the key

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Please don’t whinge at me, Fisherman. It’s most irritating. You are the one exaggerating the extent of darkness in Kelly’s room in an unsuccessful attempt to make the “intruder” premise appear less plausible."

I would have thought that such a thing would take some proving, Ben. For all I know, we do not have any recordings about when the fire was lit or not. We only know that her room did not emmitt any light at 3 AM, and I think that calling it a certain thing that it would have been burning as the killer leaped into action (and we don´t know this time either) would be rather a hazarduous thing to do. But you seem to have magical access to much more information than the rest of us, so what do I know?

"In order for the room to have been in near-total darkness, the fire would need have been wholly extinguished or not even lit, and the chances of this being the case are wildly remote."

Maiking a long answer short: no.

"It was a very cold night in a small room – Kelly obviously lit the fire, and equally obviously, it contributed to the “light” referred to by Mary Cox as having been present at 1.00am."

Did you not just tell me that Cox was referring to the candle only?

"This had obviously died down considerably by 3.00am, and may have been “refuelled” by the killer."

It had in fact died down to the point of emitting no light through the windows as Cox checked for it. That is not exactly a roaring fire we seem to be speaking of, is it? And if the killing came about around 45 minutes later or so - which a good deal speaks for - then it would have emmitted even less light at that stage. It would, so to speak, go from emitting no light to emitting even less light. "Wildly remote" though it may sound, that is what happens to fires dying down - they emitt lesser and lesser light throughout the process.

Of course, just like you say, the killer may have refuelled the fire. But if he was an intruder, I find the suggestion that he started out his raid by adding sticks and clothing to the fire, blowing upon it to make it catch on, before he started searcing for Kelly, rather an odd thing.
And if he did not do exactly that, we are STILL faced with a scenario where he may have had to negotiate a pitch-dark room from the outset, looking for the fireplace - to begin with.

"If all you can do in response make a semantic fuss over the distinction between “very” and “extremely”, you’re wasting your own time."

Maybe I am - but I was rather hoping I did not. I was somehow hoping that you would realize that "extremely dark" means that we are talking about the furthermost value of darkness - the absense of any light, as it were - whereas "very dark" includes at least some sort of visibility. In the Mitre Square case, I believe that the visibility was not all that low. The killer would not have needed a blind man´s cane to prod around. So it was not extremely dark at all.

If we stick with a sensible vocabulary, avoiding the unneccesary "extremelies" and "wildly remotes" we will gain a better understanding. How interesting such an offer is to you, is however not for me to answer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Absolutely, Abby.

I also wonder if the light outside room #1 (occupied by Julia Vanturney and directly opposite Kelly's room) might have provided temporary illumination for the killer as he opened the door, enabling him to register the location of Kelly, the bed, furniture etc.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Please don’t whinge at me, Fisherman. It’s most irritating. You are the one exaggerating the extent of darkness in Kelly’s room in an unsuccessful attempt to make the “intruder” premise appear less plausible. In order for the room to have been in near-total darkness, the fire would need have been wholly extinguished or not even lit, and the chances of this being the case are wildly remote. It was a very cold night in a small room – Kelly obviously lit the fire, and equally obviously, it contributed to the “light” referred to by Mary Cox as having been present at 1.00am. This had obviously died down considerably by 3.00am, and may have been “refuelled” by the killer.

If all you can do in response make a semantic fuss over the distinction between “very” and “extremely”, you’re wasting your own time.

Hi Ben

In order for the room to have been in near-total darkness, the fire would need have been wholly extinguished or not even lit, and the chances of this being the case are wildly remote. It was a very cold night in a small room – Kelly obviously lit the fire, and equally obviously, it contributed to the “light” referred to by Mary Cox as having been present at 1.00am. This had obviously died down considerably by 3.00am, and may have been “refuelled” by the killer.

Totally agree. From much personal experience I know that a died down fire with even only a few embers smouldering/glowing will provide enough light in an otherwise darkened room at night to be able to see in the room.

