why is it that people assume it was one murderer? The problem with witness statements - re Mary Kelly- a woman who knew her said she saw her on the street corner hours after she was supposed to be dead. Witnesses do contradict each other from time to time. On the subject of Mary Kelly it never ceases to amaze me how people just accept that 'Jack' went indoors and never see any significance to the breaking of a pattern - truly amazing!!
...and by video footage I mean from the time before the sites were demolished off course, and completely changed appearence - into what they look like today. The old London, especially Whitechapel perhaps, was indeed very poor and dirty, but what an experience it would have been to walk those narrow streets today if they looked exactly the same as in late 1800's. The old houses, aleways, gaslamps, darkness and fog...and off course ole Jack waiting for you behind the next corner ;)
Amazing video! I've been fascinated by the Ripper murders since I was 12-13 yrs old(33 today), and I wrote a project about it in school. I've also visited all the murder sites plus Ten Bells in London several times, but I've never ever seen any actual video footage from any of the sites, and in color! Only photographs taken in the late 1800's. Today most of the locations look completely different, and I thought the war destroyed them. This is fantastic! The houses should have been preserved!
There's so much to treasure in this clip. Mason examining the door knocker; looking shiftily down the street before the woman answers; asking her if he can come in like it's no big deal for James Mason to turn up at her door; the utter lack of... well, anything in the yard; the long and lingering shot of the dog's ass... Priceless.
I saw a film where James Mason plays Dr Watson investigating the Ripper murders and I thought that this may have been made as a support for the film but I see from the date that this would not have been possible.
Don't know if somebody's already mentioned this, but the body was found between the steps and the fence, not where Mason is pointing and the mangy dog is gamboling.
For those interested in the story of Jack the Ripper and possible theories of what happened, a friend of mine, Michael Wilson, is publishing a fictional work later this year based on one of his own theories. Search up 'Michael Wilson- Without a Trace' :D
The lack of an escape route is something I didn't think about it. Good point. If she was murdered there the butchering would have meant the killers would have been there for ages, plus they would have needed a light . Makes the argument that she was dumped there even stronger.
The problem with most people who study the Ripper case is their mind is closed and they think it must be one murderer. If they look at the cases then at least some of them suggest the victim was not murdered there and dumped. But people have problems with this as it automatically rules out a plethora of red herrings
@martynhanson - yes if you look at the murder at this particular location, the Ripper and victim would have had to pass through the house to get into the garden. There was no back lane apparently (you can kind of see that from this video). Criminals tend to plan out their escape route in advance. Who would choose to murder a woman in this spot? She might scream the place down and the only way out was back through the house. More likely the victim was murdered elsewhere and quietly dumped.
@doubledeckers Not only that but a man who came out to relieve himself next door said he heard a commotion over the five foot fence and a muffled woman's voice saying "No" all he had to do was look over and maybe poor Annie Chapman mite have lived. But he didn't he just went back inside not thinking anything of it. That whole side of Hanbury street was leveled just weeks after Mason filmed this.
If you actually take the time to read the evidence you will see the statement s of two witnesses, elizabeth long saw a couple standing by the doorway, she later identified the deceased woman. The second witness walked into the back yard of number 27 , right next door to 29 at the time of the murder and heard a woman saying "No" then a fall against the fence. He didnt bother to look over the fence even though it was only 5ft tall. Read the evidence and stop making stuff up x
this is a clue to the murder. look at 1:04 in the film. Around 4-45 a man who lived there sat on the top step to clean his boot. The body was not there, he could not failed to have seen the victim. when the doctor arrived at 6-20 he announced that Annie Chapman 'had been dead for two hours and probably more'. this means she was killed elsewhere and dumped there later. So she must have been transported there in a carriage , so one or more persons was invloved.
Fascinating-I wrote up something on the case-the idea that JTR was a mutation-his psychology was more in keeping with today's-where we are used to surreal and difficult imagery, horror films etc-but then-he was out of time and place-his psychology overwhelmed him! Great to see the location though, Helps clarify the imagery.
We have so much history in this country that we tend to dismiss so many buildings as unimportant that other newer countries like America for instance would cherish. When we knock down these buildings it is too late and we can never get them back. Victorian buildings that have stood for over a century are destroyed and replaced with bland flimsy buildings without a soul that will more than likely be swept away in twenty years.
@uncled39 - cinemas are particularly under threat at the moment. Almost none are listed. The Odeon in both Newcastle and Manchester have effectively been destroyed inside, although they are still standing.
@doubledeckers It's a shame that many buildings are not listed, many that are will still be knocked down if they are in the way of so called progress, airports, motorways e.t.c. People will look back on our time as historical vandalism and wonder how we could do it. If we knock down lovely buildings we somehow lose part of ourselves. On a lighter note, even after losing so many buildings we still have some of the best buildings in the world, let's try and keep what we have left.
@uncled39 I remember Nationwide doing an item that included Joseph Sickert and I wonder if it was as part of the publicity surrounding the Barlow and Watt series?
There's the full documentary of which this video is only clip of on youtube. It's in 4 parts called 'The London Nobody Knows'. Watch it...you'll enjoy it. It showed you a shop front that was beautifully carved by a carpenter in the 17th century...long before even the Victorian times. Yet as it had since become a run down area, it was just lying dormant. Amazing to see stuff like this...and yes, it is very sad and new buildings rarely have character, or "soul" as you put it. :)
its from a film called "the london nobody knows" you can get it on ebay,theres a brewery on the site now ,but the houses facing it remain as they were
I've seen recent film from that very street, only from what I can gather taken of the opposite side of the street, seeing that these "houses" were supposedly torn down. If the opposite side of the street was as bad as this at the time then they sure have changed it. I mean, you would hardly believe it's the same street as in this film! The buildings have all been done up and the area's all clean. It's almost been gentrified! It looks almost a million miles away from the grim dump in this film.
I can remember seeing video footage of Durward Street (Bucks Row - murder site number 1) in a documentary once. I thought it was called 'sightings' or something similar. It was filmed in the late 80's or early 90's. The murder site was behind some iron fencing and the street appeared in the process of being rebuilt. Can't for the life of me find the footage anywhere. Anyone out there recall seeing it??
This is fascinating footage..he wasn't kidding when he said ' These streets are exactly as they were at that time." They were shabby, but very historic. The building was torn down, I think. :(
There's a Monty Python sketch (Gas Cooker Sketch) where the 'lady' (Terry Jones) is convinced she is in the wrong flat and goes out the back door and climbs over the little fence thing and into the next yard. The place where they shot this looks much like the one in this video, minus all the trash.
God, some people would actually want that sinister slum to still be there?! Personally I wouldn't use it as a toilet, let alone actually live there for one day! I always say one thing about such places, "Hitler didn't do his slum clearance good enough".
@Bubo25 Yeah it can be argued that the Blitz was the best thing to ever hit the Slums. From a heritage point of view i would argue that we have video footage of what the area looks like however i could also argue that the fame of this building means it could have been allowed to stand however ; possiblyh made into a museum for the poor victims lives. And possibly as a showcase of the appalling conditions the poor in London endured. But all gone now. And possibly for the best.
Jack the Ripper was Sir Melville Leslie Macnaghten!!!
Compare his portrait with the recently published photofit picture of the Murder and to go out of doubts read the French book of Sophie Herfort “Jack l’Éventreur Démasqué” (2007). The case remains elucidated.
how did the ripper get at the back yard assuming the only entrance was the front door was there any other access to the backyard? the place has got death written all over it ,very rare archive footage, looks more macabre than the films could ever portray.
Hanbury Street has quite a history for a relatively small thoroughfare. I only found out recently that this was one of David Copeland's bombing targets in 1999.
jack the ripper was identified..he is an old man..a pyschopath who escaped mental..after killing his wife. .then went to new york. .he doesnt look scary at all..
