|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1844
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 3:15 pm: | 
|
Richard
I'm sure you are right and the rendering of the surname as Bassett was a transcription error in the index
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on March 25, 2005) |
Clive Appleby
Police Constable
Username: Clive
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Richard,
I agree that conclusive identification of "our" Joseph Barnett would be helpful, but the Paley candidate (as re-enforced by information from the research by Chris)does look plausible, if not conclusive.
Re-locating to Kent after the Kelly murder would also make sense. Innocent or guilty, getting out of the East End after a traumatic November, even if only for a few years, would seem a logical thing to do.
Do you have any particular reasons for doubting the Paley identification and perhaps preferring a jewish candidate such as the Joseph/Julia possibility?
Incidentally, I am not sure if your view as a "Barnett man" is that this is for Barnett as JTR or Barnett as the Killer of Kelly alone. My own leaning would be towards the latter, as I do not think there is any obvious reason to associate Barnett with any of the other victims and the idea that a man should put his head into the shadow of the noose in sensational fashion,and on more than one occasion, just to "frighten" someone, strikes me as totally illogical and far fetched. Barnett may indeed have been infatuated by Kelly (although this doesn't seem to have been reciprocated), although I think that preserving his own life would still instinctively be a bigger priority than any idealistic perception of what was supposed to be in Kelly's (and his own) best interests.
(I am also keen to follow up some leads and references on Victorian East End gangland, as there might be the possibility that the Barnetts were embroiled. In which case there could well be more to the whole kelly affair than meets the eye, although any outcomes, in common with so much about JTR, are likely to be speculative rather than having any solid documentary evidence).
Although Barnett is often presented as a somewhat innocent if naive individual deserving our sympathy (and of course much maligned by those who might suggest him as a candidate for the killer) there is certainly evidence that violence was not uncommon in the relationship between Barnett and Kelly. It is certainly not acceptable by todays's standards, but I suspect that if Barnett really wanted to warn Kelly off the streets, then a "good beating" would have achieved the same result and would not have been out of the norm for East End life.
Donald,
Thanks for the reference to the separate thread on the "pardon" issue and I'll look at that separately.
As for positive identification of Mary Kelly's history, I think that this is an unenviable task.
I am leaning towards a view from the outcomes of Chris's research that she was not born or married with the name Mary kelly at all, but took this name to start a new life when she moved to the East End of London.
The name is sufficiently common to become "anonymous" if she didn't want to be traced for any reason, (other perhaps than by selected individuals, such as her mother for example, if it is true that she received letters from her).
If "Mary kelly" was a complete change of name, it may not have been chosen totally at random. For example, is there the possibility that Kelly was her mother's maiden name and not the paternal name ? (For professional reasons,
my own sister has changed her name by deed poll to our mother's maiden name).
As for Barnett knowing her as "Marie Jeanette", for a man who had most likely not travelled very far at all, the French affectation possibly had an exotic appeal.
Chris, if I recall, it was on another thread that you posed the question of MJK's religion. Hailing from Limerick and spending time in Dublin, I would have thought it more likely that she was born a Catholic. You are also right that Catholic girls take a saints name as their middle name at time of confirmation, and there is no "St.Jane" that I am aware of either.
However, there was no catholic iconography found in Miller's Court, so if MJK was catholic, it is most likely that at an early stage of her life she turned her back on her faith or her faith turned its back on her.
I believe that the question was also posed in that discussion as to why didn't Kelly retain her married name of Davis / Davies after she was (allegedly) widowed (as was and still is common practice)? That is a good question, and could also point to a desire to start a new life with a totally different name.
Somehow I don't think that this one is going to be an easy one to solve, especially as Kelly herself seems to have been less than honest about her background (and I suspect also about her relationships as well).
Would welcome any comments and Chris, please keep up the excellent work and I look forward to full publication when completed. (Your efforts are certainly helpful to me and I suspect other "armchair researchers", with little opportunity to undertake first hand research)
Clive
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
G'day Chris,
'Although Barnett himself said "she was as long as she was with me of sober habits," the evidence of other witnesses certainly casts doubt upon this assertion.' How much of the couples time, I wonder, could have been spent in each others company? When Barnett was working at Billingsgate he had to be there by about 4:00am to help unload the boats and set up the stalls before the ringing of the bell to commence trade at 5:00am. When he worked as a fruit porter the same would have applied and he would have had to be up and at the fruit markets early to hire his cart, compete for the best bargains, (which were sought early), and then find customers before anyone else did. He would have had to sleep occasionally while Mary was out getting drunk with his hard-earned cash.
'If Joseph Barnett had been hanging about Miller's Court later than he claimed to have been there, there was a very high chance that he would have been recognised if seen.'
That's why it would have been suicide not to even try to diguise his appearance. The Ripper (whether he was Barnett or not), was likely to have tried that as the police activity increased especially with the London Clothes exchange in Petticoat Lane closeby. That is where Hutchinson told the press he fancied he saw his suspect. Barnett would have had a surer chance of being invited inside Mary Kelly's room disguised as a wealthy customer.
' There is also the minor possibility that had Barnett admitted that he had not been working and had in effect been living off the proceeds of Kelly's prostitution, he would have laid himself open to a charge of living off immoral earnings.'
I'll say that is a minor possibility!
I don't take the ginger beer bottles as evidence of anything either.
