|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
FUNERAL OF MARY KELLY
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
FUNERAL OF MARY KELLY
Author: richard nunweek
Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 02:42 pm |        | Although it has been mentioned many times that Joseph Barnett is an unlikely killer, anybody familar with 'Farson's Guide to the British 1959' may remember a letter from an elderly lady. She stated her mother,many years before, had told her that when she was a teenager her and a friend were tending a grave very close to the service of MJK. After the service they noticed one man stayed behind, when convinced he was alone he parted the grave boards and spat several times on the coffin.
The girls said nothing through fear of reprisal until many years later when she told her daughter. Some may say 'pure hearsay' but ask yourself is this the kind of conversation a mother would discuss with her daughter, unless some truth.
We know by sketchings made at the time that eight people were present round the grave, six women, the rather large priest and Joseph Barnett. Obvious elimination would suggest Barnett was the man that they saw.
This does not obviously make him a murderer but does show a bitter hatred for MJK. If the police knew in 1888 what was possible to know in 1959, he would have been further questioned.
Any comments please
Richard |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 07:12 pm | | Dear Richard:
Interesting point - except that the man might
not have been in the immediate party of eight
that included Barnett. It could have been one
of the onlookers who stayed by the grave after
the immediate party left. We have no way of
knowing.
It would be interesting to see if there are
traces of saliva (and thus, DNA) on the coffin.
Would the Home Office authorize an exhumation to
see if they could possibly find such traces?
I tend to doubt it.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 11:59 pm | | Hi, Jeff and Richard:
Interesting point about possible DNA from saliva on Mary Jane Kelly's coffin, if the coffin is in such a shape to reveal any. . . of course DNA might be present from other sources, too, conceivably. Even if we get such DNA, the next step would be to find Joe Barnett's grave, and as far as I know unless Bruce Paley found it, which I am not sure he did, it still remains to be located.
I also do tend though to side with Jeff that the man at the grave who spat on the coffin, if that is what happened, may not necessarily have been Joe. It could have been any one of the many punters whom MJK had "entertained" over the years. If it was Jack he could have visited the grave after the funeral anyway, particularly if we accept the scenario and possible motive for the killing that he had been wronged by a prostitute. Another man who had a history of lingering and watching would be George Hutchinson. I do agree that the story is graphic and distinct enough to somehow ring true.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 12:15 am | | Hi, Jeff and Chris
Boy, DNA's good stuff, but I don't know if it's that good--even if you could find spit that lasted for over a hundred years, underground (pretty slim chances, unless our spitter drank lots and lots of orange juice) 
Imagine the circus surrounding an exhumation, although I agree that it would be interesting, and arguably disrespectful. Myself, if it happened, I'd like to see forensic artists produce busts of the victims. It wouldn't shed any light on the case, but I think it would be nice to have an image of these women (those whose remains are retrievable) outside of the morgue. Imagine being able to see MJK's face unhacked.
And you might be able to extract DNA from the bones, especially from Kate Eddowes, should one of those kidney slides ever turn up again.
Cheers,
David
PS Do you really think Barnett would've spat on MJK's coffin, even while he knew the police were checking him out? I guess it's an unanswerable question, but it's just a thought I had. |
Author: richard nunweek
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 01:09 pm | | Thanks everybody for those comments!
I am only going word from word from Dan Farsons witness, who stated 'One man STAYED BEHIND'. Obviously onlookers would of been close by, but one has got to sometimes accept the report as it is stated, and not try to make excuses.
One other mention,although only hearsay, BARNETT in later life was reputed to of said "i always felt sorry for her killer as he could never come forward for fear of being topped". A very strange statement because he was implying he either was the killer or knew the killer wasnt JTR.
The trouble with the case of the ripper is that everybody goes up the same route,then has to revert back to the beginning because its a dead end. If one could accept the MJK case as being a copycat killing, then the last ripper killing would of been on the 30th sept. Everybody researching to date has scanned asylums for inmates after Nov 9th. If research could start from 30th Sept some new suspects could well arise.
