|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:40 pm: | 
|
G'day Jeff,
Who at the police station would have been able to answer his questions? Most if not all of the police were at Miller's Court.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 1:01 am: |
|
G'day Jeff,
By saying: 'He was indoors....', the reporter obviously spoke to him and didn't just see him and ask who he was. By telling the reporter that he 'VOLUNTARILY went to the police...' sounds like he was defending himself to the press.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 613
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Most if not all of the police were at Miller's Court.
You're not back to suggesting they closed the police station again are you?
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
G'day Jeff,
OK, he went and told his alibi to the policeman on duty at the desk who could just tell him that there'd been a murder in Dorset Street.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 614
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I suspect he wouldn't have given an alibi until asked for one. Whether or not he went to the station is simply unknown, but it's reasonable to consider the possibility. And, as I've said before, it's also possible he went directly to Dorest Street. Neither of these ideas are at odds with the limited information we have. For that matter, neither is him just meeting a cop on the street and asking him. Just about any story one can think of that involves Joe talking with a policeman could be considered "described" by the report. Why you insist he must therefore have gone to Dorest Street rather than any other equally well described situations is beyond me.
Even if he did go to the police station first, whether or not he was told it was Mary at that time, he may still have gone to Dorset street straight after that. Basically, we don't know what he did. It's not even clear he ever went to Dorset Street, although there are some press reports that suggest he did, there are others that suggest he did not (which we discussed awhile back and I don't want to go over old stuff again).
Like most aspects of this case, the information we have let's us get so far, but when we start trying to be specific in the details, we find that the details are just not there. So any details we suggest must be considered as only one possibility of many; our details are not right nor wrong, they are only our suggestions of what might have been. And saying what might have been is a long way from being able to say what was.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
G'day Jeff,
A quick check of the newspaper reports reveals that he likely did go to the police station, was taken to Miller's Court for two and a half hours, from there was taken to Bishopsgate Police Station for four hours and after that he went to a public house nearby:
'THE STAR' NOV 10:
'In a public house close by Buller's the reporter succeeded later on in finding Barnett....He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset Street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half.'
'THE DAILY TELEGRAPH ' NOV 10:
'During the day the police suceeded in finding John Barnett....Barnett is a porter at the market closeby and was able to answer the police that on Thursday night he was at a lodging house....'
'ST. JAMES GAZETTE' NOV 10:
'Joseph Barnett, alias Kelly, an Irishman at present residing in a common lodging house in New Street, Bishopsgate informed a reporter last evening that he had occupied....'
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
G'day,
C. SHAW: Don't make the same mistake as a very well known author did. It hasn't been proven yet that the real 'Jack the Ripper' wrote any of those Ripper letters. Trying to match Barnett's handwriting could be a pointless excercise and can only prove that he forged a letter as hundreds of people did.
NIKITA: No Barnett's issues weren't just Mary Kelly prostituting herself. An investigation of his childhood reveals that his Irish immigrant mother deserted her 5 young children soon after his father died. A lot of Irish immigrant widows abandoned their children to persue the life of a prostitute.
Jewish immigrants dominated the area so the shout of "Lipski" and the graffitti, if written by the Ripper, could have merely been jealous insults.
LEANNE |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hi Shaw,
The police were interested in comparing handwriting samples of some of there suspects to the Jack the ripper letters. They may have believed that one or two of the letters were genuine. The police were comparing ripper leters recieved as late as 1894 to earlier ripper leters. They were looking for similiar handwriting or woods and phrases. The police thought that the ripper may have been an American because of the letter opening Dear boss. The phrase Dear boss was considerd American. The police did compare handwriting samples and they did compare ripper letters so they may have believed the ripper wrote a few of them. However, it is believed that most of the letters were a hoax. Robert Anderson thought the letters were the work of the press and the name Jack the ripper was created to sell papers. I think that most of the letters were a hoax. The Lusk letter may be genuine. If you believe that the kidney was Eddowes [ I am not sure I do.] then you have to believe that the letter was genuine and the Lusk letter was not sighned Jack the ripper. The police did post a few of the letters in the eastend. They thought that someone may be able to identifiy the handwriting. However, for every ripper letter that was printed or posted a hundred hoaxes would appear. Patricia Cornwell did a good job of convincing me that Sickert wrote a few of the Jack the ripper letters but she is unable to connect Sickert to the real meaty ones and Sickert's letters were most likely a hoax. There is evidence that the police believed that some of the correspondence from the ripper were genuine. Henry Moore, who was Abberline's successor believed that the Goulston street message was written "undoubtedly" by the ripper. I think getting a handwriting sample of Barnett and comparing them to the ripper letter's would be interesting.