And I imagine if her killer, after reaching his hand in the broken window to push back the coat and peering inside(giving his eyes a few minutes to adjust to the level of light in her room) was able to see the coast was clear and mary was passed out on her bed.

Also, i have tried to many times reconcile the chain of events of-the light being seen then not seen and then the burnt clothes found the next morning and after reading your above post it seems pretty clear that what you state is probably what happened.

[Ben]

Hi Lynn,

“Would you happen to know if that has been definitively resolved?”

If memory serves, the other man was Edward Joseph Fleming, a “boot finisher” who can be placed in the Bethnal Green workhouse at the time of the murders. His parents were George and Sarah.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I often point out passages where I feel you are exaggerating matters, Ben. You do so time and time again, and I guess it´s part of your rethorics.

Please don’t whinge at me, Fisherman. It’s most irritating. You are the one exaggerating the extent of darkness in Kelly’s room in an unsuccessful attempt to make the “intruder” premise appear less plausible. In order for the room to have been in near-total darkness, the fire would need have been wholly extinguished or not even lit, and the chances of this being the case are wildly remote. It was a very cold night in a small room – Kelly obviously lit the fire, and equally obviously, it contributed to the “light” referred to by Mary Cox as having been present at 1.00am. This had obviously died down considerably by 3.00am, and may have been “refuelled” by the killer.

If all you can do in response make a semantic fuss over the distinction between “very” and “extremely”, you’re wasting your own time.

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"It is you who claim that they could not link him to that address."

I do? I claim that the police did not linkk Barnett to No 13 Miller´s Court? Well, shame on me!

Or you?

"You are mistaken, Fisherman."

Yes, many times. But not here.

"It would be conjecture to give a reason why the coroner is recorded in the newspaper for having thanked Joseph Barnett. It could be because he had been the first witness or that his mannerly excusing was not recorded for subsequent witnesses."

Yeah, sure. This time, and this time only, this coroner, and this coroner only in the whole Ripper case told a witness that he had given his evidence well indeed.

That sound very plausible. Or Heinrichable.

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

....
"Part of the record of police incompetence is the notion that Barnett could not be linked with 13 Millers Court. The man himself admitted to being the last person seen with Mary Kelly on the night of the murder in the very dwelling he had shared with her until no more than 10 days previously."

You think the police missed that...?

It looks that way. It is you who claim that they could not link him to that address.

"Cases don't drop in your lap normally but have to be made through proper police investigation."

You think the police missed that...?

It looks that way.

People the police cannot clear, they keep working on, people they CAN clear - end of story.

You are mistaken, Fisherman. The story ends when the police make an arrest and the prosecution secures a conviction.

Only towards Barnett [the coroner's thanks], though - not towards a single one of the other witnesses. Now, why would that be?

It would be conjecture to give a reason why the coroner is recorded in the newspaper for having thanked Joseph Barnett. It could be because he had been the first witness or that his mannerly excusing was not recorded for subsequent witnesses.
One conclusion that cannot be made is your one, Fisherman, that the coroner was somehow declaring Joseph Barnett to be innocent of the murder.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Just out of curiosity, was there ever a single statement made by any policeman or person in authority who believed Barnett was the man? Any statement, by anyone at any time? Ever?"

Contemporarily, you mean? Not that I know of, no. But you can be sure that they were very aware about the need to check him out. And the checkout would have lain behind the total lack of contemporary accusations.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Heinrich.

"Part of the record of police incompetence is the notion that Barnett could not be linked with 13 Millers Court. The man himself admitted to being the last person seen with Mary Kelly on the night of the murder in the very dwelling he had shared with her until no more than 10 days previously."

You think the police missed that...?

"Cases don't drop in your lap normally but have to be made through proper police investigation."

You think the police missed that...?

"You don't say, Fisherman."

I do, actually. That´s the way it goes. People the police cannot clear, they keep working on, people they CAN clear - end of story.

"The Metropolitan Police could easily have made a case against Joseph Barnett. That they didn't is mystifying."

..or very easy to grasp. See my previous answer.