THE LOCKED DOOR MYSTERY: 'Maria Harvey testified that she had stayed with Kelly in her room overnight on the Monday and Tuesday and had spent all Thursday afternoon with her. She must have been aware of the unusual arrangement for gaining access in the absence of a key.'
I think it highly unlikely that Mary and Joe would advertise their secret method of entry, especially not to prostitutes. That would have been like willingly turning their room into a brothel.
I can't find proof of the exact time that Maria Harvey arrived at Miller's court after her body was found but she was talking to reporters. If she was there before the door was forced she could have told them how to gain entry if she knew. She was there in the morning and the door wasn't opened until the early afternoon. One report says that she was there as soon as she heard of the murder to see if it was anyone she knew.
The window was broken on the night that Barnett moved out, during a quarrel in which something must have been thrown from inside. It wasn't made deliberately from outside to let the couple inside. I come to this conclusion because the newspapers tell how Thomas Bowyer was aware of the broken window, and if he knew it was made specifically to allow entry into the room, he could have volunteered that information to police.
If the key was missing before the hole was made in the window, how on earth did they get in?
Barnett could have taken the key with him when he left as security of his possession, (Mary Kelly), and to render his daily visits as neccessary and welcomed. Mary would have had to either leave her door open when she went out or ask another male and volunteer their little secret.
Barnett need not have taken the key with him when he visited her just before the murder to use in his escape. That would point to premeditation.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 5:16 am: |
|
G'day Clive,
'My own leaning would be towards the latter, as I do not think there is any obvious reason to associate Barnett with any of the other victims and the idea that a man should put his head into the shadow of the noose in sensational fashion,and on more than one occasion, just to "frighten" someone, strikes me as totally illogical and far fetched.'
Please, please, please forget that as the sole motive with Barnett. Take a look at the man's childhood and the fact that he and his four siblings lost the love and support of their mother following the death of their father. It was common for Irish widows to abandon their children for a life of prostitution.
LEANNE |
Clive Appleby
Police Constable
Username: Clive
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne / Chris,
Chris, apologies if the following is distracting from the current thrust of the thread about identification of the key players, but I feel it is necessary to respond to Leanne’s observations, and your excellent work does have relevance to this.
(Incidentally, I have just come across reference to your "Cast of Thousands" work and have ordered a download. It's a shame that it didn't go straight to print, as based on the evidence of your work to date on Casebook, it is far more worthy of publication than some of the rubbish that has ben churned out by publishers over the years (no names mentioned). Is there any news as to the possibility of a paperback version) ?
Leanne,
Good point about how much time that Joseph Barnett and Kelly would have actually spent together. It would also seem that he was unaware of a lot of her activities and other relationships. Also some good points made about the key issue, although I think that generally both the key/locked door issue and the ginger beer bottles are "red herrings" with little or no significance whatsoever.
I disagree completely on the issue of disguise. If Barnett did murder Kelly, he had no reason at all to disguise himself or alter his appearance. If the killing was not pre-meditated he obviously wouldn’t have been in disguise anyway. If it was pre-meditated, Barnett and his relationship with Kelly were quite well known in the area and his being seen in the vicinity would have been perfectly natural, whatever time of day or night.
If he wasn’t seen, then the way to no. 13 Millers Court was open (and if he was on "good terms" with Kelly he wouldn't need to disguise himself in order for her to let him in to no 13. (and he knew how to get in anyway, key or no key).
If he was seen, he simply wouldn’t have taken the risk of murdering Kelly on that occasion.
However, if he was in any form of disguise, and was still recognised, this would have immediately created suspicion and not detracted from it.
I’m sorry, but I think any notion of JTR (whoever it might be) being a “master of disguise” is a part of Victorian theatrical melodrama, more associated with “Jack the Myth” than with reality.
I respect your views about Barnett as being a possible candidate for claiming more victims than just Mary Kelly, but I regret that I cannot subscribe to them for the following reasons:
(1) Even if Paley’s identification of Joseph Barnett (supported by Chris’s work) is correct (and incidentally I believe that it probably is), there is no certainty whatsoever, that his mother abandoned the family or resorted to prostitution. This is to make an assumption about what we don’t know, never mind the difficulties of making assumptions about what we do know.
There are all sorts of possibilities as to why Catherine Barnett senior did not appear in the 1871 Census. This does not mean that she simply “disappeared”. For example she may have simply returned to Ireland for a visit and died there, having left the younger children in the care of the then adult offspring, Daniel and Catherine. (Dennis / Denis having married and moved out). Even Paley mentions this as a possibility.
(2) Even if we were to assume that Catherine Barnett senior did abandon the family and resort to prostitution, as you say yourself (and if it was true, but I'm not sure of your evidence) that, “It was common for Irish Widows to abandon their children for a life of prostitution" then Joseph Barnett would have been no different to possibly many hundreds of men with a similar maternally deprived upbringing, and whose names we don’t know, all of whom could have had a hatred of prostitutes and wanting to somehow seek revenge for the “sins” of their mother. It is purely circumstances that we know of Barnett’s name because of the Kelly connection.
(3) If Barnett had a “downer” on prostitutes for whatever reason, would he really have lived with Mary kelly for 18 months ?