I do not like dismissing Barnett as a suspect but I never bought into the theory that he was killing the unfortunates to try and scare Kelly of the street. The theory that Leanne has suggested about Barnett having issues with his mother is valid. The questions I have are, why did Barnett stop killing? How did Barnett keep the fact that he was Jack secret from Kelly? Would a man who had a deep rooted hattred of prostitutes choose a prostitute as a girlfriend? I can see how Barnett would get upset at the idea that Kelly had betrayed him much like his mother and turned to a life of prostitution. He may have killed Kelly in a fit of rage. He may have made it look like a ripper murder and then became the first "Copycat killer".
your friend,CB |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 5:41 am: |
|
G'day C.B.,
'Would a man who had a deep rooted hattred of prostitutes choose a prostitute as a girlfriend?'
Well C.B. Mary Kelly was young and attractive and he immediately tried to change her ways. He provided her with money and forbade her to walk the streets. Her friend Julia Venturney said: "He [Barnett] said he would not live with her while she led that course of life." (Inquest Coroner's Files).
How did Barnett keep the fact that he was Jack secret from Kelly? Barnett's search for work would have had him out of bed and on the streets of the East End at early hours. If Mary went out drinking with her friends while Joe had to sleep, exactly how much of their time was spent together? And how do we know what suspicions Mary Kelly may have had?
LEANNE |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for your responce. I guess he would of had the chance to commite the murders but living in such close quarters with eachother would make it hard to keep it a secret from Kelly. I am sure if she had any suspicions about Joe she would have told someone but your right we dont know if she had concerns about him. I doubt she did.
I agree Joe did not want Kelly working. I dont think that a man who hatted prostitutes would get involved with prostitute on any level. Joe seemed to want to help Kelly change but we dont know the motive for the killings. Joe may of had a deep rooted problem with woman in general and he chose prostitutes because they were easy targets. It is hard to dismiss Barnett based on the fact that I disagree with some of the motives. I do not think he was trying to scare Kelly of the streets. I have my doubts that Barnett was killing the unfortunates because he had a hattred of the woman who chose that life but he took an unfortunate to his bed every night. However, Barnett could have killed the woman because who knows what the motive for the murders were?
I would like to know what Barnett did with the organs he carried away. Why did Barnett stop killing? If he had a hattred of prostitues or a hattred of woman in general Then would he be able to stop killing?. Maybe his motive for killing the woman had something to do with Kelly? It would seem the murders ended after the Kelly killing and it would seem Barnett went on to live a non violent life. Maybe Barnett was lashing out at Kelly and when she was no longer with him he killed her. Who knows?
Your friend,CB |
C. Shaw
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 10:59 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne, Hello CB,
I am aware of the well known author's book you refer to.I have not read it yet but my wife has.From what my wife told me, people don't hold any credence in the character of this book as a ripper suspect.Going by the these message boards,It seems that Barnett is seen as one of the top suspects.
So anyway Leanne and CB, would you at least find it curious if a top suspect did have ripper communications.Nobody seemed to care about Cornwell's suspect but would they care about this one? It would not make him JtR, but I am sure the people on the message boards would find it very curious. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
G'day C. Shaw,
To see what I think of Walter Sickert as a J.t.R. suspect read what I just posted on 'General Discussion' / 'I need help for a paper ASAP'. LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
G'day C.B.,
Joe may not have had a lot of choices. Costermongers that were looking for irregular work had to be out of bed and at the markets early in the morning. They had to hire their cart and the best bargains were made early. He had the entire East End to use as a storeroom.
Mary Kelly told her friend Julia Venturney that she could no longer stand Joe Barnett but he was good to her, (he provided her with a living and even gave her money after they had split).