@williamkanegateshead yes, it would be good to know. I don't know alot about serial killers but they usually get caught in the end because they make mistakes, they always leave clues. It seems though nobody can put the clues together & identify the guility party. If the clothes the victims wore were kept in a safe then it may be possible today to check it for tiny fragments on skin cells or hairs & then to use the DNA to trace the murderer, however I expect the clothes are lost or destroyed now.
That series that's mentioned below was 1973 with Barlow and Watt from Softly Softly - got it on ebay - brill, along with a bonus disc of the 'London Nobody Knows' which the above clip is taken.
However, it must be said that it is claimed in the show (Barlow and Watt) that the 'Juwes are the men etc; refers to Freemasons a full three years before Stephen Knights book 'The Final Solution' So Knight was not the first or the only one to have said this
@2Touchstone true and it was the case with a lot of buildings that were swept away in the 1960's and the same has happened over the last ten years with cheap apartment blocks everywhere.
creepy, Strange to think that the whitechappel looks very similar in the 1960s to the way it did in the 1880s, I'd imagine its been re-developed by government money since then though.
Dr William Gull and coach driver John Netley were Jack The Ripper. One did the mutilations whilst the other kept watch - one person could not have done the killings without getting caught - it is obvious and logical that he must have had a lookout. Nobody was ever caught.
Someone should sneak along to the grave of William Gull and do a geophys survey on it (like on Time Team) because supposedly two burials occured, the first with a coffin full of rocks, while Gull was put in an asylum until he really died.
Personally I don't believe Gull was Jack the Ripper. He was too old and in poor health at the time.
The lady doesn't look scared at all. It looks as though she was expecting him.If she lives there she knows the interest ppl. have in Ripper lore,and probably shows it quite often. I would charge money.
@blaster2012 that's all there is about Jack the Ripper in this particular documentary. The BBC did a drama-documentary programme or series in the 1960's but I'm not sure if it still exists. I think it was introduced by the actors from the Police series Softly Softly. I've never seen any other film of this location.
@blaster2012 The whole side of that street was torn down not long after that documentry was made. I'm glad he did it as we would never have any sort of modern, (1967) film of the site.
I have my own personal theory of who the ripper was that will blast the world of ripperology apart. The poet Robert Browning. yes you heard it here first. His poems are somewhat mysoginistic.
im doing jack the ripper in history now,, i still dont get why he killed all of those peeps, it would be great if someone could tell me cus its part of my homework
I can't believe anyone lived in that building at the time! How very AWFUL. What a shame they were torn down. How charming they would have been if restored.
Erm i beg to differ - indeed certain parts are but most? In the area where that murder took place was a hge amount of war bombing and most slums were rightfully destroyed after WWII including Hanbury st. However the 10 Bells pub isnt far away and is a perfect reminder of a victorian perserved pub where the victims and probably Killer(s) drank.
As said, the body wasnt found in the place he points too. it was infact found between the back door steps and the fence. No crime scene pics were taken until the supposedly last murder of MJK in her bed. Shame.
The north side of the street where 29 Hanbury Street was is now an ugly brewery. The south side however is still very Victorian. The woman who lets Mason in is probably Kathleen Manning who lives at 29 Hanbury Street until 1969.
Someone should do a geophys survey (or similar) of William Gull's grave. Isn't the story that a coffin full of rocks was buried in there and then the body added later after he'd died in an asylum?
yes by a skilled person perhaps. i know if it were i who were to cut up a body in the dark i wouldn't know where the kidney was or how to remove it. furthermore even if you did do your deed without being spotted, could you ensure not being spotted in te streets covered in blood?
No I meant doing a geophys survey of William Gull's grave! Just turn up with the equipment, run it over the grave area and see if a coffin full of stones shows up.
I have finally managed to get a complete version. I had two incomplete recordings from Channel 4, made in the 1980's. The start was missing on both. But recently I managed to download a full version.
The clip shown here is the only bit about Jack the Ripper. The film roams all over London looking at different things.
It's a great shame that Channel 4 has no interest in showing films like this any more.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If anyone can put a strong case forward for anyone other than barnett then lets hear it - but make sure your facts are right and you are not elaborating on assumptions that have long been proven to be completely false. kosminski is such a tenuous suspect - if it was a jew then why were nearly all witness accounts that of a fair skinned gentile? Sickert and maybrick are just paperback money spinning yarns. I am willing to listen to any well argued case - but make sure you do your homework!
not all jewish people look like the common jewish image in culture, paul newman was jewish, tony curtiss is jewish william shatner is jewish, anybody with a knife and the will could have commited these homocides, jack was not clever or smart i personally think he was just an ordinary english or european man who was in his teens or twenties as these are the crimes of a very young man. he took the organs to keep as a trophy, not to sell for money and he cut his victims for sexual pleasure.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
they did in london in 1888! these were all recent arrivals from poland /russia, forced out by pogroms. these jews did look very jewish and were still very orthodox in appearance. All first wave immigrants look very foreign as it takes time for the new culture to round the corners off. tony curtis and paul newman etc are 5th and 6th generation jews integrated with other genetic material. the 60,000 jews in london 1888 were racially very pure.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
well i agree with your conclusions but joseph barnett was one such young man. he was an ordinary working class irish londoner to outward onlookers but inside he was seething with hatred towards mary kelly - it was her fault he lost his job and the fact that she was back working the streets. the kelly murder was the conclusion to the killings - the other women were killed because of mary kelly. barnett had a key to that room and left his pipe on the mantlepiece after he killed her.
why would barnett kill 4 other women and then finally kill his girlfreind its crazy. because people dont know who this guy was they have put together all sorts of theroies over the years the fact is that he was just a man who was perverted and who got some feelings of power and sexual arousal from disemboweling women simple as that. he was probarbly put in a mental institution thats why the killings stopped or he took his own life.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
well there have been a couple of cases of serial killers who kill because they were angry with their wife/girlfriend and they did go on to murder their spouse. All the rage felt is projected onto other females. Experts on serial killers have identified a small subgroup of which JTR is a prime example, who have to mutilate as a way of releasing the hatred that builds up in their day to day life. Joe Barnett was under incredible pressure - he lost his job, his woman, his whole existance.
for me the whole seaside holme thing sounds too easy. they drag this un named witness all the way there ... he points out the suspect as the ripper then refuses to testify. that sounds like a cover up or a diversion. of all the books i've read on the ripper case no one puts more evidence on the table than stephen knight. i'm not saying he has the answer but he put a lot more evidence forward than all the other so called ripper experts did.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
exactly - the kosminski bullshit was a pathetic police bluff to try and convince their critics that they knew who the ripper was and they were in control of the situtation when the reality was they let killer slip through their hands. the other factor of course was the police force - esp the high command - were thoroughly anti-semitic and RACIST. the knight theory was the first account i read on JTR 30 years ago and is still a fantastic read. my suspicion of barnet was triggered by that book.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A masonic/royal conspiracy could still shed light on JTR even though i dont believe it was Gull, Netley & Sickert. There could be some truth in the fact that the 5 women were political activists agitating for social change with the appalling poverty of the east end and they were singled out as dangerous and silenced. The ripper himself - barnett - could have been helped - reports of 2 men attacking stride. who was helping barnet? hutchinson? his brother? or was it more sinister forces?
i'm not so sure that 5 prostitutes in the east end acting as political activists would be considered 'dangerous' the birth of alice crook seems much more damaging and if mary kelly were the nanny than that seemsa more plausable reason to have her silenced.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
whenever there is a government conspiracy - the JFK assassination - there is always a patsy, a fall guy who is put up to do the job so that the powers that be cannot be traced to the crime. Could Joseph Barnett have been the Lee Harvey Oswald of 1888?
