the morning. If Maxwell is to be believed. So when did Joe kill Kelly. The Later it gets the more likely Joe would have been spotted by someone who Knew him. He did live in the area for a long time. I realize there is Joe supporters who dont believe Maxwell. So that is another possibility.
I think there are three important witnesses in the Kelly murder. Cox,Lewis and Hutchinson. I think Cox knew Kelly well enough and would not have mad a misidentification. Lewis and Hutchinson tend to collaberate each others story. I feel in there testimony lies the time of death.
All the best,CB
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
G'day,
CB: Caroline Maxwell said: "I knew deceased for about four months as Mary Jane.....I never spoke to her except twice.' With hundreds of people coming and going from her husbands lodging house, it's easy to believe that Maxwell made a mistake. I have never entertained the opinion that Mary was alive at around 9:00a.m.
Sarah Lewis probably did see George Hutchinson, but I wonder why he waited there for three-quarters of an hour when he had no suspicions that the man he saw with Mary was the Ripper.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 11:30 am: | |
Leanne,
We have no real proof that George Hutchinson was her pimp or customer at all anyway. Even if he was he may have known her before she was with Joe (she was only with him for 18 months) and after Joe lost his job.
We don't even have any real evidence that George knew her as well as he said he did or that he even saw her that night. I think he probably did but he may have exaggerated their "relationship".
Also, about Caroline Maxwell's sighting. Just because she only spoke to her twice it doesn't mean she didn't know who she was talking to on that morning. There is one person I've only known since this January and I've only spoken to her on two occasions but I would know her if I saw her.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Guys,
Taking any of the witness statements at face value is exceedingly dangerous. Many of them conflict and if we throw out one because it's "easy to believe they made a mistake", we shouldn't simply roll over and accept others because they fit our theory.
I think you've got to take every witness statement with a large grain of salt, if not completely ignoring them for anything more than anecdotal (and not evidentiary) value.
B |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
"Oh Glenn, CB and anyone else with the same thoughts: Barnett met a young, attractive, desperate female that he probably thought he could save from such a life."
Doesen't sound like an approach from a man who hates prostitutes to me. Completely irrational and unlikely.
I don't buy the very fictional motive for Barnett as the Ripper, but I think it's a good chance he murdered Mary Kelly. We can only speculate why, but I think he probably did. There is nothing that links him to the other women, though. He is a very plausible suspect for killing Mary Kelly, but I agree with Brian that he is one of the worst candidates for Jack the Ripper ever.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 808
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 1:43 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
correct me if i am wrong, but you suggest Barnett killed Mary Kelly [snap] and then suggest that nothing links him to the other murders.
You are therefore stating that he was a copycat murderer, and detested doing that amount of damage to his ex..but committed the mutalations in order to shift the blame on the 'Ripper' and to escape the noose.
Quite possible, but I disagree, that living with a prostitute, having prostitutes share his room, shows nothing that is a link.
You then say that Barnett is one of the worst candidates for 'Jack' ever, but here is a man that you believe could have cut his girlfriend to pieces.
With respect Glenn, that has to be one of the most contractictory statements ever made.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
"correct me if i am wrong, but you suggest Barnett killed Mary Kelly [snap] and then suggest that nothing links him to the other murders.
You are therefore stating that he was a copycat murderer, and detested doing that amount of damage to his ex..but committed the mutalations in order to shift the blame on the 'Ripper' and to escape the noose."
Correctomundo, Richard. Absolutely rightly perceived. I can't say if that is what happened, but it is a plausible theory as far as Mary Kelly is concerned.
I don't know about the "and detested doing that amount of damage to his ex.", though. I am not sure what you mean.
"You then say that Barnett is one of the worst candidates for 'Jack' ever, but here is a man that you believe could have cut his girlfriend to pieces. With respect Glenn, that has to be one of the most contractictory statements ever made."
That is really nothing but pure rubbish, Richard. If Barnett did it, he did it for other reasons than the Ripper. We have numerous examples of where men -- who was not serial killers -- have mutilated their girl-friends beyond recognition to escape detection, and in a far worse manner than Mary Kelly.
If Barnett did this, it was most likely in order to avoid capital punishment and to throw the blame on the Ripper. In any case, he made a huge mistake in indulging in such over-excessive mutilations. My bet is -- if this theory is a likely one -- that he had read about the murders in the papers but really didn't have a fair knowledge of how the actual mutilations looked like. It is also possible that he slashed her face so extremely in a naive attempt to make her harder to identify.