The strongest thing against Barnett's guilt is his life and behavior following Mary Kelly's inquest. Yet not enough is known, nor can be traced about him. Plus who can say for sure that 'Jack the Ripper' wasn't responsible for any other unsolved prostitute killing?
LEANNE |
C. Shaw
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
I must point out that I am a layman in ripperology, and a long way off being sanctified as a 'ripperologist'.I have not read the well known book that brought Barnett into light as a suspect - I wouldn't even know how to get it. I only know about Barnett what is on this website.So if you know offhand, can you tell me if anyone has tested his handwriting with ripper communications? I really have no idea if it has been done or not. If nobody eles is interseted than that is OK, but for a layman such as I, can you tell me for my own curiosity?
Thanks, Chris. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1712
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 3:13 am: |
|
G'day Chris,
Welcome! Bruce Paley's 'The Simple Truth' is out of print so start searching in secondhand bookshops. He researched Joseph Barnett's life for over ten years and gave an excellent desciption of it from the time of his parents imigration from Ireland up until the year he died (1926).
Paley noted that Barnett did receive schooling and so could have penned some of the communications, but he wrote nothing else about the Ripper letters. The authors of the letters probably disguised their handwriting in each case and could have disguized their intellect, (spelling mistakes etc).
Paley's book ends too abruptly because not much can be traced about Barnett's life following Mary Kelly's inquest.
No one has tested Barnett's handwriting and what would be the point? Hundreds of letters were sent to the police or to a news agency. People can't prove beyond opinion which, if any, of those letters were written by the actual killer.
It is even thought that the 'Lusk' letter, (the one sent to George Lusk with half a kidney), may have been sent by a medical student.
I personally think it has a chance of being authentic because it wasn't signed with 'Jack the Ripper', so the writer didn't need to use a scarey name as a scare tactic or to prove his identity, and perhaps didn't even invent it.
You can read all about the letters on the message boards about them.
LEANNE |
C. Shaw
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:52 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
There is no proof that any of the letters ostensibly sent by the ripper are real, it cant be provded. This is a double edged sword, for it can't be disproved iether that some may have been from the murderer.It is unknown.
'No one has tested his writing and what would be the point'. If you can't disprove it , than at least it would be something? Would you honestly say Leanne, that if a telegram sent to the London police was in Barnett's, Tumblty's, or Maybrick's writing, than it is pointless.If hundreds or thousands of hoaxes were sent by braindead morans , than that is meaningless, compared, if Barnett sent just one, for he is a huge suspect.
Put it this way Leanne. If tommorow, a covert document from the London police came out revealing he did send a telegram or letter in 1888 , would you care at all?
Also , I am very interested to know whether you think that the vital evidence can ever be found to convict him as JtR.Or will he for all time be subject only to conjecture?
|
jdeoyos
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
? can anyone name copycats of Jack the Ripper? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2013
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Do we get a prize?
Richard Chase, the phantom raspberry blower of old Sacramento town. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 579
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
I don't know if they're copycats, but they certainly mutilated their victims in a ripper-like fashion.
There's Gordon Frederick Cummins (the Blackout Ripper), who killed and mutilated 3 women in London in February of 1942, there's Lucian Staniak (the Red Spider), who murdered and mutilated a number of women in Poland during the 1960's and there's Robert Clive Napper, who murdered and mutilated Samantha Bisset in november 1993 in South East London. He also killed her daughter and is now implicated in a murder that bears similarities with the murder of Martha Tabram.
And of course, there's Andrei Chikatilo (the Rostov Ripper), who murdered over 50 people (boys, girls and women) during especially the 1980's. Another interesting serial killer in this respect is William 'the Mutilator' MacDonald, who killed a number of male victims in the early 1960’s in Sydney, Australia and then cut off their genitals.
You hope for a nice bottle of Spanish brandy, don't you, AP?
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2017
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
A nice bottle of Spanish brandy would not go amiss, Frank.
William Macdonald was a good example. I forgot him. He actually read a lot before his crimes, mostly Colin Wilson books about JtR, and more specifically Wilson's dirge about a gay mutilator and killer. When Macdonald was arrested - I'm surprised that Macdonalds haven't sued this guy yet for using their name in mass murder bringing disrepute on their mass burger - he had a copy of Wilson's encyclopedia of murder under his pillow, much thumbed, and told the police that 'he liked reading stuff like that'.
