the key

[curious]

Hello Curious,

Like I have said before it does not necessarily follow that Barnett was not charged because he had an air tight alibi, it would have been because the police did not believe that they had the evidence to convict him. If they were attempting to charge him with being Jack the Ripper his alibis for the nights of the previous murders would have been just as important as his one for the Kelly murder.

Another point to take into account is that there is serious concern as to the actual time of death of Kelly. Certainly the murderer would have definately known what time she died.

If the police were asking questions about the wrong time then anyone could create an air tight alibi for a time time when the murder wasnt actually committed.

Best wishes.

Hi, Hatchett,

I realize the difference of airtight alibi vs. not enough to charge. However, there is nothing anywhere that indicates that was even a thought with the police, that Barnett was the killer, but there was not enough to charge him.

I have not seen a single indication of that. Just the opposite, in fact.

I do take into account the time of Kelly's death. Actually, medical evidence has her dying mid-morning. Maxwell seeing Kelly so ill around 8:30 might account for her being undressed and lying down in the middle of the day. However, because Barnett had lived there for 18 months, he would have been so well known that had he been seen in the area during the morning, someone would surely have reported it.

Don't you think there is almost no possibility Barnett could have snuck back in daylight with people about and no one have seen him?

best wishes,

curious

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"Barnett was questioned by detectives (plural) was he not?"

That he was!

"And wouldn't those same detectives have submitted a report?"

That they would!

"So at least more than one person would have had to have dropped the ball big time not to have verified Barnett's alibi."

That´s about it, yes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Greg:

"Yes Fisherman, if MJK was taken in isolation one might suspect an Ed Gingrich type but on the tale of at least 3 similar murders I find it less convincing...."

I used to profess to that belief too. Now, however, I think that believing that all four murders must have had the same incentive if the killer was the same, may be what is standing in the way of understanding the whole series. I will try to make myself a bit clearer, and I will try to keep it short:

A/ Much points to Kelly being slain by somebody she knew; the killing venue in her room, the "cozy" setting, with a lit fire and Kelly undressed, having tucked her clothes away, the fact that it was dreadful night, arguably preventing her from any further excursions after Blotchy etcetera.

B/ Much points to her being slain by the Ripper - the notched vertebrae, the eviscerations, the removal of the flesh flaps over her abdomen etcetera.

C/ Little point to the other murders - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes - being aquaintances of the killer. They seem to be opportunistic killings, with randomly chosen victims.

Now, I think we can safely deduct that the killer was driven by an urge in the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes killings. We can call it lust murders, if we like, or simply speak of something he felt compelled to do. But I don´t think that Kelly is another one of the same! Too much differs, and we must ask ourselves why.

I have in an article for Ripperologist put forward the theory that Joseph Fleming may have been the killer of these women. He moved into the heart of the area where the murders occurred in the late summer or early autumn, and he lived in the Victoria Home, pretty much centering him in it all.

Fleming ended up in an asylum, one of the main reasons being that he had developed delusions of persecution. He was also known to have maltreated Kelly, so we seemingly have a history that may involve violent behaviour against women.

All in all, that is not a bad list of traits, looking for the Ripper.

Now, Greg - assume that Fleming was the Whitechapel killer, and that he killed out of urge/lust. Further assume that the delusions of persecution that got him incarcerated 1892, had already begun to chew away at him in the autumn of 1888. If this was true, then he may have felt that he was persecuted by people who closed in on him more and more. Maybe he felt that it was just a matter of time before he was caught and revealed as the Whitechapel monster.
He would also have known - if it was him - that he had been seen with Eddowes in Church Lane. Maybe now he was convinced that it was just a matter of time before the game was up. And maybe that belief grew stronger and stronger between the Eddowes murder and early November.

So what to do? And, more importantly, how would the woman he loved and who was very fond of him (using Barnett´s own words) react to the information that she had been sharing her life with the Whitechapel killer?

Perhaps in a situation like this, he decided to tell her himself. Perhaps he believed that she would never abandon him, come what may. Maybe she had told him so herself, who can tell - they apparently could not stay away from each other in spite of Kelly staying with Barnett.

