|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 1:34 pm: | 
|
Hi,
As Leanne and myself have been unable to finish the co-authorship of our book[ although I wish Leanne the very best in any future success] I am still convinced that JB is the number one suspect, and would like to take this opportunety to give reasons why.
First of all it should be noted that the actual Barnett in question has not been proved,
The Paley Barnett seems to be the most popular, yet the Harrison Barnett has a lot going for him.
Harrison claimed to have met a desendant of Barnett and was shown cuttings from original newspapers depicting the murders from Tabram-Mckenzie.
Whilst we have only the integreity of Harrison to rely on I have no reason to not belief the gentleman unless a admission to the quantary.
The cuttings which have not been put under tests to see whether they were consistant with cuttings that were not in storage conditions are important because they would show that the Barnett in question retained cuttings from the Tabram murder, therefore placed importance in that occurance before any murder of Ripper Mo occured.
We know from Barnetts own admission that he read the Papers to Mary , even though she was a intelligent woman we also know that she became paronoid over these murders on her near doorstep, she it was claimed even had a nightmare that she was being killed.
I realize reading the murders to MJK does not prove guilt , but collecting the actual cuttings and preserving them would indicate suspicision.
I am sure everyone is aware of the 39 theory, it is also connected to Barnett, the very fact that she was killed in room 13 part of 26 Dorset street, indicated to me a strange significance,the very fact that she was killed on the 9th of a month also is intresting as the 9th of a month is when Barnett and Mary moved in together.
It is also a fact That Barnett left Kelly on the 30th of a month the same day of the month as the double event, infact he left her on the 30th and she was killed on the 9th.
The other 39 s that add up are the 39 stab wounds found on Tabram ,
thirty eight could have been inflicted by a ordinary penknive, so the question is ,was this by design? also the death of Nichols on the 31st of the 8th month and Stride and eddowes on the 30th of the 9th month, and lets not forget Chapman killed 8 days later than Nichols.
One surely cannot deny a amazing coincedence here.
Further indications of possible guilt.
On the evening of the 8th November Barnett visited Kelly saying he had no money, yet four hours later he was playing in a card game, one would imagine therefore he had at least his stake.
He obviously thought playing cards was more important than saving Mary from having to go on the streets.
Another indication of non caring I believe occured at Kellys funeral, I have said many times this is only oral history, but i have also maintained that Farsons informant in 1959 a elderly lady was by any moral standard relaying her mothers recollections, Associated Rediffusion the tv network at that time were contemplating a special on that letter, even though the Barnett question was not around at that time, but the mail bags were accidently mislayed by a careless secretary and with it the informants details so the idea was shelved.
The fact is by a process of elimination and the accounts of the funeral that were recorded, if this event occured then only minutes after Barnett was kneeling on the cold clay at the graveside he proceeded to relay symptons of anger.
There is of course a possibility he had read reports of Kelly saying she could not bear him, and returned the mutual feeling, but the act does show deceitfullness and cunning.
It is also strange that Barnett after the inquest disapeared , and does not appear on the 1901 census, and even Paleys claim that he appeared after 1906 is debatable because we cannot be certain he has the correct man.
There is a lot more to mention but this post is long enough to register my view.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4467
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
OK, Barnett was playing cards, but how do we know that he was playing for money? It's possible to have a friendly game.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
In my painful experience a group of men playing cards is not shall we say a friendly game.
However you are of course correct they could have been playing for matchsticks, but do you honestly believe that in a common lodging house in the east end of London in the late 1888s around midnight that was the case?.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4468
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Well, Richrd, a lot of these guys were poor and also probably pretty bored, so I don't see it as impossible by any means.
But even if Barnett did play for money, why should this be seen as not caring? If he'd given it to Kelly, it would probably have gone straight down her throat. Perhaps when Mary was "on a drunk" Barnett fobbed her off, knowing what she wanted the money for.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 32
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Frankly, I am amazed that at this stage of Ripper studies, 75 years after Matter's book; with the official files released, and some solid academic research being done, that we still find such amateurish, immature and frankly unbelievable hypotheses being put forward.