Unless there is firmer evidence or stronger reasoning as to why Barnett may have killed anyone other than Mary kelly, I’m afraid that I will not be converted. Although this is not impossible, I remain committed to the more restrained possibility (and it is merely one of many possibilities) that:
(i) Despite the medical and police views at that time (and subsequently because it has rarely been questioned or analysed until fairly recently), the differences in circumstances between the killing of kelly and other victims were such that it was possible that she was not killed by the same hand and
(ii) By going “back to basics” of police work and the extent of “domestic” circumstances in the history of murder cases, Barnett had both motive and opportunity to kill Mary Jane kelly (or whatever her real name may have been).
(iii) There is nothing whatsoever at the moment in the way of evidence or valid reasoning to come to a conclusion that Joseph Barnett may have been responsible for more than one murder. To come to such a conclusion is going one step too far on the basis of what (very) little we know.
To be honest, I think the biggest stumbling blocks at the moment to Barnett either killing kelly or being JTR are the debate over the time of death and the problems presented by the Caroline Maxwell (and to a lesser extent Maurice Lewis) testimony around Kelly being seen alive and well, or at least alive and sick, on the morning of November 9th.
Best Wishes and I’m happy to keep up the debate.
Clive
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1846
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Hi Clive
the current discussion is not "off topic" as one of the main points of the Kelly bookmwas to get debate going. I will be posting back to Leanne when I have had a full chance to read her thoughtful post. The Cast of Thousands is, as we speak, only in download form but may, like the Kelly one, be coming out as a "real book".
I am currently starting the research for a new project about Alice McKenzie and John McCormack.
Thanks for all the comments and glad the work is of interest
All the best
Chris |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:06 am: |
|
G'day,
If the empty ginger beer bottles on Mary's shelf were significant of anything the police would have noted them.
THE ISSUE OF A DISGUISE: If Joseph Barnett deliberately covered his identity in any way so that nobody could recognise him as a killer that would mean that he planned it - premeditation, which I believe never happened on this occasion.
Barnett's return was rejected by Mary Kelly earlier that evening. He knew that she desperately needed money and knew how she planned to get it. A way of approaching her and being invited into the room would have been to disguise himself as a customer.
Notice how Hutchinson's suspect hid down his head when he got close , he was exceptionally well dressed for Dorset Street, especially at that time of morning and Mary and he laughed at something when he first approached her. Maybe she saw through his disguise once up close, laughed and thought something like: "Oh alright then, come inside. Tell me, how was your game of whist. Did you win anything?"
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:17 am: |
|
G'day Chris,
The book that Richard Nunweek and I were compiling has come to a halt. I've done alot of research but I don't think that enough has been written. Your name appears as one credit. Would you like me to email it to you for a look?
Is that alright Richard? It's a 'Microsoft Word' document.
LEANNE |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1850
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
I would be very interested to see anything you have done which you are willing to share and, of course, confidentiality of your research would be strictly respected.
Thanks for the generous offer
Chris |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2235
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Richard
Reading back there.... hate to say it DOES look like
BARNETT the R is pretty recognisable
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1718
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
G'day,
CLIVE: ' “It was common for Irish Widows to abandon their children for a life of prostitution" then Joseph Barnett would have been no different to possibly many hundreds of men with a similar maternally deprived upbringing, and whose names we don’t know, all of whom could have had a hatred of prostitutes and wanting to somehow seek revenge for the “sins” of their mother.'
That is similar to thinking that Jack the Ripper couldn't have been schizophrenic because look at how many people suffer then and now from it yet don't go out and murder. Or Jack the Ripper definately didn't suffer from venereal disease because it was so common.
I'm serching my notes, the 'Victorian London' Website and the writings of Henry Mayhew's 'London Labour and London the Poor' for written proof that Irish immigrant widows commonly abandoned their children.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
The reason why the Co writing of Leanne and myself hopeful book has come to a halt[ at least on my part] is that as much as i hate to admit it ,I personally could add no more to 1] His positive identification which is essencial for any suspect, 2] no evidence unless circumstancial to incriminate the man.
The fact remains we can talk about east london poverty, discuss lodging houses repeat all the factual knowledge regarding the facts of the case[ like in every publication] but unless there is definate proof of the real Joseph Barnetts identity , we can not advance, even with the 39 theory[ throughly disputed] and the grave spitting[ ditto].
My personal instincts are not acceptable as guilt, even if I believe with all my heart that Barnett acted out of normality on the day of her funeral.
I sincerley wish Leanne, and in other person that may indulge in this book the very best, and if successful in advancing further, nobody would be more praiseworthy and excited then yours truely.
Regards Richard. |
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
``I am not actually proposing a morning mutilation scenario per se but rather saying that some of the testimony which claims to have seen kelly in the morning cannot be as easily disposed of as might first appear.``
yes you are right about that and it's worth mentioning too...it could be mistaking the days and seeing someone else that looks very similar.
a morning mutilation just seems totally unbelievable, if true it's very strange indeed, i wouldn't say a shift in tactics/M.O more like very foolhardy and out of character.
i mean he would've heard residents walking by, talking outside, maybe even knocking on her door etc, congregating in the passageway; gossiping as he walked in and out....can you imagine that scenario...and there he is inside carving her up for over half an hour.
it's almost unbelievable isn't it
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Hello Chris,
This is all excellent stuff.
I particularly enjoyed the earlier section in which you dealt with Maxwell's statement.
Her evidence has been tested time and time again and is in my view, rock solid.
