|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 12:22 pm: | 
|
Hi all Barnettologists,
I absolutely believe from all the evidence that Joseph killed Mary.If Jack the ripper was the first serial killer than I am sure Barnett was the first copycat.I am at a total loss that people do not emphasise more the hugh anomalies between the first 5 murders (Tabram to Eddows) and Kelly's death.They are hugh and not in doubt points.The ripper has chosen middle aged women with indifferent looks. He has left them on the street as either a signature or because the thrill of being caught exited him.
MARY KELLY was 25 and attractive and not haggard in appearance.She was killed in a room with no danger of being caught on the job.Eddow's mutilations may have been a bit more nastier than the others but Kelly's were 10 times what the others got.As far as I am concerned there is a MASSIVE difference between her murder and the rest.
The writing is on the wall for this domestic dispute to happen.He loves her insanely, she drives him insane with drinking , prostitution, errant behaviour and allowing other prostitutes to board with them.This would drive any man crazy.I HAVE LOOKED INTENSELY AT THIS PERIOD.violence,particulaly domestic violence was rife.It happened in Autumn 1888 with or without the doings of the ripper.This quarrel just happened to occur when it did - this I am certian of.
We know what we know already about Barnett. He had the key, was seen several times with her leading up to the date, the argued intensely, she broke his heart. He took her heart(literally) with him, totally dehumanised her corpse and was seen to spit on her grave.This is MORE PERSONAL than the other murders.
There are 2 points why I think he was the first copycat:Barnett was no rocket scientist, he was going to kill her anyway and saw this ripper all over the news killing pros and mutilating them - so he thought "that's what I'll do".Secondly , by mutilating her , he has the perfect alibi.Knowing he will be the first suspect questioned before he murders her, he can sit down in front of Detectives Swanson and Abberline with a WHOPPER OF AN ALIBI - " It wasn't me good sir, it was Jack the Ripper" |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 1:54 am: |
|
G'day Stuart,
If, as you say, you have looked intensively at this period of time you would have seen the Death statistics for Whitechapel.
Statistics for the year before the 'Autumn of Terror' reveal that many deaths were the result of disease, alcoholism, premature birth, old age, venerial diseases, suicide, accidents, etc, but there were no 'homicides or manslaughters'.
I agree with you that Joseph Barnett most likely killed Mary Kelly but he wasn't copying what he'd read in the newspapers otherwise the scene would have looked more like the reports. He was Jack the Ripper!
If he wanted detectives and the public to mistakenly believe that Mary was murdered by the villain that appeared in the papers, he could have taken her kidney and/or uterus as well as her heart, if he just had to have that. He could equally have waited for the opportunity to arrise when she was outside.
There was a difference in her age to the other victims yes, and I see that only as an indication that he was seeking revenge on prostitution for stealing his mother, as well as vainly trying to stop it from stealing his lover.
He walked out on Kelly because she invited her prostitute friends to stay in that tiny room as well, saying that he would return when Maria Harvey had found lodgings elsewhere. On the afternoon before her death he visited her and found out that Harvey had left but he wasn't welcomed back. Realising that he'd lost and was losing her after all, he flipped and as a result Mary copped 10 times what the others did.
You say that Barnett had a key but did he need it? He knew how to open and lock the door by reaching through the broken window.
Do you think he had a perfect alibi? How did it cover him for the hours of the murder?
LEANNE
|
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 2:43 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
As it happens I am an Aussie aswell, I live in Queensland.
I do believe domestic violence was rife in this period , even if it didnt always lead to murder.There is such overwhelming evidence connecting Barnett to this particular murder, but almost no evidence connecting him to the others.I tend to agree with other ripperologists that Mary Kelly was not a genuine ripper murder.To try and connect him with the others is just reaching?Are you saying he intended to kill Kelly when he was killing Nichols 2 months before?There is too much speculation about this and no real evidence I believe.His alibi was not perfect, but given the time he murdered her, all he had to do was weep to Det Abberline " My one true love has been claimed by Jack the Ripper". How could he believe anything else at that time? |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Hello.
