|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 4:41 am: |       |
G'day,
"The lock on MJK’s door seems to have been a spring lock. They were used in those days, or so I’ve understood. With such a lock, the bolt shoots home as you pull the door to and locks the door. So, the Ripper probably didn’t need to stick his hand through the window to lock the door behind him, he just had to pull it shut."
Yes, thanks for that expert locksmiths information Frank. 
Of course. Obviously John McCarthy inserted the latest design, expensive lock on all his doors on one of the poorest streets in London. Including the 'wretched hole' that he had partitioned from his shed!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3573
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 8:24 am: | |
Leanne, in "From Hell" Bob Hinton argues that the lock was one known as a Night Latch. Cost : three shillings.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3574
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:15 am: | |
Here's an item that mentions locks. "The Times" May 29th 1913.
Robert |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 8:44 am: | |
Hi Leanne & Robert. On reflection, it is rather hard to believe that McCarthy would have gone to the trouble of installing any elaborate or expensive locking system for those "hovels". I can't argue with Bob Hinton without contrary evidence, but my money would have been on a simple old-fashioned bolt. Still, whichever way, I do believe that the Ripper was standing alongside Mary Jane when she reached through the window to let them into No.13, and knew how to secure the door when he left.
Best wishes to you both.
David Cartwright |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
Hi Robert. Yes, the "just walked in" idea shouldn't be entirely ruled out. My reason for believing that she picked him up and took him home, is largely based on the evidence of George Hutchinson. If Hutchinson was accurate and truthful, then Kelly met her killer at around 2-15am. Then Hutchinson hung around out of curiosity until approx. 3a.m. The evidence of Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis indicates the murder took place between 3-30 & 4 O'clock. Why the Ripper's delay in killing Kelly?? Well, he was obviously aware of Hutchinson's keen interest in him, and would wait long enough to be certain that Hutchinson wouldn't come knocking the door, & possibly with a policeman in tow. I like your point about Kelly picking up a man with much more than fourpence to spend. That smacks more of our old friend MJD as a client. I should have thought that Hutchinson, who knew Kelly well, would probably have known Joe Barnett too. If Hutchinson was genuine, I think the times he gave made it near certain that the "very well-dressed man" he saw with Kelly, was her murderer. No matter how I look at it, I just cannot seriously accept Barnett as being JTR.
Best wishes Robert.
David Cartwright |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 376
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
“Yes, thanks for that expert locksmiths information Frank.”
No need to get cynical on my account. You make it sound like a very far-fetched notion when it really doesn’t seem to be. I didn’t claim it was a spring lock and I still don’t, but there are indications that it actually was one or something like it.
Abberline at inquest: “An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy.”
Walter Dew: “As soon as the chief officers arrived they decided to force the door which, if I remember rightly, had an automatic lock.”
Daily Telegraph of 10 November: “The last person to have left the place must have closed the door behind him, taking with him the key from the spring lock, as it is missing.”
London Times of 10 November: “The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer apparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found.”
Bob Hinton:”It is a cheap common type around since the Regency period and known as a Night Latch.”
”Of course. Obviously John McCarthy inserted the latest design, expensive lock on all his doors on one of the poorest streets in London. Including the 'wretched hole' that he had partitioned from his shed!”
Where did you ever get the idea that it had to be an expensive design lock?
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 377
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Hey Robert,
Thanks for the info on the Night Latch.
Frank |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:29 am: | |
G'day,
DAVID: " I should have thought that Hutchinson, who knew Kelly well, would probably have known Joe Barnett too."
GEORGE HUTCHINSON: 'They both then came past me and the man his down his head with his hat over his eyes.'
If he was just someone unknown to Hutchinson, why wear all that garb in Dorset Street if he didn't want to stand out?
FRANK: "Walter Dew: “As soon as the chief officers arrived they decided to force the door which, if I remember rightly, had an automatic lock.”
Oh PLEASE quote the source of that one!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 4:18 am: | |
G'day Frank,
It's alright you don't have to answer that last question. I found the source myself but wasn't he writing from memory, decades after the event?
Would John McCarthy have bothered to install a self-locking lock on a shed-partitioned "hovel" like Mary's, (which contained nothing worth stealing), and not on Room 20 upstairs where Elizabeth Prater had to barricade herself in with two tables?
