|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 7:39 am: | 
|
Hi Leanne,
A killer can't lie about everything when giving a statement or testimony. If they did they would be suspected and caught as soon as someone realized!
That's not the point. If you think Joe was a killer, you can't pick and choose which statements of his you want us to believe, in order to support your case against him.
Your best bet would be to find evidence that Joe lied, rather than to claim he is guilty on the strength of a statement you believe was true!
Love,
Caz
X |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
Hi,
Being a person who feels strongly about JBs guilt, i wish to state my reasons why.
Firstly the obvious should be mentioned ie, after such a long period of time and without any convictions or confessions of sensibility we can only try and make sense of our personal observations.
These are mine.
First of all we are not certain of the real Joseph Barnett, Harrisons has for me the most likely candidate simply because he claimed to have met a desendant of Barnett in a pub, of course we only have the integrity of the author that such a meeting took place.
But if it did then the cuttings in harrisons informants pocession were intresting for they related to Tabram -Mckenzie.
A simple test on those cuttings in a lab would have revealed whether or not they were kept out of professional storage for a number of years.
If so then who else but the killer of Tabram or at the very least a desperate person who wished to obtain the write up of the event would know that this was possibly the first act of a series of events.
The argument that Mckenzie was included is relevant as the ripper would have been intrested in reading about a crime that had hallmarks of his that he never committed.
Points that lead me to my suspicion of Barnett.
The grave yard incident
Oral history perhaps?. although has all the halmarks of truth for a variety of obvious reasons.The scenerio described by Farsons informant describes accurately the events of the day of the funeal of Mjk.
As i have said repeatingly on these boards the only person who could have committed the spitting by the situation described was Barnett.
This does not prove homicide, however does prove a personality showing cunning and deceit as only minutes before he was kneeling on the clay paying his respects'
One point i should mention is by the time of the funeral he could have read reports saying the deseased could not bear the man[ BARNETT] which could have resulted in this response.
I have also mentioned on these boards the infamous Thirty nine theory' without going though the much played out system I will just add that Kelly died on the very same day of a month the 9th as Barnett moved in with her some 18 months previous. and we all know he left her on the 30th.
Lotties dream report also has significance
Not only could it offer a explanation for the 4am scream in kelly having a repeated nightmare, but it is almost a certainty that the first person she informed of the original nightmare was Barnett,therefore how apt that this dream came true and occured on the very same bed as her premonition.
There is much more to say but this post is long enough i realize that none of this proves any true guilt but taking reports over the years more positively then some people and adding to it observations of human behaviour patterns my final conclusions prompted me to start the thread 'joseph Barnett number one suspect' many moons ago and was the main reason why Leanne and myself started writing together to form a book, but unfortunately to be honest i could not advance any further in research that would put the noose around his neck, so Leanne continues alone in this quest and my sincere wishes to her in this venture.
Regards Richard. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 152
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
One could pick any name from random of the known male/female population if neccessary,and say that person COULD have killed Kelly,and it would be on a par with naming Joe.Of course the overwhelming majority could provide an alibi,just like Joe.
What is needed to place Joe in the role of suspect,is to discover what the police lacked at the time,an incriminating scrap of evidence that would link him to the murder of Kelly,or the killing of other victims.
Joe associated with Kelly while she was alive,that is not evidence in the involvement of her death.
Statistics showing close association with a victim,are based on cases where evidence of a crime against that victim,was proven.Joe does not fit the category.There was and still is no evidence of Joe's involvement in Kelly's killing.
Leanne,if you can find one scrap of incriminating evidence that the police of the time missed,I will say you have a starting point,but untill then Joe should be considered innocent.
|
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Leanne,
I must disagree with you with respect to killers or guilty persons lying about everything. They only need to lie about the things that would implicate them. Most criminals, especially murderers when cornered lie through their teeth especially when it concerns that which would incriminate them. It is difficult enough now to put a perp at the location of a crime even with today's advanced technology, can you imagine how tough it was then? Criminals are not all stupid, some of them are very crafty, not to mention well organized and plan very well. Some could convince us that the moon was made of cheese they are so smart and likeable.I won't waste your time with many examples, but there are lots. In 1888 there are many suspects, some not worth the paper, but many others with motive, mental instability but sane, intelligent, crafty and lied well enough to be still unknown (so far) to have fooled all, untill undisputable evidence is discovered to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we have our man.
As for inquests etc,I would like to point out that Barnett like Hutchinson, have every reason to lie, tell only what is necessary, especially if their whereabouts at the time of the Actual Murder cannot be proven one way or the other. Why wouldn't the inquest into the murder of Eliz. Stride not have included Israel Schwartz? In my opinion a prime witness!!!
