|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 12:09 am: |       |
G'day,
Why couldn't Joe settle on a reason for his leaving her to live at Bullers? He first told Abberline: "in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution." Days later he told the Coroner: "Because she took in an immoral woman. My being out of work had nothing to do with it." Abberline was there and heard this, but probably just saw Joe as a victim, which covered his guilt effectively. Why would he have to lie about her past?
When the Coroner asked if she was afraid of anyone in particular, why did his mind immediately go to the quarrels they were having? That's not what the coroner was asking about!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 2:49 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
The last four lines of your post are intresting.
You proberly will not have heard of the recent case in England of Ian Huntley, who inticed two young girls into his house , and after sexually assaulting them , killed them both , and burnt their bodies.
He has since been found guilty, and has been sentenced to life imprisonment[ bring back the death penalty, but that is just my opinion].
Anyway, around sept 2002, just two weeks after he had comitted the act , and before he was arrested , he gave an interview to GM.TV. which to the average viewer , was not incriminating, however as a result of that interview, an expert in criminal and mental behaviour, contacted the police,stating he had watched the interview, and a couple of points made by Huntley concerned him.
He admitted talking to the girls after their disappearence, and said' If only I had kept them longer, the situation may have been different'
The expert obviously was concerned that keeping the girls was foremost in his mind.
By Barnett, saying our quarrels were soon over, when not being directly asked that question, in my mind shows that quarrells were foremost in his mind, and I believe an expert in the human mind , if one could have been present at the inquest of Kelly, would have had his suspicions aroused,
Richard. |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 4:18 am: | |
Hello All,
During our research we spoke to several 'streetgirls' and, they all said they knew every other 'streetgirl' within half a mile of their 'patch'.
So c'mon, don't say that those women in 1888 didn't know one another!
A&S
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 341
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 5:06 am: | |
Guys,
We will never know how upset Joe was over Mary. Maybe he was lying about how much he loved her, but then I do't see why. If he killed her I believe it was because he was in love with her and was upset about their fading relationship (which is how is description of the relationship was), but if he lied, then why would he have killed her? I don't think he would have, after all as the saying goes, "we always hurt the ones we love the most".
I also am not saying that the victims didn't probably know each other by sight, I just don't think that they may have known each other intimately.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 5:10 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
If a murderer is questioned about the murder of his ex, he is very likely to lie if the truth will drop him in it. If an innocent man is questioned about the murder of his ex, his mind will immediately go to any quarrels they had when asked if she was afraid of anyone in particular. He will be well aware of what might lie behind such a question. If he avoids telling the truth about their quarrels, it will look suspicious even though he knows he is innocent. A murderer is less likely to volunteer the information, taking the chance that no one else will supply it or be able to prove it.
The statements are not contradictory. All Joe is saying is that he left because Mary resorted to prostitution and took in an immoral woman when he couldn’t support her himself. He didn’t mean he left because he couldn’t do so. In other words if she had earned enough to survive from taking up sewing or cleaning instead of using their bed for communal whoring, he would have stayed.
You still haven’t explained why it would point to Joe’s guilt, if one or more of the previous victims had close links with Dorset Street. As not one of them was encountered and attacked there, what’s the story?
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on December 19, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 342
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 5:19 am: | |
Caz,
Joe is the only suspect that is also linked to Dorset Street. I odn't know if that is what Leanne is saying but it is what I am saying, although I'm not saying that proves anything.
Also with regards to your first paragraph in your last post, what if a murderer thinks that by saying anything to help the police and makes it look like he is willing to say even things that might get him in trouble, e.g., saying that Mary was afraid of him when they argued, may actually make him look innocent as a guilty man would avoid saying those things. I know that's what I would do, although I have no plans to murder anyone.
Hope that makes sense.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 5:28 am: | |
Hi all
I notice the way Barnett is being given these cunning scenarios, engaging in games of bluff and double bluff. Some of it reminds me of Holmes and Moriarty!
Yet this mastermind is supposed to have lost his cool, butchering the woman whose death would lead the police straight to him.
