the key

[curious]

Hi, Phil,
Yes, the recurring red scarves were discussed on a clothing thread that I believe AusGirl started.

Hello C-4!

Hello C!

You could argue that Kelly´s handerchief was the "new" thing - have often thought that it was significant that she spoke of losing her handerchief and being given a new one.

Frankly that exchange as reported by Hutchinson sounds like today's spy movies, where she says an innocent-sounding line as:

"I lost my handkerchief."

To which a person who knows the code will then whip out a red hanky and wave it about . . . .

Could not have been plainer. Now, whether that's anywhere near the truth, if it even happened . . . who knows?

I don't see the handkerchief as a mysterious something new, because we know where she got it (if Hutchinson can be believed), if but perhaps I should have because if they all came from one person . . . . well you see where that leads.

Liz stride wasn´t that hard up and Annie was reputed to have bought her rings from "a black man" - (more evidence, perhaps, that she was of mixed blood, hence Dark Annie?) and had had them, it seems, some time - long enough for them to leave marks when removed.

Didn´t Polly have a new linsey dress, seemingly a charitable gift, as was probably her jolly bonnet?

Best wishes,
C4[/QUOTE]

actually I have seen speculation that Polly, being Polly, might have stolen her bonnet. The linsey dress -- wasn't it marked from a workhouse? I should look that up, but I'm afraid this will time out and I'll lose this post.

best,
curious

[curious]

Phil,
I worked on this early today but it would not post. Let's hope the system works better now.
[QUOTE=Phil H;188141]
My position is this: unless a theory is solidly founded on FACTS and EVIDENCE and there is a linking thread of logical argument, it is worthless except as idle speculation.
I don't know what you consider as "promoting" the ideas. I mention them here on Casebook to get other people's opinions, pro and con, because two and three brains brainstorming might produce something useful or completely rule the idea out. I see that as exploring an idea.

my approach is to keep several possible theories in view at every moment, against which I can compare any new ideas, interpretations or scraps of evidence (say a newspaper report) which appears on Casebook or in a new book/article.

Exactly. But not in view for every moment for me, my "file cabinet" of a brain allows me to put them away and pull out when needed.

As with Lechmere/Cross in another thread, one of my current aims is not to have potentially valuable "suspects" ruled out prematurely

Agreed, but their names do not need to be totally blackened without actual proof and there is precious little of that in this case

Also (sometimes at least) to offer an alternative to those who sift the evidence solely by its relevance to their personal "master theory" and seek to influence others/attach and deride useful material for their own personal and prejudiced ends.

My mind doesn't work like that, but those people do irritate me

Ausgirl - the "reality" of Astrakhan man is questioned so the red handkerchief may be a myth.

Phil, she knew that.

Nichols had her jolly bonnet - so did Coles (I think it was her?) the old one being pinned under her dress. Does that fact make her an undeniable JtR victim in your view?

Come on, Phil, have I ever said anything was undeniable? Not undeniable, but the new bonnet is very interesting. However, I started studying just the canonical five to keep the case manageable in my head


Annie had her "recently acquired" rings where do you get the information that they were "recently acquired"? I suppose the "polished coins" would have been argued at some point had the idea not been roundly disproved now.

On Casebook, under victims, down under a list of her items, I quote: "Had three recently acquired brass rings on her middle finger (missing after the murder)" I'm aware the coins appear to have been disproved

Eddowes had a red leather, white metal cigarette case I think this may not have been as valuable as you believe. The description I have seen suggests it was old, worn and something she might have picked up to put things in, like her other tin box.

Perhaps. I have not seen that description do you know where it comes from? and maybe instead of "new" the items were "new to them"


Even if each woman did have something "new" would that link them? Surely, we can all be said to acquire something almost every day, but there are many reasons for doing so.

We do acquire much "stuff" in today's world, but I suspect their lives were very different. But if you were investigating a series of murders and the victims all had something new when they could not even buy food, would you not attempt to see if they were connected? If they came from the same source . . . well, you can see how that connection might be important, right?

Poor though these woman are, the fact remains that they had to clothe themselves somehow (second hand, hand-me-downs etc) and a hat/bonnet was a necessary item of dress for a woman (and a man) in 1888.

Not necessary. Polly apparently did not have one until the day of her death. Ditto, Mary Kelly, who apparently went out wearing her black velvet jacket and Maria Harvey's bonnet. So they were not necessary, just highly desirable

Another link is the absence on any of the victims of any money - even though some might have been expected to have some.

Exactly, but could following that line of thinking lead to the murderer? Tracing backward on new items might

The question is, is this fact relevent or a red-herring? can we even hazard an answer?

How can we know -- unless we do explore?

[Abby Normal]

how funny. Nope, no virgin brides, I promise -- at least not in this case. And this is a Barnett thread, but here goes anyway, since this thread was highjacked long ago.