Not one of the so-called arguments cited above is other than circumstantial evidence at best. Most is hearsay, and unproven. we don't even know that we have identified the right Barnett, for heaven's sake!!
There isn't a single jot of credible evidence to back up this hypothesis, which so far as I have ever heard (and I don't claim to be an expert) is psychologically unconvincing.
It would be one thing to put Barnett forward either as the murderer of MJK alone, or as a candidate for the Ripper. But to build a case around him is simply NOT POSSIBLE in the current state of the evidence.
The post above does not even begin to take account of the significant problems in barnett as a suspect - not least his being cleared by the police. I know this is sometimes casually written off as either a mistake or incompetence, but that won't do. All the evidence we have from the files about suspects indicates that Abberline and his team followed up leads very seriously and went to almost disproportionate lengths to check things out. They had access to the people who knew Kelly, Barnett and the others, and in the East End if 1888 there would have been plenty around who would have pointed a finger at Barnett given half the chance.
Finally, it puts Ripper studies into the category of the most eccentric fandoms if we begin to give the remotest credibility to numerology, patterns of numbers etc. This is like the author who saw anagrams everywhere, though they were meaningless to everyone else.
I am certain that a statistician could tell us whether the numbers cited are more than coincidence at best (which is what I assume them to be). No one could believe that people like barnett could arrange to get room 13 at a house numbered 26 etc. As for dates of meetings matching other dates, there are only a maximum of 31 days in any month to chose from!
Like theories which involve the positioning of bodies - once the scale of maps etc is examined, the theories usually fall down because they are too imprecise, too general. In exactly the same way, to even begin to regard a numerological hypothesis as worthy of study, one first has to say what the principle underlying it was - then there is something to judge what might have happened againt. Anything else is just a mess with no substance.
I am sorry to be so critical of this theory - and in case anyone believes otherwise I make it clear that I am dealing with ideas not those who promote them here.
But Ripper studies needs to be more soundly based, to have standards and a sound basis of research if it is to advance and be accepted by those who might begin to contribute from the world of professional scholars.
This sort of theory, IMHO, belongs to the 50s of the last century, NOT to the C21st.
I am sorry to be so blunt and regret any inadvertent offence I might have caused. As always I am happy to defend the arguments I have just used equally as robustly as I have stated them.
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Robert,
By Barnetts own admission he visited Kelly on several occassions since the 30th, and 'Gave her what he could' If the 'Must go on a drink' was her obvious intentions and Barnett knew her history the question is why give her money on those previous visits?
Sorry Robert dont go with that point.
The possibility that Barnett called on her that night for other reasons is more likely , scenerio.. To say he had no money would possibly send her out on the game which would be essential for a premeditated murder to suggest she fell into the Rippers hands.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Phil,
Thanks for the comments, this is why I started this thread, it will hopefully have pro-anti feelings.
I will defend myself somewhat I do not consider myself amateurish,or immature[ 58?]0r putting outlandish hypotheses forward.
To start with Barnett / Kelly were already in room 13, 26 Dorset street long before any of these murders started, and therfore i was not suggesting that when renting that Hovel any intent was visable.
As for saying there are only 30/31 days in a month
to choose from I agree but the coincedence still remains the suggestions i made are fact, the dates are factual.
I am simply relaying my feelings, regardless of police investigations, its surely obvious medical reports and police opinions were widely inaccurate.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 34
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Richard,
Let me begin by saying that I would NEVER suggest that YOU personally are "immature". I do, however, believe that the arguments and case you promoted in your post are "immature" in the sense that they are not fully thought through.
On the number 39, you say MJK and Barnett "were already in room 13, 26 Dorset street long before any of these murders started, and therfore i was not suggesting that when renting that Hovel any intent was visable."
But that was exactly my point, to evaluate any theory involving a particular number we need to have some idea of when it was conceived and how acted on, and what the theory was behind it. Otherwise coincidence or divine intervention/pre-ordination seem to be the only alternatives.
"As for saying there are only 30/31 days in a month to choose from I agree but the coincedence still remains the suggestions i made are fact, the dates are factual."
