|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3621
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 4:25 pm: |       |
Well, Leanne, then I take it you're saying that she did recognise him. But how was he going to win her back by dressing up as a tailor's dummy and visiting her at 2 AM? And where did he get the smart rigout from, if he was broke?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
PETTICOAT LANE mate PETTICOAT LANE! I'm not even going to try to guess on which Sunday Morning that Hutchinson fancied he saw him there! Mary's body was found on a Friday morning.
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3623
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
Leanne, if he owned this rigout before Mary was murdered, and he was so desperate to get back in her good graces that he was prepared to go out at 2 AM in the rain to see her, why didn't he pawn it so that he could give her some money on Thursday?
And if he didn't pawn it but instead hung onto it, why wear it for a 2 AM stroll down Commercial St?
Remember, he's supposed to have had no thoughts of killing her when he left Buller's So why the elaborate charade?
Robert |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
Hi Leanne...I think we can be as certain as is possible, that Hutchinson meant the Sunday two days previously.
Mary was killed on the Friday, and Hutchinson made his statement on the following Tuesday...He said,"I fancied that I saw him on Sunday morning".
Had it been any other Sunday, he would have said,"One" Sunday, or "a week last Sunday"etc.
Check his words for yourself. Surely we can agree on that little point.
Best wishes Leanne
David Cartwright.} |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1616
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: Joseph Barnett 'fell out of' Mary Kelly's 'good books' and left 13 Miller's Court on the night of October 30, which was just NINE DAYS before her murder.
Let's see...9 days after Oct 30 was a Friday, so Ocober 30 must have been a Wednesday. There was ONE Sunday in between and it wasn't "two days previously", unless your'e suggesting that the well-dressed man bought his clothes two days AFTER he wore them!
DAVID: "I think we can be as certain as is possible, that Hutchinson meant the Sunday two days previously."
Why on earth do you say that? Because it fits your ideas of what happened and adds weight to your argument?
On September 30 1888 Joseph Lawende saw a man of about 30, with a FAIR complexion and a FAIR moustache in the covered passage leading to Mitre Square. The same man was seen by two men working in the nearby ORANGE MARKET. That description which tallies with a description of Joseph Barnett was published and made public knowledge by the 'Daily Telegraph' at least, and there was at least 4 maybe 5 Sunday mornings between then and November 9.
Joseph Barnett was still earning a steady wage at Billingsgate Market when that fair description was published to Londoners.
"Oh, and as Barnett was living with Kelly at the times of the other four murders, just how did he account for his "coincidental" absences at these times to Kelly, something that a very "frightened" woman could not fail to notice."
David study the markets and learn that the best times for fruit costermongers to get there was just after the market opened and very early in the morning. They did this to ensure the hire of a cart and the best bargains were made early, just after the trading began.
Why would he have to account for his being out looking for work?
If Barnett slept at all before he worked and Mary Kelly went out drinking with her friends, how much time was left for them to be together? No wonder she chose to let her friends stay in the room which probably forced Barnett on the floor! He had worn out his welcome, but he was bringing home the cash!
"Also, where did he hide his little collection of kidneys & wombs etc.??....and did he also carry spare "shirts" with him to Mitre Square etc. to allow for bloodstaining in the other murders??"
A costermongers job took him all over the place! Why does your mind think that he had to take everything home to Mary? As for the spare shirts, how bloodstained to you believe the Ripper would have been? And surely he wasn't that stupid that he couldn't wash in a sink or put a jacket on! Contable Smith, I think it was, found a bloodstained sink in Dorset Street after the double event, but people chose to ignore that fact because it doesn't 'blend-in' to what they want to believe!
"Or hadn't "YOU" thought about all or any of these things??"
I've thought about the whole lot, mate. Have you? or you just waiting for an answer to appear in the official files, without allowing your mind to venture a little sideways?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3630
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
Leanne, I never said anything about "two days previously" 
Robert |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
Hi Leanne...Read Hutchinson's own words, and it's obvious what he meant...It doesn't harm YOUR theories or beliefs in any way, as it makes no difference to the Kelly murder, either before or after. I simply pointed out the obvious from Hutchinson's statement, regarding when he saw his man.
I think you're getting paranoid with me now.
As to your other statement, all who know me would tell you how I advocate the use of a good imagination in these matters. I have thought of , and allowed for, alternative possibilities to many incidents in this case, things that have been viewed only ONE way in the books I have read, and practically accepted as law.