Nichols had her jolly bonnet.
Annie had her "recently acquired" rings.
Liz Stride had the green velvet she asked a friend to keep for her, plus the flower (she also had money so could possibly have purchased it, but perhaps got a "really good deal" on it)
Eddowes had a red leather, white metal cigarette case (why pawn John's shoes if she had something like this that would probably have been worth more? So maybe she did not have the case when they were pawning the shoes, and the case was "recently acquired" as well)

I don't know of anything new Kelly had.

curious

Hi Curious
What is the relationship between your theory and the victims having something new? What is your theory?

Is it that they are all connected by the murderer( a pimp perhaps or new "boyfriend"?) giving them something new?

I'm interested in what your thinking-please clear it up for me.

[curious4]

New things

Hello C!

You could argue that Kelly´s handerchief was the "new" thing - have often thought that it was significant that she spoke of losing her handerchief and being given a new one.

Liz stride wasn´t that hard up and Annie was reputed to have bought her rings from "a black man" - (more evidence, perhaps, that she was of mixed blood, hence Dark Annie?) and had had them, it seems, some time - long enough for them to leave marks when removed. Didn´t Polly have a new linsey dress, seemingly a charitable gift, as was probably her jolly bonnet?

Best wishes,
C4

[Phil H]

Red bandanas have been popular for a LONG time. Colour hides dirt and stains, including blood, quite well.

A handkerchief is a handkerchief and unless one is proposing a conspiracy, I don't see the relevance here. (Did this not get discussed in a recent thread on Clothing?)

Phil

[curious]

curious - in order to derail this thread properly, one ought to point out that Mary had the red silk scarf given to her by Astrakhan.

I deliberately omitted that because we know where it came from

then, of course, there is the thread of red kerchiefs that runs through this case -- coincidence?

[Phil H]

Curious
I spend quite a lot of time on historical mysteries "thinking the unthinkable" - that is, trying to envisage off the wall explanations for things like "Who killed the princes in the Tower?"; "Who was the Man in the Iron Mask?" as well as JtR. But I would never promote those ideas - except perhaps en passant to illustrate a point.

My position is this: unless a theory is solidly founded on FACTS and EVIDENCE and there is a linking thread of logical argument, it is worthless except as idle speculation.

We have to accept surely that we probably will never identify JtR, the killer of MJK (if different) etc etc. At least we will not without an injection either of new material or a major "find" relating to an individual. Such things exist - that is clear from the marginalia, the Littlechild letter etc.

Hence my approach is to keep several possible theories in view at every moment, against which I can compare any new ideas, interpretations or scraps of evidence (say a newspaper report) which appears on Casebook or in a new book/article.

As with Lechmere/Cross in another thread, one of my current aims is not to have potentially valuable "suspects" ruled out prematurely and for less than good reasons. Also (sometimes at least) to offer an alternative to those who sift the evidence solely by its relevance to their personal "master theory" and seek to influence others/attach and deride useful material for their own personal and prejudiced ends.

That's the end of my "credo" or apologia.

On the "something new" point:

Ausgirl - the "reality" of Astrakhan man is questioned so the red handkerchief may be a myth.

Nichols had her jolly bonnet - so did Coles (I think it was her?) the old one being pinned under her dress. Does that fact make her an undeniable JtR victim in your view?

Curious:

Annie had her "recently acquired" rings - where do you get the information that they were "recently acquired"? I suppose the "polished coins" would have been argued at some point had the idea not been roundly disproved now.

Liz Stride had the green velvet she asked a friend to keep for her, plus the flower (she also had money so could possibly have purchased it, but perhaps got a "really good deal" on it) - We know Stride was almost certainly "on a date" - it is recorded that she took particular care of her appearance that night.

Eddowes had a red leather, white metal cigarette case - I think this may not have been as valuable as you believe. The description I have seen suggests it was old, worn and something she might have picked up to put things in, like her other tin box.

Even if each woman did have something "new" would that link them? Surely, we can all be said to acquire something almost every day, but there are many reasons for doing so.

Poor though these woman are, the fact remains that they had to clothe themselves somehow (second hand, hand-me-downs etc) and a hat/bonnet was a necessary item of dress for a woman (and a man) in 1888.

Another link is the absence on any of the victims of any money - even though some might have been expected to have some.

The question is, is this fact relevent or a red-herring? can we even hazard an answer?

Phil

[Ausgirl]

All we can be sure of is that he tried and failed to control Mary Kelly.

We can be sure that Kelly did not comply with some very basic and very understandable requests.

We can be sure Barnett did not turf her out of the house and into the streets. Or beat her black and blue before he went.

Joseph Barnett knew all about Mary Kelly before he decided to live with her.

Did he?