This is why I wonder: Did Joe Fleming go to Miller´s Court in the early hours of Friday the 9:th of November 1888, to confess to Mary Kelly that he was the man the police were looking for? Did he climb into the bed with her, hesitating in the longest before he broke the news? And what were his plans? Did he suggest that they should flee together? That they should form a suicide pact?
And did Mary react in the exact opposite way that he was hoping for, becoming outraged and telling that she would never do anything like it?

And was that what brought about the rage?

Did he kill her, annihilate her, try to erase her from the face of earth, throwing the sheet over her face before he could manage to destroy her features? And did he choose the one part of her that had always been what he was after - her heart - as he was done?

And was this why the killings stopped after Kelly - because Joe Fleming was a spent man, slowly slipping down the road to madness, bound for the asylums?

This is a scenario that interests me very much, since it covers most things involved, including the question why the killings stopped. And this is also why I don´t necessarily see the Kelly killing as a lust murder. Lust murderers do not choose the victim´s heart, do they...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I really don't understand why some people are dismissing the "intruder" premise on the basis of the room's "darkness". I might agree that a complete stranger might have trouble immediately locating Kelly within that small room, but this would not have been any obstacle to someone with a passing familiarity with the layout of the room (a previous punter, for instance), especially when aided by the light of a smoldering fire. Bear in mind that the killer had no trouble negotiating the extreme darkness of the corner of Mitre Square where Eddowes was killed."

The corner of Mitre Square was nowhere near "extreme darkness", Ben - it was a very small square (which you frequently point out yourself), and there was a gas lamp burning in the opposite corner. Such things do not bring about any extreme darkness! The corner was the darkest one of the square, yes, but in no way pitch dark. Dutfields yard would have been darker, and room 13, Miller´s court the very darkest venue of them all, if no light source was about in the room.

As for an aquaintance being able to navigate the room better than other people: yes, that is true. Whether there was any smoldering fire or not, we can´t tell. The ones who commented on it said that there was NO light coming from her room at the later stages of the night. Maybe the fire was accompanying Blotchy´s visit, only to fade and die long before the killer came around.

At any rate, all the POTENTIAL shortcomings that relate to an intruder scenario - the POTENTIAL darkness, the POTENTIALLY creaking floorboards, the POTENTIALLY creaking hinges on the door, the POTENTIAL waking up of Kelly, the POTENTIAL falling over a ginger beer bottle on the floor, the POTENTIAL you name it - are not there if we work from the suggestion that Kelly let her killer in volunteerly.

And potential nuisances are also nuisances.

The best,
Fisherman

[GregBaron]

Uterus, kidney, heart...

I used to profess to that belief too. Now, however, I think that believing that all four murders must have had the same incentive if the killer was the same, may be what is standing in the way of understanding the whole series. I will try to make myself a bit clearer, and I will try to keep it short:

A/ Much points to Kelly being slain by somebody she knew; the killing venue in her room, the "cozy" setting, with a lit fire and Kelly undressed, having tucked her clothes away, the fact that it was dreadful night, arguably preventing her from any further excursions after Blotchy etcetera.

B/ Much points to her being slain by the Ripper - the notched vertebrae, the eviscerations, the removal of the flesh flaps over her abdomen etcetera.

C/ Little point to the other murders - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes - being aquaintances of the killer. They seem to be opportunistic killings, with randomly chosen victims.

Now, I think we can safely deduct that the killer was driven by an urge in the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes killings. We can call it lust murders, if we like, or simply speak of something he felt compelled to do. But I don´t think that Kelly is another one of the same! Too much differs, and we must ask ourselves why.

I have in an article for Ripperologist put forward the theory that Joseph Fleming may have been the killer of these women. He moved into the heart of the area where the murders occurred in the late summer or early autumn, and he lived in the Victoria Home, pretty much centering him in it all.

Fleming ended up in an asylum, one of the main reasons being that he had developed delusions of persecution. He was also known to have maltreated Kelly, so we seemingly have a history that may involve violent behaviour against women.

All in all, that is not a bad list of traits, looking for the Ripper.

Now, Greg - assume that Fleming was the Whitechapel killer, and that he killed out of urge/lust. Further assume that the delusions of persecution that got him incarcerated 1892, had already begun to chew away at him in the autumn of 1888. If this was true, then he may have felt that he was persecuted by people who closed in on him more and more. Maybe he felt that it was just a matter of time before he was caught and revealed as the Whitechapel monster.
He would also have known - if it was him - that he had been seen with Eddowes in Church Lane. Maybe now he was convinced that it was just a matter of time before the game was up. And maybe that belief grew stronger and stronger between the Eddowes murder and early November.