Stuart,Your point about Kelly's Murder being perpetrated by a copycat killer(In your case Barnett) has been discussed many times on these boards.
However,I do not subscribe to such a theory.
As far as I am concerned,if Barnett killed Kelly,then he was Jack the Ripper.
You say Stuart,that there was a vast difference between Kelly's and the previous murders.
There were also vast simmilarities.
Yes,the mutilations were more extensive,yes,this crime was commited indoors and yes Kelly was considerablely younger than the other victims.
All of which is totally understandable given the circuimstances.
In my opinion none of this represents any significant depature from the Rippers MO.
It simply demonstrates that the Rippertook full advantage of an ideal oportunity that presented itself to him at the time.
This time the Killer had found a young victim with her own room,he could now carry out his sickening work and indulge in his evil fantasies to the full,undisturbed.
If a petit thief,used to pinching the odd chocolate bar from a news agent's shop found himself in possesion of the keys to the warehouse,would he just take the one bar?
I think not.
The notion that the Ripper had a specific hatered for,and therefore targetted middle aged prostitutes,is I believe a false one.
I think Jack would have Killed any woman he could have gotten away with killing.
Prostitues were just very easy targets as they would lead clients into secluded spots where they knew they would not be disturbed.
Having said all that,I don't rule out the possibility that Barnett was the Ripper.
However the theory that has Barnett trying to scare Kelly off the streets by murdering other prostitues,is as weak as....some really weak thing.
Kane
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 513
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Hi Stuart,
"If Jack the ripper was the first serial killer than I am sure Barnett was the first copycat."
Well, since the first part isn't accurate (there have been serial killers for centuries before Jack ever came along, even well into thousands of years) the second part is definitely wrong.
"I am at a total loss that people do not emphasise more the hugh anomalies between the first 5 murders (Tabram to Eddows) and Kelly's death."
And I'm at a total loss why anyone can think that the differences are at all significant.
Regarding your other points:
1) I think you are being unfair to the other victims by simply dismissing them as haggard. Eddowes and Nichols, for example, from what we've been told and what little we can make out in the morgue photos look like they could have been quite fetching. Besides, serial killers usually take what they can get, attractive or unatrractive. The idea that Jack purposefully sought out ugly women so MJK couldn't be his victim makes no sense at all.
2) The idea that there was no danger from being caught killing someone in a room doesn't make sense. Jack was boxed in with only one way out. Considering the number of people in close proximity, I would think there would be a better chance of being detected there at the time of the attack than at some of the other locations. And, in fact, it may be the only murder scene that anyone heard the attack actually happening (Stride's being the only possible other example).
3) The grave spitting incident is a third-hand rumor with no substance that didn't get mentioned until about a century after the fact. It's astounding that people keep bringing it up as if it actually happened and that it proves anything.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
The grave spitting incident became known only to the Company Associated Redifussion in 1959 [ seventy one years after the event] it was not public knowledge and proberly only read by a handful of people although Dan Farson made it more available to a larger audience in his Druitt book in the early seventies.
I can not answer the question if the woman who wrote in after the broadcast' Farsons guide to the British' was authentic, although as the plea for information after the second episode of the ripper programmes was not refering directly to the murder of kelly or information about funerals, i would give the writer the benefit of the doubt.
If the incident had truth surrounding it , and knowing the facts surrounding the burial, then i would suggest that Barnett was the perpretrator, and considering that only moments before he and the priest and the six women mourners present knelt on the clay in prayer, then i would suggest that the incident [ if happened] was a act of deceit and hatred.
I Consider that if the report was true and knowing what we know about Barnett[ we should remember that in 1959 Barnett was simply classed as the poor unfortunate common law husband] then it puts him without doubt as the number one suspect...
Regards Richard. |
Carolyn
Police Constable
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Leanne,
You said that "Joseph Barnett was seeking revenge on prostitution for stealing his mother, as well as vainly trying to stop it from stealing his lover."