lee harvey oswald was a very publicised patsy. if barnett were the patsy ... why was he never accused and then silenced as oswald was? i like your theories but i keep getting too many questions in my head from what you are saying. the evidence knight put forward linked sickert to mary kelly. his later paintings portrayeda very disturbed man. he seems more the patsy to me that barnett.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
im not convinced either way - "jack the ripper a psychic investigation" on first impressions seems to be nonsense but it puts forward a theory that that there was a link from barnett to a royal baby born out of wedlock. again not convinced. It claims that stride was killed by maybrick who was acting as a gov't spy in the east end against political agitators and prostitutes! the other murders were barnett's! what would you say are the key facts that make the Knight theory plausible for you?
i guess it was factual documentation like the birth certificate and the hush up of the affair. i don't mean to say i'm convinced beyong doubt that it was gull acting as the ripper but knight's book doesn't deserve to be canned as it had when in fact he does bring evidence to the table unlike books that implicate kozminski/cohen, m.j. druitt, donston etc ... also i don't think the ripper was that fortunate to be lucky with each of the murders.
lucky in the sense that the ripper removed vital organs which would have been terribly risky in a dark place like mitre square knowing that a policeman was on duty and add to that the lack of blood found at each ripper site.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
120+ years on we can look at and assess the facts much more objectively than the police in 1888. They were guilty of anti-semitism themselves: there is no Kosminski - in fact, nobody is sure who this elusive creature is. Anderson in 1908 stated in the Daily Chronicle that there were 2 real clues: the Goulston Street graffiti and Joe Barnett's pipe. The graffiti indicates a gentile suspect who fled north - the phrasing was Irish. "Anderson's Suspect" was Joe Barnett.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Ripper was seen, a number of times, by reliable witnesses NOT Hutchinson who was hiding something from the police! . He was a man, about 30 years of age, stout, with a small, light moustache. He wore a respectable suit and a deerstalker hat. He stood 5'7" tall. Joseph Barnett sacked fish gutter, spurned lover, inadequate, nervous, hater of prostitution, deprived of his income, losing the only woman ever to show him any attention...
The coins left behind in a neat pile after the Annie Chapman murder interests me. I always thought that the murderer saw it as ' evil gains '. ..and so did not take it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this is barnetts police statement;
" I have lived with her altogether about 18 months, for the last eight months in Millers Court, until last Tuesday week when in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution, I resolved on leaving her, but I was friendly with her and called to see her between seven and eight pm Thursday (8th) and told her I was very sorry I had no work and that I could not give her any money. "
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In that police statement Barnett is fabricating. He didnt LEAVE kelly - she threw him out because he had no wage anymore having been sacked from his fish portering job:
Barnett's inquest statement :
"I separated from her on the 30th October. I left her because she had a person who was a prostitute whom she took in and I objected to her doing so, that was the only reason, not because I was out of work."
they had a violent row and kelly THREW him out - witness reports back this up.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
we all know that if you have a violent row with your live in partner - that results in a broken window - you DONT stay on friendly terms esp if you have been chucked out. Barnett is clearly covering up the depth of emotion he felt. Isnt it always the case that the spurned male always says " oh I left her.. i had enough of her" when the opposite is true?
his dislike of prostitution was well known - he refers to it in both police and inquest statements.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
at the kelly inquest barnett also states:
"She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders she seemed afraid of someone, she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly." Now here Barnett is openly admitting that KELLY WAS AFRAID of someone connected to the murders and that person was HIM. remember that barnett was stammering and highly nervous and emotional at the inquest . this is a freudian slip.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
barnett was obviously in the grip of a manic episode - he had worked as a porter at billingsgate fish market for 10 years without a stain on his character - he stammered and repeated what was said to him - he was quiet and reserved. then on good friday 1887 he picks up a prostitute mary kelly. she obviously can see that he is inadequate - her experience of men is immense - and agrees to live with him. His wage can pay the rent on her room and he starts to steal food for her from the market.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Barnett gets sacked from his job for theft in july 1888 - kelly resorts back to prostitution so she can pay her (high) rent- the murder of locally known prostitutes begins the following month. barnett knows he is losing his grip on kelly so begins to kill in order to terrify her. He enjoys reading her the newspaper reports. He is eventually is kicked out by kelly- not only is he a useless lover he has no money, no prospects, nothing. she has no further use of him and whatsmore she is FRIGHTENED.
I totally disagree with Barnett being the Ripper. George Hutchinson saw the man who killed Kelly. He would have known Barnett, and did not identify Kelly's killer as Barnett. The killer also would have gone on killing. Not stopped, unless dead or incarcerated.
The Ripper was Kosminski, as stated by Anderson and others who were there at the time, and who KNEW.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
hutchinson DID NOT see the man who killed kelly! he didnt go to the police until 2 days after the murder and his description was so ridiculously detailed for what was a brief glimpse in the dark that most ripperologists believe that it was total fabrication. hutchinson was a client of kelly and gave the police a "music hall villain" description as he began to fear the police suspected him. in fact hutchinson has come under suspicion because his desc of the man he "saw' was so obviously made up!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The police hadnt got a clue who the ripper was - that is the only concrete fact. They were hopelesly clutching at straws - kosminski, druitt etc This was the first serial killer they had to deal with. Today we know that serial killers are ordinary and go unnoticed - they arent caped music hall villians with top hats and doctors bags - nor are they jewish maniacs! how convenient for what was a totally anti-semitic public and police force that they believed it to be a jew!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hutchinson only allegedly saw a man with kelly hours before her body was found - she was also seen taking another client to her room that same night - a stocky blotchy faced man with a big carrotty moustache . I dont think the ripper was either of these men - the first of the two in the fancy fur trimmed coat and gold watch - your suspect - didnt exist anyway as hutchison made him up! Whose to say barnett didnt go on killing - he disappeared off the records for 18 years!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
hutchinson was seen by RELIABLE witnesses hanging around the entrance to millers court the night kelly was murdered. These reports appeared in the press the following day. Hutchinson RECOGNISED HIS OWN DESCRIPTION in the papers and so after 2 days turned up at the police station with a highly elaborate and totally unbelievable description of a well dressed wealthy looking jew - a music hall villian that conformed to public misconception of the murderer and playing up to the rife anti-semitism!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hutchinsons account has been dismissed for years by the leading experts - sugden, rumbelow,etc. I believe that Hutchinson was hanging around acting as look out for the killer - Barnett. Schwartz who witnessed the stride killing saw 2 men - one who fitted Barnetts desc was pulling stride to the floor and another - possibly Hutchinson - was over the road keeping watch - just like at millers court. whatsmore the night of the double event a bloody sink was found in. wait for it ... MILLERS COURT!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
an interesting idea. i believe barnett literally gutted those woman as he did with fish at the market and he used the same knife. the missing organs - uterus, kidneys and hearts must have held some symbolic meaning for him as you say.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the police questioned barnett for 4 hours but had nothing to pin it on him. he disappeared afterwards for 18 years - he doesnt appear on the 1891 or 1901 censuses - suggesting that he went abroad or into hiding - finally turning up again in 1906. whether he continued to kill is not known but the ripper murders stopped when he went missing. the kelly murder was a crime of passion - she used barnett for his wage and ability to support her but once that had gone she dismissed him out of hand.
I've often wondered.. how did Annie Chapman or Jack know the layout of 29 Hanbury Street enough to know that there was a private yard they could access by passing through? Annie never lived there, that I have read.
True, there doesn't seem to be a back lane with a gate, so they must have entered through the passageway from the front. And no one heard anything... Isn't this why some people believe the murders were carried out in a coach and the bodies dumped?
