|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 5:12 pm: |       |
Hi Rob,
Upon examination, the bottom illustration looks as if it were made by a better artist. The top one looks a little naive- so I'm going to agree with Leanne and favour the bottom one as closer to accurate.
When you say: "Especially considering how "The Illustrated Police News" illustrated Mary Kelly", do you mean the illustration of her that is shown on the victims page for Mary? (The one where she is outside Millers Court).
Is there any reason why you think that illustration may be innacurate? |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 21
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 6:23 pm: | |
Hi Leanne, Marie
Firstly congratulations on your promotions.
The drawing I was referinging to is the cover drawing for "Illustrated Police News 17 November 1888", in the press section. Colin Wilson discribed it best "massive Irish woman who looked as if she could knock down a horse with an uppercut."
Actually the one you refer to in the victims page is the one I think is the most accurate, but I not sure if that is from "The Illustrated Police News".
I don't think the illustrator for the police news were that good, if you look at all the drawings of just the mens heads, there isn't that much variation, they all tend to be round.
And comparison of the drawing of Elizabeth Stride from the victims page, and her mortuary photograph (which shows a very striking woman), just shows how innacurate and unflattering they can be.
Rob |
Alexander Chisholm
Police Constable
Username: Alex
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 10:06 pm: | |
Evening All
I apologise for harking back to previous days’ discussion, but I think it is a mistake to believe Barnett corroborated any claim that Kelly had a child. The Star report, from which this belief appears to emanate, does not attribute such a claim to Barnett. The actual report reads:
“In a public-house close by Buller’s the reporter succeeded later on in finding Barnett, who is an Irishman by parentage and a Londoner by birth. He had lived with her for a year and a half, he said, and should not have left her except for her violent habits. She was a Limerick woman by birth, he says, but had lived in Dublin for some time. She went by the name of Mary Jane, but her real name was Marie Jeanette. He knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her, except that his brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her. He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window.
To our reporter Barnett said he and the deceased were very happy and comfortable together until another woman came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights he quarrelled with the woman whom he called his wife and left her. The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half-past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position of life as herself. Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her.
LAST SEEN ALIVE
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, and associate of the deceased, who states that about half-past ten 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.” (The Star, 10 Nov. 1888, page 2)
The Star, being an evening paper, did not go to press until several hours after the morning dailies appeared on the streets. As a result, the Star frequently contained virtually verbatim copies of reports that had appeared in these earlier publications. In this regard, it may be instructive to compare the layout of the relevant portion of the Times report with that of the Star.
"Joseph Barnett (called in other reports Kelly), an Irishman, at present residing in a common lodging-house in New-street, Bishopsgate, informed a reporter last evening that he had occupied his present lodgings since Tuesday week. Previously to that he had lived in Miller’s-court, Dorset-street for eight or nine months with the murdered woman Mary Jane Kelly. They were very happy and comfortable together until another woman came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights he quarrelled with the woman whom he called his wife and left her. The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half-past 7 and 8 and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position of life as herself.
Another account gives the following additional 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." (The Times, 10 Nov. 1888, page 7)
As I see it, the Star, while claiming Barnett was interviewed by a Star reporter, simply conflated the Barnett report with the ‘additional details’ of ‘Another account’ in the Times. Any possible confusion over offspring, however, appears to be dispelled by the Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the Barnett interview.
"Joseph Barnett, an Irishman, at present residing in a common lodging-house in New-street, Bishopsgate, stated that he had occupied his present lodgings since Tuesday week. Previous to that he had lived in Miller’s-court, Dorset-street, for eight or nine months, with the murdered woman, Mary Jane Kelly. They were very happy and comfortable together until an unfortunate came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights, he quarrelled with his “wife” and left her. The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days, and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her, between half-past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. He was indoors yesterday morning when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset-street, but he did not know at first who the victim was. He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct. Barnett believed Kelly, who was an Irishwoman, was an “unfortunate” before he made her acquaintance, and she had never had any children. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend." (Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. 1888, page 5)
Richard, while Bruce Paley quotes Lloyds Weekly News, 11 Nov. 1888, as claiming Barnett was interviewed by police for ‘four’ hours, the same portion of the Central News report was reproduced in the Daily Telegraph, 12 Nov. 1888, as “I was kept about for hours, and the constables examined my clothes for blood-stains, and finally, finding the account I gave of myself to be correct, let me go free.” So I would suggest that the precise length of Barnett’s examination by the police is open to question.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 6:17 pm: | |
G'day Alex,
The press were after sensation to sell their papers! I dont think Kelly had a little boy living with her and I dont think she was pregnant!
