Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finding Mary Kelly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    He knew all Five.

    Nichols and Eddowes as inpatients with Rheumatic Fever.
    Stride had a genetic disease which was one of his specialities,hence the cachous.
    Chapman,TB. He tried to take her head off.
    Mary Kelly was a member of his Church when a child.
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DJA View Post
      He knew all Five.

      Nichols and Eddowes as inpatients with Rheumatic Fever.
      Stride had a genetic disease which was one of his specialities,hence the cachous.
      Chapman,TB. He tried to take her head off.
      Mary Kelly was a member of his Church when a child.
      Hi Dave,

      Your theory is interesting, to say the least. My question would be, when he was killing the blackmailers one by one, wouldn't the survivors have realised that their goal was unachievable and would result in their deaths?

      Cheers, George
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

      Comment


      • #33
        Didn't claim they were smart.

        Spent many years looking for a suitable screenwriter.

        The tension of these women underestimating a shy 5'3" medical officer is immense.
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • #34
          I wonder if it was an assumption made that MJK's relatives would no doubt make contact with the authorities on reading about her frightful murder in the newspapers, and this then translated into an expectation that they would soon be arriving in London to attend - and possibly to pay for - her funeral.

          When nothing more was heard, it was thought that they had a change of mind, when it could just have been that nobody from her past ever made the connection, because they didn't know her by that name, and had no idea that she had ended up in Miller's Court.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Debra A View Post

            Hi Jurriaan
            I'm not sure the mutilations inflicted on MJK rule out a domestic crime of passion. In 1896 the cut throat murders of a family in Mansfield culminated in the post mortem mutilation of Mrs Reynolds by her long term lodger, her mutilations strikingly similar to those inflicted on Mary Jane Kelly. The perpetrator gave himself up and his pathetic excuse was that Mrs Reynolds had rejected his sexual advances and he felt that if he couldn't have her, no one else should. I agree with something you wrote earlier in that Barnett was probably naive and easily manipulated by Mary Jane, which, to me, would make any rejection of him, by her, very painfull?
            Debs
            Thanks for responding, Debs. I seem to have missed it (not logging in often enough, I guess). Anyway: interesting piece of information on that Mansfield post mortem mutilation case, showing that there indeed exists some precedent at least, but I still seem to struggle with the idea that a one time killer would go so far as to ravish a corpse to such a degree that it is almost entirely obliterated, as well as the morbid draping of body parts around the murdered victim (and possible removal of the heart), and also- apparantly- maintaining his "cool" when interviewed by seasoned inspectors like Abberline. But perhaps I struggle to reconcile the person Barnett (or what we think we know of him) with the mutilations performed on poor Mary Jane. I also seem to remember that an inquest report mentioning Barnett "laboured under great emotion" when providing his testimony, prompting the coroner on one occasion to reassure Barnett that he gave his testimony very well, or words to that effect. This would be a piece of deception of almost Shakespearian dimensions, but who knows?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Debra A View Post

              Hi Jurriaan
              I'm not sure the mutilations inflicted on MJK rule out a domestic crime of passion. In 1896 the cut throat murders of a family in Mansfield culminated in the post mortem mutilation of Mrs Reynolds by her long term lodger, her mutilations strikingly similar to those inflicted on Mary Jane Kelly. The perpetrator gave himself up and his pathetic excuse was that Mrs Reynolds had rejected his sexual advances and he felt that if he couldn't have her, no one else should. I agree with something you wrote earlier in that Barnett was probably naive and easily manipulated by Mary Jane, which, to me, would make any rejection of him, by her, very painfull?
              Debs
              It can't be ruled out, but the Mansfield murder was an isolated incident, whereas MJK's death happened to coincide with a spate of motiveless post-mortem mutilation murders. Now it could (and has been) argued that MJK's murderer used the overkill to disguise it as a Ripper murder, but no one is committing that level of butchery unless they were pathologically driven to. Also, the whole copycat angle has never made much sense, because the police would still investigate those connected to the victim whether they suspected it was a Ripper crime or not.
              Last edited by Harry D; 09-02-2021, 10:13 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                It can't be ruled out, but the Mansfield murder was an isolated incident, whereas MJK's death happened to coincide with a spate of motiveless post-mortem mutilation murders. Now it could (and has been) argued that MJK's murderer used the overkill to disguise it as a Ripper murder, but no one is committing that level of butchery unless they were pathologically driven to. Also, the whole copycat angle has never made much sense, because the police would still investigate those connected to the victim whether they suspected it was a Ripper crime or not.
                hi Harry
                Ive always thought barnett was a viable suspect. perhaps once mary rejected him for good, he viewed her as just another prostitute and yet with a more personal motive. and the only victim to have her heart removed.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I agree with Harry here. If Barnett planned to murder his ex and make it look like the ripper's work, he took a real risk by doing it in the room they had so recently shared. The police would inevitably question him because of their relationship, and this was also the first indoor murder, so they would have considered him a prime suspect for just this one, even if he could provide alibis for the others.

                  Much safer to follow her and murder her in the street, so there would be no obvious connection back to him. As a known prostitute, the natural assumption would be that she fell victim to JtR.

                  Of course, if it was a spur of the moment crime of passion, that might explain the risky location, but would Barnett then have had the presence of mind to recall the goriest details of the recent murders and systematically take her apart?

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                    hi Harry
                    Ive always thought barnett was a viable suspect. perhaps once mary rejected him for good, he viewed her as just another prostitute and yet with a more personal motive. and the only victim to have her heart removed.
                    Barnett for the other murders?

                    It's all predicated on him killing MJK. Didn't he have an alibi for that night?

                    Assuming, MJK wasn't murdered later on.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                      Barnett for the other murders?

                      It's all predicated on him killing MJK. Didn't he have an alibi for that night?

                      Assuming, MJK wasn't murdered later on.
                      yes-barnett as the ripper. he did have an alibi-kind of, maybe his chums lied for him, and or after wards he went back to Marys around fourish and killed her. just possibly in the daylight morning (assuming maxwell was correct in her sighting).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X