LEANNE |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 5:22 am: | |
Hi Leanne. I'm not too sure what you're saying to me there. I'd still say that Hutchinson was likely to know Barnett too, and he supposedly did get a clear look at the "Well dressed man's" face.
Barnett would not have had such fancy "garb". So, at a guess, I'd say that you're saying that Hutchinson may not have been the first-class witness that he's purported to be. If I'm wrong, please forgive me. Personally, I think that the incredibly detailed description he gave, in very poor light, must lessen his credibility as a witness. With regard to the lock on Mary's door, I've already said, in a message not yet up on the board, that I totally agree with you in doubting that McCarthy would go to trouble and expense, to fit such locks on those "Hovels"
All the best Leanne.
David Cartwright |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 389
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
The evidence points to an automatic lock, which wasn't necessarily very expensive. The fact that Prater barricaded herself in doesn't mean she didn't have the same type of lock. It's also possible that the lock on Kelly's room was unique among the other rented rooms, as it was originally part of McCarthy's store room. He could have had that locked up tight and then decided he didn't need all that much room and converted part of it into lodgings. The idea that it's impossible that the lock was automatic seems too be quite weakly supported.
We don't know that Hutchinson knew Barnett or even Kelly for that matter. He claims to have known her, but it could have been as friends, as a client for prostitution (which may mean no knowledge of Barnett at all), or it's even possible that the whole thing was a lie.
And I'm not going to even get into the whole idea that a Ripper only would have bothered to duck down if the witness were someone who knew him but yet wouldn't take further steps to stay out of sight.
There are a lot of musta coulda wouldas being floated around here that don't make a lot of sense except as one possibility out of several more likely ones.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
G'day David,
"Hi Leanne. I'm not too sure what you're saying to me there."
Read Elizabeth Prater's inquest testimony, mate!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 1:10 am: | |
G'day Dan,
"And I'm not going to even get into the whole idea that a Ripper only would have bothered to duck down if the witness were someone who knew him but yet wouldn't take further steps to stay out of sight."
Why not get into the idea that the over-dressed man only hid from a person's view when he was in a situation where he could've been examined up-close?
LEANNE
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Hi Leanne. Hey, no need to get shirty, "mate".
I only asked you to clarify your meaning for me.
Thanks for the reply. We understand each other now.
Cheers Leanne.
David Cartwright |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
Hi Dan. I can't speak for the others who write here, but as far as I am personally concerned, you've got your wires crossed. Firstly the locks. This is a matter of personal opinions ONLY, yours, mine, & the others, and each is as likely to be right as the other. It doesn't matter anyway, any more than the missing key matters. As regards Hutchinson, if you read my messages, you'd know that I said that his incredible description of the man with Kelly, literally right down to his boot-laces, and in poor light, made his credibility as a witness very doubtful. He may, as you said, have been a liar, though why I don't know, but Abberline believed him. Who said anything about dipping down to look at the man, or about possibly recognising him??? Not me. I've never believed that the Ripper was a local man. Far from it in fact. I've only ever stated my belief that he had a refuge or bolt-hole, not too distant from the scenes of crime. The only reason I got into locks and missing keys, was to say that they're poor reasons for implicating Joe Barnett. He was cleared of involvement in the crime by Abberline. That is fact, not conjecture. Finally, I know almost everyone, if only by sight, in the very large village I live in. It's surely a reasonable assumption that Hutchinson would know Barnett, if only by sight, if, and I say "if" he knew Kelly.
Best Wishes Dan.
David Cartwright |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
G'day David,
I got 'shirty' because I am going through a very depressing experience in my personal life at the moment, (no, no one died!), I open Casebook to take my mind off things, and read from people who I feel DON'T WANT TO even consider Barnett's guilt, because he was too nice.
And that's how I feel the police felt in 1888! LOVE is a very strange thing!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 01, 2004) |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 400
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Hi David,
I was replying to several posts in the thread. If I made a comment on something you never said and I wasn't directly addressing you about it, why do you assume I was claiming you said it?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 378
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
”I found the source myself but wasn't he writing from memory, decades after the event?”