Oh well, as I've said before, if one Barnett didn't do it maybe the other Barnetts(s) did.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 345
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 5:33 am: | |
Robert,
You are talking as though people are purely one dimensional. This is not the case. Surely you have more than one side to you, I know I do and I don't know a single person who can work me out. Why can't one person lose his cool one minute than organise himself the next in the presence of the police? There is not good reason why he couldn't.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 296
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 5:36 am: | |
Sarah
That depends on what you regard as being "linked" to Dorset Street. George Hutchinson would be linked to Dorset Street in my mind, as he did make the very bizarre decision to stand in a doorway there for forty-five minutes watching a door just because a prostitute he knew picked up a slightly posher-than-usual client. This is not only a link to Dorset Street, but is far odder behaviour than any that Joe was ever reported as having indulged in. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 347
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 6:03 am: | |
Alan,
You're right. I forgot about him, although one could argue that he may have been watching out for Mary as there was a killer on the loose and maybe this man struck him as odd.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 6:24 am: | |
G'day,
Yeah George Hutchinson is a worry! I do agree that his behaviour was weird. Didn't someone say he once lived in the same building as Martha Tabram?
LEANNE |
Angelina Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 4:12 pm: | |
Jason,
On your question:
"Anyone know how difficult it would be to get the death records from say.. 1886 to 1895 for the entire city? I bet those aren't online anywhere"
I have had a hard time myself. I have been trying to look up a missing persons report from London in 1888. I'm getting a lot of recent files, even though I am dating them back to that time. You can type in "Death Records for London 1888" and that will bring you within close proximity of where you want to be. If you have a break through in the missing persons files while you're at it, please let me know. I would be very greatful.
Sarah,
As posted in the above statement. I'm still working on the "missing persons" report to try to locate something that might help us with all of our questions. Having a hard time, but not giving up. 
Angelina |
help
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:14 am: | |
G'day,
CAZ: Detectives would have jumped on any common link between the victims, or a friend that was common to all of them, a common drinking or working place. If anyone other than an acquaintance who lived on the same busy street as Joe and Mary was murdered, chances are that Mary would have been considered in each victims 'outer-circle'. This has to do with keeping suspicion as far away as possible.
To kill a close friends of Mary's intead of her, would have been a well planned out move, that may not have brought Mary any closer to him. It just would have brought the detectives closer.
Ok, so by killing Mary herself certainly brought the detectives closer, but he was just seen as a victim too.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
Leanne,
Any chance of addressing the points and questions I put to you in my previous post, of 19th December?
Do you now understand why those two statements of Joe’s regarding why he shifted out of Mary’s room are not contradictory, and therefore why they don’t make him a liar?
Do you agree with Sarah that Joe could have been craftily admitting to quarrels with Mary to make him appear open and honest, when he was in fact the dastardly butcher of Dorset Street?
And once again, why would links between the victims and Dorset Street (assuming you can prove the links you were suggesting recently) point towards Joe’s guilt rather than away from it - especially if the argument is that a cool and methodical Joe, who can think up subtly clever answers after the event, would have been rather foolhardy to attack only women he recognised, providing the police with a ready-made common factor to work with?
Considering how many twists and turns in Joe’s mentality, emotions and capabilities you have had to credit him with, aren’t you beginning to wonder if the case against him isn’t about to break under the strain?
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on December 22, 2003) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 1:55 am: | |
G'day,
CAZ: OK, I'll address your points: You ask; 'Do you understand...' Answer: NO! Joe Barnett told Abberline that he left her because he was unable to earn sufficient money for her. Then, a few days later he said that it was because of the prostitutes that were staying, and he added that it had nothing to do with his inablity to earn money!
Being the first person to testify, he would have had no idea of what the others would talk about, regarding their quarrels. According to the 'Standard', Julia Venturney said: 'I have FREQUENTLY seen her the worse for drink, but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone.' I wonder where he went?
I dont understand your 4th paragraph. What are you asking? What do you mean by: '(assuming you can prove the links you were suggesting recently)'.
No, I am not the least bit worried about the case against Barnett 'breaking under the strain'! What strain?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 359
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 4:34 am: | |
Caz,
Actually I was a bit puzzled by you saying (assuming you can prove the links you were suggesting recently). He was linked to Dorset Street, he lived there. Why do you suggest there is no link? It is fact that he lived there.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 554
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 5:29 am: | |
Ladies,
Tis the season to be jolley !!!
Do you want me to get out the leotards and paddling pool again ?