There is no doubt in my mind...MAXWELL SAW KELLY!
Some people argue that Maxwell was mistaken as to whom she saw.The reason being that she had probably attached the name "Mary Kelly" to the wrong face for some reason.
But this is nonsense.
Maxwell swore that she had seen Kelly that Friday morning,only because she was absolutely certain.
She knew Joseph Barnett and she knew that the woman she had seen and spoken to that very morning, was the SAME woman that Barnett had been living with.WHAT FURTHER EVIDENCE DO WE NEED?
One rather large question remains however.
Why wasn't Mawell taken to view Kelly's corpse?
Well, maybe a mere lodginghouse keeper's wife's evidence was no match for that of the medical men and so Maxwell wasn't taken too seriously!
Kane |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
My only advice Chris if you are publishing is that this is a book you don't rush into.
For obvious reasons!  |
luxy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Great work,Chris.
Maybe it's a stupid remark, but have you ever looked for a Morgan Stone? |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:54 am: |
|
Hi all
Thanks for the continuing encouraging messages - they are much appreciated and give much food for thought
Luxy,
Yes the question of a Morgan Stone I did look into - and it is by no means a stupid remark!
Chris |
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:06 am: |
|
Chris,
Who is Morgan Stone? All I can find about him is a short reference to him on the Kelly Time line. Also listed as Morganstone.
Thanks,
Carolyn |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:57 am: |
|
Barnett reported that Kelly had at one time lived with a man named Morganstone near Stepney gas Works. If you look at the chapter earlier in this thread entitled "Barnett and Other Lovers" it gives more details.
Chris
|
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 2:07 am: |
|
Chris,
Thanks a whole bunch, I am still reading your excellent work. I will go to the reference you gave me.
Thanks again,
Carolyn |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
G'day Kane,
'She knew Joseph Barnett and she knew that the woman she had seen and spoken to that very morning, was the SAME woman that Barnett had been living with.WHAT FURTHER EVIDENCE DO WE NEED?'
Caroline Maxwell was the wife of the very busy lodging House across the road from Millers Court. She said herself that she had known Mary Kelly for "about four months" out of the 18 that she'd been living there, and she had only spoken to her twice.
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4322
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
Hi Richard and Leanne
I was disappointed to hear that your book has stalled - partly over the question of the identification of Barnett.
I think it is possible to write an excellent book which points the finger at a suspect about whom we know even less than we do about Joe. Fido and Hinton spring to mind.
Hope you get back on track with it.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2244
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Robert-
Many people have written many an excellent book about far less credible suspects than Kosminski and Hutchinson..........
But as yet not quite so convincing
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1720
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
I've written and have saved on disk 98 X A4 pages, which is equivalent to about 245 paperback size pages, with the Joseph Barnett that Bruce Paley identified in mind! I feel more could be added!
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1747
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
Leanne and Richard,
I was disappointed to hear about the book coming to a halt-maybe it will only be temporary?
I really do mean it when I say that some of the reseach you have collected concerning the working patterns of the porters and fruit merchants of Spitalfields market/ together with descriptions of life and activity around the area near Mitre Square at various times of the day in the Autumn of 1888similarly with regards to Petticoat Lane market etc all of which caught my interest a lot -in fact I was so looking forward to reading more about just this sort of thing in a collated format.
I wonder if you did something like Chris [Scott] has done with some of his census information and other similar information in his "Cast of Thousands" that you wouldnt find a fairly good market for such an endeavour?
Anyway best of luck with whatever you decide
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4324
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne
I always believe something will turn up - at least, as far as JTR is concerned.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
The final manuscript and "blurb" for the Kelly book went off for printing today and I am told the book will be ready in 10 to 20 days. It will be available through the publisher's own website and Amazon etc once I know the ISBN.
I will post detail as soon as I have them
Chris
|
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Leanne / Richard,
Sorry to hear that your book has come to a halt and I hope this is temporary. As you may have gathered, I don't personally accept the Barnett as JTR view, but I lean towards Barnett as a possible killer of MJK. Even books on theories with which we don't agree can contribute much to our background knowledge and the debate in general and it sounds as though too much work has gone into it for it to be wasted.
Richard, I know that the "grave spitting" incident has been discussed extensively already on another thread, but I note with interest that in giving the account of this piece of "oral history", neither Farson nor his source (and Tom Cullen who merely follows Farson) specifically name Barnett.
The source just refers to "a man". Presumably it is assumed to be Barnett because it was known that not many people attended the funeral and it is known that Barnett did, or is there another source that attributes this incident specifically to Joseph Barnett ?
Interesting that accounts (eg as quoted by Paul Begg in "The Facts") also say that "someone representing John McCarthy" attended the funeral. If the spitting incident is true, which has to be treated with extreme caution anyway, this person (if male) might have been the culprit, perhaps spitting on the grave on behalf of their "boss" because of all that back rent owing and now lost forever!
Kane,
I agree that the Maxwell testimony looks strong. In addition to the question of identifying kelly, some commentators try to suggest an alternative, namely that Maxwell may have been mistaken as to the day she saw her.
I know human beings are very fallible witnesses, but at the inquest she was describing events that referred to only three days before, not weeks or months. (I don't know for sure, but I guess that Maxwell wasn't a geriatric with amnesia.)