I'm fascinated by this case and by 1888 east end London. I'm a firm believer in the Kosminski theory. I believe he was the killer, and did it alone. Someone did hear Annie's murder here in Hanbury St. A man relieving himself in the next yard heard her say, "No!" and then a fall against the fence. If he'd only bothered to look over the fence, he'd have caught the murder in progress. Also, someone saw Jack and Annie at the doorway of 29 before the murder. He said, "Will you?" She said, "Yes."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
in this clip there is a door at the entrance to the passage leading to the back yard - this door wasnt there in 1888. It was probably a spot used by prostitutes reguarly - dark and off the main road. the ripper engaged his victims as a client and didnt reveal his true nature until right at he last moment when he would grab them by the chin/throat ( bruising on the corpses) strangle them, push them to the floor and then cut the throat from BEHIND the victims head. this was done to minimise blood.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the man seen talking to annie was almost certainly the ripper but the witness didnt get a proper look at him. the man seen dragging liz stride to the floor was almost certainly the ripper aswell - he was aged about 30 5 ft 7 with a moustache. whoever he was he was a regular client of the prostitutes in the area -he knew all the spots and so was most certainly a local man. Was he a "foreign looking" perhaps jewish man as some accounts have reported or was he fair and english as others witnessed?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak". this was a man seen talking to eddowes minutes before she was found. This description ties up with the one seen assaulting stride and i believe is the one closest to the truth. the ripper wasnt jewish - he was a local man of english or irish descent. Joseph barnett , mary kelly's ex bloke fits this desc quite well.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
barnett had met kelly the year before as a client - he was a fishporter at billingsgate market. he was sacked in july 1888 for theft and from this point on kelly had no longer any use for him as he had no wage coming in. barnett hoped to keep kelly for himself and off the game - she didnt. this enraged him and the killing of prostitutes in the area began, culminating with kelly three months later. barnett was a quiet man with a speech disorder but was fairly literate considering his class.....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
kelly continued to take clients to the room she had shared with barnett - she had thrown him out. he continued to visit her to try and win her over but she was not having it. i believe barnett killed the women to frighten kelly. After one final attempt to win her back on that fateful night he finished it all off by tearing her to pieces in the privacy of the room entering with the key he still had and locking the door behind him.
that's a very interesting point. and weren't there people in the building at the time. surely the ripperwouldn't have taken her through there .... murdered her then come back through the building with people in there. that is one thing i have never heard explained in all the ripper books i have read.
This is a rare find. This house, at #29 Hanbury Street in Whitechapel, was torn down soon after this 1967 documentary was made. A brewery now occupies the site.
Mason, of course, later starred as Dr. Watson in "Murder By Decree" -- the best movie ever made about Jack the Ripper. In the movie, Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) investigates the Gull/Crook/Prince Albert conspiracy. (Total hokum but it made a great movie.)
Check out Hang Jack by TOKYO ROSE
Tokyorosebiz 3 weeks ago
why is it that people assume it was one murderer? The problem with witness statements - re Mary Kelly- a woman who knew her said she saw her on the street corner hours after she was supposed to be dead. Witnesses do contradict each other from time to time. On the subject of Mary Kelly it never ceases to amaze me how people just accept that 'Jack' went indoors and never see any significance to the breaking of a pattern - truly amazing!!
martynhanson 2 months ago
...and by video footage I mean from the time before the sites were demolished off course, and completely changed appearence - into what they look like today. The old London, especially Whitechapel perhaps, was indeed very poor and dirty, but what an experience it would have been to walk those narrow streets today if they looked exactly the same as in late 1800's. The old houses, aleways, gaslamps, darkness and fog...and off course ole Jack waiting for you behind the next corner ;)
TheFraggle78 2 months ago
Amazing video! I've been fascinated by the Ripper murders since I was 12-13 yrs old(33 today), and I wrote a project about it in school. I've also visited all the murder sites plus Ten Bells in London several times, but I've never ever seen any actual video footage from any of the sites, and in color! Only photographs taken in the late 1800's. Today most of the locations look completely different, and I thought the war destroyed them. This is fantastic! The houses should have been preserved!
TheFraggle78 2 months ago
she wasn't "just over there" she was actually lying parallel to the fence near the doorstep
glynnybear 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's so much to treasure in this clip. Mason examining the door knocker; looking shiftily down the street before the woman answers; asking her if he can come in like it's no big deal for James Mason to turn up at her door; the utter lack of... well, anything in the yard; the long and lingering shot of the dog's ass... Priceless.
CallumJStewart 4 months ago
Comment removed
CallumJStewart 4 months ago
I saw a film where James Mason plays Dr Watson investigating the Ripper murders and I thought that this may have been made as a support for the film but I see from the date that this would not have been possible.
alanheath 5 months ago
Don't know if somebody's already mentioned this, but the body was found between the steps and the fence, not where Mason is pointing and the mangy dog is gamboling.
boc234 7 months ago
He was a genius of the blade.And a true gentleman always ready to help, and to kill.
sallymaggiespotty 9 months ago
For those interested in the story of Jack the Ripper and possible theories of what happened, a friend of mine, Michael Wilson, is publishing a fictional work later this year based on one of his own theories. Search up 'Michael Wilson- Without a Trace' :D
sonyaswan 9 months ago
The lack of an escape route is something I didn't think about it. Good point. If she was murdered there the butchering would have meant the killers would have been there for ages, plus they would have needed a light . Makes the argument that she was dumped there even stronger.
martynhanson 11 months ago
The problem with most people who study the Ripper case is their mind is closed and they think it must be one murderer. If they look at the cases then at least some of them suggest the victim was not murdered there and dumped. But people have problems with this as it automatically rules out a plethora of red herrings
martynhanson 11 months ago
@martynhanson - yes if you look at the murder at this particular location, the Ripper and victim would have had to pass through the house to get into the garden. There was no back lane apparently (you can kind of see that from this video). Criminals tend to plan out their escape route in advance. Who would choose to murder a woman in this spot? She might scream the place down and the only way out was back through the house. More likely the victim was murdered elsewhere and quietly dumped.
doubledeckers 11 months ago
@doubledeckers Not only that but a man who came out to relieve himself next door said he heard a commotion over the five foot fence and a muffled woman's voice saying "No" all he had to do was look over and maybe poor Annie Chapman mite have lived. But he didn't he just went back inside not thinking anything of it. That whole side of Hanbury street was leveled just weeks after Mason filmed this.
MegaWolfgang 6 months ago
@MegaWolfgang As you put it, he can't have thought it important enough to investigate or maybe his other business was more pressing.
alanheath 5 months ago
@doubledeckers Against that theory is that there is no blood trail.
alanheath 5 months ago
@martynhanson
If you actually take the time to read the evidence you will see the statement s of two witnesses, elizabeth long saw a couple standing by the doorway, she later identified the deceased woman. The second witness walked into the back yard of number 27 , right next door to 29 at the time of the murder and heard a woman saying "No" then a fall against the fence. He didnt bother to look over the fence even though it was only 5ft tall. Read the evidence and stop making stuff up x
Wideboy75 2 months ago
this is a clue to the murder. look at 1:04 in the film. Around 4-45 a man who lived there sat on the top step to clean his boot. The body was not there, he could not failed to have seen the victim. when the doctor arrived at 6-20 he announced that Annie Chapman 'had been dead for two hours and probably more'. this means she was killed elsewhere and dumped there later. So she must have been transported there in a carriage , so one or more persons was invloved.
martynhanson 11 months ago
This is one of my favourite clips on youtube. It would have been interesting if James Mason had visited the other Jack the Ripper sites.
uncled39 11 months ago 2
Comment removed
uncled39 1 year ago
Comment removed
uncled39 1 year ago 5
@uncled39 thanks! Have always wanted to see this.
doubledeckers 1 year ago 2
Fascinating-I wrote up something on the case-the idea that JTR was a mutation-his psychology was more in keeping with today's-where we are used to surreal and difficult imagery, horror films etc-but then-he was out of time and place-his psychology overwhelmed him! Great to see the location though, Helps clarify the imagery.