Could be, but I doubt it. Where is Freud when you need him?
So, are the other JTR killings unrelated to Kelly? Would she have not been a victim if she had taken Barnett back?
To kill her was not part of his plan. He did not include her in his killing for the revenge of his mother. So, in a sense she was not killed by the JTR personification. She was killed by just plain jilted lover Joe.
How sad, she is still not a true JTR victim.
Carolyn, |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 483
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
“The ripper has chosen middle aged women with indifferent looks.
As far as I’m concerned, the women killed by the Ripper, whoever they were exactly, may just have been a good representation of the prostitutes walking the East End streets. Out of 13 prostitutes mentioned in the whole Ripper case (who certainly weren’t all Ripper victims), 9 were older than 37 and 4 were in their mid-twenties. And I can imagine that the looks of these prostitutes weren’t fading just because of their progressing age, but also as a result of the kind of life they lead in the roughest and poorest part of Town. So, I don’t think the conclusion can be drawn that the Ripper specifically chose the ‘outside’ victims because of their age and looks.
“He has left them on the street as either a signature or because the thrill of being caught exited him.”
This may not have to have been the case either. He may also have left them there for practical reasons. My personal view is that he wasn’t the type to be thinking ahead too much, certainly not before Kelly – if he killed her as well, that is – and just didn’t think of finding victims who had a place of their own where he wouldn’t be disturbed. So, he was left with killing them on the streets. As his thing was mutilating, he killed swiftly and just didn’t bother to hide the bodies. Shocking the public may have been on the Ripper’s mind, but IMHO certainly not as a main object.
I know of a case of a man who first committed a series of rapes - only the first indoors, the rest outside in a park - and then committed a murder very much like the one on Kelly inside of her apartment. Only recently it has turned out that this man might be linked (by DNA) to a murder that was committed before the rapes, which was very similar to the one committed on Martha Tabram. It was also done outside in a park.
In other words, the fact that the Ripper killed outside before Kelly doesn’t have to mean all that much, or at least, not what you suggested.
“… and was seen to spit on her grave.”
It was only according to some oral tradition that some man spit on some grave at some funeral. There’s no evidence whatsoever to support the story. So until there is, this third-hand rumour is useless when trying to make a point.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
The Grave spitting incident is considered by nearly everbody on these boards as third hand bunkum.
One simply must use common sense when interpreting the particular imformation from a letter, it has all the hallmarks of truth judging by the author, the authors imformation from her dead mother, and the atittude of people that were alive at the time.
Oral history perhaps, but it is by no means impossible, I will always consider this to be a positive in this case.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 485
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
I know you're a big fan of hearsay incidents like the one involving the grave spitting, but that's beside my point. Regardless of whether the grave spitting incident was true or not, as long as there's no corroboration or evidence for it, it's a worthless argument to use to try and make a point.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
I just love the idea of an oral history of a grave ‘spitting’ incident!
Well, it would have to be oral.
With so many Aussies around I just wish some of you could put your stubbies down for a day and get down your local library and do some honest research instead of spitting in the wind, or on graves, orally speaking that is.
Much of this hinges on Abberline’s testimony.
I don’t trust the man, and give the below as part reason:
Central Criminal Court, Jan 16, 1890
‘If it were true that Saul told Abberline his story in August, he (his Lordship), as one of the public, should like to know, and he dared say that the jury would like to know, why it was that, if Abberline knew the story in August, he hold his peace, said nothing, and did nothing up to the present hour. It would be the first duty of those who were the guardians of peace and public morality, if they had evidence of crime like this, to bring the criminal to light - no duty could be more obligatory.’
