|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 9:04 am: |       |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Do you have the reference that links a blind boy to Kelly? As it comes as late as 1893, isn't it more likely that the report just confused the two women?
Chris Phillips |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 30
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Mark:
I think more than one paper reported that Mary had a boy staying with her, the account I read was in the 'Illustrated Police News'. It said that the information regarding the boy came from a female source.
So we have more than one source mentioning the child, in more than one paper. So I can't really ignore the information, although obviously I'm not regarding it as concrete fact.
Where did I read that Mary had a son, but he was sent to Canada? |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 31
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 11:45 am: | |
Scott, you posted: "I know what you mean. For the last year or so I've been wondering why no one has ever ventured there"
Why do I feel like I'm missing out on a crucial theory, here?  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 1:04 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
There is no concrete evidence that a blind boy was linked to Kelly, apart from the A-Z , PAGE 270, which mentions Mckenzies involvement with the blind George Discon, it appears that in 1894 . the sun mentioned Kellys involvement with a blind boy where the source came from is unknown.
Richard, |
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 1:08 pm: | |
Marie,
There is a person who seems to have skirted under police radar and everyone else's. Until I have solid concrete facts, there's nothing more to say as I may run into the same defensiveness that Cornwell ran into. In actuality, I will probably run into more. This person may not have been the murderer but he should have attracted a lot more attention from the police than he did.
Hopefully, Monty and a couple of other people in the London area can find what I need.
Peace,
Scott |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 32
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 1:41 pm: | |
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the reply!
I'm always excited when someone has a new theory, and particularly when it's someone with your qualifications/ experience.
So I'll look forward to reading about it, whenever you're ready to put it out there for us.  |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 5:36 pm: | |
Whatho all,
This boy, blind or sighted, seems to be a bit of a conundrum. He is mentioned in the press but, as far as I can remember, in nothing official. It seems to me to be one of those groundless stories picked up and repeated by people and reporters without any checking. The Illustrated Police News was a little sensationialist so I view its historic use carefully, in the same class as The Star.
Don't forget some people view The Daily Telegraph of the nineteenth century with a bit of sceptism and not as the excellent paper of record it is now (I am NOT being sarcastic, that's the paper I read every day) and as for The Times, well I don't know; I've never got past page one without falling asleep.
Cheers, Mark |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 3:31 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
I am fully aware that newspapers then and now are not 100 per cent reliable in their reporting.
But I am afraid in the case of Jack The Ripper, we have only reports made at the time to base our conclusions on..
I started this thread, with the heading Joseph Barnett number one suspect..
I believe he must be treated as our Jack.
The main reasons why I will list .
1] the murders stopped after Kelly, there is no proof that any other killings were the work of Jack.
2]He had a motive .
3]He according to Lewis was seen with the victim at 10am therefore would have had no alibi for that time.
4]he fits in nicely with the 39 theory.
5]If the person who wrote to Farson in 1959, description of events at leytonstone cemetary are correct, he was the logical person to have spat on her grave.
6] He was questioned by the police for four hours. even tho his alibi could have been checked in far less time.
I have always thought that she was the reason that these murders started and upon her death. they stopped , which would give the impression that someone close to Kelly was responsible.
The point about the boy living with Kelly, was mentioned by Barnett, this may have sent Barnett over the top, he might have just found out that she was a mother of a son, mayby all the time she had Barnetts income she supported the boy, unknown to him, but the person looking after him dumped him on her that week for lack of funds, that would explain her state of desperation.
I believe that after Kelly was murdered, the police put a ban on reporting on the boy for protection reasons, but some imformation leaked out especially from Barnett, For he would have seen that as an excuse for his murderous behaviour.
Number one suspect?...YES..
Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 35
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
Richard, you raise some very interesting points, and I do think they're plausible.