As soon as Barnet arrived at Millers Court on the day her body was found, the police took him to the station. It was the normal thing to do, to interview the victims partner as soon as possible. At first he told the press: "They kept me about four hours, examined...etc" Perhaps they examined his clothes for two and a half hours and then spent another hour and a half checking his alibi.
This information is in 'The Simple Truth' and under 'Sources', Bruce Paley says: 'Barnett Central News Agency statement Lloyd's Newspaper, 11 November. Speaking to the 'Star', Barnett said that the police kept him for two and a half hours', so I think he wanted to 'play-down' his interrigation.
Perhaps Barnett meant that Kelly's friend at the Elephant & Castle district had a little boy, and the reporter missheard from a stuttering interviewee, or deliberately 'bended' the facts.
LEANNE |
Alexander Chisholm
Police Constable
Username: Alex
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 9:25 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I fully appreciate what the press in 1888 peddled to sell their papers, and I share your view that Kelly did not have a little boy living with her. I just don’t believe Barnett mentioned this boy in any context to the Star, or any other reporter.
As you say, Bruce Paley quotes from Lloyds Weekly’s 11 Nov. 1888 reproduction of Barnett’s statement to the Central News. The Daily Telegraph, 12 Nov. 1888, reproduces the very same Central News statement. Lloyds Weekly has Barnett being kept “about four hours,” the Telegraph has Barnett being kept “about for hours.” Both are perfectly plausible but, without the original Central News copy, we have no way of knowing which version is more reliable.
In view of this, the Daily Telegraph’s ‘for hours’ is as precise as we can be about the length of time Barnett was ‘kept’ by the police on 9 Nov. 1888.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 7:22 am: | |
G'day Alex,
Well it doesn't really matter how long they interrigated him for. I don't think they would have had time to ask him about HIS tormenting family history, to see if he had any possible motives.
He may have said: "Kept me?...How long?...about FFOUR HOURS." and some papers took it as "for hours".
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 59
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 12:02 pm: | |
Hi Robert, you posted:
"massive Irish woman who looked as if she could knock down a horse with an uppercut."
I haven't seen the illustration, but this description made me laugh!
But you're right about the drawings for the "Illustarted Police News", the heads *do* seem a bit round. |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 22
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hi Marie
This is the picture. Not very flattering I think.
Rob |
Chris Scott
Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 17
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 5:35 pm: | |
I found this long account of the Kelly murder in the Atlanta Constitution (US paper) of 12 November 1888. This not only repeats that Kelly had a son (in this case aged 11) but that the boy was interviewed with regard to a suspect. Hope it's of interest:
The Atlanta Constitution (Georgia) November 12 1888
FIENDISH ATROCITY
THE DETAILS OF ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MURDER
SEVEN DIABOLICAL BUTCHERIES
An Abandoned Female Literally Hacked to Pieces - A Surgeon Even Turns Sick at the Revolting Spectacle
From the Cincinnati Enquirer.
London, November 9.
Another shocking murder of the well-known Whitechapel type was perpetrated this morning within three hundred yards of the spot where th woman Chapman was killed last September. Details of this tragedy are even more revolting then the six which preceded it. Accurate circumstances of the affair are hard to discover, the police, as usual, placing every obstacle in the way of investigation by reporters, but all reports go to prove that the murder is far surpassing in fiendish atrocity all the terrible crimes with which the east end of London has been familiarized within the past six months. The woman, twenty six years old, Mary Jane Kelly by name, had lived four months in a front room on the second floor of a house up an alley known as Cartin's Court. This poor woman was in service a short time ago, but since she came to reside in the court had been recognized by her neighbors as a person who, like so many unfortunate members of her sex within the eastern end, managed to live a wretched existence by the practice of immorality under the most degrading conditions.
