|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 10:15 am: |       |
Hi everyone,
As their does not appear to be much discussion on this topic , lets start one .
In my mind this person has to be the number one suspect in not only killing Kelly , but the actual Ripper himself.
Over the years we have suspected many individuals, some quite plausible , but mostly incredibly unlikely candidates.
Barnett comes across as a strange character, he had an obsession with Kelly, he meets her one day , decides to live with her the next, even when he knew of her past and present lifestyle. then over the next 18 months trys in desperation to alter her ways, begs her to attend mass , like she did when she first met him, calls on her daily to give her money , or to tell her he had none, takes abuse from her on several occasions.
Of course the above does not make him a killer, so what evidence have we got that could finger him as the murderer?.
The best evidence I believe was not known until 1959, therefore unknown by the police in 1888, that is the testomony of an elderly lady, whose mother and a friend witnessed spitting on Kellys grave, I have mentioned this on other threads, but it has major significance, for he was the only person [male] apart from the priest who was present at the ACTUAL service, and according to the letter Farson received the spitter was not a onlooker nearby but someone at the service who stayed behind.
I am sure that if the police were informed of this event at the time, barnett would have been further questioned.
For somebody to perform like that on Kellys place of rest, shows a bitter hatred of this person, someone who could resort to rage.
People may say , but yes Barnett was questioned on the day of the murder and he had an alibi for the previous night, so what this alibi is insignificant if she was murdered in the morning after 9.30 am,
Also did not Maurice Lewis say he thought he saw her having a beer with Barnett at 10am?
So what have we got?. Motive Mayby religious morals, plus Jealousy, Fleming?
He was the most likely candidate to have spat on her grave, especially he would have read in the papers that Kelly said she could not bear the man..He also was the last person relevant that was seen with the victim according to Lewis..
The missing heart would also imply a disgust with her ie she did not have a heart in life , nor will she in death.
And finally there is no doubt that he would be familiar with the habits of this women, and was proberly known by all of them, and trusted.
There I rest my case their is more to say, but hopefully some of you will agree to disagree.
Regards Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 5:08 pm: | |
Hello Richard,
I tend to agree with most of your points, as Barnett is currently my top suspect, too.
However (at the risk of asking a silly question), could you please define this statement you made: "he would have read in the papers that Kelly said she could not bear the man"
I'm not quite sure what you're refering to? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 4:04 am: | |
Hi Marie,
I was desperatly trying to find the name of the woman who said that statement proberly Mrs Harvey. Julia Van Turney,or Lizzie Albrook.
The quotation was ; she [kelly] said she could not bear the man even tho he was good to her[ refering to Barnet].
To sum that up she was sick of his preaching and carrying on , and was only using him for the occasional money he was able to give her.
If Barnett read that passage in the newspapers, or even heard it at the inquest , I would imagine his hatred of her would have been intense.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 4:50 am: | |
G'day Richard, Marie, Everyone,
I pushed Joseph Barnett as my number one Ripper suspect for ages on the old message boards and people kept writing back in his defence. The best argument they came up with, concerned his apparent return to a normal life following Kelly's death.
I never even considered that Barnett may have had religious motives. Where did you read that he begged her to attend mass? I always thought that his hatred for prostitution started in his childhood.
In the book: 'The Simple Truth', Bruce Paley says that his father died in 1864, when he was just 6, then his mother deserted the children shortly after, leaving the kids to bring themselves up in the harsh East End. So he had no father figure growing up, and his mother possibly left to persue a carrer in prostitution.
At Mary Jane Kelly's inquest, her good friend Julia Venturney said: 'although Barnett had been good to her, she could no longer bear him and was instead fond of another man named Joe' (Joseph Fleming). Even though this statement appeared in the newspapers, Barnett was there at the inquest to hear the truth.
Paley, a private detective who researched Joseph Barnett for many years, says that there are no immediate records of his whereabouts following the inquest. There's the problem!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 5:23 am: | |
G'day,
This is what Bruce Paley was able to find about Barnett's life after the inquest:
'In 1919, he is listed in the electral rolls....as living with a Louisa Barnett identified as his wife, though as there is no record of any such marriage....she died on 3 November 1926 at the age of 70, three and a half weeks before Joseph died. There appears to be no record of any children born to the couple or to Joseph Barnett at any time previously.....he and Louisa were still together and still lived at the same address in Shadwell where they had been living at least since 1919, if not earlier - the longest Barnett is known to have stayed in any one place or with any one woman. His death certificate gives the cause of death as oedema of the lungs and bronchitis, and lists his occupation as a dockworker. He was 68 years old, and apparently took his great secret to the grave with him.'