Abberline failed in his duty here, and it is reasonable to suppose that he might have made a habit of this.
|
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
hi
mary kelly murdered by Barnett? highly unlikely,it just doesn't feel right....if you're going to go for a top suspect that knew Mary Kelly well then it's more likely Hutchinson.....his eyewitness account of that evening is as dodgy as hell, we've all read about Hutchinson and there's something very odd going on.
if he was the Ripper, its most likely he came forward because that eyewitness saw him waiting outside millers court in the rain..he basically panicked........
but why come forward and tell a massive great lie, there's no need to is there; because that eyewitness description of him could have been anybody......it's most odd.
it seems too odd for fiction, too messed up to be a lie and far too easy for the police to suss him out...i therefore think that hutchinson was spot on, but nervous as hell at the police station.
now would the real Ripper come forward? no way, only a fool would and would the real ripper wait outside Millers court...waiting for what!...his tactics were to patrol his kill zone looking for a suitable street prostitute, or hoping to bump into one...he's no idea what's down millers court especially at 2 am; it's a waste of time standing there.
therefore, the only reason for the Ripper to wait outside millers court in the rain for half an hour, is if he knew that locality well and especially the residents, yet again of the top suspects that knew kelly it's most likely to be Hutchinson.
but would any of the other top suspects know of dorset st/ Miller's court, but not necessarily MARY KELLY? definitely yes, i.e Chapman, Tumblety, the Lodger,
Any local man or visitor with a hatred of prostitutes would have known Dorset st..or at the very least; heard of it's infamous reputation.
what does this tell us? quite a lot, the Ripper probably strolled up and down dorset st regularly, on all ``kill`` evenings..it's his first port of call, and for the rest of the evening he probably walked around in circles...if so, why didn't he kill more often in Dorset st? most likely, Dorset st was way too busy......except that evening!!!
mary kelly went out to scrounge money at the worst time possible.....but was she in the wrong place at the wrong time? well i'm guessing she was outside for about 10 to 15 minutes so the answer is no...she was in the right place at the right time....maybe a one in seven chance of meeting the ripper.
but then again who knows for sure...none of us, but to me Barnett as the ripper feels wrong!
|
LUKE WHITLEY
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
Hi Fictioneers.
I am a "serious" student of the Ripper case, though I doubt that the word "serious" applies here. I've read some rubbish over the years of study, but the drivel that's printed here on this board, takes the biscuit.
Fictioneering authors like Bruce Paley are the curse of serious Ripper studies. The accusations at poor Joseph Barnett, are both fictional & libellous. This innocent man was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. As Kelly's most recent boyfriend, he was interrogated by Abberline & his team, all his clothes examined, and his alibi checked out thoroughly, before being completely cleared of any involvement.
The latest piece of fiction is that third-hand, fictional nonsense about spitting on the grave.
Barnett went on to marry and have children. There isn't one chance in a thousand, that such a man could be the maniacal, & insatiably blood-thirsting Ripper, and then lead a happy family life.
With the exception of the sensible Dan Norder, and perhaps one or two more, I would suggest that the "rest" on this page should take a large dose of "Philip Sugden", before going to bed every night. It might cure their ailment.
A bigger mystery to me than the Ripper's identity, is how these people here ever rose beyond the rank of "Constable".
Keep on fictioneering.
LUKE WHITLEY. |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Hello everyone,
I am fairly new to this website and the case, so I dont know everything, although I am finding it more addictive than caffine and niccotine.There is one matter I would like someone to clear up for me please.I was under the distinct impression that NO suspects or anyone associated with the case had anything to do with the victims.I thought for years it was a totally random episode.I was shocked when I realised the soap opera with Barnett and Kelly COINCIDENTLY right before her death.Given the fact there is no connection with any suspects on the massive list on this website,with any of the prostitutes, he must be suspect number one.This is a facsinating coincidence, of 70 odd suspects he has a possible motive COINCIDENTLY directly before her murder. I cant believe ripperologists arn't all over this guy like a rash.If there is anything connecting any other suspect can someone tell me please.
In saying he was a copycat I believe he did murder Kelly. Whether he murdered the others or not, I am just not sure? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4065
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Stuart, welcome.