Richard Chase was also a reader, and he did have scrap book cuttings about JtR, but I haven't been able to find out who his favourite author was. I suspect it was good old Colin Wilson.
By the way I have a Christmas card from Richard Ramirez where he mentions JtR.
Do you think I should put it on Ebay and make some dosh? |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Hello Chris. Where do you get this idea that Barnett is a "huge" suspect. Apart from in the imagination of Bruce Paley, Barnett was never a suspect at all. As Kelly's boyfriend, he was interrogated and cleared by the police. He had no record of any violence either before or after the Kelly murder.
There isn't a ounce of contemporary documented evidence against him. By the same yardstick, other innocent men have been accused. Michael Kidney (Stride) for one. Is John Kelly (Eddowes) also a "huge" suspect?? And what about the pensioner Ted Stanley (Chapman). Him too??
I wonder where William Nichols was too, when Polly died.
Leave poor Barnett to rest in peace, and start looking for genuine suspects.
Regards.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 2:24 am: |
|
G'day Glenn,
'Firsty:
-- why do you expect a copy-cat to do a 'good job' and to make an exact copy? As far as I know, I've seldom come across a copy-cat case where the killer have nailed down every detail. In fact, the more strange anomalies you find, the more you can suspect that it was not made by the original killer.'
No I don't expect a copy-cat killer to do an exact copy, but I do expect to see at least a fair attempt to make the killing look like a, (in this case), Ripper murder.
Joseph Barnett and Mary Kelly were once lovers and I believe he wanted her back. If someone has just killed the person he loves, I would expect to see minimal mutilation. The mutilation of Mary Kelly's body must have taken some time, and I believe that if she was a domestic slaying made to appear like a Ripper job, her killer would have made her look more like the other victims that he'd read about and then got out of there to establish an alibi.
Her killer deeply slit her throat. If she had have been merely strangled, hit over the head, poisoned, or suffocated with the blanket, I would consider her being a spur-of-the-moment domestic killing, and unlike the other Ripper murders. But her killer took a knife into her room with him, and placed it near the bed, or within easy reach.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1801
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 2:34 am: |
|
G'day Glenn,
'There is absolutely no evidence or even indication on that Joe Barnett was the Ripper or that the victims knew each other.'
Glenn a serial killer doesn't select victims that know each other well. The fact that they were all prostitutes links them, plus they all had some connection to Dorset Street. Mary Ann Nicholls had the remotest connection, but the first victim in a series usually does, and is usually murdered the furthest from the killers home.
I read somewhere that Mary Ann Nichols frequented lodging houses in Dorset Street.
LEANNE |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 266
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Leanne,
Good luck with the book, if you decide to go with self-publishing or acquire a publisher.
While I do not believe in Joe Barnett as a good suspect, as logic really excludes him as such, I will not discount any idea that is not even out in print yet.
SJR |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3932
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
"Joseph Barnett and Mary Kelly were once lovers and I believe he wanted her back."
Yes, that sounds plausible.
"No I don't expect a copy-cat killer to do an exact copy, but I do expect to see at least a fair attempt to make the killing look like a, (in this case), Ripper murder."
Then, if it is so much lacking in similarity, why do you even consider it a Ripper murder? That logic doesn't seem to hold up, if you ask me.
I don't agree with that. I think the Kelly murder contains the most important details of the Ripper killings, but is taken to excess and some minor details wrong or confused.
"If someone has just killed the person he loves, I would expect to see minimal mutilation. The mutilation of Mary Kelly's body must have taken some time, and I believe that if she was a domestic slaying made to appear like a Ripper job, her killer would have made her look more like the other victims that he'd read about and then got out of there to establish an alibi."
No, that is totally wrong. You are expecting a domestic copy-cat murder to be performed by an individual who is very cool at the actual moment of the murder being committed and who has everything worked out. Which is something I object too. It is a fallacy to expect minimal mutilations in a domestic murder; that certainly doesn't fit the cases I've seen. I would actually say the opposite; in my experience, the closer personal relaltion to the victim, the more horrendous mutilations. Those are actually among the worst, and in many cases worse than those we see from serial killers. I think people are too often mistaken about this, but it could be because they don't have seen crime scene photos from such cases.
