|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:27 pm: | 
|
Hi,
Prince Albert Victor is the suspect that many Eastenders believed and still believe to have been Jack the Ripper.A number of film producers have implied the same except to have put rather more emphasis on Gull than the Prince as actually having supervised the mutilations.Dr Stowell,a great friend of the Gull family,especially of Gull"s daughter and son in law for whom he was executor of his will apparently thought so too-i.e. that some combination of Dr Gull and The
Prince committed these murders.Sightings were even reported to have been made by a police officer in Mitre Square at 6 o"clock on the morning of the double event of a coach containing members of the Royal Household.Some hundred years have been devoted to this possibility-in depth study from the time of clair voyant Lees and even Arthur Conan Doyle and his friends in the 1890"s.
Does this in any way prove the killer was either Dr Gull or the Prince?Dont think so some how!
So how come some half baked theory about a "grave spitting incident" ---arising out of nothing more than "hearsay"---- can carry such weight?
The case against this poor man Joseph Barnett is a lot more feeble in my view, than the case agaist Dr Gull and the Duke of Clarence.
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 291
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Nats,
Great post! You made a whole lot of sense!
If the police believed Barnett's alibi, then who am I to dispute them. They must have had their reasons for believing.
Best,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4135
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Natalie, I like the way your post came up on the list of messages as "Hi, Prince Albert Victor."
I never knew PAV was posting on the Boards!
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Well maybe Prince Albert Victor like poor old Joe
wants to vindicate himself!Maybe they are both
fed up with the false allegations Robert and want their names to be posthumously cleared!
Thanks Lyn! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3129
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
David Cartwright,
If you knew anything about police work in the 19th century, you would be well aware of -- as Stuart quite correctly points out -- that they pretty much had to catch the Ripper in the act in order to hold him in confinement. Even today you can't really detain someone unless you have solid proof or very strong circumstancial evidence of the person's guilt.
As Stuart said, they couldn't even define blood groups in 1888, not even if it was human, only mammal; a suspect with blood on him only had to say that it was animal blood and that was pretty much it. Since there was no possible knowledge at the time of how to use physical evidence, they pretty much had to catch him in the act or scrape together loads of witnesses who unanimously would pick him out.
The police were on the lookout for Jack the Ripper, and therefore they possibly checked out his alibi for the other murders.
The fact that they let him go doesen't really say squat and is no proof whatsoever of his innocence.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 294
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
You're very welcome, Nats!
You did make a sound argument! Of which I appreciate!
Bestest,
Lyn}
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I cant help but find your conception of our police in 1888 a bit off key.
Both my grandmothers were born around this time.
Neither seemed very different from people today in terms of intuition,scepticism,nous call it what you will.The idea that the coppers were unable to detect anything wrong with Joe Barnett"s statement,alibis,rooms,clothing,general behaviour etc is so very unlikely to be the case as to beggar belief.As someone reminded us yesterday,he was after all interviewed the very day of the murder for four hours,a murder which sent shock waves around the world in terms of its brutality and horror.To imagine that this bunch of halfwits sat gawping at the murderer without picking up a single clue is just preposterous to be frank.
Futhermore to most women Joe"s behaviour has a recognisable pattern no need for forensics here ----our dear Shakespeare would also have recognised it at a glance!He comes across as a genuinely bereaved man,especially his inquest testimony but also his description of his life with Mary and his concern for her dangerous work..........
Now if you were to talk about McCarthy say or Donovan well there are two people who may have known a bit more about it but Joe Barnett ?
He was devastated.That is what comes across
To me anyway.An innocent man much maligned.
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 297
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 7:48 pm: |
|
Nats,
I totally agree!
I couldn't have put it better!
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1603
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Well its good to know someone agrees with me Lyn!Again,Thanks
Take Care
Natsxxx |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 298
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 8:12 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Forgive me, but it perplexes me why you continually refer to "the grave spitting incident".. Haven't we got beyond this? It was mere hearsay! We don't know whether it happened or not! And if it did.. so what?! What does this tell us! It certainly doesn't tell us that Barnett was Jack the Ripper!
