|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 128
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 5:44 pm: |       |
Hi AP,
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate them coming from you, because I have much respect for your opinion.
You wrote: "just the fact that your suspect had some kind - of what appears to be - a loving and meaningful relationship with one of the victims does sour your suspect for me."
You see, to my mind it's exactly the opposite. I think we've had a discussion regarding the fact that killers do murder and mutilate intimates, and family. I posted some examples then, and you made the point that they tended to be based on the mother-son relationship gone horribly wrong.
Well, Barnett could certainly have blamed his mother for leaving the family. Perhaps he considered her immoral, or even just her desertion would have been a trauma in itself. That trauma, compounded by a difficult childhood, sets the scene for some type of psychological problem. Further compound the trauma with low self esteem brought about by a speech impediment.
Now transfer that trauma to Mary's immorality, and desertion of Joe. And we'd maybe see that rage that started with his mother, played out on his ex-girlfriend.
There are so many cases where love turns to hate, the cliche about it being a thin line is based in truth- as so many cliches are.
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 5:55 pm: | |
G'day Marie, Wolf, Richard,
Marie, for someone who's never read Bruce Paley's book, your long post is excellent!
What you say about Mary inviting her prostitute friends to live with them, and Barnett being at the 'bottom of the heap' describes what Paley thought too. Think of her tiny room, with one single bed. Where did Joseph Barnett sleep?
Shortly after Kelly was murdered, Barnett told the press: 'We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room, I objected, and as Mrs Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left and took lodgings elsewhere. I told her I would come back if she [Mrs Harvey] would go and live somewhere else.'
And about Joes alibi: the only record of this is what he told the press before Mary Kelly's likely time of death was established. So his "...playing whist until half past twelve when I went to bed", becomes simply: "I was in bed.". Not a convincing alibi!
Wolf: What makes you say that Mary's and Joe's was a 'loving and meaningful relationship'? They often rowed, and Mary's friend Julia Venturney stated: 'I have frequently seen her the worse for drink, but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone' If Mary went out drinking with her friends late at night, then came home drunk when Joe was sleeping before an early-morning start at work, (probably the only time he could find time to sleep with so many prostitutes living in that tiny room), then I'd say he left the room soon after she came home.
LEANNE |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 12
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 4:34 am: | |
Hi Marie,
I would just like to add my admiration and respect for your excellent post on Barnett...
I have now received the Paley book and will be suitably Barnetted up by the end of the weekend.
I know that you said that you could be persuaded that somebody else killed the others and I'm coming around to the idea that Kelly might not have been a Ripper victim at all. Given the gap between the double-event and the Kelly murder, the following could be an interesting train of thought...
Barnett lauded the work of the Ripper and took great joy in reading Kelly details of his work (rather than Kelly asking him to) and it worked for a while but by late October the hoo ha was dying down a bit. Kelly began prostituting with renewed vigour because the rent arrears had escalated whilst she was relatively dormant. She ends up inviting her friend to stay and Barnett goes off the rails completely for all the reasons that you state.
I know Joe was skilled with a knife, but a fish isn't much like a human - do they have kidneys? (Biology not my strong point). I may be relatively on my own here but I've got to have someone who is skilled with a knife and possesses human anatomical knowledge for the Eddowes murder. It doesn't necessarily need to be a doctor (e.g. Somebody like Druitt from a medical family would do).
By the way, you referred to instinct and intuition in a previous mail. When I first walked from Berner Street to Mitre Square I could almost sense the frustration of not being able to mutilate (all a bit worrying really!!!)...so, for this reason alone, I favour the view that same person did the double event.
More about Rupertbear another time!!
Paul |
Mick Brocking
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 6:16 pm: | |
Hi, I'm new to this and just starting out on the road to discovering who the ripper may or may not have been. One debate I can shed some light on is the fact that there were very few outlets, if any at all, that would have sold quality paper in the Whitechapel area at the time. Given the populas of the area, which included a vast number of illiterates, quality paper would not have been in high demand, and therefore one batch of paper could have been split into many small bundles of just a few sheets. Furthermore, it is wrong to assume that because a certain batch bears specific cut marks, other batches cut on the same appliance would not also bear those cut marks. Therefore the manufacture and cut of the paper would actually be of little help. The only factual evidence is that the paper could be proven to be from a single supplier. It does not prove how many people actually purchased paper from a single batch, or where the purchaser came from. One batch could have been spread over a vast area of London.} |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 13
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
Hi all,
Firstly, John Savage...
Very rude of me not to come back and reply to your post - I got sidetracked by all the other interesting stuff that was added in between you setting your thoughts down...my apologies.