When hard facts are few, and evidence flimsy, a good, but realistic, imagination can make a clearer picture of the person you're looking for.
So you see Leanne, I do a great deal of constructive thinking. I have my own very strong views as to who was Jack the Ripper.
No, I don't believe it was Joseph Barnett, but if you have a strong realistic case for thinking otherwise, then you should stick to it.
Best wishes Leanne.
David Cartwright}}
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 10:22 pm: | |
G'day David,
OK, In just looked again at Hutchinson's statement which appeared in the 'Times' on Wednesday the 14th of November:
'....I believe he lives in the neighbourhood and I fancied I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning but I was not certain....'
Hutchinson most probably made the statement the day before which was Tuesday November 13, so he COULD HAVE been talking about Sunday the 11th of November which was 2 days after the Millers Court murder.
LEANNE |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Hi Leanne....Thank you....I am not your enemy.
You will never hear me say that "Joe Barnett was NOT Jack the Ripper, full stop". I can't make such a silly statement...Yes, Abberline cleared him, but then the same Abberline also made groundless accusations against wife-poisoner George Chapman, so as you said, he was certainly not incapable of "human error".
This is a unique case, isn't it??. In the absence of evidence of guilt towards any one suspect, we find ourselves looking at suspects for whom there is "no" evidence of "innocence".
Paul Begg is one of the best, and sanest, of the Ripper authors, and I actually heard him say that he believed that most Ripperologists & authors do NOT want the case solved, to perpetuate the mystery for their own personal reasons.
But I would certainly love to see it solved, and I'm sure that you would to. If that happens, and it turns out to be Joseph Barnett, then "mine" will be the first grovelling apology you will receive.
I am completely open-minded, and my personal belief is this......If you can make a good, realistic circumstantial case against any suspect, without bending the facts, and taking in motive, opportunity, and reasons for the beginning & sudden cessation of the crimes, then you stand a good chance of getting it right.
That is what I've done with my own suspect, and I'm sure you've done the same with Joe Barnett.
Let's just hope we get the truth in the end.
Very best wishes Leanne.
David Cartwright
|
jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
Hi all
Read this thread with some interest particularly with reguard to Joe.
The lock on the door thread seems a bit of a Red Hearing. If this was McCarthy's store room before being particianed then it makes sence to keep it secure from intruders or perhaps the lock was older (It has been suggested the Kelly's room may have been part of the original kitchen.) It seems to me that the murder would have left down the ally in some hurry and not bothered to put his hand back through the window and lock it where he'd have more time to be noticed.
It has also facinated me that however you do the body count for the Whitchappel murders there must have been a disproportionate number of serial killers working in the area. Chapman and Cream to name but two, the torso murderer (who probably did more than Jack) and then the two that did for Tabram, did they do others?
The only two that you can say without doubt were Jacks are Chapman and Eddows (although Nicols is probable) If Joe did do for Kelly then it is a crime of passion discuised to look like the Ripper. I just dont buy it, Kelly had the haul marks of a ripper victim.
Joe may have spat on her grave but there could have been other explinations apart from him being the murderer, indeed if he had of killed her would he have draw attension to himself like this?
Normally Joe would be the number one suspect but this is far from a normal murder. These were the acts of a deeply disturbed individual. If it was Barnet sooner or later he would have benn cault or given himself away.
But these are just my veiws, no more better ideas for suspects I'm afraid.
Jeff Leahy
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
G'day,
I'm back after a rest!
"If this was McCarthy's store room before being particianed then it makes sence to keep it secure from intruders or perhaps the lock was older (It has been suggested the Kelly's room may have been part of the original kitchen.)" Jeff, are you suggesting that McCarthy had the key all the time to keep the room secure from intruders? If so, then why didn't he produce a key instead of breaking his door open with an axe? I'm glad it makes sense to you!
"It seems to me that the murder would have left down the ally in some hurry and not bothered to put his hand back through the window and lock it where he'd have more time to be noticed." If he did then it would have been foolish not to delay the discovery of the body, especially if he was Hutchinson's suspect and knew that someone was snooping around outside.
"If it was Barnet sooner or later he would have benn cault or given himself away." Have you closely traced the man's life following Mary Kelly's inquest?
LEANNE
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 375
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:43 pm: | |
Leanna,
Good to have you back on the boards.