MrChrisHermes 1 year ago
We have so much history in this country that we tend to dismiss so many buildings as unimportant that other newer countries like America for instance would cherish. When we knock down these buildings it is too late and we can never get them back. Victorian buildings that have stood for over a century are destroyed and replaced with bland flimsy buildings without a soul that will more than likely be swept away in twenty years.
uncled39 1 year ago 5
@uncled39 - cinemas are particularly under threat at the moment. Almost none are listed. The Odeon in both Newcastle and Manchester have effectively been destroyed inside, although they are still standing.
doubledeckers 1 year ago
@doubledeckers It's a shame that many buildings are not listed, many that are will still be knocked down if they are in the way of so called progress, airports, motorways e.t.c. People will look back on our time as historical vandalism and wonder how we could do it. If we knock down lovely buildings we somehow lose part of ourselves. On a lighter note, even after losing so many buildings we still have some of the best buildings in the world, let's try and keep what we have left.
uncled39 1 year ago
Comment removed
uncled39 1 year ago
@uncled39 I remember Nationwide doing an item that included Joseph Sickert and I wonder if it was as part of the publicity surrounding the Barlow and Watt series?
doubledeckers 1 year ago
Comment removed
uncled39 1 year ago
Comment removed
uncled39 11 months ago
@uncled39
There's the full documentary of which this video is only clip of on youtube. It's in 4 parts called 'The London Nobody Knows'. Watch it...you'll enjoy it. It showed you a shop front that was beautifully carved by a carpenter in the 17th century...long before even the Victorian times. Yet as it had since become a run down area, it was just lying dormant. Amazing to see stuff like this...and yes, it is very sad and new buildings rarely have character, or "soul" as you put it. :)
GhibliFan1 9 months ago
its from a film called "the london nobody knows" you can get it on ebay,theres a brewery on the site now ,but the houses facing it remain as they were
superglens67 1 year ago
I've seen recent film from that very street, only from what I can gather taken of the opposite side of the street, seeing that these "houses" were supposedly torn down. If the opposite side of the street was as bad as this at the time then they sure have changed it. I mean, you would hardly believe it's the same street as in this film! The buildings have all been done up and the area's all clean. It's almost been gentrified! It looks almost a million miles away from the grim dump in this film.
Bubo25 1 year ago
I can remember seeing video footage of Durward Street (Bucks Row - murder site number 1) in a documentary once. I thought it was called 'sightings' or something similar. It was filmed in the late 80's or early 90's. The murder site was behind some iron fencing and the street appeared in the process of being rebuilt. Can't for the life of me find the footage anywhere. Anyone out there recall seeing it??
biffbiff99 1 year ago
@biffbiff99 Ah the legendary TV show "Sightings" - awesome. I recall the show but not that particular episode. Used to be on the Sci Fi Channel.
CultFan666 1 year ago
This is fascinating footage..he wasn't kidding when he said ' These streets are exactly as they were at that time." They were shabby, but very historic. The building was torn down, I think. :(
There's a Monty Python sketch (Gas Cooker Sketch) where the 'lady' (Terry Jones) is convinced she is in the wrong flat and goes out the back door and climbs over the little fence thing and into the next yard. The place where they shot this looks much like the one in this video, minus all the trash.
Saywardstudio 1 year ago
God, some people would actually want that sinister slum to still be there?! Personally I wouldn't use it as a toilet, let alone actually live there for one day! I always say one thing about such places, "Hitler didn't do his slum clearance good enough".
Bubo25 1 year ago
@Bubo25 Yeah it can be argued that the Blitz was the best thing to ever hit the Slums. From a heritage point of view i would argue that we have video footage of what the area looks like however i could also argue that the fame of this building means it could have been allowed to stand however ; possiblyh made into a museum for the poor victims lives. And possibly as a showcase of the appalling conditions the poor in London endured. But all gone now. And possibly for the best.
CultFan666 1 year ago
Jack the Ripper was Sir Melville Leslie Macnaghten!!!
Compare his portrait with the recently published photofit picture of the Murder and to go out of doubts read the French book of Sophie Herfort “Jack l’Éventreur Démasqué” (2007). The case remains elucidated.
Arkham1888 1 year ago
upload more footage or ill kill ya
HuwGeeRection 1 year ago
how did the ripper get at the back yard assuming the only entrance was the front door was there any other access to the backyard? the place has got death written all over it ,very rare archive footage, looks more macabre than the films could ever portray.
gentle7ways7 1 year ago
@noskoolskate incorrect whitechapel is a area in east london its not a street or road lool do you even live in london?
nikelover1994 1 year ago
Hanbury Street has quite a history for a relatively small thoroughfare. I only found out recently that this was one of David Copeland's bombing targets in 1999.
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
wasnt it grade listed back then?
Robotdrummerzzk 1 year ago
incorrect jack the ripper dumped the body of his victims on the street whitechapel in london
noskoolskate 1 year ago
jack the ripper was identified..he is an old man..a pyschopath who escaped mental..after killing his wife. .then went to new york. .he doesnt look scary at all..
nil1230 1 year ago
@nil1230 what was his name then?
MrRyan200 1 year ago
Marvellous mate. To actually see the very spot, as it was so to speak, in 1888. I wish there was some way they could fund out who Jack was, even now.
williamkanegateshead 1 year ago
@williamkanegateshead yes, it would be good to know. I don't know alot about serial killers but they usually get caught in the end because they make mistakes, they always leave clues. It seems though nobody can put the clues together & identify the guility party. If the clothes the victims wore were kept in a safe then it may be possible today to check it for tiny fragments on skin cells or hairs & then to use the DNA to trace the murderer, however I expect the clothes are lost or destroyed now.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Did you see the dog in the back yard? It is sad to think it is now long dead.
MissLadyboy007 1 year ago
HOLY CRAP, I think they used that exact same spot for the From Hell movie! O.o
lyricalraven09 1 year ago
That series that's mentioned below was 1973 with Barlow and Watt from Softly Softly - got it on ebay - brill, along with a bonus disc of the 'London Nobody Knows' which the above clip is taken.
However, it must be said that it is claimed in the show (Barlow and Watt) that the 'Juwes are the men etc; refers to Freemasons a full three years before Stephen Knights book 'The Final Solution' So Knight was not the first or the only one to have said this
martynhanson 1 year ago
The house at 29 Hanbury Street was torn down at the beginning of the 1970's.
Elvuz 1 year ago
Haha, cute dog ; )
brian8793 1 year ago
These horrible buildings in Hanbury St in this video actually look a lot better than the dreary 70s stuff they replaced it with.
2Touchstone 1 year ago
@2Touchstone true and it was the case with a lot of buildings that were swept away in the 1960's and the same has happened over the last ten years with cheap apartment blocks everywhere.
doubledeckers 1 year ago
@2Touchstone true, I don't think they were horrible though, it's only because they didn't spent the money on them.
itkapatanka 1 year ago
creepy, Strange to think that the whitechappel looks very similar in the 1960s to the way it did in the 1880s, I'd imagine its been re-developed by government money since then though.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
James Mason bores me with his forced accent
randomdave30 1 year ago
im spartacus !
martinh103 1 year ago
any more clips of this, great stuff
62daveben 1 year ago
@62daveben this is the only bit in the documentary that relates to Jack the Ripper. He goes round all kinds of other places in London.
doubledeckers 1 year ago
...this is the real place in whitechapel? omg...please cut the dogs ass out...
