|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Doug
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 2:01 am: | 
|
Greetings,
I have studied various criminal cases before I came across this one day, wondering what all the fuss was about. When I realised why, I just had to launch my own suspect probe, like 10 million people have done already.I gave every suspect a totally unbiased analysis and tried my best to hit the most likely winner. I have to tell you that it is Barnett first - daylight second.I'll give you my mian reasons.
- The ripper did not like pros, as his treatment of them after death indicates.My suspect had to be known not to like pros.
Eight days before Kelly's murder,an argument occured which involved actual physical violence.Barnett was bitter that Kelly let a pros stay there, and a violent argument resulted.This gives us our first clue:
a. It is proof that Barnett did not like pros.
b. The theory around him fits into the ripper timeline perfectly. The murders started when he lost his job and forced her to prostitute. Early August.
c. I only used 4 eyewitness acounts for all 39 suspects I examened.The only ones I believe to be credible.Out of 39 suspects, Joseph Barnett is the only one that matches up consistently with the top eyewitness acconts.There were only 2 others that come close.
d. The double event was the big clue of the case.From starting point of Stride - the trail leads to his adress. It cuts across to Mitre square, leads north to Glousten Street, and straight up to Millers Court, where blood was found in a sink. If it were not Barnett, then they lived a stones through from his adress(whomever it was).
e. I think this is the only suspect involved with a victim, with a relationship known to envolve periods of violence and love intermingled.
He is the most likely suspect from my perspective. I would like to know if there is any prospect of more evidence coming to light about Joseph Barnett. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Some evidence that he was actually physically violent towards MJK (or towards anyone else for that matter) would do for starters, Doug.
Love,
Caz
X |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 816
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Doug,
And I would suggest the "blood in a sink" reported by Smith is a non-starter.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
"He is the most likely suspect from my perspective. "
How do you propose to get around Hutchinson's testimony ? Don't you think he would have recognized Barnett ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Hi Doug,
I am of course bias but i am in full agreement with you, the thread 'Joseph Barnett number one suspect' was started by myself way back simply because in my minds eye he is just that.
Sir Robert.
Who is suggesting that Barnett was the man that Hutchinson saw?
The time of death in the kelly case is open to dispute.
The argument that someone would have seen Barnett at the location for sure is full of flaws.
If a person wishes to reach a destination unseen they tend to be extra careful that they are not and avoid any possible encounters. and the same logic applies to leaving a destination.
I believe her murder was premediated and if that is correct the killer would have took every precaution to make sure he left the site free of visable bloodstains, and would have made plans to reach a safe house where he could thoughly cleanse his body and dispose of his clothing.
We do not know if the accused Barnett ever showed physical violence but there is a circumstanial report that depicts a sense of cunning ie The spitting report' .
One minute he is kneeling on the cold clay with the other six mourners a heartbroken soul , the next minute when believing he is not being observed he is spitting down on her coffin.
But of course that never happened did it??.
Regards Richard. |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 154
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Regarding evidence that Barnett was actually physically violent towards MJK, I have not seen any definite evidence but there is a curious line in the inquest report from The Scotsman of Nov 13th 1888 where Barnett is asked
"Did she [MJK] go in fear of any particular individual?"
Barnett's reply was " No sir, only with me now and again, and that was always shortly over- one moment rowing, and for days and weeks always friendly"
Would a girl that most of us imagine was pretty street wise and tough go in fear of rowing with her lover?
If the report is accurate ( it is one of the most detailed I have seen concerning the questions and answers of witnesses that I have seen) it does give the impression MJK was afraid of Barnett for some reason.
Debra |
Barnaby
Sergeant
Username: Barnaby
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 12:56 am: |
|
For what it's worth, the police interviewed Barnett, and after that he was never considered to be a suspect. That's not to say he couldn't have been the Ripper, but the police at the time didn't think so. |
PaulP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Two points
1. Selecting witnesses by how well they fit your theory - Naughty
2. I thought Banett had move out of Miller's Court by the night of the double event, which puts the sink evidence out a wee bit. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi Paulp,
Barnett left Kelly on the 30th october 88 so at the time of the double event was still living with Mary.