So what to do? And, more importantly, how would the woman he loved and who was very fond of him (using Barnett´s own words) react to the information that she had been sharing her life with the Whitechapel killer?

Perhaps in a situation like this, he decided to tell her himself. Perhaps he believed that she would never abandon him, come what may. Maybe she had told him so herself, who can tell - they apparently could not stay away from each other in spite of Kelly staying with Barnett.

This is why I wonder: Did Joe Fleming go to Miller´s Court in the early hours of Friday the 9:th of November 1888, to confess to Mary Kelly that he was the man the police were looking for? Did he climb into the bed with her, hesitating in the longest before he broke the news? And what were his plans? Did he suggest that they should flee together? That they should form a suicide pact?
And did Mary react in the exact opposite way that he was hoping for, becoming outraged and telling that she would never do anything like it?

And was that what brought about the rage?

Did he kill her, annihilate her, try to erase her from the face of earth, throwing the sheet over her face before he could manage to destroy her features? And did he choose the one part of her that had always been what he was after - her heart - as he was done?

And was this why the killings stopped after Kelly - because Joe Fleming was a spent man, slowly slipping down the road to madness, bound for the asylums?

This is a scenario that interests me very much, since it covers most things involved, including the question why the killings stopped. And this is also why I don´t necessarily see the Kelly killing as a lust murder. Lust murderers do not choose the victim´s heart, do they...?

Fisherman,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You're nothing if not thorough. Your scenario is certainly plausible although I find it a bit melodramatic and I'm not sure we can equate a missing heart to some Hallmark moment. Organs had been taken before, perhaps the increased time gave him the idea to take home the heart 'to fry it up nise'. It might taste better! Again, speculation can run rampant. Maybe it was someone she knew as in a punter who had pre-arranged an early morning rendezvous. Some have argued that Eddowes and Stride might have had pre-arranged meetings. Your idea has credence and I know many on these boards harbor similar views. It is easier for me to believe that MJK is the culmination of a series by a sick boyfriend than a one-off domestic I must say.....

Greg

[Abby Normal]

C.d:

"Police: Do you have an alibi for the night of the murder?

Suspect: Yes.

Police: All right then. Next!"

Did Monty Python try that one? Should have, leastwise...!

Good to see you out and about, C.d. And a fair, fair point!

The best,
Fisherman

CD, Fish thats very funny

How about this one:


Joseph Flemming: Mary, I love you

Mary Kelly: I love you too

Joseph Flemming: I have a confession to make

Mary Kelly: what is it love

Joseph Flemming: I am Jack the Ripper

Mary Kelly: What?

Joseph Flemming: Run away with me-better yet lets kill ourselves

Mary Kelly: your mad, bugger off

Joseph Flemming: YOU WHORE!!!

(SLASH)

Mary Kelly: Oh Murder!

[Fisherman]

Greg:

"Thanks for your thoughtful reply".

You are ever so welcome, Greg!

"Your scenario is certainly plausible"

It is, I know!

"... although I find it a bit melodramatic"

I know that too - but keep in mind that the Victorians were the perhaps most melodramtic people that have walked the earth!

"I'm not sure we can equate a missing heart to some Hallmark moment."

Nor am I - but I would have felt a lot more troubled if I needed to equate a missing uterus to a love affair!

"Organs had been taken before, perhaps the increased time gave him the idea to take home the heart 'to fry it up nise'. It might taste better!"

The overall idea that the Ripper ate his victim´s innards is something I think is quite plausible. And that would go for the heart too, even if it was taken as a token of love.

"Again, speculation can run rampant."

Yes - and I am the first to realize this. My scenario is a suggestion, led on by my feeling that the killer knew Kelly, and was also the killer of three other women that he did NOT know.

"It is easier for me to believe that MJK is the culmination of a series by a sick boyfriend than a one-off domestic I must say....."

Me too, Greg! And thanks for listening!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"How about this one:

Joseph Flemming: Mary, I love you

Mary Kelly: I love you too

Joseph Flemming: I have a confession to make

Mary Kelly: what is it love

Joseph Flemming: I am Jack the Ripper

Mary Kelly: What?