You’re quite right, so we have to be cautious about what he wrote. But fact remains that, even though Dew may have written this particular quote from (false) memory, his reference of the lock agrees with the other ones I was able to find. Furthermore, although a lot of information about the mystery of the lock and key may have gone missing, Abberline seemed to dismiss the idea of the locked room puzzle at the inquest.
”Would John McCarthy have bothered to install a self-locking lock on a shed-partitioned "hovel" like Mary's, (which contained nothing worth stealing), and not on Room 20 upstairs where Elizabeth Prater had to barricade herself in with two tables?”
Again, I don’t know what McCarthy would have bothered to do. I think Dan has put forward some feasible explanations and suggestions for the whole lock matter. I could speculate that the fact that McCarthy allowed Mary Jane’s rent arrears to grow to such a large amount indicates that she was somehow special to him, and that that’s the reason why he installed an expensive spring lock- IF such locks were indeed expensive. However, I don’t want to speculate.
“LOVE is a very strange thing!”
Yes, I’m afraid it can be.
All the best,
Frank
 |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1545
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
Come in Mr Hinton perleasssse!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1546
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Frank
V E R Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! well at least a 'many splendoured ' wonderful thing 'eh?
suzi |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 323
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 7:47 pm: | |
Leanne,
Hang in there, really. Not the greatest comfort in the world if you are going through a rotten stretch, but you have friends here on the boards I know. Take care, will you.
Don. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Hi Leanne. Y'know, you're just great, and have a brilliant way with words. O.K., I give in. Joe did it. Seriously though, it has nothing to do with being too nice. As you know, when a woman is murdered, No.1 in the frame is the husband or boyfriend. Now, you may not believe that Abberline was a "Sherlock Holmes" (I don't), but he questioned Barnett personally, and in a case of this magnitude, must surely to goodness have checked every word of his statement and alibi. The fact is, that he was totally satisfied and released him. I wish I could say Joe did it, just to please you. But as things stand, there seems no way around that. So I'll have to put up with you being "shirty" with me. I still say that you've got a great way with words though.
Best wishes Leanne
David Cartwright} |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Hi Leanne. Y'know, you're just great, and have a brilliant way with words. O.K., I give in. Joe did it. Seriously though, it has nothing to do with being too nice. As you know, when a woman is murdered, No.1 in the frame is the husband or boyfriend. Now, you may not believe that Abberline was a "Sherlock Holmes" (I don't), but he questioned Barnett personally, and in a case of this magnitude, must surely to goodness have checked every word of his statement and alibi. The fact is, that he was totally satisfied and released him. I wish I could say Joe did it, just to please you. But as things stand, there seems no way around that. So I'll have to put up with you being "shirty" with me. I still say that you've got a great way with words though.
Best wishes Leanne
David Cartwright} |
Andrew Gable
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:29 pm: | |
Interesting article there, Robert -- remember that according to the ownership list someone on this site dug up, 26 Dorset Street was owned by an M. Barnett, although it was leased by McCarthy. Is this the same Barnett in this article? Any connection to Joe? For that matter, any idea who M. Barnett was? He sounds like he may have a rather prominent figure. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Hi Dan. My apologies if I misunderstood you. I don't know how I got involved in the locks and missing keys business. I don't think that either have any relevance to the murder. If you are correct about the locks, it doesn't matter whether Kelly took her killer home with her or not. The Ripper would only have had to pull it shut behind him, and it would be locked to anyone outside who wasn't aware of the broken pane access. Once again, I'm sorry if I misread you.
Best wishes Dan.
David Cartwright} |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1608
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 11:06 pm: | |
G'day David,
"Finally, I know almost everyone, if only by sight, in the very large village I live in. It's surely a reasonable assumption that Hutchinson would know Barnett, if only by sight, if, and I say "if" he knew Kelly. "
I too have no doubt that Hutchinson knew Barnett well by sight in good lighting conditions, but I'm convinced that this well-dressed man was 'under-cover'.
'a man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. they both burst out laughing.' Are we expected to believe that they were laughing at a joke he cracked about a wanted poster for a cruel maniac? I don't think a client would have had the nerve to make such a joke, and I don't think Kelly would have found it remotely funny!
Then as soon as he got close to Hutchinson's eyes: 'the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes.'
There is nothing within Hutchinson's written statement that proves to me that it couldn't have been Barnett.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 11:29 pm: | |
"Now, you may not believe that Abberline was a "Sherlock Holmes" (I don't), but he questioned Barnett personally, and in a case of this magnitude, must surely to goodness have checked every word of his statement and alibi."