It is still not clear what Major Smith means by the sink reverence it has been associated mostly with the mitre square murder, however it could have been a reference to the aftermath of millers court because he states the killer washed his hands in Dorset street not far from the street which would indicate a wash basin up a alley or court, and as the blood was still not flushed proberly could indicate that the murderer had not long departed before the murder was discovered as surely the blood would have been reported by a local resident if much earlier.
Regards Richard. |
PaulP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
My apologies, Mr Nunweek. For some reason I've been labouring under the belief the he had left six weeks or so before the murder. No idea why!.
But back to Doug. Could I ask which four witnesses you consider to be credible?. I can think of serious objections to all of them, and unfortunately the ones I have the fewest problems with seem to disagree on some fairly basic points. So I'd be interested to know which four you've managed to pull together into a cohesive description that matches Barnett.
Thanks |
allerteuerste
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
arguing with kelly about her decision to sub-let her room does not proof that barnett hated pros - he simply didn´t like to be thrown out!
btw, it´s still my opinion that those "unfortunates" probably only fell victims to the ripper because they were available - even in the middle of the night. he couldn´t just knock at someone´s door and ask the lady out for a ride, could he? |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Richard.
The so-called incident of the bloody water in the sink was a figment of Smith's imagination, written many years after the crimes. If there ever was such an event, and there was no other corroboration for it, then it could not have applied to the Miller's Court murder, because Smith, as a City policeman, was not even engaged in the Kelly investigation. Show us any documentary evidence that he was ever involved with this investigation in any way.
Also, referring to the "bloody water" incident, Smith claimed that he was just five minutes behind the killer when he came upon the sink.
Kelly's body was discovered at 11 o'clock in the morning, by which time the Ripper had left the scene some hours before, and would have been long gone.
Stop trying to fit fictional events that had no bearing on the Miller's Court murder into your half-baked theories about Joseph Barnett, a man who was interrogated and cleared by Abberline of any involvement in the Kelly murder.
Regards.
ROD |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
I have a difficulty with saying Barnett did not like pros - he frequented with them his partner being one. He was against her doing it but it did not put him off being with her in the first place. They may have been two of a kind - tough as old boots but improving their existence between them. Her going back to her old job peeved him and he left but still wanted to be a good friend where things might change for the better again. Also he was out of work so did he 'force' her, as she saw it, into going back on the game which thus forced him out of the house.
Everything about Joe Barnet shouts innocence to me - a tough man going about his tough life, hooking up with someone with whom he had a lot in common but losing her when times got hard. He struck me as someone who wanted to be with Kelly, not someone who would kill her, unless in an almighty row he lost his head but that would not explain mutilation unless he was completely cold-hearted and had no feelings for Kelly and more feelings for himself getting out of the situation. (Well, that could be true - I don't know how courts looked on crimes of passion where the perpertrator fully confesses to the act - mitigating circumstances etc.). I feel it would not explain any of the other killings either because their break up only happened a few days before.
With Regards. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 4:40 am: |
|
Hi Rod,
Half baked theories.
So Smiths account is fictional is it?
One question did he not mention that the basin was just a few yards from the street and that location was Dorset street.
I Agree with you if the murderer left hours previous to 11am on the morning of the 9th november then that observation may be fictional or irrelevant , but if the killer had not been gone long from kellys room then that sighting by himself or one of his associates would be plausible.
Like it or not the evidence points to a daylight murder because of witnesses and a general belief in the neighbourhood that she was killed later am, and was believed also to have been a crime of jealousy.
Statements that appear against certain beliefs such as the sink, and Walter dews accounts of the 9th november when apparently discribing Indian Harry as a youth are dismissed because it goes against what we have been told over the years and our minds have congealed what could have been untrue facts.
The fact is on the morning of the 9th november 88 McCarthys wife and teenage son at 1045am went on a rent collection in the court and Bowyer was sent to kellys room with intentions of her welfare as several residents had become anxious of her not answering her door.
It was he that discovered the body and after reporting to his master the son was sent hastingly to commercial street station followed at some distance by Bowyer.