The court faces a small square with a narrow entrance and surrounded by squalid looking houses with rooms let to women of this unfortunate class. Mary Kelly is described as a tall woman, not bad looking, dark complexioned, and she generally wore an old black velvet jacket. She was wearing this jacket this morning, when about quarter past eight she went down the court, jug in hand, and returned shortly afterward with milk fo breakfast. She was next seen about ten o'clock, when she went to a neighboring beer house and stayed drinking for half an hour. This was the last seen of her alive.
The woman was behind in her rent, and had been told by her landlord that she would be put out if she did not pay today. She went on the streets last night to earn money to pay the rent, and it seems to be clearly established that she returned to her room with a man who passed the night with her. No one has been found who saw the man go in, but some neighbors heard him talking to Mary Kelly in the room, and heard her singing as though drunk. At eleven o'clock this morning a man named Bowyer, agent ofthe landlord, went to Kelley's (sic) room to collect the rent. When he knocked at the door he received no answer. Removing the curtain drawn across the window of the room and looking through the broken pane, he saw the woman lying on the bed on her back, stark naked, while marks of blood were all over the place. He tried the handle of the door and found it locked, while the key had been removed from the lock. Without going into the room, Bowyer called the police, who promptly proceeded to conceal all the facts in the case.
In less than two hours the doctors had the body in the morgue, and they were probing it precisely as they did the Mitre square victim. They refused to give any details of the examination, but one of the physicians who was present said that he had passed much of his life in dissecting rooms, but never saw such a horrible spectacle as this murdered woman.
The man who was called in to identify the body gives the following description, which seems to be reliable: The head was nearly severed from the shoulders and the face was laterated almost beyond recognition. The breasts were both cut off and placed on th table. The heart and liver were between the woman's legs. The uterus was missing. There seemed to beat least forty cuts on the body, and big pieces of flesh were literally stripped off and strewed on the floor. There were no indications in this case of a hand skilled in the use of a knife. The body was literally hacked to pieces but there is no doubt that it ws the work of the person who has become known throughout the world as the Whitechapel murderer. Mystery in this case is as deep as in the preceding crimes. The fiend got away without leaving the slightest clew.
He chose his time well. At the moment when Bowyer discovered the murdered body, that gorgeous annual nuisance which goes by the name of the lord mayor's show, was blocking the traffic of the great city for hours and was organizing near the Mansion house. Scarcely a mile away nearly three million people were packed in the streets between the Mansion house and the Enquirer office in Trafalgar square, with nearly every policeman in the city braced as a barricade along the curb (sic) to keep them in order. The rigid police patrol maintained in Whitechapel since the last double murder was relaxed for one day, and in that day the assassin struck down another victim.
It is scarcely necessary to say much about Kelly. She was a married woman who fell into dissolute ways and was deserted byher husband. She had a boy eleven years old, who was begging on the streets while his mother was being murdered. The woman had as a paramour a man who sells oranges on the streets, and on whom, as he could not be found, suspicion at once reverted, but he turned up all right tonight and fainted when he was shown the body.
Like the sands that slowly filter through an hour glass when reversed, the great throng in the streets who had been cheering the new lord mayor found their way into Whitechapel when the news of the murder was spread about. Every heart was filled with horror. When was this going to end? How long was this fiend in human form going to carve people to pieces under the noses of the police and mock their feeble efforts to catch him? The London police are not allowed to club a crowd into submission as the New York police are, unless in absolute riot, but the indignation and excitement was so great in Whitechapel today that it was necessary for them to use harsh measures.
Profiting by previous blunders, the police called a photographer to take a picture of the room before the body was removed from it. This gives rise to report that there is more handwriting on the wall, though three or four people who were allowed into the room say they did not observe it; but possibly they were too excited to notice such a detail.