"Her killer deeply slit her throat. If she had have been merely strangled, hit over the head, poisoned, or suffocated with the blanket, I would consider her being a spur-of-the-moment domestic killing, and unlike the other Ripper murders."
I would say, that IF the Kelly murder was a copy-cat attempt, then I think the murder was unplanned, and then the mutilations a result of sheer desperation and a total whim. Which such cases generally are. That is also why they don't corroborate on a lot of details with the works of the original killer - they are quite simply not planned or 'practiced'. The killer is simply not prepared for this act. Which is why it is wrong to expect copy-cats to show total similarities with the original.
The killer seems to have attacked her with the knife and then suffocated her (maybe with the blanket), an approach very different from the Ripper, but quite plausible for someone who knew the victim and who acted out of sudden, personal affect.
Yes, he brought with him his knife, but wouldn't most men in those days, working in different trades, already carry a knife with him everywhere?
(However, if it was a hatchet the killer used, then one can only conclude that she was attacked in her sleep, because why would she let someone in, carrying a hatchet - client or personal friend?).
Well, I think my views on this are already expressed enough, so there's no point in repeating myself more than I already have.
But although I may not see any indications on why Barnett should be the Ripper, I do look forward to read your book and I hope it gets published at last. If your research can shed some new light upon Barnett and Kelly (people whom we really don't know that much about), it has a great value nevertheless. So good luck with it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1803
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
G'day Glenn,
'Then, if it is so much lacking in similarity, why do you even consider it a Ripper murder? That logic doesn't seem to hold up, if you ask me.
I don't agree with that. I think the Kelly murder contains the most important details of the Ripper killings, but is taken to excess and some minor details wrong or confused.'
* Mary Kelly was a prostitute,
* Mary Kelly was killed in the early morning hours in the East End,
* Mary Kelly was killed with a knife to her throat,
* Mary Kelly's body was mutilated after she died and
* Mary Kelly's killer took an organ.
These are the most important details of a Ripper killing and like the experts at the time I believe she was a Ripper victim. But the similarities fade after that.
Her killer didn't even take the same organ as the Ripper had done previously, he took her heart! Do you believe that he was trying to mimic the killer he'd read about up until the time he was about to leave then thought that her heart was a better souvineer so took that instead and left her womb and kidnies behind?
'The killer seems to have attacked her with the knife and then suffocated her (maybe with the blanket), an approach very different from the Ripper,'
Her killer KILLED her with the knife, and then seems to have covered her face with the blanket, and maybe that approach is different from the Ripper's because there were no blankets nearby at the time and as they were women he didn't know he didn't have to cover their faces.
'Yes, he brought with him his knife, but wouldn't most men in those days, working in different trades, already carry a knife with him everywhere?'
Glenn, Joseph Barnett was a costermonger of oranges. He had no need to carry a sharp long-bladed knife, unless he thought that he could sell more oranges if he peeled them first! He probably had a working day planned for selling oranges to spectators at the 'Lord Mayor's Day' show.
He went there with intensions of using the knife on her, if she didn't accept him back and agree to stop having sex with other men!!!!!
LEANNE
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2025
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Your final sentence is pure speculation.
I agree that Mary's killer took his freshly sharpened knife with him, with the intention of using it. But I just see this as being consistent with the previous prostitute murders, except that this time the opportunity arose for the cut-throat to go with a younger specimen to her place of business - a private room - which the older, even less fortunate ladies couldn't boast.
If Jack was an opportunistic killer, MJK would have been like winning the Jack Pot - or losing it, if some other killer got there first.
If that was the case, no wonder he jumped in the Thames. Sorry, wrong suspect. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1804
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 2:12 am: |
|
G'day,
I knew someone was going to say that! The case was never solved in 1888. People are still trying to solve it, so we have to allow speculation a bit! I just wrote that sentence to give 'the bottom line' of what I believe the Rippers motive was. A motive wasn't proved so any sugestion will be a speculation!
I see a trend here: any motive that can't be proved with hard evidence and that we don't like, we call a 'speculation'.