Joseph Flemming: Run away with me-better yet lets kill ourselves

Mary Kelly: your mad, bugger off

Joseph Flemming: YOU WHORE!!!

(SLASH)

Mary Kelly: Oh Murder!"

I like it, Abby! Can I borrow it? Of course, I would prefer the "Oh Murder" BEFORE the "SLASH", but that´s a very minor objection. On the whole I find it´s a useful scenario! Good thinking!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"How about this one:

Joseph Flemming: Mary, I love you

Mary Kelly: I love you too

Joseph Flemming: I have a confession to make

Mary Kelly: what is it love

Joseph Flemming: I am Jack the Ripper

Mary Kelly: What?

Joseph Flemming: Run away with me-better yet lets kill ourselves

Mary Kelly: your mad, bugger off

Joseph Flemming: YOU WHORE!!!

(SLASH)

Mary Kelly: Oh Murder!"

I like it, Abby! Can I borrow it? Of course, I would prefer the "Oh Murder" BEFORE the "SLASH", but that´s a very minor objection. On the whole I find it´s a useful scenario! Good thinking!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Thanks! its all yours! (literally). Please feel free to amend as needed. : )

[robert newell]

Hi All..Just a thought-if only to put it out there for elimination-What if Kelly left the room after 'Blotchy' and returned to find the killer already in her room. Granted it would probably be someone she knew, "Hello Luv, opened the door through the window, hope you don't mind... '.

[Hatchett]

Hi Curious,

It is irrelevent whether there is anything in the very thin Kelly file to say that the police thought that Barnett was the killer and that they didnt have enough information to charge him. As you have said he was the person that they would have latched onto first, as it is done today, the first steps of a murder enquiery.

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.

I would suggest that certainly at that time the worse fear that the Police had was to bring a charge against someone who they thought was Jack the Ripper that would be thrown out in court.

There is no real certainty that Mary Kelly was killed in daylight.

All I was saying was there is controversy over the actual time of death.

It may not have been day light. But it may have been a time when only the killer really knew it and the police were out by a few hours.

Best wishes.

[GregBaron]

Just let myself in...

Hi All..Just a thought-if only to put it out there for elimination-What if Kelly left the room after 'Blotchy' and returned to find the killer already in her room. Granted it would probably be someone she knew, "Hello Luv, opened the door through the window, hope you don't mind... '.

Not a silly thought at all Robert Newell and welcome to the boards.

Greg

[Ben]

The corner of Mitre Square was nowhere near "extreme darkness", Ben - it was a very small square (which you frequently point out yourself), and there was a gas lamp burning in the opposite corner.

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

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

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.

"all the POTENTIAL shortcomings that relate to an intruder scenario...are not there if we work from the suggestion that Kelly let her killer in volunteerly"

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.

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Hatchett
“Like I have said before it does not necessarily follow that Barnett was not charged because he had an air tight alibi, it would have been because the police did not believe that they had the evidence to convict him.”

The police did not have a surfeit of suspects. It is inconceivable that a suspect who was not cleared would just ‘walk’ without the police maintaining an interest (for example the police did maintain an interest in the Green River killer, Ridgway). Maintaining an interest would mean following, staking out and so forth.

Ausgirl
At risk of sounding tiresome, we don’t really know that Fleming mistreated Kelly.
Mrs Vanturney said someone called 'Joe' did – we don’t know it was Fleming.
In fact Fleming’s provenance purely comes from Barnett recounting what Kelly had told him. Most of Kelly’s background details as she told them to various people do not seem to add up. Have any been verified? That is not much of a basis for establishing the true identity of ‘Joe Fleming’.
Women often make things up to their current boyfriend about their various exes. Or so I am led to believe.
The two Joe Flemings that have been found don’t seem to me to fit Mary Kelly’s Joe Fleming very well. It must be quite likely that neither is the one Barnett mentions and it has to be equally likely that Kelly was spinning Barnett a yarn.

Gregbaron
The various medical experts give unrealistically lengthy estimated timescales for virtually all the attacks. They seem to base their estimates on how long a trained medic would take to make the various incisions. So I doubt the murderer spent anything like 2 hours on Kelly.

Fisherman
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.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere - 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. He died in 1920, and is buried in Mount Chingford Cemetery just a few feet away from the Krays.

All the best,
Ben