Abberline never wrote anything about checking Barnett's alibi nor exactly what Barnett's alibi was!!!!
According to a newspaper he told police he was at Bullers in bed. How could anyone, even Sherlock Holmes, be 100% certain that he stayed there all night?
And Mary Kelly's most likely time of death wasn't even estimated when Barnett was interrigated. Did Abberline have psychic powers too?
Abberline was also the one that trusted George Hutchinson, but never stated why!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 12:19 am: | |
G'day,
Here's a piece I found on another Victorian London Website describing the conditions in McCarthy's shed, before it ceased to opperate as such, and before he partitioned off Mary's room. It's from a report written in January 1894 by Richard Harding Davis, obviously remembering his visit to McCarthy's shed as it was no longer there:
' There are no such faces to be seen anywhere else in the world, no such despair nor misery nor ignorance. They are brutal, sullen, and gladless. A number of these men together make you feel an uneasiness concerning your safety which is not the fear of a fellow-man, such as you might confess to if you met any men alone in a dark place, but such as you feel in the presence of an animal, an uneasiness which comes from ignorance as to what it may possibly do next, and as to how it will go about doing it. One night an inspector of police woke fifty of these men in McCarthy’s lodging-house on Dorset Street, off the Commercial Road, to exhibit them, and I felt as though I had walked into a cage with the keeper. They lay on strips of canvas naked to the waist, for it was a warm, close night, and as the ray from the policeman’s lantern slid from cot to cot, it showed the sunken chests and ribs of some half-starved wrecks of the wharves, or the broad torso of a ‘‘docker,” or a sailor’s hairy breast marked with tattooing, and the throats of two men scarred with long dull red lines where some one had drawn a knife, and some of them tossed and woke cursing and muttering, and then rested on their elbows, cowering before the officers and blinking at the light, or sat erect and glared at them defiantly, and hailed them with drunken bravado.
“The beds seem comfortable,” I said to McCarthy, by way of being civil.
“Oh, yes, sir,” he answered, “comfor’ble enough, only it ain’t proper, after paying twopence for your bed, to ‘ave a policeman a-waking you up with a lamp in your face. It ‘urts the ‘ouse, that’s wot it does.” He added, gloomily, “It droives away trade.”'
Dan you wrote: "It's also possible that the lock on Kelly's room was unique among the other rented rooms, as it was originally part of McCarthy's store room. He could have had that locked up tight and then decided he didn't need all that much room and converted part of it into lodgings. The idea that it's impossible that the lock was automatic seems too be quite weakly supported."
Mary's room was origionally part of McCarthy's storeroom, but McCarthy's storeroom wasn't exactly used by him to store rooms! I'd say it never held anything worth securing with a self-locking spring lock!
LEANNE |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 405
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 12:42 am: | |
Leanne,
The piece you quote above refers to his rental property and not the storage space that eventually was partitioned, creating the room Mary would live in. In fact I believe it refers to rental space in the actual year 1894 and not at all that he was remembering what happened in years past. It has no bearing on whether the storage space had a good lock on it or not (not that I think a spring lock was a particularly good lock to begin with).
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3590
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 5:09 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I hope your personal situation improves.
I can't believe that Barnett would dress up in disguise and meet with Kelly, and she fail to recognise him.
Andrew, I don't know who M Barnett was, I'm afraid. We're in Chris Scott territory here.
Robert |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Hi Leanne. Y'know, that's an interesting point. Kelly's easy manner with the well-dressed "stranger", is in stark conflict with the claim that she lived in terror of the murders, and contemplated leaving London.(the A-Z) She had however, already picked up one man & took him home that night, he of the blotchy face & carrotty moustache, so that weakens the "terrified" claim. Amazingly, many prostitutes were openly resigned to the possibility of becoming the next victim(Sugden), making things even easier for the Ripper. Kelly was also drunk & stony-broke. I have to agree with Robert. The idea of Barnett being a master of disguise & fooling Kelly, is the stuff of Hollywood movies. Many doubt Hutchinson's story, with it's unbelievably detailed description, while others don't. But Abberline believed him, and his judgment counts far more than ours possibly could. Barnett was held for four hours, interrogated by Abberline, & and his clothes held and examined(the A-Z). The police were under immense pressure, and though Abberline's written report may not now exist, only a professional incompetent would have cleared and released Barnett without some confirmation of his alibi. Can I ask anyone who contributes here, one question?? As there's never been a grain of evidence, of any description, against Joe, how is it that John Kelly has not yet been hounded over the Eddowes murder. Personally, I can't see the difference between these two innocent men.