Monty
|
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 15
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 5:59 am: | |
Monty,
NOW YOU'RE TALKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 83
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:01 am: | |
Is it possible that all the talk about Barnett's contradictory testimony (strictly speaking, it wasn't a contradiction) stems from the continuing belief that the police at the time served as the model for the "Keystone Kops." Certainly some are of the opinion that the police investigation was nothing short of incompetent.
There is no question that they were lacking many of the modern investigatory aids, but then as now they also had their strengths. They could put a lot of boots on the ground and they were assiduous in checking stories. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: to gain an appreciation for what the police could do, check into their efforts for suspects who were cleared, like Issenschmid.
That said, consider Barnett's inquest statement "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." It sounds to me like a rather contrite correction of the statement he gave the police and probably the result of the subsequent police investigation.
I can well imagine Abberline talking to Barnett and saying something like "Look son, we've talking to your neighbors and that business about your being out of work, that had nothing to do with your leaving. You had rows about her bringing in prostitutes and that's why you left, isn't it." And, after a chastened Barnett agreed, Abberline probably added "Make sure you get your story straight at the inquest."
After all, if Barnett were interested in changing his story himself, he would have glibly talked about the prostitutes in residence and conveniently neglected all mention of his unemployment as a secondary reason.
Instead of leaping from his chair in surprise at Barnett's "contradiction," Abberline more likely just thought to himself "Now he's got it."
Don. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:11 am: | |
Hi All,
Leanne, either you didn’t read the perfectly reasonable explanation I gave for the apparent contradiction between Joe’s two statements not actually being a contradiction, or you didn’t understand it, or you choose not to accept it. I can do no more than point you back to my own reading of the statements and ask you to explain why it doesn’t work and still makes Joe a liar in your eyes.
Sarah, I meant the links between the victims and Dorset Street, not the obvious link Joe had with it. Or did I only dream that recent post of Leanne’s, in which she listed the victims and their alleged links with Dorset Street, presumably as some sort of argument pointing towards Joe’s guilt?
I feel like I’m going round in circles so yes please, Monty, let’s have the paddling pool out and I’ll willingly take off my Clangers slippers and wade in – make sure the water’s icy cold to sharpen my wits, I’m drowning in custard here and it’s making my head a trifle dizzier than usual!
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 362
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 11:20 am: | |
Caz,
Sorry I hadn't read that post.
Richard,
I have only just read your post on Ian Huntley and just wanted to point out some things. You said that he sexually assaulted the girls, well that is new to me and I've been reading and watching this case since their murders. They didn't ask him about any sexual involvement with the girls so therefore they found no trace of a sexual assault on the girls. You may be getting confused with the fact that he had been accused with rape and sexual harrassment at least seven times before this murder.
Also it was his former girlfriend who contacted the police after the GMTV interview as she wa actually on GMTV the other day telling her story. Apparently after she saw that he had been connected to the girls she got worried and called the police, in fact it was more to do with the fact that he was a caretaker at a school and she knew what he was like.
Sorry, didn't mean to go off subject.
Sarah |
Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 24
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Caz
Do you want to share this smimming pool and slippers thing with us all...?
Probably not wise!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 12:58 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
Just a quick reply, I was refering to Huntleys motives for detaining the girls, which must have been sexual designed, and the fact that a expert in analyzing behaviour,contacted the police after seeing the G.M.T V. interview. to voice a concerned opinion.
Richard.] have a good holiday. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
G'day,
Ohhhh, now I get it! The police interigated Barnett about Mary Kelly's past, his past, his working environment, weren't happy with his initial given reason for leaving her, interviewed Mary's neighbours, got Barnett to state the real reason why he left her, (but were happy to submit his origonal reason as his statement), checked out his alibi, and checked all of his clothes for bloodstains...all within a space of "ffffour hours"! Great!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 6:06 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I imagine that Abberline interviewed Barnett while a host of other officers spoke to the court residents, none of whom were allowed to leave their homes till evening time.
I don't imagine he had many clothes to check for bloodstains. We're not talking Imelda Marcos here.
It's interesting that there seems to have been no "lynch mob" mentality against Barnett, despite his being taken in by the police. When he decided to go and stay at his sister's, it was because he was being pursued by journalists, not a mob.
That cunning joe, he fooled everyone......
Robert
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