Although the confusion as to identity is a possibility, the only other argument I can see against Maxwell is that she made it all up just to secure "ten minutes of fame" and ensure a few free drinks, stories for the grand-children, etc.
It is interesting that the time of death was not addressed at the inquest and Maxwell may have been blissfully unaware of the medical opinion. Despite being warned by the coroner that her evidence was inconsistent with other testimony she may have been somewhat bemused as to what this may have related to. (I haven't checked whether the press coverage on the 10th and 11th November addressed the issue of time of death, but even if it does, there is no guarantee that Maxwell would have been aware of it).
Clive |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1750
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Excellent news Chris.Looking forward to getting myself a copy!
Natalie |
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Chris,
Look forward to the MJK book and the publication details.
Have just downloaded "Cast of Thousands". Great stuff and deserves wider publicity as well, so here's another plug on your behalf for those who might not be aware of it. (Also agree that it is very cheap for all the work that has obviously gone into it).
For those who are not aware, go to:
www.mye-books.com/
where Chris's superb collection of potted biographies of many of the personalities involved "on the fringes" of the Whitechapel murders can be downloaded as an e-book for just a few dollars.
(Have you ever thought about compiling your various works to date into one publication as a series of essays) ?
Best wishes and good luck with the work on Alice McKenzie as well.
Clive
(Message edited by Clive on March 30, 2005) |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Dear Everyone,
What a fascinating section. It is obvious there has been a considerable amount of hard work done here - congratulations.
My own personal belief as to the veracity or otherwise of Maxwells statement is that she was wrong - she did not see MJK that morning, however I am quite willing to believe she saw someone she honestly believed was MJK.
How do you establish the identity of someone in the absence of a personal introduction? It usual boils down to 'Oh you know that young girl who lives in Millers Court - the dark haired one, well she calls herself Jeanette Marie but her real name is Mary Jane'
Now the speaker and the lstener might both be positive they are talking about the same person, but in the absence of that person being there at the time, how do you know?
Maxwells statement has always been give the benefit of the doubt because she 'knew' MJK. But just how well did she know her. Her depth of knowledge seems to have been talking to her just twice. Now we don't know the length of those conversations but logic dictates that 'just twice' points towards 'Hiya how are you?' type of conversation.
The biggest point agains Maxwell is the other witnesses. What other witness's? Precisely there weren't any. If Maxwell is to be believed MJK went to the Ringers early on for a beer, returned to Millers Court to throw up and have the conversation with Maxwell. Later on she went back to the vicinity of the Ringers and was talking to a man nearby.
And yet absolutely no one else saw her. The person who served her the beer forgot about it, the people standing next to her in the bar thought she was invisible, the people in the street on two seperate occassions, all missed seeing her. That beggars belief.
Bob Hinton |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi Clive,
The fact is only eight people were present at the grave service of Mary Kelly.
a]The Priest.[ A rather large and imposing figure]
b]six women representing the drinking establishments the deseased aquainted, one may have been a representive of McCarthy, and the common law husband of the dead woman, Joseph Barnett.
To explain this, the letter that Farson received in 1959, was not to a plea for funeral acccounts , or to any one partiular victim, but for general information regarding the case.
If , and I must add.......if the woman in the letter refering to the grave spitting incident was being honest and truthful, and i can see no reason judging the circumstances involving this letter was not being so. then the process of elimination is that one joseph Barnett was the perpretrator of this act.
Thus my honest opinion he was not being all that he seems induces me to believe that , [also other positive clues]he was not all he seems to be ie., a grieving , heartbroken ex lover.
Infact he by possible actions may well have been her killer.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2258
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Hi Bob
Much as I would LOVE to belive Mrs Maxwell's 'statement' re MJK ,there are so many phrases here as in ..Oh Carrie etc etc ..that have a sort of comfy everyday feel that I suppose sort of seduce you into believing she was correct in her timings etc.
However the fact that no one remembers Mary being in or around Ringers or any pub, am ...does as you say, beggar belief!! Mind you how crowded the pubs were at 8 ish in the morning isn't of course known and men were harnessing horses madly as you know from 5 ish!!
Maybe Mr Plaid coat should have come forward...
Suzi |
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
I tend to agree with you that Barnett may not have been the "grieving, heart-broken lover" as often made out. For example, he didn't seem to have any problems giving lucid interviews to the press on the evening of the 9th November, the very day that he found out that his "lover" had been butchered and he had been subjected to a lengthy period of police investigation.
If Barnett had demonstrated emotion in any way during the interview, I would have thought it likely that this would have been recounted in the newspaper reports.
(Although to be fair, I might be judging by today's standards where we value life more dearly. Life in the East End of 1888 could still be "Nasty, Brutish and Short" and perhaps people got over their grief extremely quickly and got on with living).
I don't know if the question of how many people and who exactly attended MJK's funeral has been subject to debate on the message boards, but most authors seem to use the East London Advertiser as their main source. Paul Begg ("The Facts") gives the fullest account:
"The hearse was followed by two mourning coaches, one containing three people and the other containing five. Among them were Joseph Barnett, someone representing John McCarthy, and the six women who had given evidence at the inquest: Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, Caroline Maxwell, Sarah Lewis, Julia Venturney and Maria Harvey."
With the Priest meeting the cortege at the cemetery gates, that would make nine in total, rather than eight. Is there another source that suggests eight ?