LEANNE
|
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 7:14 am: | |
Hello Richard, Leanne,
Thank you for the information regarding Venturney's statements at Kellys inquest, I had forgotten about that.
I think it must have been very difficult for Barnett to hear that, although he must have already have known it.
Barnett had so many reasons to be angry with Mary- she rejected him, he was quite probably jealous of Fleming, and he was disgusted with her return to prostitution. If he was of strong religious conviction, he may well have thought her 'beyond saving'. Certainly if she would not take up with him again.
And yet, he still comes to see her every day, and gives her money. He really strikes me as someone who's emotions would have been in a turmoil.
As far as the fact that he may have not killed again after Kelly, I find the debate on the Sickert board- as to whether serial killers ever truly stop- to be very interesting.
|
Scott Medine
Police Constable
Username: Sem
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 8:57 am: | |
How tall was Barnett?
Peace,
Scott |
David Knott
Police Constable
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 10:12 am: | |
Hi all,
If Mary Kelly had been the only victim then I might accept that there was a case against Barnett, but I just don't see him as Jack the Ripper.
What was his motive for the earlier killings? If it was to scare Kelly out of prostitution then why steal internal organs? It would do nothing to further the cause, and would only add to the risk of being caught.
If that wasn't the motive, then we have to assume that he was a straightforward 'lust-killer', but is there really anything in what we know about his life before or after the murders to suggest that this is likely? |
Jim DiPalma
Police Constable
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 12:15 pm: | |
Hi All,
Scott, I'm at work and don't have my references at hand, but I recall reading that Barnett was 5'7".
Hope this helps,
Jim |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 1:58 pm: | |
Leanne,
I believe he mentioned at the inquest , that he wanted her to attend mass once again.
Richard. |
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 2:06 pm: | |
Thanks Jim.
Peace,
Scott |
Neal Shelden
Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 29
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 3:07 pm: | |
Reading Leanne's post about Bruce Paley's version of what happened to Joseph Barnett reminded me of an entry I found on the 1901 Census index.
ST PANCRAS
Joseph Barnett aged 36, Police Constable, born Forest of Dean, Glos
Louisa Barnett wife aged 37, born Forest of Dean, Glos
Gertrude Barnett aged 10, born Forest of Dean, Glos
Alice Barnett aged 9, born Forest of Dean, Glos
Jane Barnett aged 7, born Forest of Dean, Glos
Joseph Barnett aged 6, born Forest of Dean, Glos
I know that the ages of the parents Joseph and Louisa are a good few years from the death entries for 1926 at Shadwell, but of course that is not necessarily important.
The fact that the one on the census was a police constable could've changed by 1926 for an unknown reason?
The census entry is a long shot at being the couple in 1926, but I thought it worth mentioning just in case Paley's death identification is the wrong Joseph Barnett? |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
G'day All,
Richard & Marie: There is nothing in Bruce Paley's book about religion. This worries me, because it is another thing that people can argue with to support Barnett's innocence!
Jim & Scott: Paley says that Barnett's statistics come from his porter's licences for Billingsgate Market. When he was 20 in 1878, he was 5ft 7ins tall and of fair complexion.
The two published photographs show that he had a moustache at Kelly's inquest. A porter's licence in 1906, when he was 48 says that he was 5ft 7.5ins tall.
My book: 'The Simple Truth' is the 2nd one I've bought, and is in 2 pieces. If we are going to debate Barnett again, I'll have to buy another one! OHHHHHHH!
LEANNE
|
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 19
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 4:33 pm: | |
David Knott, you posted:
"What was his motive for the earlier killings? If it was to scare Kelly out of prostitution then why steal internal organs? It would do nothing to further the cause, and would only add to the risk of being caught"
Honestly speaking, I don't think we can say that Barnett may have killed the other women *simply* to scare Mary out of prostitution. It certainly seems as if he was besotted with Mary, and perhaps this, coupled with their interpersonal troubles, triggered the killings.
He may have killed the others as a warning for Mary, or because he hated prostitutes and loose morality they stood for, or to live out his fantasies of hurting Mary (when he couldn't bring himself to- until she rejected him!)
I really couldn't say why he took the women's organs. Some killers do, I've read several different hypotheses, including the killers desire to 'own' a part of their victims, or to relive fantasies of killing.
I can think of a whole myriad of reasons why he would have committed the earlier killings. And remember, people have killed and been killed for seemingly the most incomprehensible motivations.
You also posted: "If that wasn't the motive, then we have to assume that he was a straightforward 'lust-killer', but is there really anything in what we know about his life before or after the murders to suggest that this is likely?"