I am a firm believer in the fact that lies are told by not only criminals but all of us when it is necessary. Yes, when we want to fool someone, doesn't matter who, as long as it covers our own ass.
regards
Restless Spirit
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 7:29 pm: |
|
G'day Harry,
'One could pick any name from random of the known male/female population if neccessary,and say that person COULD have killed Kelly,'but that would be stupid so I'm glad you said that and not me! The only alibi we have for Joe was that he was in bed! Who was there to guard over his door all night?
The police lacked incriminating evidence against ANYONE, so do you feel that it should have been concluded that the deaths were suicides?
'Jack and Jill went up the hill,
To have a little fun.
Silly Jill forgot the pill,
And now they have a son.'
LEANNE
(Message edited by leanne on August 24, 2005) |
Ben Holme
Police Constable
Username: Benh
Post Number: 4
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Many thanks for your latest post, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Hi Richard,
Quote: Not only could it offer a explanation for the 4am scream in kelly having a repeated nightmare, but it is almost a certainty that the first person she informed of the original nightmare was Barnett,therefore how apt that this dream came true and occured on the very same bed as her premonition.
In other words, you're of the opinion that it was merely a coincidence that a woman who cried "murder", purely for reasons of nocturnal delusion, should subsequently be murderered in reality, i.e. several hours later?
Not impossible, of course, but isn't it a little more reasonable to surmise that she cried "murder" because she considered herself to be in immediate peril of such a calamitous event?
Barnett is by no means a weak suspect for Kelly's attacker, but I'm afraid I invest little stock in the post-8:30am theory.
(Message edited by BenH on August 24, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2353
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
As you probably have already noticed by now,
AP has posted some excellent research this past day or two into the murders committed in the LVP in 1887.Some were domestic others by strangers.Possibly there will be more information soon regarding 1888 murders.
I know that you too, Glenn, have studied several cases of domestic murder in Sweden that were as horrificas the murder and mutilation of Mary Kelly.
What I believe would really help this case against Barnett to progress further would be if similar statistics could be found concerning domestic murders where the partner has been questioned ,within hours of such an attack ,and proved later to have committed both the murder and mutilation and to have lied about it.
In the case of Barnett it definitely appears that every attempt was also made to "copycat" the JtR mutilations[from reading about them in press reports possibly?].This last is not that insignificant
an act since the murder and mutilation of Mary Kelly was so horrific and certain features of it so similar to what the ripper had done to the corpse of the others.
I do know of cases over here where parents have gone on TV pleading for information about a missing child and were later found to have murdered that child.However I cant recall any where it was the partner went on TV and was later found to have been lying----which ofcourse doesnt mean there havent been such cases-probably a fair number of them.
I fully realise that whereas Leanne believes Joe was JtR ,Glenn is saying he doubts that but believes Joe may well have been her killer and tried to fake it to look like JtR"s work.
But some solid statistics similar to those of AP"s could really help here don"t you agree?
Natalie
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 155
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Leanne,
Now you are showing that you know very little about evidence.The fact that evidence pointing to a particular person is lacking,in no way negates the evidence that crime has taken place.They are two separate items.
It is you who is insisting that Joe 'Could Have'been Kelly's killer,and I was simply pointing out that 'could have' has a very broad meaning,and used as you have,could include almost anyone.
You simply have no evidence in Joe Barnetts involvement in Kelly's death,and neither has anyone else,nor did anyone ever have. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2059
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
And that just about sums it up for me.
Is there ever going to be a better argument than has already been put forward for Joe being a murderer? The same old arguments have had little or no effect on the sceptical among us, and I can't see that changing if no new evidence surfaces.
Love,
Caz
X |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Richard,
You seem to put a great deal of emphasis on the grave yard incident and use it to bolster your belief in Barnett's guilt. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that the man described was in fact Barnett and that he did in fact spit on Mary's grave. You state that his spitting on the grave shows a man capable of cunning and deceit. Maybe so, but that conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. We simply don't know why Barnett spit on the grave if in fact he actually did so. The possibilities are endless. Consider this scenario - Joe and Mary are drinking together in happier times. They get into a friendly argument as to who will outlive the other. They make a drunken (but solemn) pact that the survivor will spit on the other's grave to show he or she was the winner. Joe recalls this and keeps his end of the bargain. Farfetched? Sure. But it shows that we simply don't know why Joe did what he is alleged to have done.
c.d. |
|
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