Sir Robert continued in a very similar vein, which Marie countered. Rather sycophantically, I'm going to have to weigh in on Marie's side...again!!
Sickert gets regular mentions in plenty of theories because, as suspects go, he's a celebrity. Also the cynic in me suggests that his life does not need extensive researching and isn't it rather easy to sit down and look at his paintings and hypothesise over their significance rather than to spend time trying to unearth credible evidence? I'm sure if evidence came to light that Lewis Carroll took as great an interest in the Ripper as Sickert did, a load more people would be trying to interpret any hidden meaning in "Jabberwocky" - but that still wouldn't justify any elevation to prominent suspect status.
Sickert was, is and will in perpetuity be a red herring who just might have sent the odd hoax letter or two.
By the way, I have since learnt that fish do indeed have kidneys but they're long and thin and stretch along the backbone...
I started this thread with the notion that who ever did for Eddowes must have had more than a semblance of anatomical knowledge...I'm not asking people to name suspects or desert pet theories but a little more banter on this topic would be interesting!
Thanks,
Paul |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 132
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 11:15 am: | |
Hi everyone,
Paul and Leanne, thank you for you kind words re my post!
Paul, One thing I am fairly certain about, is that Barnett killed Kelly. Whether he killed the others, I'm really in two minds, at the moment. I know you want to talk about the medical knowledge angle, so let's try and get the debate going in that direction.
I do agree with you that it seems like a certain amount of anatomical knowledge and skill were necessary for Eddowes, and Chapman. However, a good friend of mine swears that he could remove a uterus, and a kidney- and he's had no such training.
So at this stage, I'd have to enter an 'I don't know' plea. I'm going to have to study some medical diagrams again, and think on it a little more.
Mick, I read your post regarding paper with much interest. It's not something I know a lot about, so I appreciate the info. |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 14
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 12:00 pm: | |
Hi Marie,
Thanks for adding your say about anatomical knowledge...I hope a few others will follow your lead - always interesting to get a cross-section of opinion on this.
My one worry about your friend who claims that he could extract a uterus and kidney is that he wasn't educated in Victorian England in the 1850s or 1860s.
As i admitted, biology is not my strong point and I gave up the subject as soon as I could, but I was still studying it until I was 15. We had an abundance of text books with detailed diagrams to look at. Consequently, I'm sure that I possess more anatomical knowledge than the average Victorian Englishman. I have a pretty good idea of where the kidneys are and what they look like...
but it's dark, I'm in Mitre Square, I'm on an adrenalin rush, I know the police are likely to come around the corner at sometime in the next 15 minutes and the kidneys are concealed behind a fatty membrane...could I extract one with a clean cut - no chance!!
If Barnett killed Kelly in a jealous rage - he might have cut her heart out once he'd calmed down a bit to make it look like a Ripper job...everybody knows where the heart is.
Only a thought.
Paul |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 138
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
"My one worry about your friend who claims that he could extract a uterus and kidney is that he wasn't educated in Victorian England in the 1850s or 1860s"
I tend to agree with you.
However, I think that a Victorian man with a good private-school education, would certainly have a good idea about anatomy. But he would need practice with the knife, perhaps as a hunter.
I'm not sure that any medical training is necessary.
As far as Barnett's anatomical knowledge, I'm just not sure. As I've stated, the skill level difference in mutilations between Eddowes and Kelly is what gives me pause in thinking that Barnett killed Eddowes, or Chapman.
I agree that the heart is far easier to obtain than a kidney. I think Joe took Mary's heart, because it had some symbolism for him. We always love, or hate "with all our heart", don't we?
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 2:04 pm: | |
Marie
I'm following this keenly.
Your thoughts are very persuasive and respect to you for that. However, as ever, I am concerned with the lack of footprints through Joe's life - as I'm convinced he would have left them if he was Jack - but that is countered simply by his known childhood and speech impediment. A child with such a background could very well be Jack.
I do agree that Joe would have felt cornered by Kelly's behaviour leading up to her death, we have all been in similar relationships and situations and it is often accompanied by an intense and bewildering feeling of total abandonement and isolation, which then - as you do point out - can lead to emotional upheaval and chaos of such an alarming nature that murder and mutilation may take place. When this situation is further fanned by the flames of alcohol we may be looking at an individual who will reach his flight or fight zone with very real delusions of grandeur - where he imagines himself to be a giant striding the planet and ridding himself of all his ills at a stroke - and he would then indeed kill someone in the horrible manner of Kelly.