Best wishes Leanne
David Cartwright} |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1554
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Hi Leanne /Robert
Leanne
That was a brilliant piece re McCarthys "des res!!!!" an excellent piece that sort of made me think Ooooooooooh God and think a bit! and maybe a bit grateful for having the roof over my head here!!!
Robert
If Joe did just that....must have been SOME disuise!!!!!!! For goodness sake I say....I'd recognise him at 50 yds!!!!!!by the smell maybe.....something fishy about that guy!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1555
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
David
As to John Kelly and Kate I am sure....as you can be.. that he was a good man ..one who was prepared to allow his boots to be pawned etc and hang around barefoot in the street. I love the idea of them eating breakfast and probably spending the rest on a 'liquid' lunch until Kate disappears at 2 in Houndsditch.
Just wish we knew what happennned between then and 8.30!!!!!!
(Whatever it is I'll have a pint 'eh?!!!)
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 4:36 am: | |
G'day David,
I have no doubts that Mary Kelly would have been very frightened of the Whitechapel murderer, but on the last night of her life she was desperate for money. The rent man was due and I'm sure McCarthy would have threatened her with eviction. The carroty moustached man probably didn't fit her preferred description of the murderer, and she may have thought that his 'blotchy face' was an indication that he was too drunk to be a threat. The alchohol he had was a temptation too.
"The idea of Barnett being a master of disguise & fooling Kelly, is the stuff of Hollywood movies."
It wasn't an impossible thought for someone to want to hide his identity, even before it may have appeared in a movie plot!
Abberline wasn't God!...."& and his clothes held and examined...". Tell me, where were his clothes held, and did they thoroughly examine all the places at which he worked, and at all the places he would have travelled too while costermongering, all within a space of four hours while someone else was interviewing everyone at Buller's Lodging House?
Did all that happen at a time before they knew the victim's most likely time of death, and at a time when Abberline would have wanted to get back to the crime scene? Abberline may have been good, but give the guy a break! He was human!
John Kelly was in his mid forties and was a sick man with a kidney complaint and a bad cough. Suzi I don't think David was serious but trying to make a point.
LEANNE |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 7:57 pm: | |
Hi Suzi. A pint hey?? Good idea....This Ripper hunting is thirsty work. Whilst I haven't read anything about Joe Barnett sacrificing his boots to pay a few pence off Kelly's rent arrears, I think he probably sacrificed his half of the bed in No.13 often enough, to accommodate Mary's stay-over friends. Whatever, there's just nothing at all to warrant the accusations now being levelled against him.
My round Suzi, what'll you have??
Best wishes
David Cartwright} |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Hi,
According to the first interview made by Mccarthy on the day of the murder, the deseased came to live with a man named Kelly, who was a coal porter, they lived together in harmony until a argument[ disagreement not long ago.
Note the wording the deseased came to live with a man called kelly[ alias Barnett] .
We could imply by that that room was in the name of Kelly [ Barnett] who at that time was fully employed and obviously paid the rent.
So my point is why was Kelly so petrified about paying the rent, when surely Barnett was responsible.
I would suggest that Kelly was allowed to stop there on the undertaking that Barnett would pay off the rent as quickly as possible, and therefore i feel kelly was not all that worried that night about the rent money, as she seemed to have escaped Mccarthys disapproval for the past eight weeks.
The fact is why would any rent due be down to Mary Kelly, when surely the rooms tenancy would have been under the main breadwinners name which would have been Kelly/ Barnett the man of the house so to speak.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Hi David!
A large one would be good!
There seems to be some confusion here re Kelly the boot pawning man was JOHN KELLY the lover of Kate Eddowes a player in what is probably the sweetest and saddest story in the whole Ripper saga.