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3130
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Natalie,
Where on earth did you get the idea that Barnett was "devastated" and "genuinely bereaved"? Surely that is your own personal interpretations. We simply can't know that, and we certainly can't establish for sure if he felt frustration towards MJK or not; even if he left her on his choice, there is nothing whatsoever that implies that he was really happy about the situation.
According to a couple of witnesses, MJK pretty much preferred the company of her fellow prostitutes than his. And one even said that she detested and couldn't stand him.
So I think you are really jumping to conclusions regarding his personality here.
His relationship with MJK, and his parting from her a very short time before the murder, would make any policeman suspicious, and it is my firm belief that the police found very good reasons for taking him in, apart from the fact that he was the male person with closest relation to the victim. Even the police of 1888 knew that these are generally those who commits these domestic crimes.
"He comes across as a genuinely bereaved man,especially his inquest testimony but also his description of his life with Mary and his concern for her dangerous work.........."
Yeah sure, and Ted Bundy was an ice cream man, doing knitting on his spare time...
So you mean that people never lie? And that the police can't be fooled? Yeah, like that never happens...
Besides, the four hour interrogation part is something that comes from his own testimony. That he was held for four hours really is not corroborated in the police files.
From the police reports there are strong indications on that the police believed him, yes. But so what? When did the police become masterminds with supernatural powers? It is a complete misunderstanding -- if not a serious fallacy -- to expect the police to get it right everytime and not get fooled by a clever suspect.
And even IF they didn't believe him, they couldn't hold him anyway. There simply would be no evidence against him, this the police was very well aware of as well -- and that was a fact in connection with every suspect, not just Barnett. You say there is no need for forensics here -- wrong! For the police there would be! And they knew it. Unless they found him with a bloody knife coming out of her room, or he was seen by several witnesses, they wouldn't be able to hold him. They would simply have to let him go, even if they knew he was the killer!
Since there are no such indications in the report, it is probably doubtful that they found him not credible, though, but on the other hand the personal note books of the police regarding the suspects and the interrogation documents, are the ones that got lost in the blitz, so what was revealed in there, we will never know. All we have is the official files and reports that were sent to the Home Office.
I agree with Lyn, though, that there is not a shred of evidence -- or even suspicions -- regarding Joseph Barnett as the Ripper! But there is nothing that rules out him as MJK:s killer. He had the motive, the means, the knowledge of both the victim and the premises and he also had a longer romantic relationship with her. And some superficial knowledge about (and a strong interest in) the Ripper murders. Most policemen today would see him as a serious prime suspect. But then I don't hold Abberline & Co Inc. as superstars, believing they made all the right decisions. Because they certainly didn't; they did their job as good as they could under the circumstances, but please don't turn them into something they weren't.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden}
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 1:05 am: |
|
G'day,
Thank you Glenn, well said!!
Going back to Natalie's Thursday the 17th post: Where are the sources for the 6 o'clock coach sighting in Mitre Square? I'm not saying that they don't exist, it's just that I can't find them and have never heard of them. As far as I know, there were no marks left by the wheels of a carriage in the Square.
And where did you read that Eastenders believed that the Prince was the Ripper? You know why film producers love that theory? Because theories like that make great movie plots and viewers love conspiracy!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1673
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 1:33 am: |
|
G'day,
Peter Sutcliffe gave the police a seemingly rock-solid alibi of being at his wife's housewarming party on the night that the Yorkshire Ripper returned to Manchester and the body of Jean Jordan. The body was further mutilated and the killer searched for incriminating evidence that he'd left behind.
The alibi was confirmed by Sutcliffe's mother. Yes he was at the party but after driving his mother home when the party ended Sutcliffe continued on to Manchester and the body of Jean Jordan.
I mentioned that to show you how confirmed alibis can be meaningless.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 22
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 3:31 am: |
|
I am one who believes the cry of murder was the prelude to the beginning of the attack on Kelly.It fits with the doctors estimate of the time of death,and there is no reason to dismiss the evidence of the two witnesses who heard the cry.
So before the onslaught,maybe for only seconds,she was able to foretell what was about to happen.She saw or heard something that made her fear for her life.Would she have been that alarmed by the presence of Barnett,though his arrival may have been unexpected.