Caz do you believe the Ripper just strolled near Dorset Street, overheard Mary ask Hutchinson for sixpence, then thought: "JACKPOT! Here's an opportunity! I'll offer this girl sixpence. I hope she's got a private room, and no one lives with her!"
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:35 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I see a trend here: any motive that can't be proved with hard evidence and that we don't like, we call a 'speculation'.
A trend? I hope it's always been the case! Joe may have had a motive for killing Mary (the relationship broke up etc etc), but that doesn't mean he did the deed. It's more likely, IMHO, that he felt guilty for moving out and wished her well, but had had just about enough.
I believe Mary probably encountered her killer in much the same way the previous victims encountered theirs - the difference being that Mary was considerably younger and her place of business was indoors. I believe Hutchinson may even have been involved in finding her 'safe' customers, at a time when she needed money more than ever and they knew a monster was on the loose.
We are both entitled to speculate. Your belief is that Joe was that monster, despite no evidence that he would ever have hurt a hair on Mary's head, or any other.
Love,
Caz
X |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 143
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:29 am: |
|
So when does Barnett enter Kelly's room,and how.At about a quarter to three,according to Hutchinson,there was already a visitor there,and there is no indication as to what time that person left.
If you want to place Joe in Kelly's room after midnight,at least base it on information that will at least raise a suspicion that it was possible. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3939
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Well, Harry,
I wonder if Hutchinson is a reliable source for any kind of analysis. Unless you believe he told the truth about most of it - I certainly don't.
As for information, I'd say there are a lot of blank spots between the sightings, and what happened during those, we have no knowledge of. It is not like we have the entire schedule for Mary Kelly's activities that night recorded. It neither implicates or excludes Barnett or any other.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2036
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Wasn't one of the reasons Barnett gave for slinging his hook the fact that Mary was sharing her room with other unfortunates?
At least a stranger, if he entered the room as an invited customer, could guess that they would be left undisturbed for the duration of his visit.
Barnett, on the other hand, could have had all sorts turning up at any time, men and women, particularly if a social call on his ex was neither welcome nor expected.
Love,
Caz
X |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1805
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
G'day Caz,
The 'had just about enough' feeling that we agree Barnett probably had, that's why I believe he killed Mary...if he couldn't have her, no one could! I wonder what other extreme attempts he resorted to before he took the final step!
'the difference being that Mary was considerably younger and her place of business was indoors.'
I don't think she would have worked within her room before October 30, (10 days before her murder), when Barnett moved out. I'd say she served her customers late at night in the street when she went drinking with her friends, while Barnett was getting sleep in before his 4:00a.m. start at Billingsgate Market.
I believe Hutchinson may have been a pimp too!
LEANNE
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3941
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
"Barnett, on the other hand, could have had all sorts turning up at any time, men and women, particularly if a social call on his ex was neither welcome nor expected."
If anyone would know when she would be alone and for how long, it would be him. On November 9, the same night as the murder, Barnett visited her and she could at this occasions very well have told him that Maria Harvey had left etc. If Barnett did visit her after that is unknown to us, unless we want to take his words for it.
However, let's all keep in mind that there are others besides Barnett that deserves considerations. Since Joseph Flemming (whom she is supposed to have been quite keen on and whom we know practically nothing about) also used to visit her we have here all the ingredients of a triangle drama, if one wants to speculate about motive.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
If anyone would know when she would be alone and for how long, it would be him [Barnett].
But I don't see how you can be so sure about this. It could be the exact opposite. Mary was a prostitute who had taken to sharing her room with fellow prostitutes. They must have had a system whereby only one would service a customer in the room at any one time, and know they would not be disturbed in the process. Again, if Jack always took his lead from the behaviour of his victims, he could have relied on them to take him somewhere private. In Mary's case he only had to ask how private it would be before entering her room.
But by this time Joe may have been the last person Mary wanted to know all her business - especially if there was another admirer on the horizon (Hutch or Flemming, perhaps).
If Mary told Joe the coast was going to be clear that night, she lied. What about blotchy face and his quart pail of beer, to name just one nocturnal visitor?
Why dream up a triangle drama when you already have more drama than you can shake a stick at in the shape of a mutilating serial killer of at least three prostitutes - and the shape of MJK?