So yes, your reasoning is sound, your suspect is sound, and I now see no good or logical reason why your Joe could not have killed Mary Jane Kelly.
But I still don't think he was Jack. |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 2:12 pm: | |
Body position.
Peace,
Scott |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 2:46 pm: | |
"Sickert was, is and will in perpetuity be a red herring who just might have sent the odd
hoax letter or two. "
As I've said, I personally don't believe Sickert was the Ripper. But I have no idea how anyone can make a definitive statement that the man is a red herring, ESPECIALLY if - and it's a big if - it can be shown that he was probably the author of several of the letters. I think it will be quite interesting to see which letters Bowers refers to.
I said earlier that I would like to see folk's reaction if one of the letters corresponds to a time that Sickert was believed to be in France.
The cynical part of me says that the reason everyone regards all the letters as hoaxes is because that's what all the books have taught us. Perhaps that is the red herring in this case.
Sir Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 52
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 3:01 pm: | |
Hi all
Someone's got to ask it, so : what's the thinking about the body position, Scott?
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 139
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 3:17 pm: | |
Hi AP,
Thank ye kindly for your post! (you have a great way with words).
And yes, I'm starting to question whether Barnett killed the other women.
The fact that Dr Bond saw no medical skill or knowledge in Kelly's murder, is an interesting contrast to Dr Brown's statements regarding Eddowes' murder. Also Dr Phillips thought Annie Chapman's killer showed anatomical knowledge and skill.
Didn't Dr Phillips state (after Alice McKenzie) that he thought the Whitechapel murders were not all the work of one man? |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 140
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 3:20 pm: | |
Hi Scott,
Yes, please share your thoughts regarding body position with us! I'm looking through the descriptions now.... |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 12:03 pm: | |
When conducting linkage analysis, clues such as body position are used.
Peace,
Scott |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 145
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 12:28 pm: | |
Thanks, Scott.
I've checked quickly through the body positions for Eddowes, Kelly, and Chapman.
They all seem to be in a similar position. However, If they all had their throats cut whilst lying down, and then the mutilations were inflicted on the abdomen- they all seem to be in a 'natural' position for them to have fallen, and then the killer would have arranged their legs so he could work on them.
I believe that if Barnett didn't kill the other women, he was influenced by newspaper reports when/(if) he killed Kelly.
So isn't it possible that several victims could be found in similar positions, even if they were killed by different men? Especially if one killer was either consciously, or unconsciously imitating the mutilations of another? |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 10:12 pm: | |
Marie,
Anything is possible. But are you sure you have checked all of the victims or supposed victims?
Have you read the inquest and police reports word by word?
It is easy to look at information and not see anything. This is why witness statements are so vexing. Witnesses dismiss things seen and heard and replace them what they think should be there. A person can be a copy cat but there will always be something different in their crime scenes because they do not possess the mindset of the original killer.
Dismiss your personal choice for the killer. Start with an open mind and read the reports word by word and if necessary draw diagrams, buy Barbie dolls and pose them, draw stick figures. Make notes or what you see, what the police say and what the inquest testimonies state.
For example, blood on Eddowes boot, the position of Nichols' bonnet, the blood on the floor in Kelly's room as compared to the position of the body and the bed, the whereabouts of the police officers in the various murders, what do these things tell you?
Peace,
Scott |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 3:57 am: | |
G'day Marie,
Think about how many people did read those newspaper reports! We're still reading them today! Just because Barnett mentioned the fact that he read them to Kelly, do you think he suddenly got the idea: "TTTThat's it!...That's how I cccan stop Mary from ppppppppppprostituting herself, and get away with it!..That'll sssstop her!"
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 149
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 7:19 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Your post made me smile! 
I'm not abandoning our Barnett, I'm just exploring all other options as well.
If Barnett did kill only Mary, I'm sure that he was driven to it by churning emotions such as jealousy, rejection, humiliation, anger and hatred. I think his situation with Mary, served to aggravate a psychological condition that he may have been suffering from. I don't think he made a cold and calculating decision to mutilate her like the newspaper reports.
I think he was influenced by the reports (like other killers have been), and that they served to inflame him, taking into account his possible mental state, and the fact that he was possibly drinking heavily. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 150
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 7:22 am: | |
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I've read all the reports in the 'Ultimate Sourcebook' but I must admit I haven't been paying as much attention to the details of the murders as I should.
One thing that did leap out at me, was that the doctors involved in the investigations were saying that the skill levels shown in the mutilations were different. Particularly between Eddowes and Chapman (skilled), and Kelly (unskilled). So that's what led me to believe that maybe Kelly was butchered in a crude attempt to approximate the murders of Eddowes and Chapman.
