"Odd Omissions: Scott Morro's Plea for Barnett's Innocence"
by Dr. Frederick Walker
Scott Morro recently posted an article called "Joe Barnett ... Jack the Ripper ... Not One in the Same" (sic.) In private correspondence, Mr. Morro has kindly invited me to respond to his
criticism of my theory. I now do so. My main point would be that while
Morro calls attention to various alleged omissions of fact in my theory,
and calls those omissions odd, the reverse is true: all the "odd omissions"
are on Morro's side of the debate.
Morro's 1st point is that Barnett must be innocent because he was released
by the authorities at the time. This is naive. Guilty men walk free every
day, and the innocent are wrongfully convicted, even with fingerprints
and DNA to guide us. What matters is why Barnett was released. 3 reasons
are given in my sources.
- No bloody clothing was found in his lodgings. But he had plenty of
time to dispose of it.
- His pipe, found at the scene of the crime, was clumsily destroyed during
collection, and so could not be shown to a jury. This hardly acquits Barnett
in the courtroom of history.
- He had an alibi for the alleged time of the murder, 4:00am. But the
whole point of my article is that police were wrong about the time of death,
and there is persuasive evidence and testimony that Kelly was killed much
later.
Yes, Barnett was questioned and released at the time. But he was released
for what now appear to be flimsy and naive reasons.
Morro then immediately concedes that Barnett had plausible motives for
at least 2 of the killings, those of Kelly and Eddowes. What Morro doesn't
realize is that this is more than can be said of any other suspect. Even
very famous suspects like Druitt and Kosminski had no reason to kill any
of the women -- it is doubtful that they even knew them. Motive is a major
strength of my theory. Barnett knew at least 3 of JTR's victims: he was
Kelly's ex-lover, Eddowes' ex-neighbour and friend-of-a-friend to Chapman.
Barnett is likely to have known the majority of Jack's ladies, and had
reasons to kill two of them. Regarding his motive for the Eddowes murder
(fear of exposure), Morro asks "Why didn't Catherine Eddowes go to
the police with her suspicions?" Because Barnett killed her.
Morro rightly criticizes "those researchers" who claim the
women were killed by mistake, as the killer searched for Kelly. But I am
not one of "those researchers." In pointing out the many similarities
among the victims, including the uncanny recurrence of the name "Mary
Ann," I was arguing that the killer was disposing of women who reminded
him of Kelly -- not that he didn't know what his own girlfriend looked
like! This, by the way, is the same motive attributed to Maybrick, except
that Florrie Maybrick did not resemble any of the victims, and Kelly did.
Morro notes my comment that the victims knew each other, and asks "How
can such an unsubstantiated claim be made?" The reasons why I believe
this to be true are listed clearly in my article.
Morro criticizes my emphasis on the Hanbury Street envelope, calling
it "a stab in the dark." What I think is a stab in the dark is
the belief that a torn envelope can be found beside the body of a murdered
woman, the initials on that envelope are compatible with one and only one
of the hundreds of suspects in the case -- and it's just an innocent coincidence.
Morro comments that the killer would have gathered up all the pieces of
an incriminating document, had he the time. At this point Morro repeats
the old myth about all Chapman's belongings arranged in neat little piles
at her feet. It is now known the killer did no such thing. Dawn was breaking,
the neighbourhood was densely populated, and potential witnesses were already
stirring. That he would retrieve any of the pieces of a worthless envelope
indicates how important those initials are.
The most puzzling part of Morro's essay is his treatment of the eyewitness
descriptions. First, he relies on the authority of Begg, Fido and Skinner
to claim that only Darrell, Schwartz and Lawende saw the real killer. Since
2 of these 3 saw a man resembling Barnett, I'm not sure what the problem
is. Morro then compliments me for pointing out that Hutchinson's Suspect
also resembled Barnett. I did not mention Hutchinson's testimony even once
in my article. In any event, Hutchinson claimed the Ripper was a wealthy
Jew, a description that does not fit Barnett. I believe Hutchinson was
a publicity seeker. The witnesses I accept are Lawende, Harris, Levy, Schwartz,
Cadoche (earwitness) and Maxwell. If anyone can prove Stride was a Ripper
victim, I would also include the numerous witnesses who saw her that evening
with a man resembling Barnett. Morro is disturbed by the fact that Hutchinson
would have known Barnett, and recognized him. Yes -- and perhaps covered
for him, with a story about a wealthy Jew. But Kelly was killed hours later.
Hutchinson's Suspect is irrelevant. That is precisely why I ignored him.
Morro concludes the case against Barnett is circumstantial. There is
nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence -- it convicts the guilty every
day. Morro then states that there is no physical proof against Barnett,
with the "exception" of his pipe, which was found at the scene
of the crime. Some exception! Morro believes Barnett left it behind when
he moved out a week before. Smoking is an addiction. A smoker does not
forget his pipe when he moves out any more than an alcoholic forgets the
key to the liquor cabinet. And there is much more "physical evidence":
- The locked door of the murder room, for which only Barnett and one
other man likely had keys -- the other man has an alibi.