For me, the two known shapes fit well enough together, without the need to add an unknown third and fourth and take the first one away.
Love,
Caz
X |
Rita . P .
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 12:56 am: |
|
A point I would like to make is this. If you look at the victim pictures, especially Kelly's, than the focal point is that whomever did that was insane. They would have visible or medical symptoms of mental disorder. Barnett's motive for killing the whores, or just MK as a copycat, is just incidental to the point.
If Barnett was not diagnosed with , or showed no visible signs of mental disorder, he could not have killed any of them. PUT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS - killing the other pros to scare Kelly out of prostitution, because of love for her, is not an excuse, or reason, for mutilating a fellow human being. To focus on this is to miss the point - that being to do this( for whatever reason or apparent motive) the individual in question had mental afflictions. This is the game - not his apparent motive.
If Barnett was a normal human being , which he apparently was, and he wanted her to stop selling herself for sex, he would have sat down and earnestly tried to talk her out of it.
If it makes any difference, I favour a suspect who has a history of, or visible symptoms of mental disorder. I believe that any apparent motive , which would only be a trigger to start, would be based on dogma . |
BenH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
I've noticed that the majority of researchers who favour Barnett as JtR place a great deal of credence in Caroline Maxwell's testimony to the effect that MJK was alive mid-morning.
I've heard it further suggested that she was murdered as late as 10.00am.
Doesn't this seem a rather bizarre time of day for an opportunistic killer to go about his business?
And why would she be in such a state of undress so late in the morning?
And from whom did the cry of "Oh murder" emanate at 3.45am? |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3942
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Hi Rita,
Sorry but you're wrong.
According to experts in the field, people who does these things are generally NOT insane. Abnormality is not the same as insanity.
All of the domestic mutilators I know of, were not insane at all.
And in fact, not all serial mutilators are either.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 18, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3943
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Caz,
"But I don't see how you can be so sure about this. It could be the exact opposite. "
There you go again. Where did I say that I was sure?
Hasen't it occurred to you, that she could have told Barnett when she was planning to go to bed? Maybe they did schedule to meet that night for some reason inside her room, after she had made business on the street? There could be a number of explanations.
As for Flemming... well, it appears that she did like Flemming and some of the witnesses who knew her had said that she 'couldn't stand the sight of Barnett'. And Flemming did visit her, while Barnett on the other hand had to leave. Sure, it was on his own choice but that is what HE said, and even if it was, then it was because of conditions that he felt uncomfortable with. Why are we to believe that he felt pleased with the situation and stopped loving her just because he left on his own choice?
I have seen gruesome murders being done on far more banal motives than that, and there are certainly grounds for jealousy in that situation.
I don't see Barnett's motive as very far-fetched; it is actually a very credible one.
And how can you exclude Flemming, when we know so little about him, but he apparently visited her?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1806
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
G'day Glenn,
'On November 9, the same night as the murder, Barnett visited her and she could at this occasions very well have told him that Maria Harvey had left etc.'
Glenn: Maria Harvey said at Kelly's inquest that she left Mary Kelly's room when Barnett arrived and went to her new lodgings, so I'd say that he didn't have to be told she had found another room elsewhere.
Barnett could have expected to be asked to move back, because he told the press that he told her he would come back if she, [Harvey] would go and live somewhere else.
CAZ: 'Mary was a prostitute who had taken to sharing her room with fellow prostitutes. They must have had a system whereby only one would service a customer in the room at any one time, and know they would not be disturbed in the process.'
Aren't we speculating a bit there? Mary provided a sleeping compartment for 2 of her friends, who were prostitutes. Julia Venturney for about two nights, then when she left she took in Maria Harvey causing Barnett to walk out. There was onlyone single bed in the room. There is no evidence anywhere that any of them used her room for their work. If there is please refer me to it because I missed it.
Mary Anne Cox told the inquest that Mary Kelly entered her room with 'Blotchy-face' at about midnight before her murder. Mary Kelly could have told Barnett that she would be alone after 2:00ish.
LEANNE
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 297
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Leanne,
You do know that it was not Maria Harvey in the room when Barnett arrived on Noember 8th, between 7 PM and 7:30? She lied to the press about it, and its pretty much common knowledge.