And I was later intrigued by Dr Phillips stating that he felt the Whitechapel murders were not the work of one man.
But you're right, I need to start from scratch, and break out my Ultimate Sourcebook again. I have a friend who has a far more scientific mind than I, who will likely help me with physically recreating the murders, drawing diagrams and taking notes.
I'm drawing a blank on Nichols' bonnet, but I'm thinking that the blood on Eddowes' boot could mean that her throat was cut while she was standing up.
I know Dr Phillips thought that Mary's body was moved after the injury that caused her death. So I assume she was killed nearer the partition, whereupon the blood had soaked the sheet there, and gone on the floor. She was then moved to the other side of the bed.
So yeah, I'll be doing more thinking.
Cheers,
-M.
|
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 15
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
Hi everybody,
I'm back after a weekend in the world of Joe Barnett...
Sir Robert,
OK...I made a sweeping statement about Sickert and the red herring, but isn't a small-time hoaxer, albeit a rather famous one, by definition a red herring?. If Sickert isn't the Ripper...and I was delighted to see on my way in that he's now down in 7th place in the on-line poll - 19th would be more like it, but it's a start...he must be a red herring. Certainly, if you consider the hoaxer "Wearside Jack" in the case of the Yorkshire ripper, he was a true red herring because the police searched for a man with a Wearside accent and paid little attention to the humble lorry driver from Bradford called Peter Sutcliffe. My basic argument is that if we spend any more time debating the extent of Sickerts involvement (if any) on the periphery of the case, we are using up resources that could be applied to debating the more salient aspects of the case.
Scott,
I feel very humble reading your posts and it is indeed very arrogant of me to proffer you any hint of advice. But, with your disclosure of your find at Hanbury Street and the scientific way in which you are approaching this, you evidently have a book in mind. I would just say to you that it would be unwise to let scientific precision completely get in the way of a good story...Ivor Edwards spent nine years researching "Jack The Ripper's Black Magic Rituals" (rotten title - makes you think it's going to be a load of mumbo jumbo before you start) but his research is so extensive and painstakingly spelt out that it is easy to forget that what lies behind it is the most fascinating series of crimes in history. I can't wait for you to publish your findings, but please don't fall into the same trap and, unlike Ms. Cornwell, employ the services of an editor.
I, of course, am not a scientist - I didn't even know that fish had kidneys before I looked it up - and so I'm much more interested in the personalities than the body positions. Consequently, I can never hope to convince anybody that I have a definitive solution, (and I don't have anything fresh to bring to the case anyway) but I could write a piece of period drama incorporating any thesis that I do come up with, once I've developed it.
Marie,
As ever, your posts are inspirational. I had thought about Barnett wanting to take Kelly's heart, so that she could be as heartless as a corpse as she had appeared to him in reality. I also feel that if he wanted to do a bit of copycat organ-taking the heart would be the easiest option. I am quite convinced that Barnett killed Kelly, but equally certain that he had no part in the other murders. He might have even been seen by Lawende, but that could be a coincidence. A sighting of him in Bucks Row would be much more difficult to explain away. Although Mitre Square is technically in the City, it is important to bear in mind that it's only a couple of minutes walk from Goulston Street and five to Dorset Street, so it is a lot closer to the epicentre of Joe's existence than Bucks Row or Berner Street.
Leanne,
Please don't think that I am in anyway offended, but I had the most terrible stammer as a child and it really doesn't affect you in the way that you think it would. I was totally incapable of making conversation in the playground because my mind thought far quicker than my mouth was able to co-operate. But, I had no difficulty whatsoever in standing up in front of 250 kids in school assembly and reading out poems that I had written.
In fact, Joe would have found it very difficult to remonstrate effectively with Kelly in rows, especially as his excitement and temper levels would be intensified on such occasions, but, trust me, with a newspaper in front of him he could have given a performance worthy of Hamlet.
Psychologically speaking, when one considers that Joe, with his decent education, would very likely have felt himself to be some way above his station in life ans would have had probably - for the sake of his own sanity - had nothing but contempt for Kelly in death. Consequently, he would have taken great pride in telling the police that he read about the crimes to Kelly - as if to imply that she was incapable of reading them herself - in very much the same way as he claimed that she was rarely drunk in his presence and did not resort to prostitution when he was supporting her.
I believe that there are very strong reason for believing that Joe tried to use the reports of the crimes to scare Kelly away from prostitution, that he may have met with some success initially, and that he killed her when it was very evident that, not only had he failed, but that she could no longer tolerate him...without a newspaper script to read from he would have been powerless to express himself properly and it is not easy to imagine Kelly taunting him to the extent that he felt almost impotent and this leads to murder.
