the key

[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

[Heinrich]

....
"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."

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.

They may well have thought they HAD a case - but no means to pursue it.

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

But if they had held such a belief, then Barnett would not have been let loose after just the one interrogation, I think.

You don't say, Fisherman.

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.

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

... 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.

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.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It was a very dark corner of Mitre Square, Fisherman."

It was, yes. But that was not what you said, was it? You claimed that it was "extremely" dark. And the only existing extreme darkness is when no light at all is around. This was not nearly the case in Mitre Square.

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. It is however not very useful when trying to study a case in an unaffected and scientific manner.
If we can manage to name things by their correct names - like "very dark", for example - we will gain a better debate.

"I'd be truly amazed if anyone really wanted to waste time refuting that obvious reality."

So would I - and I never did, did I?

"It was probably more dark than Kelly's room, which probably hat a fire lit. When Mary Cox observed that there was no light in the room at 3.00am, she probably meant that the candle and/or fire had been extinguished from earlier, i.e. 1.00am."

That´s two "probablies" and one wishful thinking, Ben. Cox said that there was no light coming from Kellys room, not that the candle had been put out. We do not know when the fire in the room was lit, all probablies aside, and therefore we cannot tell if it played any role as the murder occurred. We only have the information that no light was coming from Kelly´s room at 3 AM, and a lively fire would certainly have produced much more light than the candle. Consequently, it would seem that the fire was not lit, or only smouldering, at 3 AM. And if Kelly was killed closer to 4 AM, then it could well have taken place in the darkest Ripper venue. I will not say that this is "probable", since I think that at least I lack the full knowledge - but I will say that the possibility is a very obvious one.

"But as I've already observed, there are several "shortcomings" associated with the premise that Kelly let her killer in, and they outnumber the objections to the "intruder" premise, as far as I'm concerned."

Then we are concerned by wildly differing things.

The best,
Fisherman