SJR |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1807
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
G'day Stan,
Read Maria Harvey's inquest statement and read Joseph Barnett's inquest statement!
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 146
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Glen,
I have alwys believed that Hutchinson lied,in almost everything,except for his presence outside Crossinghams,and the time he left there.
In the case of Barnett,there is no information that he spent the night in ways other than it is reported he did,and to put him in Kelly's room at any time of the early hours,needs information of a kind that arouses suspicion that he could have been.Where is such information?
To say he could have been,is no more informative than saying every adult male in Whitechapel could have been.'Could have 'has no meaning,unless it is substanciated by information of a kind,that determines any one individual,to the exclusion of all others,was the person in Kelly's room when she was killed,and that it was this person that killed her.Can this be said about Barnett? or indeed any of the individuals who have been classed as suspect.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3944
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
I can't say I agree with you, Harry.
I think there are enough circumstancial evidence (note the word 'circumstancial') in order to keep an open mind about the possibility, because of the nature of their relation.
I really can't see any reason to DISMISS it straight off. The lack of information is exactly the reason WHY we should keep an open mind to it.
Sure, he was interrogated by Abberline (who - as usual - found him credible) but Abberline also believed Hutchinson, so that doesn't tell us much as far as I am concerned.
Leanne,
Interesting.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 298
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Leanne,
I have. Perhaps you should read the A-Z or Paley or almost any other book on Barnett. The woman in the room was not Maria Harvey. It was Lizzie Albrook.
I'm surprised that someone who is a devout Barnettist does not know this. This is, I thought, common knowledge.
SJR |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3947
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
That's true.
It was indeed Lizzie Albrook.
Maria Harvey left the room a few days earlier, as far as I remember. After September 6 (or was it Sept. 7?), I think, although I am not prepared to swear on it.
Feel free to correct me anyone, I don't have time to look it up just now and my memory is not tip-top quality, especially regarding names and dates.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 300
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Glenn,
Thanks, but don't sound so shocked to say I'm right.
Perhaps Leanne should be shown some of the Barnett material out there. This is some basic stuff that should be known.
SJR |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
G'day,
On page 205 of Bruce Paley's book he wrote about Maria Harvey: 'and had last seen her friend on the evening of 8 November when they had been together in Kelly's room. She left when Barnett came to visit, leaving behind several items of clothing, only one of which had since turned up. '
A newspaper report of the inquest stated that Maria Harvey testified: 'We were together all the afternoon on Thursday, I am a laundress I was in the room when Joe Barnett called I went away I left my bonnet there.'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1810
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
G'day,
The Daily Telegraph reported the Coroners questions before the witnesses answers: 'Maria Harvey, 3, New-court, Dorset-street, stated: I knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly. I slept at her house on Monday night and on Tuesday night. All the afternoon of Thursday we were together.
[Coroner] Were you in the house when Joe Barnett called ? - Yes. I said, "Well, Mary Jane, I shall not see you this evening again," and I left with her two men's dirty shirts, a little boy's shirt, a black overcoat, a black crepe bonnet with black satin strings, a pawn-ticket for a grey shawl, upon which 2s had been lent, and a little girls white petticoat.
[Coroner] Have you seen any of these articles since? - Yes; I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon.
[Coroner] Did the deceased ever speak to you about being afraid of any man ? - She did not.'
LEANNE
|
Rita . P .
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Hi Glen . G. L. Anderson,
Are you honestly trying to tell me that the elusive WM was 100% sane with no mental affliction. I don't believe that for a second.
A sane person would not mutilate 6 human beings, and just see it as harmless so as to save his girlfriend from prostitution. As I stated above, if Barnett was 100% right in the head, which he was, he would have used viable, SANE, means to achieve his goal of getting Kelly off Whitechapel's streets.
One other point. We should not confuse normal cases of murder, or domectic murder with this case. This is an outstanding case of murder envolving grotesque mutilations.
To kill a loved one in a fit of passion is one thing Glen. But to spend hours disecting the human anatomy with such vigour points to failing mental health. ( which Barnett did not have).
I , like most, Thought him initially to be a good ripper. But his case is only skin deep. There is nothing in him personally to conclude he was the imfamous JtR.
All the best.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