It's not so much of a coincidence. The fact is, Barnett's troubled relationship with Kelly is the very reason that he is a suspect. After this, it's an attempt to "make him fit" e.g. pointing to his disrupted family background, his loss of his job about the time the murders started, etc.
It's not as if he was already a suspect and then someone said, "Hey, he was living with one of the victims."
If we were to find that, say, Druitt had just finished a relationship with Kate Eddowes, that would be Ripperological dynamite. But it's not like that with Barnett.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart,
I am glad we are on the same wavelength, I started the thread some years ago , 'j Barnett number one suspect' and i will always stick with that opinion, unproven circumstancial or not.
But opinion no matter how reseached, no one is ever convinced.
I have always maintained that I am of open mind, but on these boards to date, i have not found a constructive suspect.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1657
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
G'day,
MAL X: 'mary kelly murdered by Barnett? highly unlikely,it just doesn't feel right....'
That's exactly why a lot of people refuse to believe in his guilt, but that's not good enough! It's not up to us!
LUKE: 'Barnett went on to marry and have children. There isn't one chance in a thousand, that such a man could be the maniacal, & insatiably blood-thirsting Ripper, and then lead a happy family life.'
Oh where did you find that out? Bruce Paley who traced his life for over a decade found that he remained single until 1919, when he was listed on the electoral rolls as being married to Louisa Barnett. There are no other record of this marriage. A recent change to the laws gave women the right to vote if they were over 30, were a householder or married to a householder.
Bruce Paley says there 'appears to be no record of any children born to the couple, or to Joseph Barnett at any time previously.'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1658
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
G'day,
ROBERT: The police had probably never even heard the name 'Joseph Barnett' until November 1888, so he wouldn't have been on anyone's favourite suspect list. That's one reason why I believe he got-off so easily with a flimsy alibi and why police thought they were waisting their time investigating him thouroughly.
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4074
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:52 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
But the police did investigate all kinds of people, sometimes simply people about whom they'd received a letter - "This guy I work with is very weird..." They weren't just locked into a mindset of "If he's not Jewish, or a raving loony, then we don't want to know." Barnett did come right to the centre of their attention on Nov 9th, and I think they'd have checked him out.
In this way, I suppose the very thing that makes a suspect attractive - the fact that his name was mentioned - is also the suspect's weakness. The police were close to the murders in both space and time, and at the end of the day if they couldn't pin it on Druitt, or Tumblety, or Barnett, then...
The case against Barnett would be strengthened if there was just one mention of him after 1888 - say, a retired policeman claiming that he always had doubts about Mr Barnett. But we don't find this.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
After a reward was offered for information leading to a conviction many people contacted the police with any slight suspicion they had.
The police had to check them all out and reading the official files tells me that as long as a suspect could account for his whereabouts on the nights in question the police immediately didmissed him as a suspect. That waisted alot of valuable police time and by November the police were under a lot of pressure from the public to catch the Ripper.
As recent as the 1970s/early 80s, with nearly 100 years experience behind them the police interviewed The 'Yorkshire Ripper', Peter Sutcliff, 9 times before he was arrested so the police can make mistakes.
After one interview Sutcliffe was dismissed because his wife said he was in bed.
After another interview he gave an alibi that he was at a housewarming party.
His wife backed him up by saying that he rarely went out at night.
How confident are you now about the police checking out alibis?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4085
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
Well Leanne, this raises the whole question of what they'd have asked Barnett. First off, it would have been "Where were you last night?" and this would have been the alibi they'd have put most energy into checking.
After that, "Where were you on the night of 29th - 30th September between 1 AM and 2 AM?" Now how was Barnett supposed to answer that? Mary couldn't give him a false alibi - she was dead. And it wasn't as if he had a night job at the time. As for August 31st, September 8th, well...i doubt if barnett was able to furnish them with convincing alibis for any of these dates that were so long ago. So it seems once again to come down to how closely did they check his Nov 9th alibi, and my guess is, pretty closely.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
Like I've said here over and over, he claimed to be at 'Bullers Lodging House' playing whist until 12:30 when he went to bed. Police probably found people to verify he was playing whist until that time, and that was probably enough to convince them that he couldn't have murdered her.