Would he,familiar with the room and it's occupant,not have been able to allay her fears,to a situation where he could make an unexpected attack and overpower her quickly and silently.
It is possible of course,but I can't see Joe signaling his intention to murder,and the killer surely did that. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. She probably saw the knife approaching her neck a few seconds before her killer sliced her throat. It wouldn't have mattered who was holding it.
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Glenn
Thanks for the post.
Can I refer you to Ally"s post of March 25 2004 6.11 re
"Barnett"s Testimony"?
Will come back to rest later.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:40 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
In the Mammoth Book of JtR
on page 156 there is an account of this.It apparently comes from Sam Lythal,a city of London detective sargeant and was repoted by Freda Thomson who was over 90 and living in Hastings.
Sam Lythal was sent to Mitre square at 6am on the morning of the Eddowes murder.He claimed that when he went into the square he saw three men whom he knew belonged to the Royal Household.
I cant be sure ofcourse that "The East End" thought it was the Prince but certainly a "toff" and this I discussed in the East end with elderly ladies at the Cloak and Dagger Club last year.
They had apparently lived in the east end[Whitechapel,Mile End etc all their lives and had always believed this and always been interested in finding out the truth.
I personally would take a lot of convincing.I dont think poor Eddie had it in him for a start and there is evidence he was elsewhere.Gull was 70 and had had a stroke etc but Lord Randolph 38 and dying of Syphalis/--Who knows!
Natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1675
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 6:27 am: |
|
G'day Natalie,
I believe alot of curious people congregated in Mitre Square after Eddowes' body was discovered. It in no way proves that the Royal family was involved if three men from the household were seen there 4 hours after the discovery of the body.
I personally don't think Richard's grave-spitting insident is 'evidence' of anything.
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I agree,to have seen the coach means nothing-except maybe that the Royal party-if thats who it was- had the same curiosity as everyone else!
Natalie
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
To Glenn L Andersson
If YOU knew anything at all about Police work in the 19th. century, you'd have had an explanation for the two poisoning cases I cited, those of Lipski & Maybrick. The law didn't just cover crimes where blood was spilt. If Emmanuel Violenia's statement about John Pizer hadn't been discredited, Pizer (leather apron) would have been charged with killing Nichols & Chapman, despite never being seen by a body, let alone caught with blood on him.
To Natalie.
Well done girl. Along with Robert, you're the only one with any sense on this thread, in ridiculing this totally unsupported & fictional nonsense about an innocent man. There isn't one word of CONTEMPORARY evidence to support it. Abberline completely cleared Barnett -- FACT.
These fairy-tales, concocted over a century later, belong in the waste-paper basket.
To Leanne.
Please give Peter Sutcliffe a rest. His case was totally different, and is irrelevant to Barnett.
Best wishes to all.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Howdy all,
Barnett has alot of defence counsilers I see now.As Glen said though, his four hours of questioning and subsequent release only means they had nothing to hold him on.Does 'nothing to hold him on' mean he is innocent?If, as most seem to agree ,this was not an impulsive assault, then at least some preparation has gone into it from Barnett.I would say that during his preparation, he would have been trying for: that they would have 'NOTHING TO HOLD HIM ON'. Dont you think so?
Alot have too much much faith in those that interviewed him.I will again use the information I got from SCOTLAND YARD DETECTIVES on this documentary I saw.They said " in 1888 the London Police Force, was simply not equiped or experienced in dealing with a serial killer.They had not expected to have to deal with such a case." Yes David, they did say you pretty much had to be caught on the job by a witness to be prosecuted.If you dont believe me then try and get a copy of the documentary(your local video store might have it).
So Joey Barnett's 4 hour interview is not very helpful when put into perspective. Those interviewing him were inexperienced with dealing with such a case.They had nobody putting Barnett around Kelly at the time of her death.His examination would have been very lame by modern standards.I think this 4 hour questioning is thus meaningless in exonerating him.Much more in depth probing has to be done to nail him. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Hi Richard.