It is possible that Mary's son (if she *did* indeed have one), was staying with friends, until that last week. Perhaps they couldn't care for him anymore, if she wasn't providing money for that care. That would explain her statements to a female source, that she would 'do away with herself', rather than see her boy starve. It's possible that there was an attempt to shield the boy from the press, for his own protection. Although I would think that Barnett may have known about the boy from the beginning, and I don't think it would have enraged him.
However- I'm willing to admit that this is all speculation, on my behalf. But the newspaper reports intrigued me.
I would say that the loss of his job (and dignity), Mary's return to prostitution, her rejection of him, and her love for another man- would probably be enough to send Joe over the edge. Particularly if he had suffered a tough (or traumatic) childhood, and was subsequently suffering from a pre-existing psychological condition.
On the whole, I agree with you almost 99%. The only thing I can't get my head around is the number 39 theory. But I do learn a lot from your posts, and for that, I thank you. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 12:53 pm: | |
Hi Marie,
The 39 Theory, is complicated, however, it basically means , several dates during the course of these murders are similar, considering the murder spree lasted just a few weeks.
Barnett is implicated because the number 39 ,has significance to him in respect of their relationship.
I feel strongly working as I do in the gambling industry, that the odds of the number 39 arising as much in this case as it does is beyond coincedence.
Some people may disagree with that statement, however if any of our members , can find any numbers that fall so naturally into place, without struggling to make them fit, because I have not I can asure you , I would be delighted to hear from them.
Regards Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 6:00 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Yes I did read your thread regarding the number 39 theory, and found it to be very interesting.
It is possible that the killer may have been working to this pattern, other serial killers that I have read of have worked in patterns that have significance for them.
Your 39 theory is certainly intriguing, I'm just not sure if I'm altogether convinced. |
Chris Scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 5:46 am: | |
Hi all
Some time back I did some research on Joseph Barnett on the basis of the dates given by the two writers who had identified him as a major suspect. Bruce Paley's JB was born in 1858 and died in 1926. Paul Harrison's JB was born in 1860 and died in 1927.
I searched 1881 census data for all Joseph Barnetts born in those two years (the whole UK not just London). The totals were 3 born in 1858 and 7 born in 1860. I thought some might be interested to see the results which are:
JOSEPH BARNETT
FROM 1881 CENSUS
BORN 1858 (PALEY) OR 1860 (HARRISON)
BORN 1858: 3 ENTRIES
1)
Birthplace: Margate, Kent.
Age 23
Occupation: General Dealer
Married
Head of Household
Dwelling: 85 High Street, Margate, Kent
2)
Birthplace: Church Minshull, Cheshire
Age 23
Occupation: Corn Miller
Unmarried
Son of head of household
Dwelling: Paradise Green, Church Minshull, Cheshire
3)
Birthplace: Glasgow, Scotland
Age 23
Occupation: Contractors Clerk
Married
Head of household
Dwelling: 3 Holford Street, London
BORN 1860: 7 ENTRIES
1)
Birthplace: Chatham, Kent
Age 21
Occupation: Clothiers assistant
Unmarried
Son of head of household
Dwelling: 285 High Street, Chatham, Kent
2)
Birthplace: Ulverston, Lancashire
Age 21
Occupation: Yeomans son
Unmarried
Son of head of household
Dwelling: Brockbank Ground, West Broughton, Lancashire
3)
Birthplace: Whitechapel, Middlesex
Age 21
Occupation: Marble Polisher
Unmarried
Visitor
Dwelling: 3 Bonwell Street, London
4)
Birthplace: West Bromwich, Stafford
Age 21
Occupation: Labourer in Brickyard
Married
Head of Household
Dwelling: 17 Oldbury Road, Blackheath, Rowley Regis, Stafford.