Billieboy43 2 years ago
hee hee, Old One Eye, the dawg
OzTerri 2 years ago
Excellent, I shall look out for this dvd. I'm bored with all the usual Ripper documentaries.A+
MODTRASH 2 years ago
i did it
Scottthefish 2 years ago
i have asked for nothing from her but her you fucking rapers
what were the three words on the wall?>
keep fucking around
EnemyCombatant74 2 years ago
not amused
EnemyCombatant74 2 years ago
Loving the description of this clip. Made me right chuckle, it did and make no mistake.
djbethell 2 years ago
does anyone know from what documentary this was taken?
remelriley 2 years ago
It says in the information about the video at top right. It's from 'The London Nobody Knows'.
doubledeckers 2 years ago
this looks like the BBC documentary shown in the late 1960's
Chris154 2 years ago
It's from 'The London Nobody Knows'.
doubledeckers 2 years ago
London Nobody Knows; you can get it at Amazon dead cheap with another movie attached Les Byciclettes de Belsize for around 6 quid.
djbethell 2 years ago
Dr William Gull and coach driver John Netley were Jack The Ripper. One did the mutilations whilst the other kept watch - one person could not have done the killings without getting caught - it is obvious and logical that he must have had a lookout. Nobody was ever caught.
Blabloo72 2 years ago
Someone should sneak along to the grave of William Gull and do a geophys survey on it (like on Time Team) because supposedly two burials occured, the first with a coffin full of rocks, while Gull was put in an asylum until he really died.
Personally I don't believe Gull was Jack the Ripper. He was too old and in poor health at the time.
doubledeckers 2 years ago
The lady doesn't look scared at all. It looks as though she was expecting him.If she lives there she knows the interest ppl. have in Ripper lore,and probably shows it quite often. I would charge money.
estelle715 2 years ago
@estelle715 It would have been pre-arranged you know, he wouldnt have just turned up on her door step.
aeronuk1 2 years ago 4
james maybrirck CASE CLOSED!
amigolakota1974 2 years ago
Wow...that was still there in 1967?I ncredible.I bet it's not there now.I s there any more of this footage please????
blaster2012 2 years ago 4
@blaster2012 that's all there is about Jack the Ripper in this particular documentary. The BBC did a drama-documentary programme or series in the 1960's but I'm not sure if it still exists. I think it was introduced by the actors from the Police series Softly Softly. I've never seen any other film of this location.
doubledeckers 1 year ago
@blaster2012 no it's been destroyed and replaced with a concrete blob like so much of old London.
itkapatanka 1 year ago
@blaster2012 no it's not there anymore, such a shame. completely different now. although there are still some victorian places in that area.
MrRyan200 1 year ago
@blaster2012 The whole side of that street was torn down not long after that documentry was made. I'm glad he did it as we would never have any sort of modern, (1967) film of the site.
MegaWolfgang 1 year ago
I have my own personal theory of who the ripper was that will blast the world of ripperology apart. The poet Robert Browning. yes you heard it here first. His poems are somewhat mysoginistic.
darkarts59 2 years ago
Just look at the footfall wear on the stone step! From all the boots sparking over the yrs, including Jack's. It's tragic to have torn them down....
clintrat1932 2 years ago 4
Amazing that this location was still virtually the same 79 years after the murders. A shame it is gone now.
coaldusty 2 years ago 21
0:37 is that a head , hanging on that thing?
UzimakiNaruto54 2 years ago
don't see one it's mostly just junk and rubbish
leonardjordan2009 2 years ago
An interesting camera angle of the dog is taken from what looks like inside the basement.
Scottthefish 2 years ago 2
That time the police didn't have enough technologies to catch the killer, which is bad, I heard that 27 men were suspects of being him.
proudtobebrazilian 2 years ago
im doing jack the ripper in history now,, i still dont get why he killed all of those peeps, it would be great if someone could tell me cus its part of my homework
:P
ashleygadd08 2 years ago
There are lots of theories. From him just being a madman to a cover up by the government and Royal Family!
doubledeckers 2 years ago
Read into a guy called James Kelly.. 1860 1929
craig01827 2 years ago
Click up jacktheripper on the Internet his mother was a prostiduition I read it on the Internet and it said thats why he killed them woman
xXHelenMagnusXx 2 years ago
if they knew his mother was a prostitute that would suggest they knew who he was and they didnt - hence your sentence is bullshit :>
LoomVideos 2 years ago 4
He was a serialkiller who killed woman to get a sexual thrill. Prostitutes are easy prey.
ghostdivision7 2 years ago
read the book by patricia cornwell, jack the ripper diary of a killer, it was walter sickert
kazzaw69 2 years ago
Nah it was Carl Feigenbaum.
smellycabbage 2 years ago
I can't believe anyone lived in that building at the time! How very AWFUL. What a shame they were torn down. How charming they would have been if restored.
stellalouise1 2 years ago 3
Conservation Laws are not that strict - grade I listed buildings are protected inside and outside but grade II ... a very different story indeed...
BryanUK666 2 years ago
Erm i beg to differ - indeed certain parts are but most? In the area where that murder took place was a hge amount of war bombing and most slums were rightfully destroyed after WWII including Hanbury st. However the 10 Bells pub isnt far away and is a perfect reminder of a victorian perserved pub where the victims and probably Killer(s) drank.
BryanUK666 2 years ago
ohmigosh i'd give anything for see that spot o__O
victim number two... annie chapman, right?
attemptedChemistry 2 years ago
As said, the body wasnt found in the place he points too. it was infact found between the back door steps and the fence. No crime scene pics were taken until the supposedly last murder of MJK in her bed. Shame.
iowdave 2 years ago
It IS a shame actually because i suspet we would have a far clearer insight into the murderer(s) and the modus operandi.
BryanUK666 2 years ago
I love how the cameraman concentrates on the dog's ass for what seems like ages.
footballgeorgiebest 2 years ago 15
@footballgeorgiebest Maybe he was making comment about the buildings?
Bubo25 1 year ago
She's quick to say YES when he asks. Is this street exactly as it is now?
JoshCCFC09 2 years ago
The north side of the street where 29 Hanbury Street was is now an ugly brewery. The south side however is still very Victorian. The woman who lets Mason in is probably Kathleen Manning who lives at 29 Hanbury Street until 1969.
091053JG 2 years ago
I like the way he looked at the door knocker.
Ducatista696 2 years ago
Blimey, it looks like the yard hasn't been touched since 1888. Couldn't they have cleaned it up a bit?
Muskadash 2 years ago
its rommel
innit27 2 years ago
Someone should do a geophys survey (or similar) of William Gull's grave. Isn't the story that a coffin full of rocks was buried in there and then the body added later after he'd died in an asylum?
doubledeckers 2 years ago
right i'm on my way to thorpe le soken now
jmbaulk 2 years ago
How difficult would it be if you had the equipment? It would be done by the time you were spotted.
doubledeckers 2 years ago
yes by a skilled person perhaps. i know if it were i who were to cut up a body in the dark i wouldn't know where the kidney was or how to remove it. furthermore even if you did do your deed without being spotted, could you ensure not being spotted in te streets covered in blood?
jmbaulk 2 years ago
No I meant doing a geophys survey of William Gull's grave! Just turn up with the equipment, run it over the grave area and see if a coffin full of stones shows up.
doubledeckers 2 years ago
by the way do you have a full version of this documentary? it looks very interesting! thanks for posting it.
jmbaulk 2 years ago 2
I have finally managed to get a complete version. I had two incomplete recordings from Channel 4, made in the 1980's. The start was missing on both. But recently I managed to download a full version.
The clip shown here is the only bit about Jack the Ripper. The film roams all over London looking at different things.
It's a great shame that Channel 4 has no interest in showing films like this any more.
doubledeckers 2 years ago
It was 23 year-old David Cohen. Case closed!