This is the facts as relayed by Dew and i for one believe him .
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1869
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 6:41 am: |
|
G'day,
SIR ROBERT: 'How do you propose to get around Hutchinson's testimony ? Don't you think he would have recognized Barnett ?'
Firstly, Hutchinson never gave a 'testimony'! That sounds as though he appeared at Kelly's inquest! Hutchinson made a STATEMENT to police after the inquest, which included: "They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes." Doesn't that sound like the behavior of someone who feared being recognised? Hutchinson also told the press that he fancied seeing this man in Petticoat Lane, (where there was a market for the exchange of second hand clothing.)
RICHARD: I don't think the grave spitting account you heard is ever going to prove anything to anyone. I think Debra's idea of Barnett's response after being asked if Kelly was ever afraid of anyone, is better. It shows that his mind immediately went on the couples arguments, and sugests to me that there was more to those rows than he was prepared to reveal.
TO BE CONTINUED:
LEANNE |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
Leanne,
if, the person was JtR of course they feared being recognised!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 6:56 am: |
|
G'day,
BARNABY: 'For what it's worth, the police interviewed Barnett, and after that he was never considered to be a suspect.'
The police were never able to pin the correct suspect where they? A two or even a four hour interview wouldn't have been long enough for them to learn all about the couples entire past, his childhood (which would have revealed that he grew up with no parents, and may have lost his mother to prostitution), and his current and past occupation.
Barnett voluntarily moved out of 13 Miller's Court sometime during the day of the 30th of September. Stride and Eddowes were found murdered in the early morning hours of the same day, so he left the room after the bodies were found.
RODNEY: Smith's 'bloody sink' report was not discussing events after the murder of Mary Kelly.
He was referring to the murder of Eddowes, (and the morning before Barnett moved out.) It is unlikely that Smith would have been involved in Mary Kelly's immediate investigation as Kelly had been murdered outside of his jurisdiction.
LEANNE |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 157
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Nice to find someone who actually reads the posts Leanne! |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
G'day Jennifer,
If the person was the killer and feared that Hutchinson would be able to give the police a detailed description on his face, why is it difficult to believe that he dressed up in someone elses clothes that he bought or stole from the clothes exchange?
LEANNE |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Yo Leanne,
Firstly, did i said that it was difficult to believe. Lets have a look, no i didn't, though you are right that I do find that harder to believe than that a murderer would hide his face from a potential eye witness.
sorry about that
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
You really have got your facts twisted here, Eddowes and Stride were killed on the 30th september 88 Barnett moved out on the 30th october 88.
I Agree with Debra regarding Barnetts strange testomony regarding Kellys fears, that statement alone could verify that he was not as placid and humble as seems to be interpreted by many on these boards.
Regarding the sink it is debateable as Smith mentions it several pages after the account at mitre square and reading it seems to refer to the Kelly event,as lets face it being realistic if it was reference to Eddowes murder are we suggesting that the police searched every court and alley from Mitre square to Dorset street in the early hours of that morning .
But not so unrealistic to assume that they searched the passages and courts of Dorset street after the dicoverery in room 13.
It is my idea that the murderer of Mary had not long left the scene before the discovery of the body who knows the man in Mitre square could have seen Jack at 1010am that morning rushing through the square, that alone could be significant as the killer may well have been heading in the same direction after killing Stride where he came across poor Eddowes.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Hi Debra,
"Did she [MJK] go in fear of any particular individual?"
Barnett's reply was " No sir, only with me now and again, and that was always shortly over- one moment rowing, and for days and weeks always friendly"
...it does give the impression MJK was afraid of Barnett for some reason.
But whose word have we got for this impression? Only Barnett's. He says he is the only one who frightened her now and again.
Now either that admission smacks of innocence and naivety (and it does to me) or, if he was MJK's killer, downright silly-billyness. Is there any evidence at all that MJK's killer was a silly-billy?
Seeing possible clues among Barnett's own statements that might suggest guilt is, as I have often said to Leanne, a precarious business. Presumably the police looked for clues too, but if his admission that MJK was sometimes afraid of him made them prick up their ears, something else must have made 'em turn a deafun in the long run.