[Heinrich]

...
sociopathic control freak

The word "freak" goes beyond the evidence, Ausgirl, as it suggests Joseph Barnett liked to control every person or every woman in his circle and we cannot say as much. All we can be sure of is that he tried and failed to control Mary Kelly.

... slaughter his common law wife, set up an alibi, and then blithely speak lie upon lie to police immediately after.

Sociopaths are capable of killing without compunction and have a facility to lie with ease. At the same time, Joseph Barnett, like many sociopaths, can be caught-out by contradictions in his version of events. For example, his claim that he and Mary Kelly were always able to be on the best of terms after their rows does not square with him moving out of 13 Miller's Court after one such disagreement.

You're pasting modern feminism over entrenched Victorian social mores, which to me seems an ill fit. The man was, ideally, the head of the house, the end.

Whatever about your view of all Victorian women, Ausgirl, I am sure you are underestimating Mary Kelly's independence and her strength to deny Joseph Barnett control over her. She paid with her life for taking such a stand and has earned our respect for exercising such courage.

I'm sorry, I don't see any proof at all of sociopathy.

By definition, the unspeakable manner in which Mary Kelly was killed and mutilated proves her killer lacked social empathy.
Sociopaths are accomplished at gaining the trust of others and are marked by an ability to manipulate. Joseph Barnett did this well enough to finagle his way into Mary Kelly's life and equally slip away from the Metropolitan Police after only four hours at the station.

As to his reading her the stories: what's to say that she didn't want them read to her? Perhaps she couldn't read?

If you rely entirely on the testimony and statements of Joseph Barnett (which I wouldn't), Mary Kelly was illiterate and he read the newspaper (apparently only about the Whitechapel murders if you are to go by him). This is contradicted by her landlord, John McCarthy, who claimed she received irregular letters from Ireland.

... But to make him [Joseph Barnett] appear to be guilty - it seems to me at this point - requires a deal too many suppositions and stretching of the available information to fit.

I see it differently, preferring, as I do, to be persuaded by the weight of evidence against Joseph Barnett.

...
Your view of the Met is your own, and I don't really care whether you agree with me.

Don't be like that, Phil; I need your approval.

... BUT that we now need to look again carefully at him as an individual, hence my emphasis should be on why he is a suspect.

Fair enough.

I do NOT for a moment believe or contend that Barnett was JtR. I believe he should not be dismissed as a possible murderer of MJK, for the reasons I have given.

I do not accept that the other Whilechapel victims were all murdered by one and the same man although there is a need to rule out that possibility. That matter is open for discussion.

... Surely the "evidence" against Joe is entirely circumstantial as many posters here on Casebook have pointed out.

I am not a lawyer, Phil, yet I submit that we have no hope of identifying Mary Kelly's murderer if we strike-down as worthless all circumstantial evidence because there is an absence of direct evidence. We have no witness who saw Joseph Barnett murdering Mary Kelly and he made no such confession. We are restricted to circumstantial evidence and whether or not we believe a jury would be persuaded by that.

I would also suggest that there are too many uncertainties about the death of Kelly to make absolute statements (timing, her movements, the lock, the fire even whether the body was that of MJK).

While I agree that our study of Mary Kelly's murder is hampered by all sorts of extraneous claims from sightings of her after she was murdered to bizarre red herrings about phantom shady Jewish-looking or blotchy-faced men, another loitering around for hours spying on her, and what have you. Discounting the unsubstantiated balderdash, however, we can infer conclusions with some degree of confidence. For example, in keeping with this thread's title, the lock was most likely the type I wrote about earlier and illustrated with a photograph. Given the state of the corpse and the medical testimony of the period as to the time of death, although not foolproof, we can dismiss claims that Mary Kelly was out and about in broad daylight even as late as 10 a.m., forty-five minutes before the corpse was discovered. On the other hand, you would be hard pressed to claim that the mutilated body was not Mary Kelly. I believe Joseph Barnett does incriminate himself by admitting to his failed attempts to control Mary Kelly, their rows, his presence with her on the night of the murder, his recent break-up with her, and so on.

I think trying to pin blame on an individual for anything in the JtR case, given our present knowledge, lost evidence/files, the lapse of time etc etc is "neither big nor clever" as they say! We should surely have grown out of that.

You make me ashamed for wanting to identify Mary Kelly's killer, Phil.

The issues here are, to my mind, to establish whether MJK was a victim of JtR - as was almost universally argued and accepted for decades; or whether she was a one-off "domestic.

That is certainly an issue.

I would nominate three (like Melville Macnaghten) as possible candidates - Joe Barnett, Joe Fleming and Joe's brother, Dan.

Of the three you mention, only Joseph Barnett was mentioned as a visitor and seen there on the night of the murder, only Joseph Barnett cohabited with Mary Kelly at 13 Miller's Court, only Joseph Barnett had broken-up with her not many days before, and only Joseph Barnett had had a seriees of rows with Mary Kelly.

