|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 5:09 pm: | 
|
Hi Everyone,
We have all rambled on this site for nine years, and we have all discussed one suspect after another to no avail.
If one takes Kosminsky , Druitt, tumblety, Kelly , ostrag etc etc, there is not one shred of evidence factual or circumstancial to pinpoint there guilt.
However if one takes joseph Barnett as the killer of at least one victim ie Mary Kelly we have at least the circumstancial report of a possible occurence at St patricks cemetary.
This is not a actual fact for it is oral history , however if one takes the point that this man was interviewed by the police immediately after the kelly murder, and this contempary suspect disappeared from traceable research hense one surely must rate him as a first class candidate for at least her killing.
His alibi of playing cards then retiring, bears no relevance, iF mrs maxwells evidence was reliable. and there is strong evidence albeit from missing files that she was alive around 845am on the morning of the 9th November, evidence which was in conjunction to that of G hutchinson.
Barnett had a motive, if one takes Lotties statement to canadian reporter Kitty as gospel one can assume a coincedence or [relevance[ to her final place of death.
I feel so strongly that the slaying of the fifth/ sixth victim was a matter of course that i must state unless i am confinced otherwise then Barnett at the very least slew Kelly.
Best Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2394
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Richard,
There isnt an ounce of PROOF,not one,in this theory.
In fact for those of us who think Joseph Barnett
to have been what he appears to have been ie Mary"s ex who still cared enough about her to try and help her out as best he could there seems to be a measure of proof that he did not have anything whatever to do with her murder.Here is a man who the police questioned for several hours and watched his reactions to their questions.They looked him in the eye,as aware as we are that he could have been her murderer and they didnt even have him down as a suspect!
These police,some of whom must have also searched his place for blood stains as well as scrutinised his facial expressions/clothing,fingernails-all within hours of them finding the bloody mess that was Mary and her room, must have been convinced he was not her murderer.
They would have asked around about him
-neighbours,friends,John McCarthy etc and nothing
whatever must have aroused their suspicion.
To me this provides some sort of evidence that Joseph Barnett was neither the Ripper or likely to have been Mary"s mutilator.
Natalie
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1844
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
G'day Natalie,
Please point out to me the ounce of proof against any one suspect! I seem to have missed it! Hey maybe we should conclude that there was no Jack the Ripper!
If the police did search his place, clothes, fingernails etc for bloodstains within hours after they found Mary at 10:45, found none so didn't even consider him a suspect because of this minor defence, then I'd say that was one reason why they never arrested anyone!
If they knew nothing about a killer's 'Mask of Sanity' and let Barnett off the suspects list because he had a good name in the neighbourhood, then that's another reason why they never found 'Jack'.
Barnett appears to have cared enough about Kelly after he left her to give her money when he could, but what was she doing with it? She wasn't paying her rent!
LEANNE |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 6:56 am: |
|
I think we are confusing proof with evidence.
If you have proof i.e. evidence establishing fact or the truth of a statement, then you have your killer. However if you have evidence - circumstances that may direct your attention against a particular person or persons – then it may not be enough to carry your case.
There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, against Barnett. For Richard to claim that an unsubstantiated claim that someone spat into MJKs grave constitutes evidence – albeit of the circumstantial kind – against Barnett is laughable! It’s nothing of the sort.
Evidence has to have some foundation; it also has to have a link, no matter how tenuous, to the person under suspicion. This tale of spitting has neither.
As for assertion that Barnett disappeared from all traceable research, what rubbish. A simple check on the 1901 gives at least 5 possible Joseph Barnett’s. I fancy this one as being possible:
40 London Wh Chapel London Whitechapel General Dealer Fruit
But even if you can’t trace him so what?
The fact is there is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise against Barnett. There is a lot of evidence against other suspects, none of it conclusive – which would turn evidence into proof – but evidence none the less.
Richard’s time would be better spent into doing some serious research into his suspect and come up with some real evidence. Not some tale that someone might or might not have said about someone who might or might not have been Barnett spitting or something into a grave which might or might not have been MJK’s.
His tedious repetition of such nonsense doesn’t make it any the more believable.