Richard-
This Kelly /Barnett thing is odd I agree..Who knows who's name the room was in ,strangely I imagine Marys' but that may be just that...imaginings....It's odd tho that Joe used to visit Mary after their 'parting' on a regular basis and give her money even turning up the evening prior to her death with the sad news that he had nothing to give to her.They appear, as the quote says, to have parted on good terms.Maybe Mary thought that if she toddled out and turned a few 'tricks' she may have enough to keep Mr McC happy for a while.....and a few slurps along the way too!!
However the amount that she had run up in arrears is still a thorn in all of our sides 'eh?
Suzi |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Hi Suzi....No confusion..I was just making a point in saying that if Joe Barnett, being Mary's boyfriend, has become a suspect, how is it that poor John Kelly, having been Eddowes' boyfriend, hasn't come in for the same "suspect" treatment.
Sorry if I confused you.
A large one it is then.
David Cartwright} |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Hi Suzi....No confusion..I was just making a point in saying that if Joe Barnett, being Mary's boyfriend, has become a suspect, how is it that poor John Kelly, having been Eddowes' boyfriend, hasn't come in for the same "suspect" treatment.
Sorry if I confused you.
A large one it is then.
David Cartwright} |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Hi Suzi....No confusion..I was just making a point in saying that if Joe Barnett, being Mary's boyfriend, has become a suspect, how is it that poor John Kelly, having been Eddowes' boyfriend, hasn't come in for the same "suspect" treatment.
Sorry if I confused you.
A large one it is then.
David Cartwright} |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
I'd like to add my weight to the argument that some of us do not dismiss Barnett as a Ripper suspect because he is too "nice".
I'm not sure how you define "nice" anyway, and I also doubt that many people in the East End of 1888, whatever their "character or personality, would have displayed many qualities which we today would regard as "nice". It was a feral, jungle-like world, almsot tribal I suspect in its suspicion of outsiders or strangers.
I dismiss Barnett because the police did in 1888, and I don't think they can be taken as fools. We know that in cases like Issenschmidt, Ludwig, Pizer, Piggott or Puckeridge (at an EARLIER stage in their enquiries) the police put a huge amount of effort into exploring the backgrounds and checking the alibis of even remote suspects. Barnett was an obvious candidate as MJK's killer (then as now murderers most frequently know their victims (as I understand it). Abberline was able to look into Barnett's eyes - we cannot.
In the absence of many of the files, we must make reasonable assumptions based on what we have. It is not unreasonable to assume a consistency between what we have and what has been lost. If anyone had voiced the slightest suspicion of Barnett in 1888, then Abberline and his team would have looked into it, as they followed up Matthew Packer's story.
Unless someone can come up with a better motive and a less complicated (not to mentuion more believable) explanation of Barnett's alleged actions as JtR, there is no case to answer. The growing awfulness of the killngs, culminating in MJK's slaughter suggest to me a very different killer than one seeking to keep his "girl" off the streets!!
Incidentally, I noticed much earlier in this thread, a suggestion that the police did not know whom they were looking for - ie what type of person. I think this wrong.
They were wise and followed up many kinds of leads (the focus on a Geordie accented killer in the Yorkshire Ripper case, as I recall, meant that they missed their man for a long time).
But it is clear that in 1888 the police pursued all reasonable candidate types - escapees and releases from asylums; those seen with blood on their hands; toffs; even those whose whereabouts were unknown (such as Ostrog). They also released descriptions and, as in the Hanbury St case, issued a description of a man seen in the passageway sometime before.
This strikes me as thorough and proper.
To me the argument that the police of the day were incompetent (now largely outgrown if not disproved anyway with the release of the surviving papers) is too often the precursor to trying to prove that an individual (like Barnett) was the killer (or should be considered a likely suspect).
Such an approach situates the appraisal, it does not appraise the evidence.
The starting point must surely be that if the police of the day so readily acquitted Barnett, then they had good reason. To bring him back into the frame requires (for me at least) less circumstantial argument and inference, and much more solid evidence.
Hope this makes sense, but I just don't believe and remain unconvinced by the arguments, that Barnett was even remotely JtR.
Phil |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
Hi Leanne....Y'know, I really admire you. It doesn't matter how many bricks are thrown at you,..you never waver in your beliefs about Joe Barnett. All I can say is, "good for you girl",..for sticking to your guns, even when you're completely surrounded by doubters...I especially admire it as I too have 100% total conviction & belief in the man I've always believed to be Jack the Ripper.