But her most likely time of death hadn't yet been established and it was at least 3 hours later. Police probably didn't want to go backwards in their investigation by checking that his alibi 'covered' him for the appropriate hours.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on February 14, 2005)
(Message edited by Leanne on February 14, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4086
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Leanne, why wouldn't police want to go backwards in their investigation? And if her time of death hadn't yet been established, they'd have wanted Joe's alibi for the morning too!
The police were aware of the possibility of someone leaving a lodging house. Wilkinson had already been asked whether anyone had left his establishment.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
G'day Robert,
I don't know. I can only guess. But I'm pretty sure he was found the next morning in a pub near Buller's. The point is how can anyone prove they were sound asleep?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4091
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne
Well, I look at it this way : if Barnett did prove his alibi, then end of story. But if he couldn't, then the police would have known that there was an element of doubt - "he could have sneaked out" - and I presume that other checks, such as his clothing, even his body for signs of blood, would have been relied on to eliminate him from their enquiries. Which of course doesn't prove that Joe couldn't have outwitted them all - obviously he could - but I think it does mean that it will take a lot of other evidence against Joe to make him number one suspect.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Hi
The fact that they questioned him for approx 4hours, suggests to me that his clothing that he was wearing and his other garments were checked for signs of blood, the fact remains if he was the killer it would have had to be a premeditated act, and he would have made provisions for his almost certain apprehension.
If it was a on the spot crime of passion he would [ if he was the killer] have certainly been extremely lucky to have got away with it.
I Would say Joe Barnett was a very cunning person, and his alibi was carefully thought out, and any trace of the murder would not have been in evidence
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
G'day,
What about the suggestion that he burnt his bloody shirt in Mary's fireplace, and put on one of the men's shirts that Maria Harvey left?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4093
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Leanne, wouldn't that be very risky? Wouldn't he have known that they were Harvey's shirts, and that she could perhaps identify it? After all, later that day the police would go through his things.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1663
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
G'day Robert,
It could have been a common white shirt that alot of people wore, and if he was worried that she might recognise it he could have stained it.
Maria Harvey said she left: "2 men's shirts, 1 boy's shirt, an overcoat a black one a man's, a black crepe bonnet with black strings, a ticket for a shawl in for 2/-, a little girls white petticoat"
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
G'day,
Harvey left when Barnett turned up for his last visit. If she had have recognised it he could have said that Mary gave it to him.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4096
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Leanne, for the sake of argument I'll grant you that he could have flipped his lid, killed Kelly, found a clean shirt, burnt his own shirt with the rest of Harvey's clothes (in order to cover it up) and walked off in Harvey's shirt.
He was hardly going to be spotless, though, even then.
For one thing, where did he put the heart? In his coat pocket?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
G'day Robert,
You're obviously on-line right now and I'd love to continue this discussion about the heart, but I have to catch a bus which is due in ten minutes! See ya later!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4097
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Leanne, if you're waiting for a bus you've got another couple of hours yet. 
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1666
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
G'day Robert,
'He was hardly going to be spotless, though, even then.
For one thing, where did he put the heart? In his coat pocket? '
How do we know how he had his pants on at the time? As for the heart, he may have had a bag or wrapped it something.
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4102
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
Leanne, you still waiting for that bus?
He mutilated Kelly with his trousers off but his shirt on? And he had his trousers off but his shoes and socks on? Otherwise he'd have got blood on his feet.
Seriously, I reckon to be safe he'd have had to
1. Discard the heart and knife
2. Pop into the public baths
3. Change into a complete new set of clothes and get rid of his bloody ones
You may say that whoever JTR was, he'd have had to do some or all of this. But Joe was the only suspect to be investigated by the police within hours of the murder. He must have been very thorough.