"It is not the responsibility of a coroner to identify a murderer and it is a mistake to confuse courtesy with a verdict of innocence. No significance can be put on thanking the first witness at an inquest for answering all questions (even incriminating himself with some responses) other than that the coroner had manners."

Only towards Barnett, though - not towards a single one of the other witnesses. Now, why would that be?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"While Ed Gingerich badly mutilated his wife’s body the murder and mutilation was part of a longer term mental breakdown – the nature of which is absent in the case Fleming. The Gingerich case is a very particular case. I am shocked to read that he was released after I think only 5 years."

Fleming was incarcerated in 1892. I think it will be hard for us to establish whether his problems were manifesting themselves to some degree already in 1888. And every case will be specific. Of course, if the Ripper was of the exact same mould as Gingerich, then yes, it would seem strange that he stayed on the outside for another four years, but I don´t think that we can draw such a deduction from it all.

At any rate, the Gingerich case is, just like you say, very particular. I can think of no other killing that echoes the Kelly deed in such a chilling fashion.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

question

Hello Ben.

"There can be little doubt that the mason's plasterer Joseph Fleming from Bethnal Green - located in the census records, son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming, mental patient and alias James Evans - was Joseph Fleming the mason's plasterer from Bethnal Green who knew Kelly."

I agree and my sense is that this is the consensus opinion. Nevertheless, I recall (or seem to recall) a bit of chat a few months back regarding an alternate candidate. Would you happen to know if that has been definitively resolved?

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

And you know this how?

Earlier in the thread I made the case as to Joseph Barnett's motive, means, and opportunity, Curious.
Barnett's own testimony at the inquest and his initial statement to the police is what incriminates him most.

[curious]

The Metropolitan Police could easily have made a case against Joseph Barnett. That they didn't is mystifying.

And you know this how?

Curious

[harry]

A lot of things could have happened,creaking floor board,hinge on the door etc,and she could have been awoken.Well yes they could,and she could have,but there was always the potential for him to leave quickly,back through the door,but the fact that the murder did take place,regardless of what could or did happen,that suggests that if anything untoward did happen it was ignored,both by victim and killer.As to the darkness in the room,Fisherman himself claims it is never totally dark,that light,however dim will seep through,and that eyesight will gradually adapt.So even if it had been too dark on entering to act immediately,with the victim asleep and remaining so,the killer could afford to wait.How long would that be?Well not too long.I tested myself in a room that had three coverings.Curtains and roll up blind on the inside of the only window,and a canvas awning on the outside.On dousing the light,the initial darkness was such that I could not see my hand inches from my face.When my sight had adapted enough to allow the bed and a person in it to be vaguely visible,only five minutes had elapsed.Would the killer have waited five minutes?Ten minutes?Well I think he would if the victim slept on.As to a killer in bed with her would have a a better chance of subdueing the victim,he might,but in the case of something going wrong,he would be somewhat hampered by having to get dressed before fleeing,unless he went into her bed with clothes on,and what chances on that?

[curious]

Hatchett:

"Having a water tight alibi or not having a water tight alibi again is practically irrelevent. If the Police had nothing to actually link Barnett with that room at that time of death then they had no case."

They may well have thought they HAD a case - but no means to pursue it. But if they had held such a belief, then Barnett would not have been let loose after just the one interrogation, I think. If the police felt he was connected to the killing, he would have been pulled in over and over again, and the pressure would have been piled on, big time.

... and the coroner would not have told him that he had given his evidence well indeed at the inquest. There would have been no compassion for Barnett as long as the authorities thought he was their man. Clearly, they didn´t.

The best,
Fisherman

Just out of curiosity, was there ever a single statement made by any policeman or person in authority who believed Barnett was the man? Any statement, by anyone at any time? Ever?

My knowledge in the subject is not complete, and my memory sometimes loses snipets, but I have NO recollection of a single statement that would indicate that anyone believed Barnett to be the culprit but that they were lacking only the evidence to convict.

In the case of other suspects, there was "he was safely caged" or "he was dead" or something to that effect.

I can recall not a single word from anyone to indicate that anyone believed Barnett was guilty but that they lacked evidence to convict.

Have I missed something?

curious