A young woman who knew the murdered woman well says that about ten o'clock last night she met her and that she said she had no money and could not get any. She would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon after they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, came by and spoke to the murdered woman and offered her money. The man then accompanied her home to her lodgings. Her little boy was removed from the room and taken to a neighbor's house. The boy has been found and corroborates this, but says he does not remember the man's face.
Another curious circumstance worth mentioning is that the murder was not made public until twelve o'clock.
Mrs. Paumier, who seems to be a creditable person, sells walnuts in Sandy's Row, near to the scene of the murder.She states that at eleven o'clock today a respectably dressed man, carrying a black bag, came up to her and began talking about the murder. He appeared to know every thing about it. He did not buy any walnuts, and, afterstanding a few minutes, went away. Mrs. Paumier describes him as a man about thirty years old and five feet six inches in height. He wore speckled trousers and a black coat. Several girls in the neighborhood say the same man accosted them and they chaffed him. When they asked him whathehad in the black bag, he said: "something the ladies don't like." This is all that is known. If the police have further information they carefully conceal it, but there is no reason to believe that they have.
|
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 6:26 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Thanks for posting the article. It's interesting that most of the newspaper accounts that mention Mary had a son living with her, also say she lived on the second floor.
I think she was being confused with someone else. It's a pity we don't know more about this friend from "Elephant and Castle", perhaps she had a son and was living on the second floor.
Rob |
Chris Scott
Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 18
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 7:20 pm: | |
Hi Rob
yes - Ive noticed that in a lot of the accounts. The one I posted above also called Miller's Court "Cartin's Court" - I've no idea where that came from
Chris |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 28
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 5:25 am: | |
Hi Chris
I am not sure if there is a Cartin's Court, It might be impossible but I will try and find it. It might help clear up some of the mystery.
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 6:43 am: | |
G'day Chris,
This report is very interesting, thanks!
Soon after Kelly's body was found on the morning of the 9th Nov., reporters from every newspaper were out to get a story as quickly as possible!
I noted the line: '...told by her landlord that she would be put out if she did not pay today [rent]'. This shows her desperation!
The line: 'The man who was called in to identify the body gives the following description, which seems to be reliable: The head was nearly severed...' would appear to a description of the arrival of Dr. Phillips, who let it slip to the press that a certain unnamed organ was missing from the body.
That boy that was living with her, gets older each time I read about him. Last I heard, he was '6 or 7'. Now he's '11'.
Note the line: 'The woman has a paramour a man who SELLS ORANGES ON THE STREETS'! and 'as he could not be found, suspicion at once reverted, but he turned up all right TONIGHT and fainted...', suggests that Barnett gave his "hair and eyes" identification at the mortuary!
I reckon "Cartin's Court" and "2nd floor" was the result of the mad scramble of reporters, all rushing to get their stories in print! That's how the 'little boy' story came about!
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
Hi,
I also found that article intresting, the reference to the boy I cannot dismiss, the words from kellys own mouth, That she could not let her son starve could be a valid point .
The way I see this scenerio is , Kelly had a son proberly 7-9 years old, who stayed at a friends house in the Elephant and Castle area.
All the time Barnett was bringing home money she would visit this person, and help with his keep, however when Barnett lost his job , and no longer was able to give her much at least not on a regular basis she resorted to prostitution in order to try and fend for her son,
I believe that on the last week of her life , after Barnett moved out she brought her son to stay with her and life was so desperate she send her son out begging for food,
The story that a neighbour looked after the boy that night is a plausible one, whether or not he heard his mothers killers voice is debatable.
I have a suspicion that this may be the motive for her death.
Barnett may or may not have been aware that she had a son until he showed up that week, if he didnt then he would have been disgusted at her deceit and lies, and that the money he used to give her went to support another mans child.
If he did know then the knowledge that she was sending the boy out on the streets to beg for food would have incensed him.
My opinions may not be shared by too many , but it is a plausible account of a possible solution.
Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 62
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 7:20 am: | |
Robert, thanks for posting that picture! I feel bad laughing, but it really is a terrible illustration. Those cheeks. Poor Mary, they truly did her a disservice, surely.
That article is certainly interesting, Chris, thank you for posting it. I wonder why so many reports claim that Mary was living on the second floor?
I'm not sure if Mary was being confused for someone else, so much as some initial mistakes by one reporter got taken as fact, and spread around thusly.
I wonder if the police ever tried to find Mary's friend in Elephant and Castle? I'm not sure about the boy. I guess it's safer to dismiss it as a mistake, (but it's so tantalizing....)
Richard, your theory could certainly be plausible!
|
Jack Traisson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 5:36 am: | |
Hi Chris,
You will find that the Atlanta Constitution report of Nov 12, 1888 is lifted word for word from the Boston Daily Globe report from Nov 10, including the eleven year old boy, and "Cartin's Court".
The Boston Daily Globe's report from the 9th is also of some interest, as it seems that Kelly was murdered not far from the fourth victim in Hamburg (sic) Street.
Yes, it would be interesting to know where they obtained their misinformation.
Cheers,
|
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 47
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Hi Everyone
I spent the morning in the family records centre in London to specificaly to get hold of Paul Harrison's Joseph Barnetts death certificate.
After looking at the details I decided not to bother, the age at death was giving as 64, so clearly this is not the same Joseph Barnett who was born in 1860 (this one would have been born approximately 1863). I didn't find a Joseph Barnett born in 1863 that was born in Whitechapel, or even in 1860, although we know a Joseph Barnett was born in 1860.
Chris Scott found one in the 1881 census living at 3 Bonwell Street, Bethnal Green, profession given as Marble polisher, and I found one in the 1901 census living at 8 Brady Street Dwellings, Bethnal Green, profession given as Genaral Dealer fruit. It is likely that these two were the same person.
For those interested, the full details for Harrison's, Joseph Barnett as recorded in family records books are:
Deaths Mar 1927 A-F
Barnett, Joseph Age 64 Bethnal Green Vol 1c page 200
Rob |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 58
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 12:24 pm: | |
Hi Everyone
This may sound very silly, but I had to get it off my chest.
I was reading the 'Saucy Jacky' postcard and I had a brainwave. The sentence "I was not codding dear old boss when I gave you the tip." Now we know codding means kidding, but why use that word. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the postcard. Why not use the word joking.
To me, if I cracked a joke about fish, I would say I was codding. So what I am saying is codding = fish = Barnett.
Am I being silly?
Rob |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 115
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
Rob, that's quite interesting. I'd never thought of that- it's going to play on my mind, now.
No, it's not silly...but it did make me smile. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 11:27 pm: | |
G'day,
Bruce Paley wrote: 'Kelly was probably seeking a diversion and relief from Barnett's stifling presence, when she disregarded his objections and took in her prostitute friend Julia to stay with her and Barnett on or around 27 October....no sooner did julia leave than Kelly immediately took in a second friend Mara Harvey to stay with them on 30 October.'
The tiny room only had one single bed. Where did Barnett sleep? I also wonder if Mary Kelly didn't feel safe with just her and him in the room.
If Mary went out drinking with her friends late at night, came home drunk, started a quarrel causing Barnett to leave the room, where did he go?
Joseph Lawende saw a man talking with Catharine Eddowes 10 minutes before her body was found. He was: 'about 30 years old, standing 5ft 7ins or 5ft 8ins tall, of medium build with a fair complexion and moustache'. This is an exact description of Joseph Barnett in every detail!
Two men in the nearby orange market gave a description of 'a man of about 30, with a fair complexion and a fair moustache.'
LEANNE |
Amyb
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 11:15 am: | |
I believe barnett is the murderer of mary kelly, and mary kelly only,or he got somebody to murder mary kelly. I think this  (i aint blabbing!)because mary kelly was different from all of the other victims. she was ginger, 25, born in ireland, she didnt live in a doss house and all the bodies were found in the street APART from mary kelly! am i right? There's 2 many differences |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 137
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
You wrote: "The tiny room only had one single bed. Where did Barnett sleep?"