I started this thread with the suggestion that Sickert couldn't possibly have murdered Eddowes because he didn't possess the anatomical knowledge to do so. He could have killed Kelly, but, if you treat hers as an isolated murder, there is only one man in the frame - Joe Barnett - a man with ample motive, access and means.
Jack needed to possess a certain degree of skill for the Eddowes murder, and (the admittedly lower) level of knowledge required to kill Nichols and Chapman implies the same man killed all three - although Scott may disagree with this assertion.
One rather contentious part of my view is that, not only is Sickert a red herring but Stride is too. We can debate all day as to whether Jack was interrupted murdering Stride, before he could get down to his trademark mutilations, or whether Stride was just a typical East End victim of an anymous murderer. Beyond answering the question of whether or not he had time to do both - which he certainly did - I don't really see what else Stride adds to the story...As it has often been said with serial murderers, you don't really need a motive - whether or not she had a brief liaison with Jack or an argument with an ordinary punter, Stride was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I must go now - you're probably all bored silly and its taken me ages to type this with two fingers
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 56
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 2:42 pm: | |
Not bored at all, Paul! I can't agree with you about Barnett, though I'm prepared to be convinced.
PS Why Rupert Bear?
Robert |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
Hey Paul!
"isn't a small-time hoaxer, albeit a rather famous one, by definition a red herring?"
Well, the problem here is that by defining Sickert as a small time hoaxer we have determined our answer.
Personally, I would care to see which letters Cornwell/Bowers are going to claim Sickert authored before I made further judgments on the viability of him as a meaningful suspect. That's probably an important piece of the puzzle that we don't currently have.
What if the letters are ones that have been assigned by some researchers a reasonable degree of legitimacy, such as the Lusk letter?
Until we learn more, I am personally unable to "clear" Sickert, which naturally is a far cry from convicting him.
Sir Robert |
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 17
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 4:58 am: | |
Sir Robert,
I have great respect for your opinion, but I wish people would understand my frustrations here and maybe gain an insight into the increasingly controversial nature of my posts...
I started this thread "Can Sickert be surgically removed frpm the suspect list?" by quoting from the autopsy of Catharine Eddowes and suggesting that Sickert would not have possessed the know how to do it. This is palpably an attempt to commence lively debate on the extent of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge required for the job...Yet only Marie has had the grace to proffer her opinion in this respect and instead we're talking about the damned letters again...
Ms. Cornwell must be rubbing her hands in delight!!!!!
Come on people - how much knowledge was required for the Eddowes murder and would Sickert's education have endowed him with enough?
Convince me that he could have done it and we can go back to the letters. Agree with me that he couldn't have done it and the letters become merely a periphery interest.
Robert Charles...
Rupert became a nickname that I acquired because I was always wearing a scarf - I was always a strange child.
Marie,
A snippet of info for you to ponder...According to Paley not one murder was committed in Whitechapel in the two years prededing 1888 - This arguably suggests that there may be some significance in the testimony of Kelly's neighbours that she was done for around 4am...Many authors have implied that it was commonplace to hear cries of "Murder" in degenerate Whitechapel - this assertion appears to be groundless.
Statistically speaking, it also makes it more likely that Stride was a ripper victim.
All for now.
Paul |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 159
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 8:51 am: | |
Hi Paul,
Excellent long post, I just gave you five stars. I agree with all that you posted regarding Barnett.
Regarding this statement: "This arguably suggests that there may be some significance in the testimony of Kelly's neighbours that she was done for around 4am...Many authors have implied that it was commonplace to hear cries of "Murder" in degenerate Whitechapel - this assertion appears to be groundless"
Wasn't it the witnesses and residents of Whitechapel, that claimed cries of 'murder!' were common? To be fair, they claimed that cries were common, not actual murders.
I imagine that's true, because alcoholism, and domestic violence were rife. A cry of 'murder' might be common in these circumstances, from women who realized that an arguement had just gone too far, and were suddenly afraid for themselves.
I just can't personally discount Caroline Maxwell's testimony, or that of Maurice Lewis that easily. I tend to believe that Mary was killed later in the morning.
As far as Stride is concerned- still in two minds.
Regarding Sickert. He may well have had the education to locate a kidney, and a uterus. But I personally doubt he had the practice with a knife to remove them so efficiently, under strained circumstances.
PS> I liked the Rupert Bear story. Strange = interesting.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