Is it really likely that Barnett would risk bringing real attention to himself by spitting on a grave for all to see?? C'mon now, this is just a third or fourth hand tale, without an ounce of genuine corroboration for it.
Is there any CONTEMPORARY documentary evidence to support Barnett's qualification as a Ripper suspect, or that he hated prostitutes, or spat on the grave??
Fictional tales and claims made over a century later count for nothing. Philip Sugden has shown us all, that fictioneering and fraud has been rife among Ripper authors, and still IS.
At least those who support Druitt, Kosminski, Chapman etc., have CONTEMPORARY statements of high-ranking police officers, to support and base their theories on.
Finally Richard, I've never been too sure as to whether you believe that Barnett killed Kelly ONLY (copycat), or was Jack the Ripper. I doubt if the Ripper (as the saying goes) would have been stupid enough to "spit on his own doorstep".
Best wishes Richard.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4137
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Hi all
1. This was a man who'd been living with Kelly until they had a row and split up.
2. He admitted to disliking prostitution.
3. The police were desperate to catch the killer, and they were led by an experienced officer.
4. They had the chance to examine Barnett, his person, his clothes and possessions, and his alibi just a few hours after the murder.
5. There was much public interest, with many eager to claim the reward.
6. The police do not charge Barnett.
7. In the days and years to come, no neighbour, no policeman, no journalist, no letter writer to the police, is on record as reporting any suspicions concerning Barnett.
8. No record of Barnett being violent to anyone either before or after 1888 has been found.
Now of course, Barnett may have been very cunning, or very lucky. And it's possible that tomorrow some mislaid police file will turn up, detailing police suspicions of him. He will remain a suspect. But the Barnettists are going to need that mislaid file to turn up.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3135
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
David Cartwright,
1.) I DID say that apart from catching someone in the act, witnesses would be required in order to prosecute or hold someone for a longer period. I doubt it that one witness would enough, though, but in a sensitive case where the police and the authorities are under pressure, that can of course never be ruled out.
2.) Now, this is important! Pizer was not finally dismissed because of Violenia's statement. You need to read up a bit on the fact.
Pizer was released dismissed because he could produce a clear-cut alibi.
It was confirmed that he had been in Holloway, discussing the fire at the London docks with a police man! You can't have a better alibi then that. Violenia has nothing to do with Pizer being ruled out as a suspect.
As for Richard, he has been rather clear about the fact that he thinks Barnett is Jack the Ripper, not a copy-cat murderer (unless he has changed his mind this last year).
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 19, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1676
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
G'day,
RICHARD: See how the grave-spitting accusation can ruin the case against Barnett? I'm not saying it definately didn't happen, but it's just so hard to prove and is therefore weak.
Joseph Barnett definately hated PROSTITUTION, not specifically prostitutes, which is why he lived with one and immediately tried to change her ways!
I keep mentioning Peter Sutcliffe to show how a seemingly solid alibi and false clues from letters and a tape can fool even todays police into letting a killer slip through the 'net'.
LEANNE
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 23
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:30 am: |
|
Leanne,
So you are inferring that Kelly was silenced with the knife,and that she saw the killer with the Knife in hand,and the knife only inches from the throat,and she still had time to cry out and pull the sheet over her head?.
If Joe did kill her in that manner,then he was surely in the room without her knowledge,or she had gone to sleep while he was there,and it was a premeditated murder and not the result of a sudden heated arguement.
What about light.There must have been some for her to see by,but why would Barnett need light.He knew the layout of the room and Kelly's sleeping habits.He knew the way in so noise shouldn't have been a factor.It just doesn't appear to have been the work of a person too familiar with the location or the inhabitant. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 5:53 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
'If Joe did kill her in that manner,then he was surely in the room without her knowledge,'
Why do you say that?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1678
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
I don't believe her killer entered her room unannounced, otherwise people would have heard more than a single cry of "MURDER!"
The killer, (whether he went there with intensions of killing her or not), wouldn't have took that risk I feel.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I Accept the Grave spitting incident is tedious to the vast majority of people on these boards, so I will keep that snippit to myself in future.