I imagine Mary and Joe shared the bed. I've had to share a single bed for a couple of months in the past- and although it's a squash, it's quite possible.
Perhaps Mary's friends would have slept on the floor. I personally think she brought these friends to sleep in her room, because she didn't want to have sex with Joe anymore. I don't imagine Joe would have been comfortable having sex in front of another woman.
So this would have been Mary's way of finally pushing Joe out of her life. I think that he resisted her pushing him away, and this was the cause of their bitter fights towards the end. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 7:22 pm: | |
Hi all
Why must we assume that Barnett pinched the key after he split up with Kelly? As the window was broken, he already had a means of entry.
I suspect that Kelly and her friends were using the room as business premises. Any one of them could have lost the key.
Maybe that was what the row was about - someone lost the key and the window had to be smashed to gain entry.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 3:11 am: | |
G'day,
It's interesting to see that people are starting to believe that Barnett had enough motive to mutilate Mary kelly, but not the other four victims. If you could do that to anyone, it wouldn't have been hard to do the others!
The path from Joe to the others is difficult to outline 115 years later, and no one will find that path in any book that's been written about the murders so far, because he escaped suspicion then and is still escaping suspicion today.
But then there's Bruce Paley's book...he did outline the other murders...working backwards from Kelly's murder to Catharine Eddowes's:
Joseph Lawende saw a man with Catharine minutes before her body was found. He was described as: 'about 30 years old, standing 5ft 7ins or 5ft 8ins tall, of medium build with a fair complexion and moustache.' This is an exact description of Barnett in every detail!
Two men in the nearby orange market reported seeing a man 'of about 30, with a fair complexion and a fair moustache'. Barnett again!
Joseph Barnett's porters licence confirms he was 30 in 1888, his complexion was fair, he had blue eyes and a contemporary sketch of him at the inquest shows he had a neat moustache without much shading, so it was therefore fair!
Then there's the report of Major Smith that he traced the killer's most likely route from the apron in Goulston Street, and wound up in Dorset Street.
Now let's move back to Elizabeth Stride:
I spose it depends if we are convinced that the murderer of Eddowes also killed Liz.
At the time the East End of London was a very rough district. Attacks were common and this report shows that disease and accidents were also responsible for many deaths, yet there were no homicides recorded in 1887 or 1886. Stride and Kidney often fought yes, but she always went back to him in the end.
Next victim was Annie Chapman, and the path is getting thinner. I remember reading a newpaper report that told of a suspicous man fitting Barnetts description, acting stangely in a nearby doss house. No it wasn't Mrs Fiddymont!
Chapman was a long-time habitue of various doss houses in Dorset Street and was reported as a friend of Mary Kelly's in 'People' 11 November 1888. In the months prior to her murder, Annie Chapman had been living at Crossingham's Lodging House at 35 Dorset Street.
William Stevens a painter living at Crossingham's, said that on the morning of her murder Annie had popped her medication into an old envelope that was later found near her body.
The path leading back to the Mary Anne Nichols murder, is so thin it almost disappears. I'll only say that it occured a few weeks after Joseph Barnett lost his fish porters job and license.
LEANNE
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 1:29 pm: | |
Leanne
All well and good, but I still think you are fitting Joe to Jack rather than Jack to Joe.
And I still think they were not the same size.
I know you have painted us a mission for Joe but it is not the type of zealous mission that usually ends in a string of crimes like this. It may lead to one isolated crime of this nature but not many.
The fact that nobody seems to have taken into account the working practices of prostitutes here and on other posts leaves me baffled.
For it is common business practice for a prostitute to have a pimp who is there to look after his business interests - her in other words - and I can assure you that if you went to Whitechapel now, picked up a prostitute and attempted to harm her in any form or manner you would quickly find yourself on the wrong end of a knife or gun yourself.
Pimping must come into the equation, perhaps more importantly with Kelly than the other victims, as her assets - so to speak - were perhaps more marketable.
Maybe Joe was a pimp?
Maybe Jack was a pimp? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