Either eight or nine, if the above account of the identification of those attending the funeral is accurate, I would dearly love to know the combination of who were the "three" and who were the "five". Although perhaps they were united in grief (either for real or out of "duty"), I somehow can't see Barnett wanting to share a coach with any of the women he would consider to be of "bad character".
Also, the conversation on the way to the cemetery must have been quite intriguing. I can imagine Caroline Maxwell being quizzed by others along the lines of "Are you really sure that you saw her at 8.30 in the morning" ?!!
Suzi / Bob,
I think I agree that there does seem to be something cosy and unreal about Maxwells alleged conversation with someone she obviously didn't know as well as she perhaps wanted people to think.
Interesting that her statement to the police taken on 9th November said that she "was on speaking terms with her" but at the actual inquest, "speaking terms" as you point out Bob)becomes "I never spoke to her except twice." (and it's not clear whether even that includes the alleged conversation on the morning of 9th November. If it does, then she only spoke to MJK once in the preceding 4 months and by her own account hadn't seen her at all in the three weeks preceding the 9th November. This is hardly knowing her well).
It is curious that if there were any other witnesses to seeing kelly on the morning of the 9th that they didn't come forward. (Although technically we shouldn't forget Maurice Lewis). However, I don't draw too many conclusions from this -
(1) If there were any other witnesess they might not have come forward because they simply didn't want to get embroiled or assist the police and
(2) Although I would stand to be corrected, I get the impression throughout the whole series of murders that the police made considerable efforts to seek corroboration for the statements of possible suspects, but little or no effort seems to have been made to do the same for witnesses
Best Wishes,
Clive
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1721
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 10:00 pm: |
|
G'day Clive,
I think it's more interesting that he was located at Buller's Lodging House or in a pub nearby that morning as if he knew someone would be looking for him that morning. It was 'Lord Mayor's Day' and poor costermongers wouldn't have been able to lose the chance to earn big cash!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 2:54 am: |
|
Hi Clive,
The number of people present at the actual grave service is depicted in a sketch made by persumably a reporter and it clearly shows six females and two males one of them to the fore clearly being Father Colombran as he was described as a man of imposing stature which the sketch depicts, and a man which going by his attire is Barnett behind him.
Therefore unless the priest accompanied the mourners en-route ,one of the party seems to be missing?.
The sketch even shows a pile of boards to the side of the grave, and we should remember Farsons informant stated the man'Parted the boards with his feet and spat several times on the coffin'.
Also it is a true fact that the people lining the perimeter of the cemetary were not allowed in until the grave was filled and mounted, therefore only the people in the actual vacinity of the service could have carried out that act of clear disrespect.
All of this reported incident points solely at Joseph Barnett, remember in 1959 he was considered no more then her ex common law, not in any way a suspect.
This incident without a doubt points straight at Barnett, just one problem.'Did it happen.....?
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 298
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
If , and I must add.......if the woman in the letter refering to the grave spitting incident was being honest and truthful, and i can see no reason judging the circumstances involving this letter was not being so. then the process of elimination is that one joseph Barnett was the perpretrator of this act.
Indeed it does all depend on the reliability of the witness and of how she was reported.
Whether, even then, it points to Barnett I am much less sure.
People sometimes miss-see things and try to make sense in their minds of what they have seen. Effectively incorrectly seeing 2+2 as 3+2 and reaching the answer 6!!
I can think of a number of reasons why a man might spit at a funeral (not necessarily into the grave).
For instance spitting in public was then, as now (regrettably to an increasingly extent in the UK) not an uncommon practice. I recall notices on busses in my youth (50s-60s and perhaps longer) reading "Spitting Prohibited". Well, you don't put a notice up against something that never happens.
A smoker (which Barnett probably was) might spit to clear his throat. A man struggling with deep emotion, crying, mouth dry or choking with emotion, might spit to allow him to speak.
Now, assuming he turned aside to do this, as might be natural, he might still be PERCEIVED or remembered as spitting into the grave, perhaps by someone who misunderstood, or disliked him or spitting in general.
Other possibilities are that, IF HE DID spit into the grave, he was making a comment on her lifestayle, or the reason she had left him. But to me the whole incident doesn't sound REAL, and if it occured as reported, would have attracted more comment at the time. Just my view though.
As for Mrs Maxwell - the simplest explanation remains that she was sincere but got the day wrong. To this might be added the demonstrable tendency of some locals speaking to the press to exaggerate their importance or centrality to the event; or to take up what they had heard others say, as their own testimony.
There is, somewhere, a vivid press report of women in shawls gathered in Buck's Row, nodding their heads and recounting the events. It's not impossible that Mrs M wanted to be the last person to see the deceased.
The fact that Mrs Maxwell was one of the few people at the graveside suggests to me that she must have been more than a casual acquaintance of Mary.
Clive, you wrote:
I tend to agree with you that Barnett may not have been the "grieving, heart-broken lover" as often made out. For example, he didn't seem to have any problems giving lucid interviews to the press on the evening of the 9th November...
I thought there was at least some evidence that Barnett may have had an impediment or "trick" of speach, whereby he repeated the last words said to him as preface to a reply.
Such a mannerism might come across as unemotional
Alternatively, he may have been so shell-shocked that the emotion was not yet coming out. I recall myself at my on father's funeral. I was numb and normal, showing no evident emotion at all.
Finally, returning to the spitting story; if Barnett had done this, his evident contempt for his late-partner would surely have given rise to questions? I don't see it as in character.