What is needed is some detail to emerge showing Barnetts whereabouts from late 88 -1906 he seems to have vanished for eighteen years.
There is a case in the news at this time of a 22 year old dissapearing and her distort boyfriend in tears in national newspapers.
Although no body to date has been found, it seems likely only a matter of time, the point is the boyfriend has now been taken into custody his house turned upside down, and the police appear to consider him a serious suspect.
If he is charged if a body is found, it would show how a person can put on a serious acting performence when his livelyhood depends on it.
Infact countless murderers have been extremely devious and cunning in the past.
My relevant point is so could Barnett.
Richard. |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 24
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
Leanne,
Read all of that passage.I also said if she had gone to sleep while joe was there.
Whatever,the cry seems to indicate an immediate attack.No noise of arguement or desperste struggle.So if it was Joe, he gave no warning,but the intention was clear.
Whoever was in the room,I say it was a prepared killing,and in the last few seconds she realised the intent. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 4:03 am: |
|
Harry,
I could not agree with you more.
This murder was premeditated, and Kelly was caught completely by surprise, i believe the killer grapped the sheet and smothered her mouth to stop any cry and swiftly sliced her throat.
The defence wounds were caused by kelly trying to fend of the attack.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3144
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 5:12 am: |
|
I must say I am a bit puzzled.
How one can see the cry of "Murder" as a sign of that Kelly was asleep or didn't struggle, really goes beyond me.
Actually, it indicates the total opposite.
I find it quite questionable that Kelly was asleep when the attack started. If she was, we certainly wouldn't have heard a cry at all, unless she by accident started to wake up. But I find it unlikely that she would have time.
Firstly, there are indications on that Kelly did struggle, at least put her hands and arms up to cover and defend her. I certainly do NOT see this as a possibility if she was asleep when the attack occurred. Especially as she possibly also moved herself backwards towards the wall partition. After that my bet is the killer threw the sheet over her.
Secondly, I can't understand why people take for granted that a loud argument of several minutes must occurred if she wasn't asleep. The attack could have come sudden anyway, taken Kelly by surprise. There is absolutely no reason for why Kelly couldn't have been taken by surprise completely by a person she had in the room and was aware of.
Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever of that the murder was premeditated, apart from the fact that the killer brought a knife with him. Of course it might have been premedidated (there is really nothing that proves it wasn't either) but I see no reason to deduct that with certainty from the available facts we have. unless a very large or special knife was used, it is fair to assume that quite many men in East End carried knives on them because of their daily trades.
I certainly don't believe the killer got in while Kelly was asleep. The cry of "Murder" and the possible signs of a short defense and her moving up against the partition, actually indicates that she herself et the killer inside and that someone she knew took her by surprise when she was caught off guard.
To say that the cry and the defense wounds indicate that she was asleep really is a total contradiction.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1679
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
How can we conclude there was no noise and definately no argument just because no one heard it? Not every argument has two people yelling at each other.
I agree with Glenn that if Kelly had time to yell "MURDER" and defend herself a little then she wasn't asleep! She just didn't expect the killer to produce a knife, and probably thought he was reaching in his bag to pull out his money.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3147
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Exactly, Leanne.
I agree totally with you -- for once.
Well expressed in fewer words than I managed to do.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
G'day glenn,
She probably said, (not yelled): "No, you're just another customer to me. Show me the money first"!!!!!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4149
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Well, I'm afraid I don't buy all this Mills and Boon stuff.
Why on earth would Barnett leave his bed at Buller's, that he'd paid good money for, to go out in the middle of the night, in the pouring rain, to go and see Kelly, not knowing whether she'd be
1. In
2. With a man
3. With a woman
4. Drunk
but probably knowing that she'd want to go to the Lord Mayor's Show early on Friday and so if he did find her asleep, she wouldn't thank him for waking her up, particularly as she was a late riser.
If he'd won some money at cards and wanted to give her that, why didn't he give it to her when he won it? He wasn't playing cards at 3 or 4 in the morning.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3148
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
All good points, and very reasonable and sound.
However, I do think you take some things for granted as facts here.