Just a thought
Richard |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 03:46 pm | | Richard, where did you find that piece of information on Barnett saying he felt sorry for Mary's killer?. Of course he would have been topped, or put in an asylum for life!. I didn't think anyone knew anything of Barnett after the inquest. Your information certainly sounds interesting.
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 03:54 pm | | Richard, it seems you got your info from Farsons Guide to the British, if so excuse me for being dumb. Rick
I don't have that book. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 08 July 2002 - 06:23 pm | | G'day,
Bruce Paley doesn't actually say in his book where Barnett was buried, but says that he and Louisa were still living at '106 Red Lion Street, Shadwell'. Can this be a clue? What's the nearest cemetary?
LEANNE |
Author: richard nunweek
Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 02:01 pm | | Rick, Farsons guide the to the british was not infact a book, but two half hour programmes in 1959 on television.
Forgive me for being ignorant but i have so much literature that i will have to research into where the Barnett statement came from. I have a feeling it was from Barnetts nephew, who remembered him saying it whilst alive.
I must stress this is probably hearsay but it would imply he either knew that her killer was not connected to JTR or he was the killer.
If MJK was killed by someone else than JTR, say in a rage over money or such, he would have merely left the room and never seen again. But if she had been killed by someone who the police might want to interview, like a live in partner, the safest way for her murder would be to copy JTR methods. This would have seemed the safest way of avoiding detection.
Richard |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 09:00 pm | | Hello Richard, Thanks for the post which I found very interesting, and I agree with your thoughts on who could have killed Kelly. Everything points to Kelly being murdered by someone who knew her very well, and she him. As regards what Barnett is reputed to have said about the murder, it could have blown part of the mystery open if he had mentioned anything at all about what happened to a certain missing human heart
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 09:19 pm | | | I've always regarded that bit of information uncovered by Steven Knight as quite interesting, a nun who as a novice knew another old nun who lived in Providence Row in 1888, the old nun stated, "if it had not been for the Kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened!! |
Author: richard nunweek
Friday, 12 July 2002 - 07:40 am | | Rick,
You are obviously on the same wavelength as myself when suggesting Barnet may have killed MJK. I am not suggesting that he was the ripper, as the ripper killings seemed to slow down after the 30th September, I believe we should be searching for suspects that were 'out of action' from that period.
Interesting point - MJK told Barnet she had no contact with her family, yet weeks leading up to her death she received letters from supposingly her mother. Her brother also visited her (so it is claimed by Barnet). It seems to be acurate because he knew what regiment he was in and where he was barracked. Also there has never been any explanation about a possibility of a young boy living with her at some period. According to Police reports she had two children?
Barnet said later to the press "She had a boy of six or seven staying with her". I wonder if this was while Barnet was living with her or since he walked out. Either MJK contacted her family in an effort to win back their affections, as it appeared she was disastified with her plight, or somehow they had traced her.
There is an article published shortly after MJK's death in the Western Mail, that a witness believed he had saw Kelly in London some weeks previous. This person was a friend of the dead women's father. Kelly was supposed to have run across the street and addressed him in welsh. MJK was said to of spoken Gaelic. The only problem being this was an Abigail Kelly, who was supposed to have been living in Kansas City,U.S.A, with her husband William Muir, and her two children. However, this would not be the case if this witness saw her in London.
I believe Kelly had a lot happen to her leading up to her death. The night she died she had been drinking some days past and was feeling unwell. On the morning of the 9th Nov, Barnet visited her, she because of her condition told him a few truths. Such as she couldnt stand him, she was going back to her mother, and in a fit of desperation he struck her and unwittingly killed her. Believing that the police would interegate him, he decided to copycat the rippers methods, which he knew all about having read all details to MJK. Thus hoping the police would not suspect anything else but a ripper killing.
Long correspondance but hopefully interesting.
Richard |
|
|
|
|