Just some thoughts,
Phil
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
G'day,
Caroline Maxwell said that she saw Mary Kelly when she was collecting the plates from the house opposite for her husband. Opposite where? I wonder did she mean opposite where she lived which was 14 Dorset Street, or opposite Miller's Court. 13 or 15 Dorset Street would have been too far away for her to be certain.
Also, reading her testimony she said: "I took a deal of notice of deceased this EVENING seeing her standing at the corner of the court on Friday from 8 & half past...." Then she says she spoke to her: "why Mary what brings you up so early?" It would seem she was confused.
LEANNE |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
The point is that Maxwell was effectively saying
that although she had only spoken to Kelly twice,she was absolutely certain that the woman she had spoken to was Mary Kelly.
Maxwell also said she Knew her as Mary Jane,meaning she had seen this woman before and called her Mary Jane.
How many other Mary Janes lived in Millers court?
Remember,Maxwell saw Kelly standing by the entrance to the court and she knew Kelly had risen uncharacteristically early from that same court!
How could Maxwell possibly have assosiated this woman with Joseph Barnett if she hadn't seen them together?
If she wasn't sure that she knew who Kelly was,she would not have so vehemently sworn to it at the inquest!
What strikes me as being very odd is that Maxwell was not quizzed in any way at the inquest,as to the appearence of the woman she saw.
If as many suggest,Maxwell's sighting was a case of mistaken Identity,then surely testing this would have been an obvious place to start.
Could the explanation be that like myself,the Coroner and jury were utterly convinced that Maxwell had seen Kelly,but then unlike myself,had therefore been forced to conclude that Maxwell had confused the DAY of the sighting?
Kane |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Bob,
There is another point I forgot to make in my last posting.
I think we can safely assume that Maxwell knew for certain that the woman she saw on the morning of Friday the 9th,lived in Millers court.
The thing is Bob,Maxwell mentioned in her statement that she knew the woman as Mary Jane only.
Now,as far as I am concerned the exact meaning of that particular statement is absolutely clear.
Maxwell had greeted the woman on this,and earlier encounters with a "Hello Mary Jane"
Now, If anyone can produce evidence to suggest that there were any other bare headded,maroon shawl wearing Mary Janes living in Millers court at the time,I may the have to think again!
Kane
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Hello Bob,
I can offer a simple solution to the puzzle of why nobody saw Kelly in "Ringers" that Friday morning.
When Maxwell saw Kelly it was quite obvious that she(Kelly) was indeed suffering from "The horrors of drink".
Now,the important point is,that it was Maxwell who suggested a remedy,but also the venue.
She said "Why dont you go to Ringers and have some beer"?
Now,Kelly may have actually said "I have already had some beer and brought it all up in the street",motioning her head towards the VOMIT as she spoke.
Maxwell may have incorrectly inferred from this that Kelly had been to the venue AND tried the remedy wereas in truth Kelly had only tried the remedy.
Possibly the left overs from "Blotchy face's" quart pot.
Another small point which may be significant is the fact that Kelly was sick in the road just outside Millers court and not outside the pub.
Of course Maxwell also claimed she had seen Kelly a little later on,talking to a man outside the "Britannia".
However there is no evidence here to suggest Kelly had actually been inside the pub.
Kane
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 302
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
I think the reason for the assumption of mistaken identity is as follows:
a) a body had been found in Kelly's room;
b) Kelly was missing;
c) body was identified as Kelly;
d) no one else claimed the body to be other than that of MJK, or was missing;
e) ergo the dead woman was Kelly;
f) medical opinion was she had been dead some hours;
g) no one else reliable claimed that they had seen Kelly alive that morning;
h) THUS Mrs Maxwell was in all likelihood wrong, mistaken, or lying in what she said.
Now, please summarise the case FOR Mrs Maxwell being more likely to be right in the same style please someone.
Phil
P.S. NOTE: I am not arguing that Mrs Maxwell WAS wrong - only that there is no evidence other than her own to support her testimony. But I think the logic I have cited (akin to the three bullet scenario re Dallas) would be the legally acceptable approach. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
Hi,
Ask yourselves one question, and this a serious observation.
Why was Mrs Maxwell called to the inquest?.
if all the evidence she could produce was she saw the deseased at a later date then medical evidence predicted she was killed, then surely this is not what the police would want to identify.
The inquest of MJK was hurried somewhat, the fact is that the murder was assumed to be the work of the whitechapel murderer, and the cause of death was the result of person or persons unknown.
I would therefore strongly suspect that infact the police had not the slightest notion when Kelly was killed , and that Dr Bond had privately informed them that in the remains of Millers court he could only hazard a quess to the time of death, owing to the extensive mutalation.
Therefore I believe along [which i should add Inspector Abberline] that Maxwell was telling the truth, and the very fact she was requested at the inquest of Mjk, Was infact their legal obligation to relay all the evidence that they could.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 303
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Richard - just to highlight some words in your last post:
Why was Mrs Maxwell called to the inquest?.
if all the evidence she could produce was she saw the deseased at a later date then medical evidence predicted she was killed, then surely this is not what the police would want to identify.
The inquest of MJK was hurried somewhat, the fact is that the murder was assumed to be the work of the whitechapel murderer, and the cause of death was the result of person or persons unknown.