Firstly, we are in no position today to evaluate Barnett's so called alibi, namely his bed at Buller's. It is not left without questioning, and I'd say -- since it is not exactly bullet-proof verified -- that it is impossible for us 117 years after the event to really use that as an established fact and study it in depth, based on the few facts we have.
Secondly, we don't know if Barnett knew whether she was going to watch the Lord Mayor's show. That is only assumption and speculation.
"If he'd won some money at cards and wanted to give her that, why didn't he give it to her when he won it?"
Maybe because she wasn't in at the time, or simply because he wanted to see how much he had left after he had used some of it himself? There could be a number of reasons. I can't see why Barnett should win a card game just to get MJK money.
I am afraid those are detail studies that we will never be able to establish anyway, so those are really pointless exercises. We simply don't have enough information.
But even if Barnett WASN'T her killer (I could also consider Joe Flemming, which we of course know nothing about apart from what been said about him from a couple of witnesses), I stand firm on my belief that MJK wasn't asleep when the killer gained entrance to the room. All facts simply points against it.
All the best
G. Andersson
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4151
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
I did think of the scenario where Barnett wins some money at whist (the cards was Leanne's idea) then goes over to Kelly's to give her some money, finds the blotchy-faced man there, goes off and walks around a bit, comes back, finds Hutchinson's man there, walks around a bit more, and finally gets to see her around 4 only to be told, as he stood there cold and wet, "Push off." But it seemed a bit convoluted (though it would explain the warming fire). 
You're right about the Lord Mayor's Show - that's only a surmise on my part.
Re the alibi, surely even if you don't believe the alibi is watertight, at least there must have been evidence that he'd paid for the bed? And why would he do that unless he intended sleeping there?
Flemming is interesting, and I haven't altogether dismissed McCarthy.
I don't see why she couldn't have been asleep when the killer entered. Or she could have been half-asleep. If she was into heavy drinking her sleep would have been fitful in any case. The point is, though, that if the murderer was a paranoid schizophrenic (something still up for discussion) then he would have been quite far gone by November, to judge from what he did to Kelly. So imagine a nutter just walks in. It's dark, and he can't see. The door knocks against the table, waking Mary up. She screams. The rest, as Richard would say, is history.
He may not even have thought there'd be any objection to his entering the room - the front entrance in Dorset St was until very recently the entrance to the Shed.
Just one possibility among several others, but it does I believe show how Mary could have been asleep, not when she was killed, but when the killer entered.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3150
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
"...don't see why she couldn't have been asleep when the killer entered. Or she could have been half-asleep. If she was into heavy drinking her sleep would have been fitful in any case. The point is, though, that if the murderer was a paranoid schizophrenic (something still up for discussion) then he would have been quite far gone by November, to judge from what he did to Kelly. So imagine a nutter just walks in. It's dark, and he can't see. The door knocks against the table, waking Mary up. She screams. The rest, as Richard would say, is history."
OK, fair scenario. May not be impossible and could fit the facts. It is of course a theory that can't be totally disregarded.
But to me it personally feels like a stretch and a bit unlikely, and it also implies that the murder was premeditated, which I doubt a bit.
To me the most acceptable and most natural solution is that she let the killer inside, maybe someone who knocked on the door and woke her her, she recognizes hem and feels no reason to suspect anything or feel unsafe -- and lets him in.
As for Barnett's so called alibi, I continue to question its relevancy and reliability.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4152
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
I too feel that the murder wasn't premeditated. It looks like a botched job to me. The difference between us is, I tend to go for the Ripper blundering his way in, while you tend to go for a spur of the moment crime of passion scenario, where the killer isn't the Ripper.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3151
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
True. A good summary. 
Naturally, I can't rule out the Ripper 100%, but still...
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Glenn,
where did I suggest the police were some kind of "superstars"?
Actually I am nearer AP"s position with regards to "some" of the police and court practices I have read about re Victorian England
Please read AP"s summary of the Cannon Street murder trial of today if you want to know what that is.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3153
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I have read it, and I must admit I have no idea how to apply that on this particular issue. Do you mean that the police in some way acted corruptly? After all, they did let him go. I don't get the reasoning.