DangerousSociopath 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well that was well argued
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If anyone can put a strong case forward for anyone other than barnett then lets hear it - but make sure your facts are right and you are not elaborating on assumptions that have long been proven to be completely false. kosminski is such a tenuous suspect - if it was a jew then why were nearly all witness accounts that of a fair skinned gentile? Sickert and maybrick are just paperback money spinning yarns. I am willing to listen to any well argued case - but make sure you do your homework!
bunterx 2 years ago
not all jewish people look like the common jewish image in culture, paul newman was jewish, tony curtiss is jewish william shatner is jewish, anybody with a knife and the will could have commited these homocides, jack was not clever or smart i personally think he was just an ordinary english or european man who was in his teens or twenties as these are the crimes of a very young man. he took the organs to keep as a trophy, not to sell for money and he cut his victims for sexual pleasure.
skepticepilleptic 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they did in london in 1888! these were all recent arrivals from poland /russia, forced out by pogroms. these jews did look very jewish and were still very orthodox in appearance. All first wave immigrants look very foreign as it takes time for the new culture to round the corners off. tony curtis and paul newman etc are 5th and 6th generation jews integrated with other genetic material. the 60,000 jews in london 1888 were racially very pure.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well i agree with your conclusions but joseph barnett was one such young man. he was an ordinary working class irish londoner to outward onlookers but inside he was seething with hatred towards mary kelly - it was her fault he lost his job and the fact that she was back working the streets. the kelly murder was the conclusion to the killings - the other women were killed because of mary kelly. barnett had a key to that room and left his pipe on the mantlepiece after he killed her.
bunterx 2 years ago
why would barnett kill 4 other women and then finally kill his girlfreind its crazy. because people dont know who this guy was they have put together all sorts of theroies over the years the fact is that he was just a man who was perverted and who got some feelings of power and sexual arousal from disemboweling women simple as that. he was probarbly put in a mental institution thats why the killings stopped or he took his own life.
skepticepilleptic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well there have been a couple of cases of serial killers who kill because they were angry with their wife/girlfriend and they did go on to murder their spouse. All the rage felt is projected onto other females. Experts on serial killers have identified a small subgroup of which JTR is a prime example, who have to mutilate as a way of releasing the hatred that builds up in their day to day life. Joe Barnett was under incredible pressure - he lost his job, his woman, his whole existance.
bunterx 2 years ago
for me the whole seaside holme thing sounds too easy. they drag this un named witness all the way there ... he points out the suspect as the ripper then refuses to testify. that sounds like a cover up or a diversion. of all the books i've read on the ripper case no one puts more evidence on the table than stephen knight. i'm not saying he has the answer but he put a lot more evidence forward than all the other so called ripper experts did.
jmbaulk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
exactly - the kosminski bullshit was a pathetic police bluff to try and convince their critics that they knew who the ripper was and they were in control of the situtation when the reality was they let killer slip through their hands. the other factor of course was the police force - esp the high command - were thoroughly anti-semitic and RACIST. the knight theory was the first account i read on JTR 30 years ago and is still a fantastic read. my suspicion of barnet was triggered by that book.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A masonic/royal conspiracy could still shed light on JTR even though i dont believe it was Gull, Netley & Sickert. There could be some truth in the fact that the 5 women were political activists agitating for social change with the appalling poverty of the east end and they were singled out as dangerous and silenced. The ripper himself - barnett - could have been helped - reports of 2 men attacking stride. who was helping barnet? hutchinson? his brother? or was it more sinister forces?
bunterx 2 years ago
i'm not so sure that 5 prostitutes in the east end acting as political activists would be considered 'dangerous' the birth of alice crook seems much more damaging and if mary kelly were the nanny than that seemsa more plausable reason to have her silenced.
jmbaulk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
whenever there is a government conspiracy - the JFK assassination - there is always a patsy, a fall guy who is put up to do the job so that the powers that be cannot be traced to the crime. Could Joseph Barnett have been the Lee Harvey Oswald of 1888?
bunterx 2 years ago
lee harvey oswald was a very publicised patsy. if barnett were the patsy ... why was he never accused and then silenced as oswald was? i like your theories but i keep getting too many questions in my head from what you are saying. the evidence knight put forward linked sickert to mary kelly. his later paintings portrayeda very disturbed man. he seems more the patsy to me that barnett.
jmbaulk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
im not convinced either way - "jack the ripper a psychic investigation" on first impressions seems to be nonsense but it puts forward a theory that that there was a link from barnett to a royal baby born out of wedlock. again not convinced. It claims that stride was killed by maybrick who was acting as a gov't spy in the east end against political agitators and prostitutes! the other murders were barnett's! what would you say are the key facts that make the Knight theory plausible for you?
bunterx 2 years ago
i guess it was factual documentation like the birth certificate and the hush up of the affair. i don't mean to say i'm convinced beyong doubt that it was gull acting as the ripper but knight's book doesn't deserve to be canned as it had when in fact he does bring evidence to the table unlike books that implicate kozminski/cohen, m.j. druitt, donston etc ... also i don't think the ripper was that fortunate to be lucky with each of the murders.
jmbaulk 2 years ago
lucky in the sense that the ripper removed vital organs which would have been terribly risky in a dark place like mitre square knowing that a policeman was on duty and add to that the lack of blood found at each ripper site.
jmbaulk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
120+ years on we can look at and assess the facts much more objectively than the police in 1888. They were guilty of anti-semitism themselves: there is no Kosminski - in fact, nobody is sure who this elusive creature is. Anderson in 1908 stated in the Daily Chronicle that there were 2 real clues: the Goulston Street graffiti and Joe Barnett's pipe. The graffiti indicates a gentile suspect who fled north - the phrasing was Irish. "Anderson's Suspect" was Joe Barnett.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Ripper was seen, a number of times, by reliable witnesses NOT Hutchinson who was hiding something from the police! . He was a man, about 30 years of age, stout, with a small, light moustache. He wore a respectable suit and a deerstalker hat. He stood 5'7" tall. Joseph Barnett sacked fish gutter, spurned lover, inadequate, nervous, hater of prostitution, deprived of his income, losing the only woman ever to show him any attention...
bunterx 2 years ago
but then, was there any coins to begin with?
footballgeorgiebest 2 years ago
The coins left behind in a neat pile after the Annie Chapman murder interests me. I always thought that the murderer saw it as ' evil gains '. ..and so did not take it.
footballgeorgiebest 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
maybe he decided to pay her for her services...and left the coins there.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is barnetts police statement;
" I have lived with her altogether about 18 months, for the last eight months in Millers Court, until last Tuesday week when in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution, I resolved on leaving her, but I was friendly with her and called to see her between seven and eight pm Thursday (8th) and told her I was very sorry I had no work and that I could not give her any money. "
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In that police statement Barnett is fabricating. He didnt LEAVE kelly - she threw him out because he had no wage anymore having been sacked from his fish portering job:
Barnett's inquest statement :
"I separated from her on the 30th October. I left her because she had a person who was a prostitute whom she took in and I objected to her doing so, that was the only reason, not because I was out of work."
they had a violent row and kelly THREW him out - witness reports back this up.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
we all know that if you have a violent row with your live in partner - that results in a broken window - you DONT stay on friendly terms esp if you have been chucked out. Barnett is clearly covering up the depth of emotion he felt. Isnt it always the case that the spurned male always says " oh I left her.. i had enough of her" when the opposite is true?
his dislike of prostitution was well known - he refers to it in both police and inquest statements.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
at the kelly inquest barnett also states:
"She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders she seemed afraid of someone, she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly." Now here Barnett is openly admitting that KELLY WAS AFRAID of someone connected to the murders and that person was HIM. remember that barnett was stammering and highly nervous and emotional at the inquest . this is a freudian slip.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
barnett was obviously in the grip of a manic episode - he had worked as a porter at billingsgate fish market for 10 years without a stain on his character - he stammered and repeated what was said to him - he was quiet and reserved. then on good friday 1887 he picks up a prostitute mary kelly. she obviously can see that he is inadequate - her experience of men is immense - and agrees to live with him. His wage can pay the rent on her room and he starts to steal food for her from the market.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Barnett gets sacked from his job for theft in july 1888 - kelly resorts back to prostitution so she can pay her (high) rent- the murder of locally known prostitutes begins the following month. barnett knows he is losing his grip on kelly so begins to kill in order to terrify her. He enjoys reading her the newspaper reports. He is eventually is kicked out by kelly- not only is he a useless lover he has no money, no prospects, nothing. she has no further use of him and whatsmore she is FRIGHTENED.
bunterx 2 years ago
I totally disagree with Barnett being the Ripper. George Hutchinson saw the man who killed Kelly. He would have known Barnett, and did not identify Kelly's killer as Barnett. The killer also would have gone on killing. Not stopped, unless dead or incarcerated.