Best wishes Leanne, and keep fighting.
David Cartwright.} |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Hi Phil....I agree absolutely with everything you've said. I've been saying all these things over a period of time here. To add to what you've written above, the very idea of Barnett being the man George Hutchinson saw, but heavily disguised to fool Kelly, is just a step too far for my belief.
Just where would Barnett, an unemployed market porter, out of work for months, get the money for expensive clothes & jewellery (thick gold chain), when he couldn't even pay his or Kelly's rent??
I'm afraid the Barnett-ists are grasping at the most tenuous straws to even remain plausible now, and while I admire their doggedness (Leanne), I don't think (as you said) that there's even a remote chance that Barnett was Jack the Ripper.
Best regards Phil
David Cartwright |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 12:32 am: | |
G'day,
This may be a bit of a shock to some people but Perter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper was interviewed by police nine times before he was arrested:
November 2nd 1977,
November 8th 1977,
August 13 1978,
November 23rd 1978,
July 29th 1979,
October 23rd 1979,
January 13 1980,
January 30 1980,
and Febuary 7th 1980.
Interview No. 5 was after his vehicle was spotted 36 times by Ripper surveillance teams. The alibi he gave for the night of one murder was that he stayed at home and that was confirmed by his wife.
"If anyone had voiced the slightest suspicion of Barnett in 1888, then Abberline and his team would have looked into it, as they followed up Matthew Packer's story."
'Abberline's team'? 'Abberline's team'????? How many were specifically on Abberline's team and how many were present at Barnett's 4 hour interrigation on the morning of the bodie's discovery?
At that time in history no one, no policeman, no expert knew enough about a human's personality, that a person could have more than one, nor about a killer's 'sanity mask'.
"..suggest to me a very different killer than one seeking to keep his "girl" off the streets!!"
Oh why does everyone see that as the only motive put forward in the case against Barnett? Barnett's hatred of prostitution and prostitutes stems much deeper than that!
It was common in the mid 19th century for Irish Immigrant widows to abandon their children in the harsh East End to follow the life of a prostitute.
Another poster once asked me if it was so common how come there was only one JtR?
How many wives were unfaithful to their husbands? How many quack doctors have their been throughout history?
"In the absence of many of the files, we must make reasonable assumptions based on what we have. It is not unreasonable to assume a consistency between what we have and what has been lost."
What do you call 'reasonable assumptions'? Do you think the Whitechapel murderer's mind and what he did was reasonable and we should therefore be able to find a 'resonable' path leading to the killer's identity?
DAVID: "Just where would Barnett, an unemployed market porter, out of work for months, get the money for expensive clothes & jewellery (thick gold chain), when he couldn't even pay his or Kelly's rent??"
Petticoat Lane mate! The place that Hutchinson told the press that he fancied he saw his suspect on a Sunday. That was where the great London SECOND HAND clothing and SHAM jewellery exchange was held on Sunday mornings.
LEANNE
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
Hi Leanne....I was right, wasn't I??....You're a fighter...But the fact is that every pathetic attempt to try and make Barnett into what he simply wasn't, has now reached "Wizard of Oz" proportions....I take it he was still in disguise a couple of days after Kelly's murder, because that's the only time that Hutchinson would have been conscious enough to notice any likeness, and not before....Talking about this ludicrous disguise theory, Just how did he walk out of "Bullers" unnoticed, dressed like a wealthy man, in the middle of the night, and what's more, back in again, unavoidably bloodstained??...Did he, I wonder, keep Mary's heart under his pillow.
C'mon my "mate", you can't seriously believe that Abberline & all the other officers involved in this mega inquiry, were London's answer to the "Keystone Cops"... You also can't compare Peter Sutcliffe either. He was unknown to any of his victims, and just one of literally thousands questioned... Barnett was Kelly's boyfriend, intimately involved in a huge case, and there is "no" way that he'd be cleared without his movements that night being fully accounted for, and confirmed.
There's been enough fairy tales in Kelly's murder alone. I daren't even think about what wild imaginings would be conjured up to account for the murders of Nicholls, Chapman, Stride & Eddowes, where Barnett is concerned. Perhaps Richard Mansfield was Barnett in disguise too.