All I am saying is, that if you believe the police couldn't make any mistakes and were perfect judges of character, then you more or less make them superstars.
Besides the Cannon Street case differs to some extent from this situation, since the police in MJK:s murder focused on a serial killer. It is possible -- although I can't prove it -- that the coppers probably checked out his alibis for the other Ripper murders and that they probably felt he was speaking the truth in that regards and that he could be cleared from those. Since they were on the lookout for Jack the Ripper, that would probably have made things conclusive enough for them. Or else Barnett was just simply pretty convincing and persuasive. Or else he was innocent. Take your pick.
In any case, it wouldn't be the first time a suspect would slip through the hands or talk himself out of the police. And as several incidents have shown all over the world, it would hardly be the last either.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 21, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
G'day,
ROBERT: I was only being bold when I gave that quote. How could anyone possibly be sure of how the conversation went that morning? I was just giving an example of how the conversation could have proceeded without anyone shouting.
'Why on earth would Barnett leave his bed at Buller's, that he'd paid good money for, to go out in the middle of the night,'
But it wasn't the middle of the night and it was 'Lord Mayors Day'. Many people would have risen early to set up stalls and search for work.
Mary Kelly expressed her desire to attend the celebrations, and I'd say that that's why laundress Maria Harvey left those clothes - for her to sell!
Maria Harvey was in Kelly's room when Barnett showed up at 8:00p.m. He was probably told by Mary what the clothes were for, and was aware that she would be rising early to set up a little stall.
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 3:43 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
On the same thread as AP"s Cannon Street report Jeff encourages reasearch towards the attitude of the authorities/police etc re the murder of prostitutes in particular precisely because as the Cannon Street case shows both police and courts were capable of behaving corruptly in this case which may or may not have concerned a prostitute but showed how easy it was in those days to frame a suspect.There has been a tendency on the boards recently to assume impeccable behaviour on the part of police and courts in Victorian times whereas AP has shown in a number of instances including the court cases of both Cutbush and Collicut some dubious verdicts as well as throwing light on some specificly corrupt practice.Therefore its probably safe to assume we dont know the half of it when it came down to say needing to protect certain "toffs" or Doctors
or the police or their close relatives.To judge from some of the above some corruption appears to have existed.So all I was saying Glenn in this instance was I dont think the police were Superstars as you implied I was doing.I still think Abberline was a sound detective for his time and ofcourse there were others like him.
But with particular reference to Barnett I think that if they had anything on him at all they would have acted.I think he must have had watertight alibis and that that together with no trace of the blood which was everywhere in that room and must have been clinging to the murderer or his belongings somewhere still only hours after when he was interviewed tells us he was not the one who did it.
Natalie |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 7:31 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I would say that you're certainly right, in that Kelly was NOT asleep when attacked. I don't know if you will agree with me, but this is what I personally believe happened. This of course is if we accept Hutchinson's story. Abberline certainly did, and we have no reason to question him.
The evidence of Lewis & Prater puts the time of the murder between 3-30 & 4-00. Hutchinson left the scene at 3-00.
Now if, as seems likely, the "well-dressed" man was the killer, he was certainly aware of Hutchinson's interest in him, and that he'd actually followed them. Trapped in a cul-de-sac, I believe that the killer waited long enough to ensure that Hutchinson neither came curiously knocking on the door, or went to find a patrolling PC, which he might have done with the spate of murders on everyone's mind.
The well-dressed man certainly seemed to have the funds to spend the night in Kelly's room, so at a moment of his choosing, and having allayed any fears that Kelly may have had, he attacked her suddenly. As Leanne said, he probably appeared to be reaching for his money, and gave her time to utter only one or two words.
But speaking personally, I do NOT believe that man was Joseph Barnett.
Best wishes Glenn.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT |
timsta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Glenn:
I feel I have to raise issue with your statement (re: Barnett) that "Most policemen today would see him as a serious prime suspect".
I think it quite possible that in modern times Barnett would be "put in the frame", but, I believe, incorrectly so. The modern literature is replete with cases of partners/spouses being accused of murders that they quite obviously didn't commit. (There are a couple of high-profile cases going on here in Texas right now.)