Hi Leanne,
I think Debra's idea of Barnett's response after being asked if Kelly was ever afraid of anyone, is better. It shows that his mind immediately went on the couples arguments, and sugests to me that there was more to those rows than he was prepared to reveal.
Then why reveal even that much? He could simply have mentioned the odd row (in case someone else did), but why admit that she was scared of him? Isn't it natural for a recently bereaved person to focus on the bad bits and show regret for them - assuming they are genuinely sad about their loss?
A two or even a four hour interview wouldn't have been long enough for them to learn all about the couples entire past, his childhood (which would have revealed that he grew up with no parents, and may have lost his mother to prostitution), and his current and past occupation.
And how would any of that information have helped provide evidence against him? They couldn't go round hanging someone whose ex had been found murdered and terribly mutilated on the grounds that he had a bloody miserable childhood. And he wasn't likely to admit it if the couple's past was a bloody mess either.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 11, 2005) |
Debra J. Arif
Inspector
Username: Dj
Post Number: 162
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Hi Caz
>>Then why reveal even that much? He could simply have mentioned the odd row (in case someone else did), but why admit that she was scared of him?<<
...or he could have mentioned that MJK was scared of him for the same reason, in case anyone else did.
I don't have anything invested in this, I just saw the article, which is a bit more in depth on the Q and A side of witnesses than others I have read and thought it might be interesting for people trying to prove Barnett was violent towards MJK ( or people who should be trying to prove Barnett was violent towards MJK), maybe another avenue for looking for evidence rather than dragging up the usual stuff.
Debra
As an aside (maybe not the right thread for it)
there is also an interesting bit to the same article that tells us a bit more about Barnett reading to MJK, Barnett says that when he wouldn't or couldn't get the papers for MJK she got them herself and would then ask him if the murderer had been caught yet? If she could read why did she need to ask Barnett?
Debra |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2810
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that a man who associates closely with a working prostitute in the LVP in Whitechapel is not her pimp. He may call himself her 'friend' or 'partner' when interviewed by press or police but then what would he say?
'Oh yes, sir, I've been living off her immoral earnings for the last couple of years. Just put the handcuffs on me now, sir.'
Not going to happen, is it? |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Hello Leanne.
I think you'd better read my post again.
It was I who was telling Richard that Smith's "bloody sink" report could NOT possibly have had anything to do with the Kelly murder, as it was out of his jurisdiction, and a case in which he was NOT involved.
It is Richard who you should have been correcting, and not ME. Your words to me were exactly the same as my words to him.
Regards.
ROD |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
Hello Richard.
I can understand everything that you are saying, but the fact is that after Beck & Dew had viewed the body, it was Abberline who arrived to take charge of the investigation. Neither Smith nor any other senior City officer was on the scene, as it was not their case. The only occasion that Smith could have been referring to, was Eddowes murder, which occurred in his jurisdiction, and in which he was actively engaged.
As regards the time of Mary's death, Dr.Bond was the best qualified expert to judge that, and he stated that the probable time of death was between 1 & 2 o'clock in the morning. Even allowing for an error by an hour or so, this is still nowhere near a "daylight" murder.
I apologise for referring to your theories about Barnett as "half-baked". That was ill-mannered of me, and uncalled for. But we can't "mix and match" different cases to suit our theories, and whatever case these strange claims of Smith were made about, it most certainly was NOT the Miller's Court murder.
Regards
ROD |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Hello Richard.
I'm sorry, but it's YOU who's got your facts twisted, NOT Leanne. It's a fact that Smith had no part in the Kelly investigation, and could only be referring to the Eddowes murder, because that's the only murder in the series that Smith was actively engaged in investigating
You are trying to mix up two separate crimes, to fit things into your own pet theory.
Check out the major authorities on the crimes, Sugden and Begg, and you'll find that you've got your wires crossed.
Leanne is correct in everything she said about Smith.
Regards.
ROD |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Hi Rod,
So lets go back to the events at Mitre Square, now we both agree that Smith was engaged in that investigation.