Robert
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:51 pm: |
|
G'day Robert,
But how many hours? Mary's body was discovered at 10:45a.m. and it took police a while to locate Barnett and I don't think he'd take the heart, knife and bloody clothes back to Bullers.
He would even have had ample time to change out of Mrs Harvey's shirt, if he had to.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on February 14, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4104
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:13 am: |
|
But he'd have had to have the change of clothes with him, Leanne, or else go back to Buller's in the bloody ones to fetch the clean ones. But you said he killed her on impulse. So why would he have his clothes with him?
Richard's scenario where the murder is premeditated gets round this, but has other problems.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:27 am: |
|
G'day,
No, he wouldn't have needed a change of clothes if he popped on Mrs Harvey's shirt! He could even have wiped his bloody knife on his bloody shirt before he threw his shirt in the fire. (pardon the language!)
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4105
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
But what about the rest of his clothes, Leanne?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 5:38 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
I'm assuming he kept his shirt on but took his pants off, as Mary had her chemise on to guard against the cold.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4107
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
So Barnett strips off everything but his shirt, kills and mutilates Mary, getting blood on the shirt but also on his arms, legs, hands and feet, then wipes off or dries the blood on his body with a blood-free cloth he finds there (otherwise there'd be bloodstains on the inside of his clothes), burns the shirt, changes into a clean one, wraps the heart in some blood-proof cloth so that he can either carry it openly or put it in his pocket without it leaking, goes off to the baths, after discarding the heart and knife, and then assumes an air of horror and ignorance when confronted by the police.
Some guy!
Robert |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Hi again Leanne.
Why do you keep bringing Peter Sutcliffe into the argument. It's a totally different set of circumstances. Sutcliffe claimed hatred of prostitutes as his motive. RUBBISH. He both killed and attempted to kill girls that he knew full well were NOT prostitutes. I've read Sonia Sutcliffe's own words, that in interviews BEFORE he was caught, she was asked his whereabouts weeks, sometimes months after murders, and her answers could only be approximate. His job involved his not being at home at all on many nights. The house-warming party "alibi" was NOT for a murder night. He briefly returned to a body,after running relatives home from that party.
Where is the EVIDENCE that Joe Barnett hated prostitutes. He didn't like his girl being one, that's for sure, but he still lived with her. So where does the "hate" theory come from. JTR's crimes were all committed within one square mile, & in a short space of time. Most of Sutcliffe's crimes were committed many miles distant, & over five years, so police alibi checking was vastly more complicated and long drawn out.
Barnett however as the first suspect, was pulled in within hours, and everything about him checked out. As you said, the police were under terrific pressure, so it wasn't just routine questioning with Barnett, which most of Sutcliffe's interviews were. Had Sutcliffe killed his own wife, he'd have been caught immediately. There's no comparison with Barnett there.
Also, please don't tell me that on the nights of the first four murders, when Barnett was living with Kelly, that she would have accepted his convenient absences as supposedly looking for work, especially as the killings all took place only a stone's throw away.
Best wishes Leanne.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:11 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
Mary Kelly thought it cold enough to put on or keep on her chemise. What did men usually wear to bed in those days on cold, wet nights? Did they strip naked, remain fully clothed or did they keep a shirt on?
Once Mary Kelly's throat had been severed her heart would have stopped pumping blood.
I don't know what her killer carried her heart away with but it was missing. What did the Ripper use the bloody portion of apron for after he murdered Eddowes?
I'm not accusing Joseph Barnett of hating prostitutes but of hating PROSTITUTION. Mary Kelly was 'walking the streets' when he met her and he immediately tried to save her.
Working costermongers and anyone of the thousands of people looking for any work were up and at the markets very early, before they actually opened. The best bargains were got early in the trading and there was certainly a lot of competition. The markets were held on the weekends and why would Mary worry if he was bringing home the money by doing what so many others did?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4113
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
I assume the apron was to wipe his hands and knife on.