The Ripper was Kosminski, as stated by Anderson and others who were there at the time, and who KNEW.
saxm 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hutchinson DID NOT see the man who killed kelly! he didnt go to the police until 2 days after the murder and his description was so ridiculously detailed for what was a brief glimpse in the dark that most ripperologists believe that it was total fabrication. hutchinson was a client of kelly and gave the police a "music hall villain" description as he began to fear the police suspected him. in fact hutchinson has come under suspicion because his desc of the man he "saw' was so obviously made up!
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The police hadnt got a clue who the ripper was - that is the only concrete fact. They were hopelesly clutching at straws - kosminski, druitt etc This was the first serial killer they had to deal with. Today we know that serial killers are ordinary and go unnoticed - they arent caped music hall villians with top hats and doctors bags - nor are they jewish maniacs! how convenient for what was a totally anti-semitic public and police force that they believed it to be a jew!
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hutchinson only allegedly saw a man with kelly hours before her body was found - she was also seen taking another client to her room that same night - a stocky blotchy faced man with a big carrotty moustache . I dont think the ripper was either of these men - the first of the two in the fancy fur trimmed coat and gold watch - your suspect - didnt exist anyway as hutchison made him up! Whose to say barnett didnt go on killing - he disappeared off the records for 18 years!!
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hutchinson was seen by RELIABLE witnesses hanging around the entrance to millers court the night kelly was murdered. These reports appeared in the press the following day. Hutchinson RECOGNISED HIS OWN DESCRIPTION in the papers and so after 2 days turned up at the police station with a highly elaborate and totally unbelievable description of a well dressed wealthy looking jew - a music hall villian that conformed to public misconception of the murderer and playing up to the rife anti-semitism!
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hutchinsons account has been dismissed for years by the leading experts - sugden, rumbelow,etc. I believe that Hutchinson was hanging around acting as look out for the killer - Barnett. Schwartz who witnessed the stride killing saw 2 men - one who fitted Barnetts desc was pulling stride to the floor and another - possibly Hutchinson - was over the road keeping watch - just like at millers court. whatsmore the night of the double event a bloody sink was found in. wait for it ... MILLERS COURT!
bunterx 2 years ago
..is that why Kelly's heart was missing? Barnett took in death what he couldn't have when she was alive.
footballgeorgiebest 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
an interesting idea. i believe barnett literally gutted those woman as he did with fish at the market and he used the same knife. the missing organs - uterus, kidneys and hearts must have held some symbolic meaning for him as you say.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the police questioned barnett for 4 hours but had nothing to pin it on him. he disappeared afterwards for 18 years - he doesnt appear on the 1891 or 1901 censuses - suggesting that he went abroad or into hiding - finally turning up again in 1906. whether he continued to kill is not known but the ripper murders stopped when he went missing. the kelly murder was a crime of passion - she used barnett for his wage and ability to support her but once that had gone she dismissed him out of hand.
bunterx 2 years ago
so haunting and surreal! a chill ran down my spine to look at this! it could almost have been made in 1888
ridgee09 2 years ago 2
I've often wondered.. how did Annie Chapman or Jack know the layout of 29 Hanbury Street enough to know that there was a private yard they could access by passing through? Annie never lived there, that I have read.
saxm 2 years ago
True, there doesn't seem to be a back lane with a gate, so they must have entered through the passageway from the front. And no one heard anything... Isn't this why some people believe the murders were carried out in a coach and the bodies dumped?
doubledeckers 2 years ago
I'm fascinated by this case and by 1888 east end London. I'm a firm believer in the Kosminski theory. I believe he was the killer, and did it alone. Someone did hear Annie's murder here in Hanbury St. A man relieving himself in the next yard heard her say, "No!" and then a fall against the fence. If he'd only bothered to look over the fence, he'd have caught the murder in progress. Also, someone saw Jack and Annie at the doorway of 29 before the murder. He said, "Will you?" She said, "Yes."
saxm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
in this clip there is a door at the entrance to the passage leading to the back yard - this door wasnt there in 1888. It was probably a spot used by prostitutes reguarly - dark and off the main road. the ripper engaged his victims as a client and didnt reveal his true nature until right at he last moment when he would grab them by the chin/throat ( bruising on the corpses) strangle them, push them to the floor and then cut the throat from BEHIND the victims head. this was done to minimise blood.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the man seen talking to annie was almost certainly the ripper but the witness didnt get a proper look at him. the man seen dragging liz stride to the floor was almost certainly the ripper aswell - he was aged about 30 5 ft 7 with a moustache. whoever he was he was a regular client of the prostitutes in the area -he knew all the spots and so was most certainly a local man. Was he a "foreign looking" perhaps jewish man as some accounts have reported or was he fair and english as others witnessed?
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak". this was a man seen talking to eddowes minutes before she was found. This description ties up with the one seen assaulting stride and i believe is the one closest to the truth. the ripper wasnt jewish - he was a local man of english or irish descent. Joseph barnett , mary kelly's ex bloke fits this desc quite well.
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
barnett had met kelly the year before as a client - he was a fishporter at billingsgate market. he was sacked in july 1888 for theft and from this point on kelly had no longer any use for him as he had no wage coming in. barnett hoped to keep kelly for himself and off the game - she didnt. this enraged him and the killing of prostitutes in the area began, culminating with kelly three months later. barnett was a quiet man with a speech disorder but was fairly literate considering his class.....
bunterx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
kelly continued to take clients to the room she had shared with barnett - she had thrown him out. he continued to visit her to try and win her over but she was not having it. i believe barnett killed the women to frighten kelly. After one final attempt to win her back on that fateful night he finished it all off by tearing her to pieces in the privacy of the room entering with the key he still had and locking the door behind him.
bunterx 2 years ago
that's a very interesting point. and weren't there people in the building at the time. surely the ripperwouldn't have taken her through there .... murdered her then come back through the building with people in there. that is one thing i have never heard explained in all the ripper books i have read.
jmbaulk 2 years ago
It is very surreal to see these building in color, looking just as they did in the b&w photos and sketches. Amazing they stayed the same for so long.
saxm 2 years ago
This is a rare find. This house, at #29 Hanbury Street in Whitechapel, was torn down soon after this 1967 documentary was made. A brewery now occupies the site.
Mason, of course, later starred as Dr. Watson in "Murder By Decree" -- the best movie ever made about Jack the Ripper. In the movie, Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) investigates the Gull/Crook/Prince Albert conspiracy. (Total hokum but it made a great movie.)
RSLindsay 3 years ago 4
I thought a car park was built on top of the site? I could be wrong so don't quote me on that but I'm sure there was.
sniff001 3 years ago
The car park was built on the site of Dorset Street/Millers Court sniff.
LisaLisaSE 3 years ago