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 752
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
G'day Leanne,
"Please point out to me the ounce of proof against any one suspect! I seem to have missed it!"
Please point out that it was Natalie's point to provide us with any proof against any one suspect! I seem to have missed that!
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
Hi Bob,
Barnett could have been just a unfortunate soul caught up in a major murder spree., of course he could be innocent.
My point is if the police knew then what has been knowledge since 1891 [ kittys report] and a unconfimed report of a graveside incident at mjks funeral. [1959] then without any doubt Barnett would have been questioned further.
Just to repeat yet again.
Kitty asked Lottie who at that time was living in kellys room about the murder, she stated that Kelly told her that she had a nightmare that someone was 'murdering her' and tried to laugh it off, although Lottie got the jitters.
The words' She was the next to go' implies that this nightmare occured after the double event proberly close to the time she encouraged streetwalkers to stay over for fear of spending time alone in the room at night.
At this time Barnett was living with Mary, ands in his own words he 'read the papers' to her, which would have prayed on her mind, after the nightmare it would be almost a certainty that she recalled her dream to him.
Coincedence is it that she was infact murdered on the very same bed as she had the nightmare? and on the very same day of a month that the two of them started living together.
If the alleged incident at 'St Patricks' did occur and if the two teenagers reported that incident to one of the many police on duty, then it would have been a simple process to identify the culprit.
But the fear factor took over.
There are some witnesses statements which i find not conclusive and dubious, but Hutchinsons, Maxwells, maurice lewis, and [ sorry name escapes me] the lady who heard crys of terror in Brady street / bucks row.
All these statements have elements in there wording which convinces me of a authentic account.
This leads me to form the opinion that Kellys was killed after 9am on the morning of the 9th november, and the killer of Nichols and stride have one thing in common ie, severe drunkeness or a inability to control there legs through some disability.
Where that leads me i have no idea , but i still put JB in the frame for Marys Murder.
Richard. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 561
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
Ouch...... I actually do think that there is at least a fair chance that Mary was a victim of a domestic murder, albeit Barnett or another man in her life, so I am not at all in opposition to you views. But goodness there is an awful lot of ifs and buts there and you could strain gravy through that story.
Now if we accept the Kitty/Lottie story, what does it actually tell us? Mary had a precognitive or just circumstantial dream that she was going to be murdered. The fact that it happened on her bed doesn't have anything at all to do with anything......I do happen to believe strongly in precognitive dreams and have had them, but nowhere is it recorded that Mary said 'I dreamt Joe murdered me' .
Even if Mary had told someone whilst she was alive that she dreamt that Joe was murdering her, I really don't think that the police would seriously be able to use that as evidence against him in a court of law.
Mary's supposed dream is nothing whatsoever to do with Joe......doesn't implicate him in any way at all. Alright it was on the same day they started living together. The odds on that happening are only at best 31-1. Doesn't really strike awe into me.
He read the papers to her on his own admission.....well so what........she may have asked him to because she was a prostitute living in the area where murders were happening......she would of course want to know what was going on. Not what I would call incriminating.
The grave spitting story is interesting, but again hardly grounds for running at Joe with the hangman's noose dangling from your wrist.......it is just hearsay evidence and if it tied in with a lot more corroborative evidence then I would take it seriously, but as it stands, it doesn't really make me any more inclined to think it was Joe.
As I said at the beginnning I actually do think that there is a fair chance the Mary's killing was a domestic and could even have been Joe, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution here.
He does have a few questions to answer in my book, which I have discussed on the thread before. There are some strange inconsistencies in his testimony that are seriously fishy, but in the absence of better evidence I have to consider him suspicious but innocent.
Sorry, but give us more real proof Richard, because I seriously would love to see it.........
I do admire you for sticking to your guns though and for your perseverance in chasing old Joe. You never know, you might well come up with something incontrovertible and I for one will be a very happy bunny.
Jane
xxxxx
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Thanks for your response,I wish i could give you ,and all readers of these boards proof, but alas that at this moment in time it is not reality.
However my guns are stuck and will always be aimed in the direction of Barnett. Circumstancial evidence is not proven guilt, but it is a basis to try and obtain more evidence.
Thanks Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