After the body was discovered all the available policeman were then dispatched persumably in all directions to seek the perpretrator, according to Smith he when reaching Dorset street could not have been more than five minutes behind the culpret for he had the audacity to wash his hands in a public sink just yards from the street.
My point is there must have been a trail [ if he was refering to eddowes murder 30th sept] that led him to that area and if so what?.
The area between Mitre square/ dorset street is some distance especially if one has to search every alley, court ,and secluded spot between.
The reason i have reservations about the event Smith was refering to is that in his Biography he states the following passage some pages after the Eddowes event was completed, and by using the phrase.
In Dorset street he had the audacity to etc ,etc.
I must add that Sugden/ Begg you are correct in describing are Major authorities on this subject, but like all of us that does not make their assumptions always correct.
Even if Smith was not directly involved in Millers court I still think its strange that recent bloodstains appeared in the very street that the next murder took place, and I still have deep reservations that my assumptions may not be that incorrect.
Regards Richard. |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Hello Richard.
Yes, I can see what you mean. Smith's comments so long after the events have left us with a mystery within a mystery. As he was only actively engaged in the murder in his territory, that of Eddowes, I agree with you that the trail on that night would have been very unlikely to have stretched as far as Dorset St.
I have just re-read Smith's "EXTRAORDINARY AUDACITY" statement, and in it, he also refers to this incident as occurring on "ONE NIGHT".
If you believe that Kelly's killer left her room in broad daylight, as you've stated, then that definitely rules out the Miller's Court murder as far as Smith's statement is concerned.
I have to agree with Sugden that Smith's statement, made 22 years after the events, just doesn't make sense, or fit in with any of these crimes.
Personally, I believe that the Ripper left Kelly's room somewhere between 5 & 6am. The best qualified man to determine the time of death was Dr.Bond, and none of us can justifiably contradict his statement with any authority.
Of course Richard, none of this rules out Joseph Barnett as the potential killer. I just don't think you can possibly rely on Smith, as far as Kelly's murder goes.
Regards
ROD |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
As for being her pimp I find this hard to believe because they lived in the same room and if he was pimp to all the girls in Miller's Court then he would have been known to The Police. The more likely pimp, Mr. Wolf, is John McCarthy living and working at the gate-house of his little court.
So, if hutch looked under the brim of that hat and saw Joe Barnet he might think 'my mate neeeds an alibi' or 'I won't implicate a mate even if he's guilty'. Also if Hutch wasn't even there Joe could have asked him to provide a false description to save himself (Joe) being implicated, guilty or not. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:49 am: |
|
G'day,
JENNIFER: I wasn't directing the 'difficult to believe' statement to you, specifically. I have offered the suggestion of a disguized Ripper before to these boards and no one elses minds seemed to be able to accommodate that suggestion. Why do you find it harder to believe that a murderer attempting to camouflage himself would pull his hat down over his eyes to hide a little when he got close to a person who could potentially blow his cover?
RICHARD: I see now how I got my facts twisted regarding the date of Barnett's departure from Miller's Court and the date of the 'Double Event', but isn't it true that he was still living on Dorsett Street at the time?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 206
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:49 am: |
|
If Hutchinson wasn't there,then who was the man that was?Would Hutchinson claim to have been there if he was not,when the possibility was that the other person might come forward and prove Hutchinson a liar? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:57 am: |
|
Hi,
Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, and proberly knew Barnett at least by sight, I would say that to suggest that Mr Astracan was Barnett in fancy dress is ludricous, although it would not surprise me in the least if kelly knew her killer and his attire surprised her.
According to Hutchinson the man put out his arm as kelly approached him as if to detain her, he said something to her and they both roared out laughing.
They then walked back past GH his arm round her shoulder heading back to Dorset street, she then kisses the man.
I could therefore suggest that this man was known to her and just possibly his smart appearence amused her so there could have been a history there.
But Barnett on this occassion a big no.
I believe Blotchy face and Astracan must have been horrified when they heard of the events at millers court , but could never approach the police for fear of being implicated.
Kelly survived till the morning.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
Hi,
Let me clarify the above post of mine.