With all due respect, I'm not convinced that there *is* such a thing as a 'straightforward lust killer'. Just as all humans are different, so are all killers. There may be patterns of similarity that are striking, but there are so many exceptions to the 'rules' that we should really only think of them as guidelines.
For instance, I do hold some stock by the FBI profile for 'Jack', and if a suspect fits it, I get quite excited. But I never use the profile to rule people out.
Also, I quite believe that someboby could exhibit no (or very few) external indicators in their life, prior to becoming a killer.
Leanne: I am also working without the benefit of Paley's 'The Simple Truth', it looks like my order at the bookstore will not be in anytime soon. I wish I could find a bookstore here in central London that stocked it. You'd think it would be easy, but none of the major stores seem to have it in stock! In frustration, I'm going to order it online, tonight.
|
Robert Clack
Police Constable
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 6:06 pm: | |
Hi Richard, Leanne, Marie, everyone
Richard: I agree with most of your points about Barnett, but not about his religous convictions, can you remember where you read about Joseph Barnett trying to get Mary Kelly to attend mass?
as there is nothing in his inquest testimony or police statement.
I believe Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly but only her, he may have got away with murdering her because the police believed she was murdered by the same person who murdered the other women, and he may have had an alibi for one of the other nights, or as I may suspect the police ruled him out as a suspect when the doctors who performed her post mortem informed them she died at around 4 o'clock in the morning, when it was more likely nearer 10 o'clock, and he had an alibi for about 4 o'clock.
Marie: Have you tried "Murder One" in Charing Cross Road I know they did have some copies.
Rob |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 6:25 pm: | |
Whatho all,
I think I have written elsewhere I think Joseph Barnett killed Mary Kelly but none of the other ladies. He did it in a fit of jealousy and then mutilated her to make it look like a Ripper murder. I also went on to write I have no proof of this but it is my gut feeling.
Cheers, Mark |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 4:17 am: | |
G'day everyone,
I've still got my copy of 'The Simple Truth', but it's coverless and split down the middle. I couldn't find a new one in my local bookshop, but I remember seeing it in a nearby town. I'll wait until I can get there and meanwhile, I can flick through the one I've got.
People just can't accept that Barnett killed just to scare Mary, that's the problem here. But I think of psychological trauma caused by his parentless upbringing.
DAVID: I look at the stealing of internal organs as a way to make the newspaper reports seem more shocking and to get Mary to change her career.
NEAL: If our Joseph Barnett was born in 1858 and was 30 when Mary died, he would have been 36 in 1894, not 1901.
Paley hasn't stated where he was living in 1901, but in 1906 he was living at: '18 New Gravel Lane, Shadwell', with his brother Daniel.
There are copies of his birth and death certificates in 'The Simple Truth'.
MARIE: Barnett used to buy the newspapers for Mary to read. You'll be glad to get 'The Simple Truth', because it includes a lot of references at the back: (i.e. Specific newspapers, other books, Census reports, reports at The Greater London Record Office, at the Guildhall Record Room, Billingsgate Porters licenses and more).
LEANNE
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 4:20 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I am afraid at the moment, I am unable to trace the source , but I believe other board members will be aware of him saying; I wanted her to attend mass once again; I have read that statement on many occassions ?.
I believe Barnett was responsible for all the murders, he certainly had the tools on his person to carry out the mutalations on Kelly
If we can accept Barnett was a man of extremely strong morals, and that the woman he had become fond of reverted back to her way of life , then he would have first blamed the local prostitutes in the area for her downfall, in his mind they were responsible not Mary..
He was in the habit of buying newspapers and reading the reports of the murders to Kelly, proberly trying to stop her in her tracks, infact he may have continued right up to the end getting her papers , their appears to be one on the table next to her body parts...
After the double event he may have tried to stop his murdering ways, but Kelly still kept on soliciting, he proberly made desperate attempts to encourage her to stop , even Kelly said she had grown to dislike him in all his preaching at her.
In my mind he is our killer, and when Mary Kelly died his murdering ways stopped, in the words of an elderly nun in 1915, if it were not for the Kelly woman none of these murders would have happened,
Exactly....
Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 21
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hello everyone,
Robert, thanks for the tip! I'll check out 'Murder One' tomorrow.
Leanne, you posted: "People just can't accept that Barnett killed just to scare Mary, that's the problem here. But I think of psychological trauma caused by his parentless upbringing"
I agree with you. If Barnett was 'Jack', his motivations for killing the other women prior to Mary, would have been very much more complex than simply wishing to scare her.
It sounds as if his childhood may have been difficult (with no parents to speak of), so he may have been suffering from psychological issues that didn't manifest themselves truly until he met, and became besotted with Mary.