Don. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
"If this was McCarthy's store room before being particianed then it makes sence to keep it secure from intruders"Are you, Jeff, satisfied in believing that McCarthy let Mary have the key up until about a month before her murder so she could come and go as she pleased, then took it back to safeguard the room from intruders such as the friends she was inviting to stay to interfere with the couple's 'bliss'.
"If Joe did do for Kelly then it is a crime of passion discuised to look like the Ripper." If Joe wanted to disguise Kelly's murder as a Ripper crime, why didn't he bother waiting for an opportuntity to arrise outside, slice her throat, take her uterus or kidney, and slice her right up the middle then calmly disappear down the alley?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 26, 2004) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
"If this was McCarthy's store room before being particianed then it makes sence to keep it secure from intruders"Are you, Jeff, satisfied in believing that McCarthy let Mary have the key up until about a month before her murder so she could come and go as she pleased, then took it back to safeguard the room from intruders such as the friends she was inviting to stay to interfere with the couples 'bliss'.
"If Joe did do for Kelly then it is a crime of passion discuised to look like the Ripper." If Joe wanted to disguise Kelly's murder as a Ripper crime, why didn't he bother waiting for an opportuntity to arrise outside, slice her throat, take her uterus or kidney, and slice her right up the middle then calmly disappear down the alley?
If he murdered her in a fit he had little control over, THEN made the consious desision to disguise it as a Ripper crime, why didn't he just take her uterus?
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
How about Barnett needing a alibi, the fact is it would have been established if kelly was found in the streets in the middle of the night, that she had recently split with her partner[ Barnett] and he would have been brought in for questioning, but he would have had no alibi if he had killed her during the night on the streets.
Yet if he killed her around 9am on the 9th, and made it look like the killer lit a fire to require light, and kelly was in bed at the time with her clothes folded in the usual manner, a alibi during the likely hours of the murder could have been established.
Which exactly i believe happened.
Richard.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:50 am: | |
G'day Rich,
"How about Barnett needing a alibi," I have no idea what point you are trying to make mate. Are you suggesting that Barnett made sure he was seen going to bed at midnight, (so he had a secure alibi for the hours between 12:00 and breakfast time), then snuck out seven or eight hours later to complete his premeditated task of butchering Kelly?
Then do you believe he made the intelligent decision to light a huge fire shortly before the rent collector was due and people were out of bed, stomped it out and blew on it to cool just enough to fool police into believing it was alight during the dark hours.
Then did he forget to take her kidney or uterus, (which would have made it seem more like a Ripper crime), and accidently took her heart instead.
He was taken to the station and questioned by Abberline anyway, and he must have known that that was likely to happen.
It will spoil the case against him if we try to be too elaborate!
"a alibi during the likely hours of the murder could have been established." Eh????? Being in bed aint no alibi! If he wanted to secure a solid alibi, he would have made sure he was seen by the lodging house deputy or someone from the time that the whist game concluded until breakfast! It wasn't unusual to stay out of bed and 'walk the streets' all night until breakfast!
LEANNE
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Hi Leanne....I agree with Don, it's good to have you back. I hope you've had a good Christmas.
Having not been in since the start, on this Barnett thread, can I just ask you a question??
Do you subscribe to the theory that Barnett murdered the other four, just to scare Kelly off the streets, or do you have another theory, or other reasons in mind??
Best wishes & a happy new year Leanne.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT.} |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
G'day Don,
"Do you subscribe to the theory that Barnett murdered the other four, just to scare Kelly off the streets," I'd like to extinguish that theory too, but people just refuse to consider!
Barnett's hatred of low women extended much deeper than that! He lost his father when he was very young, and then his mother deserted her five children soon after! It was common for Irish immigrant females to turn to prostitution to survive.
Caz once asked me if it was so common why wasn't there more Jack the Rippers in the neighbourhood? To that I'd like to say that everyone's different and they react to stress in different ways!!!!
No, I had the worst Christmas ever!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 5:38 am: | |
G'day Rich,
If Barnett murdered Kelly around 9a.m. on the 9th and wanted to secure an alibi back at Buller's Lodging House, he could have stayed up drinking with the alcoholics to make sure he was seen, then offered to take out the garbage at about 8a.m.