I am of the opinion say 80/20 in favour of a morning murder around 9am or later, however the other 20per cent would finger Astracan as the most likely candidate therefore i suggested that she may have known him but his attire amused her.
my main reservations about his attire is that he was hardly dressed for butchery but was clothed for a purpose that being the Lord mayors show, and possibly Kelly was amused by his appearence.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
Harry,
A good piece of observation you are correct, it has always been my opinion that GH was a honest witness and simply relayed the truth of his sighting.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:17 am: |
|
G'day,
Reading John McCarthy's testimony: "I VERY OFTEN saw deceased worse for drink, she was a very quiet woman when sober but noisy when in drink she was not ever helpless when drunk."
Now Barnett's testimony: "When she was with me I found her of sober habits, but she has been drunk several times in my presence."
About McCarthy's testimony: Kelly must have been 'VERY OFTEN' drunk or hungover during daylight hours for her landlord to notice. Most likely around the morning hours when the rent was collected.
About Barnett's testimony: Kelly didn't get drunk whilst in his company or go out drinking with him, and crossed paths with him after she'd been out drinking, (most likely with her prostitute friends), at which time she was very noisy. That was most likely when the couple quarrelled.
Barnett would have had to be at Billingsgate Market very early, before the 'Autumn of Terror', (as it opened at 5:00a.m., by which time the porters had all finished their work), and at the fruit markets early during the Ripper-reign, (where the costermongers obtained the best bargains the earlier they arrived). He would have been up and about to leave as Mary Kelly was returning home drunk after being out with friends. How much 'quality-time' did the pair spend together, where they weren't rowing and when there wasn't one of Mary's friends sleeping over?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 4:57 am: |
|
G'day Richard,
Please tell us why you give a disguized Barnett a big NO! Doesn't it fit in with your theory?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:28 am: |
|
G'day,
WOLF: 'I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that a man who associates closely with a working prostitute in the LVP in Whitechapel is not her pimp.'
Joseph Barnett was not Mary's Pimp!!!!! He tried to rescue her from such a life! He picked Mary up while she was working the streets yes, (as though he was looking for a pro himself and I can't excuse him for that), then gave her money to keep her off the streets and spoiled her with money and gifts.
Mary's friend Julia Venturney observed that that Barnett was adament that Kelly should not go back on the streets, (prostitution), and he appears to have taken a good deal of pride in having rescued her from such a life, and cited her return to prostition as one of the reasons he left her.
Caroline Maxwell testified at Kelly's inquest: "SINCE Joe Barnett left her, she obtained her living as an unfortunate,"
I'd rather believe that George Hutchinson sometimes acted as an early form of pimp.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
We do not know if GH knew Barnett or not, but Mary did.
Are you suggesting that after he played cards at his lodgings he went to his bed unwrapped astracan coat, spats, watch[ with a fancy chain] dolled himself up and sneaked out in the night to walk to millers court where he expected to find his ex asleep, but what should he see en-route but that very same person shuffling towards him.
Mary then without suspiscion walks back Pass GH complete with Barnetts arm around her shoulder dangling a kid clove, and then stands in Dorset street whilst Mary kisses him.
That scenerio tends to sound a little far fetched.
I do find Mrs Maxwells statement'Since joe Barnett left her she obtained her living as a unfortunate' a bit puzzling for she claimed she had not seen her for some time, and Barnett only left ten days earlier.
I guess she was relaying gossip that must have been abundant once she was anounced as being murdered that morning.
Sorry Leanne we both believe in Barnetts guilt but with two different views.
Richard. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2813
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
By ‘pimp’ I was referring to the type of individual who purely lived off the immoral earnings of a single prostitute to whom he attached himself to.
And there were a lot of these individuals in the Victorian Age, especially in Whitechapel.
Some of these cases have already been posted over on the ‘Shadows’ thread.
Most of these men do claim to have some kind of employment, but often it is a sham, for they are not going to openly admit to anyone that they are living on the immoral earnings of a prostitute… as this was, and still is, a criminal offence, often earning a sentence of 3 months hard labour.
So yes, these chaps are always going to say the ‘right thing’ when talking to others, that they really don’t want their woman on the street etc. etc.