I did not question the facts, simply that coincidence can play peculiar tricks there are a limited number of days on which any event can fall.
to give an example, I was born 12 March 1951, my father was born 21 March 1915. the two dates reverse numbers, but that is entirely coincidental!! there was no "plot" for me to be born on a particular day.
"I am simply relaying my feelings, regardless of police investigations, its surely obvious medical reports and police opinions were widely inaccurate."
Yet they might have hung a man in 1888!! I must admit to not following your argument here, or, if I do, being wary of the logical minefield into which that assumption must lead us. But I DO NOT think the situation was as you state. We do not have as much information as they did so we cannot always judge why they reached certain decisions, but it seems to me they were far from fools or amateurs.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4469
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Richard, I cannot see how Barnett's having a game of cards, perhaps for money, displays a non-caring attitude. What I am surprised about, is that Barnett (as far as we know) doesn't seem to have given any money to McCarthy, as opposed to Kelly.
Robert
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Let me explain.
When Barnett lost his job, i think we would all agree on this point, Kelly eventually resumed prostitution originally with sailors, she prostituted herself whilst living at 26 Dorset street room 13, contempary comments suggest that she brought the seaman back to her room. often with a bottle of gin slung under her arm courtesy of her escort.
Because of this what i have suggested is relevant to that room 13, 26 Dorset street, and it is the return to her old ways from that base that triggered off a response in Barnett which signified the number 39.
That is why she died in that same room.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 36
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
But how would 39 be relevant to the 9th of the month, which you also cite? (Don't bother to explain again, I know there is a thread I can refer to re your theory.)
Sorry but it simply won't wash for me. On that basis any occurence of the number 39 in the case or any combination of reference, prior to his losing his job would be pure coincidence? Am I right? I'm just saying I don't think those after it are deliberate either.
In any case why associate 13 and 26 (to make 39) and not use either 13 or 26 or some other number? Do we know that anyone in 1888 thought of 13 Millers Court as part of 26 Dorset St? is there, in fact, any basis for the association of the two numbers except in modern thought and perception?
Where does your evidence for the sailors come from, incidentally?
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Evidence for sailors?.
No-one can produce evidence only oral history is avaiiable, the report came from Mrs Coxs neice, who remarked that her aunt told her that 'Many a time my aunt would see kelly returning to her room with a sailor with a bottle of gin slung under her arm and singing'
This obviously was before the Ripper scare was around for it was reported at the time by local residents that she [ Kelly] would never venture out at night alone and it was her strict policy never to bring a man back to her room since the murders heightened.
The description of kelly singing , with a bottle under her arm would in my mind be a characteristic of kelly.
Refering to 39.
One telegram sent to Abberline dated the 21st November 88 refers to the killer wishing to give himself up and he could be found at 39 cutler street.
Out of all the dwellings in that street obviously at least 39, that number is picked.
another intresting observation is the writer refers to Stride as Long Liz.
If one takes that , one can suggest that if one adds the letters in the victims names.ie.
Tabram[ or Turner] Nichols, chapman, Long Liz. Eddowes, Kelly. one gets a total of 39.
Of course pure coincedence yet again...
Regards Richard.
|
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 37
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Richard,
I have noted that, if I sum the letters of your name,
N = 14,
U = 21,
N = 14,
W = 23,
E = 5,
E = 5,
K = 11,
I obtain 93, i.e., 39 in a mirror. Should I conclude that you are the grandson of Joseph Barnett?
Olivier |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 38
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 4:42 am: |
|
Richard - I checked the indexes of both the Ultimate Source Book and the A-Z (latest UK edition) and can find no mention of Cutler St. I am interested in following up your reference. Can you please tell me where I can find the text of the telegram to Abberline you mention.
I do note that much of your case is always based on unreliable hearsay evidence. Do you think this makes for a strong basis?
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:04 am: |
|
Hi Olivier,
Thats it, that is why I am so called obsessed with 3+9.
Case solved.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:14 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
If you have a copy'Letters from Hell'
You will find a copy of the telegram on page 132, if i am right i believe Cutler street is close to Dorset street.