I repeat, therefore, that I don't claim, allege or aver that Barnett killed MJK, I don't want to see him ruled out at this stage.
Hope this explains my position ...

It certainly does, Phil.

Well neither do men deserve 'patronizing approval' from any woman about their work or friends..
but if my husband decided to become a drug dealer and started hanging out with other drug dealers in the pub all day..and then had them sleeping in house (let alone my bedroom), I think that I'd soon have something to shout about and a few ultimatums to offer..
What's the difference ?

Had you married a man you already knew to be a drug dealer who associated with other dealers, you would have nothing to complain about except your own choice in men, Rubyretro. Joseph Barnett knew all about Mary Kelly before he decided to live with her.

...
I'm not quite sure how the police could have protected Mary Kelly.

I am not a policeman, c.d., but I know the police are supposed to protect people from murderers.

You condemn the Whitechapel police for failing to catch the killer.

And yes, they are supposed to solve crimes. I would not want to live in a town where the police were unreliable, inefficient, or brutal.

I have at the back of my mind a sort of "fantasy" - I wouldn't call it a theory - that MJK (a nom de guerre?) might have been involved in some sort of Fenian shenannigins ... the possibility that the Rumbelow knife was linked to the Phoenix Park murders;

There was no knife found at the Mary Kelly murder scene.

her impenetrable past as apparently vouchsafed to Joe Barnett;

We are not at liberty to fabricate elaborate stories on the basis of little known history of Mary Kelly.

the presence of Irish Constabulary officers at the scene soon after the murder

She was, after all, from Ireland and members of the Royal Irish Constabulary would want to know. Their presence was consistent their job to keep tabs on all Irish people, no less in the event of a murder.

[Ausgirl]

I don't know of anything new Kelly had.

curious - in order to derail this thread properly, one ought to point out that Mary had the red silk scarf given to her by Astrakhan.

[curious]

I could weave similar concoctions around Polly Nichols' new bonnet. But would not. It is a waste of time.

Phil

Phil, you and I differ on what is a waste of time. How would your concoction weave with the other victims?

The tried-and-the-not-proven-to-be-true that has been examined every way from Sunday has not yielded results in over 100 years. Why would you insist on continuing with the same old thing?

Looking at something new, from a different angle might make all the difference. If there are truly any new angles to examine or imagine at this stage.

I like "tumbling" new ideas around in my head. Some, when examined every way I can imagine to do so, simply don't work, others seem to offer real possibilities.

I have a difficult time with people who are so positive that they and only they have the answer when NOTHING about this case has been proven and sometimes their arguments appear to me to be so . . . . well, I'll be kind and not say . . . stupid.

Of course, some of the ideas I have tumbled around in my head and on the boards likely appear stupid to others.

oh, well.

[curious]

Please list what you consider the "something new" - the victims will all soon be virgin brides at this rate!!

Phil

how funny. Nope, no virgin brides, I promise -- at least not in this case. And this is a Barnett thread, but here goes anyway, since this thread was highjacked long ago.

Nichols had her jolly bonnet.
Annie had her "recently acquired" rings.
Liz Stride had the green velvet she asked a friend to keep for her, plus the flower (she also had money so could possibly have purchased it, but perhaps got a "really good deal" on it)
Eddowes had a red leather, white metal cigarette case (why pawn John's shoes if she had something like this that would probably have been worth more? So maybe she did not have the case when they were pawning the shoes, and the case was "recently acquired" as well)

I don't know of anything new Kelly had.

curious

[Phil H]

Please list what you consider the "something new" - the victims will all soon be virgin brides at this rate!!

Phil

[curious]

oh, and since you mentioned Polly Nichols' new bonnet. Actually, there is a thread, or wide band, that runs through this entire case of all the victims having something new. Women too destitute to put a roof over their heads all have something new.

Surely, the authorities checked on that. It is a huge coincidence. Arguably, too big to be a coincidence. Or maybe we should not believe in too many coincidences.

[curious]

While all your ideas are "possible" there is not a shred of evidence to support any of them.

I could weave similar concoctions around Polly Nichols' new bonnet. But would not. It is a waste of time.

Generations of afficianados have discussed whether MJK was a victim of JtR. A domestic scenario should not be ruled out in any case unless with VERY good grounds. So those - with the fenian possibility in the dim and distant background, are my pair of scaenarios.

I think I'll stick with them notwithstanding your evident ingenuity!!

Phil

I actually agree with that – at this time. But that doesn't mean that once an idea has occurred to me that I won't go through things with a careful eye to see if anything supports the possibility. Perhaps the reason the case(s) remain unsolved is that the right theory has not yet presented itself. I know, hard to believe that after 120+ years there COULD be a new idea that has been unexplored.