I would counsel anyone who seriously considers Barnett as a suspect to TAKE A LOOK at the infamous MJK photos again. And then ask yourself, what kind of a man could do this? Someone who was in a relatively normal (presumably sexual) relationship with the victim? Somehow I doubt it.
(And yes Glenn, I am familiar with the concept of "overkill" and of the presumed general significance of facial mutilations. I believe we are in danger of attributing unwarranted significance to the facial mutilation because we forget that they are merely part of mutilations to the body *as a whole*.)
I suspect the reason that Abberline and Co. did not entertain the idea of Barnett as a suspect was the conclusion that any reasonable modern-day copper would come to: the type of personality they observed while questioning him did not square with the type of person who could whittle flesh off the corpse of their lover.
And, Glenn, *what* motive?
Regards
Timsta
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
To Glenn L Andersson.
Hi Glenn... You are of course correct about Pizer. It was a slip I realised immediately, but had already posted it.
The other cases I quoted, and there are more, resulted in charging & conviction, despite no eye-witnesses to these acts.
I find it impossible to believe, in a case that had the attention of Queen, government, & the rest of the world, that Barnett, being the FIRST in the frame, would have been cleared completely by Abberline, and allowed to walk the streets again, without complete corroboration of his whereabouts through all the relevant hours.
If Barnett had failed to produce this, he would at least have remained a suspect, but in all his later statements on the case, Abberline never mentioned Barnett ONCE.
With regard to Richard, being a relative newcomer to this thread, I was unable to be certain, from his recent messages, whether he thought Barnett to be JTR, or a copycat. You will note, that I had asked him in a recent message, before you jumped in.
Best wishes Glenn.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT |
Stuart Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 4:47 am: |
|
Hi all,
Robert Charles: You said that in 1888 , no policeman, journalist,detective ect suspected him of being the murderer, thus it is unlikely he was.Correct me if I am wrong.The information I have states that in 1888 the police had 3 suspects.These 3 suspects were the ones named in the Mcnaughton Files:Druitt,Kosminski,Ostrogg. Since 1888 to present, over 70 suspects, at various stages have been added to the equation. Are you suggesting that since Barnett was not named in 1888 with the 'originals' he is not bona fide ? If being suspected in 1888 by the authorities is essential criteria, then do we scratch 70 plus suspects off the list?
Will it take a 'mislaid file ' to get him? Even if they do find one will it prove his guilt.What about a modern forensic approach? This has not been done on any of the big suspects.Patricia Cornwell had a great idea with her work and I take my hat off to her.The only problem was her choice of suspect was a joke.Walter was more into the high society, cocktail drinking, arty scene - not the disembowelling whore scene.What about this type of pursuit on Barnett?
I would be very keen to see if his DNA matched that on the stamp of the 'Dear Boss' letter. What if it did? He kept ginger beer bottles, the same as the writer did.I think if his DNA was found to match some of the 'Big Ripper Letters' it would be dynamite.Everyone on this website thinks Walter may have hoaxed one ripper letter.There is no chance that Joseph would have hoaxed one. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Hi Stuart.
I'm not saying that I don't believe what you say about this documentary. Yet, as I've cited, there WERE killers convicted THEN, without any eye-witness evidence. The police may not have had to deal with a serial killer before, but they had dealt with a great many murders & murderers.
The number of killings by any individual doesn't come into it, with regard to police investigation. They WEREN'T inexperienced with murder itself.
Remember, this case had world attention, & even Queen and government were involved. Abberline was a very experienced and highly decorated detective, yet you seem to be insinuating that he was a fool. Under extreme pressure, he would have left no stone unturned with Barnett, who was the FIRST suspect. If he could not account fully for every hour of Barnett's story, he would still have considered him a suspect. But he cleared him & never mentioned him again when discussing the case.
Stuart, can you produce even a single line of CONTEMPORARY documented support for Barnett qualifying as a suspect?? All this rubbish, claimed over a century later, is the product of fictioneers, who are growing around us like weeds.
I'm sorry if I appeared to sound like I doubted the documentary you saw.
Best wishes Stuart.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