True my case is somewhat hearsay , but i am selective in my selection, i tend to look at contempary comments and more recent interviews and look for sigments of truth within.
I Would dearly love a sample of Barnetts handwriting [ census?] to compare it with that particular Telegram.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 40
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
But Richard, the writer refers to all the blood of Long Liz having been used up. As it is extremely unlikely that Jack took blood from Liz stride (even assuming he killed her, which I personally doubt) the letter is unlikely to have come from JtR (whoever he was).
By 21 November, of course, almost anyone could have known of the soubriquet "Long Liz" and used it.
Interestingly, though the public perception was that Liz was a Ripper victim, the killer himself would have known she was NOT!! (Assuming my logic is right!)
Sorry, the telegram cries out hoax to me.
Phil
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Phil,
Of course its a hoax, there was never a ripper hoax letter written in blood from any victim, my point was the reference to once again thirty nine, it could have been sent by the killer as a jovial act copying the other hoaxers.
I was also relaying the fact that it mentions long liz[ not stride] which would supplement my 39 once again
Whoever send it had the two shillings that it would have cost to spare.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1984
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Richard,
My nan [who was born only a few years after the ripper murders]used to sing "All the nice girls love a sailor-----etc" Mrs Cox probably simply said Mary was a "nice girl by all accounts"----and someone in the family probably rejoined -music hall like-with "and we know what nice girls are"[ha!ha!--some kind of nice girl that-probably after a bottle of gin more like it!] and thats how people tended to talk then if you read their novels etc the whole story could have had as innocent a beginning as that!
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 547
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Richard - with you one cannot win because your thesis shifts with each response.
MY meaning of hoax was that the telegram you cite did NOT origimate from the Jack. The information in it could have come from anywhere and be known to anyone given the lapse in time since the so-called "double event".
Equally, if Jack did not kill Stride (as many of us here believe to be the case) then one has to assume a very complicated double bluff that involves the ripper deliberately falsifying the facts about his deeds.
Not only do I not believe there is a shred of evidence for Jack as hoaxer or letter writer; I think your explanation is too complex to be taken seriously under any circumstance.
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 2:23 am: |
|
Hi phil,
Again to repeat myself, i was not judging if that letter was a hoax or from the killer, just the intresting number on the address which would indicate to me that it possibly? may be original.
I do not find my assumptions complex.
Scenerio.
Kelly returns to prostitution whilst living in room 13 , 26 Dorset street, because of this Barnett blames that hovel for her ways, and decides to kill women that Kelly proberly knew.
It is also a possibility if McCarthys report was right that Barnett [ the real one] lost his job as a coal porter from 39 Dorset street which was a coal merchants. which would double his anger regarding that number.
Of course its speculation but not improbable.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 551
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
...which would double his anger regarding that number.
We don't even know that Barnett HAD anger against ANY mumber let alone 39!!
I think it HIGHLY improbable. It is a fact that if you begin to look for anything, you'll begin to notice it. If a colour (say green) was to come into focus with JtR I am sure we'd find masses of mentions of that colour. Means NOTHING!!
Phil
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 399
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Richard, do you really believe that a man like Barnett, given the times he lived in and his probable education level would really even THINK to add 13 and 26 to get 39? What ever would possess him to do that?
I remember in the 70's when the serial killer genre became popular in books and films seeing and reading alot about crimes that had these complex puzzle-like scenarios and while they were thrilling and fun to work out, real life murders are much more mundane.
I think it's somehow comforting to believe that there are clues embedded in the crimes themselves, that if we can only understand the message we can wrench some order out of the chaos. But life doesn't work that way.
Mags
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 423
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Richard,
I have to go with Mags and Phil here. Your obsession with the number 39 - for whatever reason - is purely speculation. I highly doubt that the Ripper, and especially Joseph Barnett, thought, "Oh, lemme see now.. what can add up to the number 39, so I can commit murder". Highly unlikely and totally unbelievable!
The number 39 theory is dust, Richard! Along with the grave spitting incident!
As far as I'm concerned, it rates right up there with the Lewis Carroll theory.
I respect you, Richard, but your 39 theory is completely off the wall.
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