"It was common for Irish immigrant females to turn to prostitution to survive." I meant to say that it was a common thing for Irish WIDOWS WITH TOO MANY CHILDREN TO SUPPORT to desert them for the easy money earning life of a prostitute.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 5:45 am: | |
G'day,
If the thought of losing his new woman the same was as he lost the other one (his mother) wasn't enough of a motive, add to that the loss of his well-paying job, and the nagging jealousy caused by Mary Kelly's preferrence for the affection that Joseph Flemming was pouring onto her!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 1:30 am: | |
G'day,
"a alibi during the likely hours of the murder could have been established." Claiming to be in bed aint an alibi and never will be, unless someone was in bed with you!
If anyone thinks that 'Buller's Lodging House' had a guard at the door so it does qualify as an alibi, I'd like to see the proof that 'Buller's' had a guard to identify and record the name of everyone who left during the early hours that dock workers, sailors, anyone hoping to work on 'Lord Mayors Day' morning.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 30, 2004) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 1:40 am: | |
G'day,
Police probably had never even heard of the name 'Joseph Barnett' before the month of November 1888, (unless his name was recorded on a police report somewhere), and by that stage most would have had their own ideas of who Jack the Ripper was.
It would have taken alot of convincing to cause those great minds to change, and Jack the ripper never left any damning evidence at any of the crime scenes to cause a change of opinion....except perhaps a pipe in 13 Miller's Court.
LEANNE |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
Hi Leanne and Richard
I took this little snippet from the account of the inquest into MJK's death from The Scotsman 13th Nov. I have not seen the answer from Barnett to the question about MJK being afraid of anyone worded quite like this before in any of the other inquest accounts, so it may be of interest to you two, In this account Barnett himself seems to imply that MJK was afraid of him at times;
>>Did she go in fear of any individual?-No, sir, only with me now and again, and that was always shortly over-one moment rowing, and for days and weeks always friendly. Often I bought her things coming home, and, whatever it was she always liked it. She was always glad of my fetching her such articles, such as meat and other things, as my hard earnings would allow.<<
Also another account ( from the same source) of Barnett being sworn in at the inquest, which I have only included here as I have personally never seen it reported before and thought it gave a little glimpse of Barnetts personality ;
>>JOSEPH BARNETT was the first witness called, and after some trouble he was found and entered the court. Upon the Testament being handed to him, he at once kissed it, and on being checked by the officer, said, "Oh, well, I don't know nothing about such things. I've never been on such an errand before."<<
The report also mentions Barnett's stuttering all the way through and his struggle with great emotion.
Debra
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:47 pm: | |
Hi Leanne.
I'm sorry you've had a bad Christmas. Not family-related problems I hope. They're the worst kind, I know from experience.
I don't really know what to say now, so I'll just comment that I'm glad you don't subscribe to the "Scare Kelly off the streets" theory.
That one was stretching credibility a bit too far.
I don't know what ruined your Christmas, but I do sincerely hope that you have a very happy new year.
All the best Leanne.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT} |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 12:44 am: | |
G'day David,
It's thoughts of him killing five other women SIMPLY to persuade his Mary off the streets, plus thinking that him and Mary were in a PERFECT relationship with ALL of their neighbours agreeing, that become like concrete walls that can never be penetrated when we try to identify the Ripper.
'Jack the Ripper' is seen as a supernatural boogey-man. People are so sure that he constantly appeared evil to everyone he knew and was a complete looney who permanently dressed in a long black cloak, clutching a bloody dagger.
Then someone suggested he was of Royal Blood, and every bought the idea because they crave conspiracy.
Then another person claimed to have found his diary that he kept because he felt the need to confess, and the case is blown out of proportion.
Then another person suggested he was an artist, trying to make a name for himself in the artworld, then threw all that away and created an unidentifiable rival to fill all the newspapers!
I prefer to take a simpler look at the case, to push the smoke aside and look at 'The Simple Truth'.
LEANNE
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 7:06 am: | |
Hi Leanne.....A happy new year to you.
Well, we are in total agreement about that. I've paid no heed to "Royal" conspiracies, phony diaries etc., nor, if I read you correctly, the Walter Sickert fantasy.
I also DON'T believe that the Ripper was some evil-looking "Dracula" type figure. On the contrary, although we differ about his identity, I believe that he was a quiet inoffensive man who would have attracted no suspicion in daily life.
We even agree that a tortured and unbalanced mind, which did not show itself to those around him, brought about this horrendous reign of terror.
So, even though I'm convinced about MY man, I can clearly see why you believe in Joe Barnett, and the simple reasons for doing so.
Best Wishes Leanne.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT}} |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page