5)
Birthplace: Baildon, York
Age 21
Occupation: Mechanic
Unmarried
Son of head of household
Dwelling: 171 George Street, Shipley, York
6)
Birthplace: Liverpool
Age 21
Occupation: Ship brokers clerk
Unmarried
Son of head of household
Dwelling: 116 Gladstone Road, West Derby, Lancs
7)
Birthplace: Stoke, Warwick
Age 21
Occupation: Coal miner
Unmarried
Lodger
Dwelling: Top of Town, Rothwell, York
Place your bets please!!!
Any comments or tentative identifications welcome!
Chris s |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 12:27 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
To be honest none of the above seem to register as our Barnett only the visitor at Bonwell street seems likely, but a marble polisher does not seem to fit Barnett.
Question what exactly would the duties of a marble polisher involve?
One of the above candidates has to be our man , yet I always considered Barnett to have lived in the area for years
Richard. |
Chris scott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I would have to qualify your statement "one of the above must be our man..."
That would only be true if Paley or Harrison is right in their identification. If they are both wrong then another year of birth is possible
Regards
Chris
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 3:47 pm: | |
G'day.
I remember reading somewhere that Paul Harrison's Joseph Barnett was the wrong one. I'll look for this information when I get home.
From a fish-porter's licence, Bruce Paley found his Barnett's address as: 'North East Passage, Wellclose Square, St George in the East'. He'd been living there since 1878 and moved in 1887.
LEANNE |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi everyone
In Bruce Paleys book he reproduces a copy of Joseph Barnetts birth certificate. the details are
Born: 28th May 1858
Birthplace: 4 Hairbrain (yes that is right) Court, Whitechapel.
I had trouble reading the date of birth, but it was definitely twenty something, May 1858.
Marie, the reference to Mary Kellys son being sent to Canada was from Melvyn Fairclough's "The Ripper and the Royals", where he quotes from the fake Abberline diaries, which claim Mary Kelly had two sons. The quote is:
The youngest child was adopted and the other sent to Canada by the convent.
On a final note, in "The Simple Truth" there is a photograph of Joseph Barnetts porters licence. Would anyone know if that is his handwriting or an administrators?
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
G'day Rob,
Reading that birth certificate, I can see: 'When and Where born - Twenty fifth May 1858 - 4 Hairbrain Court Whitechapel.'
LEANNE |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 5:51 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Your probably right, I thought the second "F" may be a "G".
And the information you are looking for (about Paul Harrison's Joseph Barnett being the wrong one) is under Daniel Barnett in the A-Z.
Rob |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 46
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 5:16 am: | |
Robert, thank you!
I just couldn't remember where I'd read that.... |
Robert W. House
Police Constable
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 9:27 am: | |
In an earlier post Leanne mentioned that " two published photographs show that he (Barnett) had a moustache at Kelly's inquest." Does anyone have copies of these photos? Or can someone post them somewhere?
Robert House |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
I'm sorry if I said they were photographs. They were illustrations. One from the 'Pictorial News' Nov. 17 and the other from the 'Illustratd Police News' Nov 24. The 'Police News' one is used here under 'suspects'/'Barnett' LEANNE
 |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 5:37 pm: | |
G'day,
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 51
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 5:46 am: | |
In the upper illustration, his face looks much thinner.
I wonder which one is more accurate, because the lower one resembles the Telegraph illustration of a ripper suspect, 6 Oct, 1888 |
Robert Clack
Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 8:59 am: | |
Hi Marie
I am more inclined to think the "Pictorial News" picture is the more accurate one. Especially considering how "The Illustrated Police News" illustrated Mary Kelly.
This might seem like crass stupidity on my part, but if Joseph Barnett stammered at the Inquest, couldn't he just have been very nervous, specially standing up and giving evidence in a packed hall?
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 4:39 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
An illustrator for a newspaper, wouldn't necessarily be after an accurate portrait. He wasn't a serious suspect!
The 'Police News' illustrator would have been used to giving accurate descriptive sketches. I favour the bottom one as more accurate.
I have no doubt that Barnett was very nervous! He'd already been through one great 'grilling'.
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