But there are plenty of cases from history which give us a different insight into the situation.
Take the case of Frank Andrews from that time period, he even made his prostitute keep an account book of her immoral earnings: Monday 7/-, Tuesday 10/-.
But then he beat her up on the street and got himself arrested.
A very important case I think to our understanding of this entire situation between Kelly and Barnett is that of Edward Hanson - which appeared in The Times December 3rd 1900 - a pimp to a single prostitute who slowly goes down that long road leading to the murder - attempted in his case - of the prostitute when she attempts to leave him, and cut off his easy income.
Somehow I have always viewed the killing of Kelly as perhaps being an economic crime rather than one of passion or madness.
Perhaps Robert might post the Hanson case here when he next has a fag break and a cuppa?
Makes a good read. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
"Somehow I have always viewed the killing of Kelly as perhaps being an economic crime rather than one of passion or madness."
That's an intriguing statement, AP - could you elaborate ? How does the overkill fit into that ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2584
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
I have always believed Joseph Barnett"s porter"s licence [No 853]for Billingsgate Fish Market confirmed his independent work record.All his male siblings worked as fish porters at Billingsgate too. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5280
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Here we are with Hanson.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Yes, Sir Robert
Of course I mean the motive being of an economic nature.
That a man deprived of his vital income might well lash out at that vital income when it has arms, legs and a head, and then attempt to deprive that income of its arms, legs and head so that it may not provide an income for anyone else.
That is why the Torso Murders are so important here.
Not so long ago I posted a case where the prostitute - who had been out ‘working’ all night - returned to her pimp, and when he asked her for some tobacco and she had none…
The result was truly terrifying.
That got me to thinking ‘now just what would a man like that do if he realised that his supply of tobacco and booze was going to dry up forever?’
As you can probably tell, I don’t go along with this cosy picture we are being fed with of Joe and Mary sat in front of a nice fire reading bedtime stories of the Whitechapel Murders while the kettle slightly over-boils on the coals. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2585
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Well at least he didnt depend "solely" on his fish porter income while living with Mary-no idle fellow thats for sure our Joey. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2816
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Thank you, Robert, much appreciated.
Natalie
We have a member of the family over here who has held a taxi licence for the last thirty years.
The taxi is in the garage resting on concrete blocks, he watches re-runs of the original 'Lost in Space', and his last fare was at the time of the moon landing.
But a good point anyway.
You probably know that I think Michael Kidney was a bit of a pimp as well.
Men who shacked up with prostitutes often took advantage of that little piggy bank. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2587
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Yes,AP a troll through the records sometimes brings a brief encounter with reality....
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5282
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
AP that's the worst case of a cabbie getting lost that I've ever heard of.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
G'day,
RICHARD: The 'honest' George Hutchinson told the police that he had known Mary Kelly for 3 years and had occasionally given her a few shillings. Mary had been living with Barnett for 18 months before her death. I'd say that occasionally at least the two men ran into each other. Since Joe forbade Mary to 'walk the streets', he probably didn't know the true Kelly/Hutchinson realtionship.
No I'm not suggesting that Barnett left his fancy clothes and chain at Buller's Lodging House. When poor dock labourers didn't have the cash to gamble with, they commonly used the clothes on their back and jewellery.
Barnett didn't sneak back the Miller's Court in the night, but left very early in the morning. He wouldn't have to sneak because everyone was leaving home early to look for work on 'Lord Mayor's Day'. Even if he didn't go back to Miller's Court, It's a very safe bet to assume that he was out early anyway!
Why do you think Mrs. Maxwell had to have met Mary face-to-face to know that she had returned to prostitution?
WOLF: I know that a lot of 'attatched' men in those days chose to ignore their partners prostitution, because they needed the money!
Tell us Wolf, if Barnett was a 'pimp', and knowingly lived off immoral income, why did he chose to leave Mary Kelly when she invited her prostitute friends to stay? He could have turned room 13 into a brothel!
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Not with just one bed he couldn't, Leanne.
Under those circumstances one whore is a comfort, two is a crowd.
Can you imagine the queue at the chamber pot? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