I would therefore strongly suspect that infact the police had not the slightest notion when Kelly was killed , and that Dr Bond had privately informed them that in the remains of Millers court he could only hazard a quess to the time of death, owing to the extensive mutalation.
Therefore I believe along [which i should add Inspector Abberline] that Maxwell was telling the truth, and the very fact she was requested at the inquest of Mjk, Was infact their legal obligation to relay all the evidence that they could.
There's an awful lot of supposition there.
Phil |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
G'day,
KANE: 'Maxwell had greeted the woman on this,and earlier encounters with a "Hello Mary Jane"
'Jack the Ripper, The Ultimate Companion' contains the official files including all of the statements that the police took on the morning of November 9, as well as the testimonies at the inquest on the 12th. Reading the statement of Caroline Maxwell I starts with: "I have known the deceased woman during the past 4 ["or 5" -deleted] months, she was known as Mary Jane and that since Joe Barnett left her she has obtained her living as an unfortunate....." By the time the police took that statement I'd say they, plus Maxwell, were pretty sure who the deceased was. Then she said: "I said to her, what brings you up so early. She said I have the horrors of drink upon me...." Notice how no names were exchanged.
Then at the inquest she added weight to her claims by recalling the conversation with: 'I said why MARY what brings you up so early she said Oh! I do feel so bad! oh CARRY I feel so bad!...' Note the inclusion of the names.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1724
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
G'day,
RICHARD: The list of statements taken by the police on the morning of the 9th in the hand writing of Inspector Abberline was titled: 'Witnesses for inquest to be opened 12th Nov. 88. On the body of Marie Jeanette Kelly.' I'd say Mrs. Maxwell was there and wished to give a statement. They couldn't very well refuse her and she did verify the information that: "since Joe Barnett left her she has obtained her living as an unfortunate." She was the only one to actually say that, rather than imply it.
They had to have her present at the inquest otherwise it would have looked like they were trying to hide the fact that someone claimed they saw her that morning.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 2:55 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
I take your point, but all I am doing is giving a opinion from my own prospective.
I have very strong views on the maxwell statement, and i would suggest that she was honest in her recollections.
Abberline himself said' I could not break the woman'
The coroner warned her that she was to be careful when swearing to her evidence.
yet she still remained adamant that her sighting occcured on the said morning , and the sighting was that of the deseased.
The very fact that she swore on oath suggests to me that we have no reason to doubt this womans evidence, unless we receive imformation that proves otherwise.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
G'day Richard,
You know why you have very strong views on the woman's statement?......because her claims support your theory of a later killing! The fact that Abberline said that he could not break the woman obviously means he tried....hard! So there was doubt in his mind.
I prefer to lean towards the earlier time of death because that view has the most support! Mary Kelly had wishes to go the 'Lord Mayor's Day' celebrations, and that's why I believe the unclaimed laundry was left in her room.....for her to sell.
If she wasn't killed earlier, she would have been at the festivities!
LEANNE |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Leanne,
Maxwell said she saw the woman standing by the entrance to Millers Court,therefore she was talking about the house over the road,opposite the entrance.
You wrote:
Also, reading her testimony she said: "I took a deal of notice of deceased this EVENING seeing her standing at the corner of the court on Friday from 8 & half past...." Then she says she spoke to her: "why Mary what brings you up so early?" It would seem she was confused.
Oh come on Leanne! this was clearly a slip of the tounge on Maxwell's part.The only strange thing is that who ever took down the statement,recorded her words verbatim,as if they were on auto-pilot!
A statement is always read back to a witness to check there are no errors and above all, that it actually makes sense!
So what happned in this instance I don't know.
If Maxwell's statement had been peppered with similar,glaring inconsistencies then I would say she was confused.
However,quite the opposite is true.Maxwell was clear and consistent throughout.
So what do we have in the way of other evidence that could possibly undermine Maxwell's credibility as a witness?
Well,a very unreliable estimate regarding time of death and a cry of "Oh Murder" which was more or less a nightly occurence.Hmmmmm!
I cannot see the problem with Maxwell and with a mid-morning murder.Unless of course Maxwell represents a rather large spanner in the works of your pet theory!
Kane
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Leanne,
Maxwell said she saw the woman standing by the entrance to Millers Court,therefore she was talking about the house over the road,opposite the entrance.
You wrote:
Also, reading her testimony she said: "I took a deal of notice of deceased this EVENING seeing her standing at the corner of the court on Friday from 8 & half past...." Then she says she spoke to her: "why Mary what brings you up so early?" It would seem she was confused.
Oh come on Leanne! this was clearly a slip of the tounge on Maxwell's part.The only strange thing is that who ever took down the statement,recorded her words verbatim,as if they were on auto-pilot!
A statement is always read back to a witness to check there are no errors and above all, that it actually makes sense!
So what happned in this instance I don't know.
If Maxwell's statement had been peppered with similar,glaring inconsistencies then I would say she was confused.
However,quite the opposite is true.Maxwell was clear and consistent throughout.
So what do we have in the way of other evidence that could possibly undermine Maxwell's credibility as a witness?
Well,a very unreliable estimate regarding time of death and a cry of "Oh Murder" which was more or less a nightly occurence.Hmmmmm!
I cannot see the problem with Maxwell and with a mid-morning murder.Unless of course Maxwell represents a rather large spanner in the works of your pet theory!
Kane
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