Joseph Barnett was a poor out of work market porter, and nothing else. Let him rest in peace.
Best wishes Leanne.
David Cartwright} |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 1:56 am: | |
Leanne - most of the arguments you put forward are sophistical - they simply argue back to where you want to go.
Barnett COULD have been the ripper, but so, plausibly, could probably a million other Londoners for whom, likelihood, motive, opportunity, knowledge etc could be argued. As sugden points out, the police had strong suspicions of a couple of suspects (Issenschmidt, I recall as one) who might have hanged had they not been in custody when the Ripper struck again.
Had Barnett been the killer I don't think the murders would have stopped at miller's court!!
My point about "reasonable assumptions" was that we need to use the faculty of reason and draw consistent, sensible conclusions from the files we have. Not seize on those which support one contention blindly and "unreasonably". The killer's mind ("reason") has nothing to do with my point.
The record is clear that the police went to huge lenghts to satisfy themselves about the alibis and background of numerous suspects (and those are the only ones we know of) travelling, seeking details, interviewing and arresting. In Barnett's case, it is in my view REASONABLE and consistent to assume/infer that this was also done even though we have no police records to say so. To do otherwise would be illogical (sorry Spock!!) and sets other hares running (conspiracy/incompetence) for which there is no basis in fact/the records either.
Oh, and Abberline's "team"? there was no shortage of police manpower in Whitechapel in late 1888, I think.
Regards,
Phil |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 5:31 am: | |
G'day,
DAVID: "Just how did he walk out of "Bullers" unnoticed, dressed like a wealthy man, in the middle of the night, and what's more, back in again, unavoidably bloodstained??..."
Have you bothered to research the security at lodging houses built for the poor workforce near the docks at the time?
Have you even bothered to consider that it was the morning of the annual 'Lord mayors Day' celebrations, and people were coming and going at various EARLY MORNING hours?
Have you even bothered to realize that Mary Kelly was most likely killed in the EARLY MORNING hours, when Joseph Barnett was likely out searching for work anyway?
Have you even bothered to contemplate how bloodstained the killer would have been, and realised that all he had to do was swap his shirt with one of the men's shirts that Maria Harvey left. Or are you 'stuck' because that possibility was never thought and suggested by Abberline at the time?
I never once accused Abberline and Co of being 'Keystone Cops'! I just considered the fact that they were humans and allowed for human-error. Have you?
What do you mean I can't compare the Ripper to Peter Sutcliffe? I just did!!!!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3619
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 8:10 am: | |
Leanne, are you saying that Mary didn't recognise Joe? (I think this is about the fourth time I've asked this).
Anyway, I thought that you believed that Joe killed her on the spur of the moment, as a crime of passion. So why the disguise?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
The more I think about it, the more upset people are going to get because the idea doesn't appear in the records, and we must stick to those records firmly because we all know the Ripper's true name with show up eventually!
Read Hutchinson's description of the events that morning again: 'A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. they both burst out laughing..' Now try to imagine the possibilities!
I have never believed that he went there that morning to kill her, but to try to encourage her to want him back! Things obviously turned sour. No one heard any argument, so obviously they didn't want to wake the neighbours, but people are going to throw the brick at me: "But no one heard an argument, so there mustn't have been one." To those people I would like to suggest they get 'unstuck'!
LEANNE |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 9:42 am: | |
Hi Leanne... You Know, this just gets more desparate...I doubt if you have reliable information on so-called lodging-house security either...I am as aware of every detail in these murders as you are, only I stick to facts, not fantasies and might-have-beens.
FACT...Barnett, as the first suspect, was thoroughly examined by Abberline's team, and completely cleared. He was never mentioned again, until Bruce Paley, seeking to add to the ever-growing list of fantasy suspects, dredged him up.
Philip Sugden, the only "true" modern day authority on these events, doesn't waste his time, or ours, on these fairy-tales. As for the Sutcliffe comparison, there is none. Sutcliffe did NOT murder his wife among the victims, and therefore did not come under the same scrutiny as Barnett did, immediately after the crime.
I noticed that you did not answer Phil's message.
That's because there's no answer to the points he made.
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.
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??
Or hadn't "YOU" thought about all or any of these things??
Best wishes my "mate".
DAVID} |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