- The Hanbury envelope with Barnett's initials.
- The Lusk Letter (with kidney) written in Barnett's dialect.
- The bloody water in Barnett's sink, seen by a major police witness
on the night of a different murder!
- The anti-semitic graffiti, by a gentile who fled north.
- Barnett's striking physical resemblance to police sketches and credible
eyewitness descriptions.
- Barnett's address, central to the homes of all victims, canonical and
non-canonical. This is only true of Barnett.
Individually, these things might have innocent explanations. Together,
they constitute overwhelming proof of guilt. Most modern juries would convict
based solely on 1 and 4.
Update
Two important documents have recently resurfaced, and both support my
theory.
1) Casebook: Jack the Ripper has reprinted an article from
the London Weekly Herald, in which the contemporary journalist clears
Hutchinson's Suspect, concludes that Kelly was killed mid-morning and casts
suspicion on the man Maxwell saw with her outside the Britannia.
2) Feldman's new book includes a facsimile of a hitherto-ignored JTR
letter of Sep. 17th, 10 days before Dear Boss. This letter, never released
to the public, includes some turns of phrase from Dear Boss (which it predates),
is in handwriting similar to the Lusk Letter, and is signed "Catch
me if you can, Jack the Ripper." The clear implication is that both
Dear Boss and the Lusk Letter are authentic, even though the handwriting
is different -- and that means the killer had an accomplice. Furthermore,
the author of the apparently-genuine Sept. 17th letter boasts that Lusk
will never find him, as he has positioned himself "right under his
nose." According to Paul Harrison, only Barnett joined the vigilantes.
Comments by Stewart P. Evans:
With regard to the latest addition to the Casebook, the dissertation
"Odd Omissions: Scott Morro's (?) Plea for Barnett's Innocence"
by Dr Frederick Walker, may I add the following riders -
i "The Hanbury Street Envelope" or more accurately
portion of an envelope was not a clue at all, and as soon as the Police
established provenance for it, i.e. it was found near the hearth in the
kitchen of the common lodging house by Chapman [evidence of witness William
Stevens] they discontinued enquiries regarding it. It should also be noted
that all that was on this piece of envelope was 'M', '2' and 'Sp', part
of an address and certainly not Barnett's, or anyone else's, initials.
ii It was established at Kelly's inquest that the key to her
room was missing, and there is no evidence that the police considered this
at all suspicious.
iii Barnett was with Kelly, in her room, on the evening of her
murder and may well have left his pipe there then. I'm sure he had more
than one clay pipe. Also the fact that the pipe belonged to him was known
to the police, presumably, because Barnett himself told them it was his,
how else would they have identified it?
iv Point 4 in Dr Walker's list of circumstantial evidence is
totally invalid. The bloody water in Barnett's sink never did exist as
a clue. Canards such as this have been disposed of years ago and really
should not still be quoted. The story of the bloody water in A DORSET STREET
SINK originated with Major Henry Smith in his fanciful and inaccurate account
of his activities on the night of the Eddowes murder. It simply DID NOT
HAPPEN and was NEVER A CLUE. This has been recognised by all serious students
of the case for many years now.
v The "hitherto-ignored JTR letter of Sep. 17th" IS
NOT GENUINE. Its earliest provenance is when it was found in the 1980's
TUCKED INTO A HOME OFFICE FILE, HO 144/221/A49301C, on its own and totally
unremarked upon in the file, which is not the letters file anyway. It borrows
from both the 'Dear Boss' and 'Lusk' letters and has all the appearances
of a modern hoax 'planted' by a prankster accessing the files in the 1980's.
A reading of the police files leaves absolutely no doubt that the origin
of the name 'Jack the Ripper' was in the 'Dear Boss' letter of 25 September
1888. Keith Skinner and I personally examined the crude letter with the
date Sept. 17th 1888 on it, in what appears to be blue ballpoint ink, at
the Public Record Office and there is nothing at all to suggest anything
but a modern forgery. Unfortunately 'Ripper' research is beset with much
myth and downright hoaxing and things such as this should really be recognised
for what they are.
Comments by Mark Feldman:
Dr. Frederick Walker states:
"The witnesses I accept are Lawende, Harris, Levy, Schwartz,
Cadoche (earwitness) and Maxwell. If anyone can prove Stride was a Ripper
victim, I would also include the numerous witnesses who saw her that evening
with a man resembling Barnett."
Even these statements contain at least one obvious error: Israel
Schwartz was a STRIDE witness!
It appears to me that Dr. Walker has chosen to ignore Elizabeth Long's
(Darrell? Durrell?) eyewitness description. Her description does not seem
to fit Joe Barnett at all. To dismiss her testimony strikes me as highly
questionable at best. Remember: the theory must fit the evidence; it is
bad science to try to make the evidence fit the theory.