You don't have to be a serial killer in order to do what Mary Kelly's murderer did -- crime history have shown us that. I believe Mary Kelly's murder may have been influenced by the Ripper, but not performed by him. That could also explain some dissimilarities in approach and modus operandi. Barnett is my best bet, since he had opportunity and was closely connected to the victim and had knowledge of and access to the room in Miller's Court. The motive could be all from jealousy and frustration to an ordinary brawl of domestic nature.
I can't say that is what happened or that the above are stated facts, but it is a far more plausible theory -- supported by other cases -- than the ridiculous fictional attempts a la Hollywood that has been presented regarding Barnett, not to mention incredibly far-fetched.
There is not a single shred of evidence that links Barnett to Jack the Ripper and the other women, not even reasonable theorizing.
I'd urge you to read Alex Chisholm's paper on he subject. It beats the hell out of all the "39" theories and grave spitting incidents in the universe.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 19, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I really do have a open mind , regarding Barnett, he may have killed Kelly only. If in a domestic argument he 'lets say strangled , or suffocated her, he could have well knowing that she was of the same profession, as the other victims , have over dramatized the event, in a desperate attempt to thrawt the blame on 'Jack'.
A more than plausible occurance.
What I meant by him regreting the sort of damage he inflicted on Mary was, if it was originally a crime of passion so to speak, he had killed her, without intention of mutalation, and it would have been only when he realized the consequences, that he resorted in such a manner.
I disagree entirely with your opinion , that there is lack of evidence that supports a link, that is the whole reason why Leanne and myself have continued on our venture for the last thirteen months.
Regards Richard. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 516
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
"Oh Glenn, CB and anyone else with the same thoughts: Barnett met a young, attractive, desperate female that he probably thought he could save from such a life.
He moved in with her without delay, and straight away tried to bar her from walking the streets. But she probably continued behind his back! "
If you hate something, you don't feel pity for it and you don't try to save it. If Barnett hated prostitutes to the degree you claim, then there is no way whatsoever that he would have cared one whit about redeeming Mary Kelly.
The rest of your post is just another example of dramatic sensationalism and based more on romantic and dramatic speculation than on fact.
(Message edited by ally on April 19, 2004)
 |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 812
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
When he met Kelly, he proberly did not know she was a streetwalker, this was in 1887, she was proberly better furnished, then eighteen months later, he found her so intresting , she after all was proberly more attractive to the eye, then even eighteen months on.
She then openly told him her past life, consisting of a husband who was killed doing an honest occupation, she then spent some time in a infirmary, and because of circumstances, and with interference from her cousin, found herself on a downward path, just to survive her past ordeals.
Taking in to consideration all of this, Barnett may have felt desperatly sorry for her, and in the words of the 39th psalm, held his tonque, but as the months went by, he found her not to be the sweetness he imagined, she had Flemming visiting, mayby a man called Lawrence, and in a desperate foolish mental state , decided to alter her lifestyle, by bringing it home to her, that that sort of life was life threatening.
I can see nothing wrong with the above suggestion, and still maintain that Joseph Barnett is 'Number one suspect'. At leaat for killing MJK.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 681
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
I have never seen Joe so far as anything other than a reasonably decent man who thought the world of Mary,understood her thoughts about her friends on "cold ,bitter nights" and was outwitted or undermined by Mary in his every effort to "reform" her.I suspect to that Mary was using poor Joe as a security figure while working out her next move to get enough cash together to get that "fix" compared with which Joe could never hope to rival[nor would any other partner
who might have strayed into her path].
If as Glenn says he may have got overcome with anger on that particular night and killed her and then copied the mutilations and so on I think he would have begun to crack under police questioning-which went on for four hours.I don"t rule Joe out either but for over a hundred years Mary has been considered a ripper victim because of the medical opinions of the doctors that examined her.And they were all trained as doctors and had had experience of post-mortems and all the rest of such training.The police too considered her to be killed with the same signature although in Mary"s case it appeared that he had perfected acting out his fantasy
and had gone completely wild/had totally given vent[as in orgasm one could speculate].Which is why I have now begun to think the killings were motivated by sexual fantasy rather than him carrying out "command killings"[hearing voices telling him to do this].I still think he was mentally ill but not simply in the paranoid/schizophrenic sense.
I really don"t get any hint at all from any scrap of evidence I have so far read about Joe that he was even remotely a killer let alone a killer of this magnitude.
Natalie |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 517
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
How many times can one use the word "probably" without realizing that probably doesn't mean diddly?
If a man hates prostitutes to the degree that you claim Barnett did and then found out that Mary had lied to him all along and was one, I doubt his reaction would have been "well dear don't do it again".
She agreed to live with him after their second meeting. I doubt he was under any delusions about her occupation or her means of making a living.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