Mary's heart would have stopped pumping, but he then opened her up. There must have been blood everywhere.
I think that a man who was so focusssed on his own survival that he would think to change into a shirt he'd found in the room, and burn his own, would hardly have been likely to encumber himself with a human heart which he had to get rid off almost immediately.
Robert |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Greetings all,
I see on this thread, the topic of Barnett's alibi and his questioning for four hours, is seen as important to everybody.Some say the police checked him out so he must be right.I think the police let him go after 4 hours as they could not prove anything.
Last year I saw a documentary on 'Jack the Ripper' made by Discovery Channel.It featured Donald Rumbelow and Scotland Yard detectives.The SY detectives said some interesting things about the point of an alibi.In 1888, to be convicted, you had to be caught in the act of perpitrating the crime.They said " even if you are seen next to the victim, with the victim's blood on you, you cant be charged with thier murder." The reason why they flooded the streets with hundreds of uniformed and undercover police was to literally catch him in the act of murder, so as to convict him.The ripper only had to make sure that no witnessess saw him , which is why Isreal Shwartz was told to beat it.
As Leanne stated, Barnett would have put at least some planning into this murder.He knew he would be interviewed.But, given the fact he was not seen anywhere around Kelly at the time of her death, then he really didn't need much of an alibi at all.As far as the police checking him out for 4 hours, this only means they couldn't charge him - nothing else.More modern techniques would have to be applied here to expose him as the killer, which I think he was. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart.
What a load of hogwash. In 1888, Israel Lipski was not SEEN administering poison to his victim, but was convicted. In early 1889, Florence Maybrick was not SEEN administering poison to her husband James, but was convicted.
Are you seriously trying to tell us, that in a case that had world attention, Abberline would have let Barnett out walking the streets again, and never said a word about it, if he knew that he was the killer, whether seen in the act or not??
There was never a shred of evidence to make Barnett a suspect, except in the minds of fictioneering authors like Bruce Paley.
I'll bet that you never even considered Barnett before that book came out.
Why don't you say that John Kelly killed Eddowes as well. They had the same relationship as Barnett-Kelly. Where was Barnett's motive?? He wasn't thrown out of their home by Kelly. He left in protest at her inviting a friend to stay, thus encroaching on their privacy. That's hardly a motive for such savage butchery.
Oh, with regard to Israel Schwartz. As Philip Sugden said, it's highly likely that Schwartz had been witness to nothing more than an ordinary street-brawl, one of many reported that night.
Best wishes Stuart.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Hi David,
I actually put Barnett in the frame long before Paley.
I Will be absolutely honest with you, the main suspicion lies with the reputed grave spitting incident.
If a load of nonsence then apart from the obvious motive of desperation to get her of prostitution, and certain other coincedences then a case is weak.
However if the reputed grave incident is accurate he most certainly is a very serious contender. and that running in par with the other observations make him quite possibly her killer if not the others.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
G'day David,
'Abberline would have let Barnett out walking the streets again, and never said a word about it, if he knew that he was the killer, whether seen in the act or not?'
David, no one has ever said that Abberline knew he was the killer but let him out to walk the streets again.
'There was never a shred of evidence to make Barnett a suspect, except in the minds of fictioneering authors like Bruce Paley.'
Bruce Paley didn't invent 'evidence to make Barnett a suspect'. He examined the man's past for over a decade. Would Abberline have had time to do that during his 4 hour interrogation?
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Hi,
I obviously agree entirely with leanne, Paley investigated Barnett for approx ten years before publication using modern day research, Abberline had four hours, which was simply checking his nightime alibi, and his owned clothing.
To repeat myself , if Barnett was Mjk killer he would have had the assurance of a alibi, also non existance of bloody clothing.
To kill Mary on impulse, with no time to collect his wits would have been condemming himself to the noose.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4123
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Richard, you think she was killed in the morning. Well, Joe was questioned the same afternoon, so surely they'd have asked him for an alibi to cover both morning and night?
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.
|
|
|
|