By all accounts, his relationship with Mary was a stormy one, so perhaps the killings started when he realized that Mary was slipping from his grasp, and back into her previous lifestyle. He may have blamed Mary's prostitute friends for leading her back into that life (as Richard pointed out). He certainly resented Mary letting them stay over. He may have been extremely worked up over Flemming, too.
The motivation for the previous killings would have been a combination of reasons, I feel. Partly a warning to Mary (he may have gotten a thrill from reading the newspaper reports to her), partly because he hated prostitutes, and resented Mary's return to prostitution, partly to live out his fantasies of hurting Mary, as much as she was hurting him. He may have killed her when he finally realized she was never coming back to him...
I could go on, but obviously this is purely conjecture. However, I feel that Barnett's possible motivations for killing the other women are NOT weaker than any of our other suspects. And when it comes to 'motivations' for Jack, all we CAN do, is guess.
Richard, you posted: "in the words of an elderly nun in 1915, if it were not for the Kelly woman none of these murders would have happened"
That's very interesting! Could you please expand upon that for me?
*edited, I was in a rush when I first posted- Oooops. |
Robert Clack
Police Constable
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 3:04 pm: | |
Hi Richard, Marie, Leanne
The problem I have of Joseph Barnett being Jack the Ripper is that he was living with Mary Kelly up until the 30th October. So what was he doing with the body parts? surely he couldn't have cleaned all the blood of himself, could he? and surely Mary Kelly would have been suspicious of him?
Marie: The elderly nun quote Richard mentioned was from Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper The Final Solution" the full quote is:
An elderly nun at the Roman Catholic convent in Harewood Place W.1, only a few minute's walk from Cleveland Street, had an interesting story to tell when the BBC interviewed her in 1973. In 1915 she had been a novice at Providence Row, directly opposite the pub where Kelly and Chapman had rubbed shoulders daily. She clearly remembered an old nun who had been there at the time of the Ripper murders telling her that "If it had not been for the Kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened."
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 3:26 pm: | |
G'day all,
'Joseph Barnett harboured a strong dislike of prostitutes and didn't like Kelly associating with them. To him they were "immoral women", who had "gone wrong" and led a "bad life". He blamed Kelly's initial downfall on her prostitute cousin and her subsequent return to prostitution on the two prostitute friends she took in...As Julia Venturney had observed, Barnett was adomant that Kelly should not go back on the streets, and he appears to have taken a good deal of pride in having rescued her from such a life.' - (Bruce Paley 'The Simple Truth')
Still haven't found anything about Barnett's strong religious beliefs. Many Victorian people had strong views against the morality of prostitution, and since Barnett grew up with his brother Daniel acting as 'father', and the possibility that he lost his mother to prostitution, I don't think he was forced to attend Church.
Barnett lost his well-paying fish porters job in July 1888, (for reasons unknown), and Martha Tabram was murdered a few weeks later.
Mary Kelly stopped paying the rent, after Joseph's wages stopped coming in. Perhaps she was hopping to get evicted, so she could 'disappear' from Barnett?
Kelly's former lover, Joseph Flemming, continued to visit Kelly regularly and give her money. It was no secret that Kelly wanted Flemming back and Kelly was still "fond" of Flemming, as Julia Venturney had noted.
LEANNE
|
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 22
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 5:33 pm: | |
Hello everyone,
Robert, thank you for that info!
You also posted: "So what was he doing with the body parts? surely he couldn't have cleaned all the blood of himself, could he? and surely Mary Kelly would have been suspicious of him?"
He must have had somewhere to else go. I've always thought that maybe 'Jack' didn't work alone.
He may have had a friend, someone who was sympathetic to him. An 'accomplice' (even if they don't actually do any of the killing) could be invaluable- providing a place to get cleaned up, acting as a lookout, providing alibis or false leads to the police, etc....
Again, just conjecture on my behalf- but not implausible, I think.
|
Robert Clack
Police Constable
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 6:03 pm: | |
Hi Marie
What you say is plausible, I get the impression about Joseph Barnett that he seemed to be a bit of a loner. The only person I can think of him being close to is his brother Danny. I believe it has been suggested somewhere that his brother should be considered as a suspect as well.
I also wonder how that as he was unemployed that he manage to get any money?
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 3:33 am: | |
G'day Rob,Everyone,
Joseph Barnett began his inquest testimony with: 'I was a fish-porter and I work as a labourer and fruit porter'. So he did various jobs around the market and could have sold fruit all over the East End. Paley writes: 'Catherine Eddowes was killed next to an orange market.'
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 3:36 am: | |
G'day,
Look at http://www.victorianlondon.org/markets/billingsgate.htm
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
