|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 6:22 am: |       |
G'day,
Joseph Barnett worked at Billingsgate Markets for about 10 years, starting as soon as he left school.
He lost this well-paying job, about 2 weeks before the murder of Martha Tabram, for reasons unknown, and began seeking odd jobs which could have taken him all over the East End and given him a reason for being anywhere at anytime!
He began his testimony at Mary Jane Kelly's inquest with: "I reside at 24 and 25 New Street, Bishopsgate, which is a common lodging house. I am a laborer & have been a fish porter.." It says somewhere else that he sold fruit.
To find out what a typical day at work was like for a Billingsgate worker, I have found the following links for you to click on:
http://www.victorianlondon.org/markets/billingsgate.htm
http://www.cyberartsweb.org/victorian/books/mcdonnell/billingsgate.html
I am posting them here, before they get lost in the archives.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 7:05 am: | |
G'day,
Bruce Paley writes: 'Catharine Eddowes was killed next to an orange market where Barnett, an occasional orange seller, may have worked; he may have been heading there when he ran into Eddowes, sometime neighbour from Dorset Street.'
I remember reading that at the time she was killed, they would have been gearing up for a day's work, so he would have had an excuse for being there. Maybe he cleaned-up and stored his knife at work.
LEANNE PERRY,
Detective Sergeant and
Sub-Editor of 'Ripperoo'
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 28
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 8:21 am: | |
Leanne, you posted: "Maybe he cleaned-up and stored his knife at work."
That would make perfect sense! I hadn't thought of that possibility. |
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 8:14 am: | |
Leanne,
What time would the 'Orange maket' have started to set up ?
1:30 am ??? What was the point of closing ??
And then what about the apron ?? Where is the statements/reports from the stallholders ??
Why doesnt Blenkinsopp (who, as Im sure you know, was in St James place) mention these market men or women ?? He mentions meeting a 'respectfully dressed man' at that time....a barrow boy perhaps?
If it is true that the market was setting up at that time then I find it strange that there are no statements from the stallholders...or police records refering to them...or ANY references to them at all.
If I was Smith I wouldnt have buggered off to Dorset St, nope, Id have turned St James sq inside out.
Monty
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 5:25 am: | |
G'day,
('Jack the Ripper, The Simple Truth'): 'The only alternative means of exit, (for the killer, from Mitre Square), 'lead directly to the orange market in St James Square, where already there were several people about, gearing up for the Sunday market. Knowing that the square and it's surrounding streets would soon be aswarm with police, his priorities were to get out of the immediate area without drawing attention to himself, and then to take the quickest and safest route home'.
The orange market may have been where Stride's killer was heading, (to find himself casual work to give himself an alibi?), before he bumped into Catharine Eddowes.
Major Smith was trying to trace the killers most likely route from where the apron was found, and wound up in Dorset Street, where he came across a blood stained sink. There the trail ended. Smith didn't give the precise location of this sink.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 6:33 am: | |
G'day,
The 'Daily Telegraph' reported that Joe Barnett began his inquest testimony with:
"I was a fish-porter, and I work as a labourer and FRUIT-porter..."
This differs from what I origionally said his testimony began with: "...I am a labourer and have been a fish-porter..." so I'd say somewhere in there he said the word "Fruit", but the reporters only printed what they heard.
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 34
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:08 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
You posted: "This differs from what I origionally said his testimony began with: "...I am a labourer and have been a fish-porter..." so I'd say somewhere in there he said the word "Fruit", but the reporters only printed what they heard."
Perhaps this would explain why Maurice Lewis saw Mary drinking with a man called Dan who sold oranges. Someone who he said she had lived with until recently.
He may well have mistaken Dan for Joe.
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 3:24 pm: | |
G'day Marie,
That's right! People can and do make mistakes. Newspaper reporters and witnesses!
Maurice Lewis was a tailor, working on Dorset Street. He probably met Kelly quite alot, heard her talk about her 'husbands' occupation as an orange seller, and heard that he had recently left her, and said: "Dan, the one that sold oranges sold oranges and recently left her."
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 3:27 pm: | |
G'day,
Author and researcher Bruce Paley, believed that Joseph was sometimes called "Dan", but I think that is stretching things too far!
LEANNE |
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 23
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 5:23 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Im not disputing the theory of Barnett as a fruit stall worker. He may have been.
What I am disputing is the idea, which seems to stem from Mr Paleys book, that the market was starting to open from roughly 1:30am.
Couple of hours later perhaps, but not at 1:30am.
As I mentioned before, wheres the comtemporary evidence supporting this ? I cannot find it.
The police would have made enquiries at the market and some sort of documentation would have been made. Sure, it may have been destroyed in the blitz, but something would have come out in the papers or the inquest.
Collard states that Insp McWilliam, upon his arrival at Mitre sq sent out a number of detectives in all directions in Spitalfields, both the streets and the lodging houses....but there is no mention of a market.
Collard himself had the neighbourhood searched...but there is no mention of the market.
Watkins, whose beat passes through St James place, states that at 1:30am the was nothing to excite his attention nor did he see anyone about. Mitre sq would have been used as a walk through and, if the market was opening up at that time, would have seen an in crease in people.
Yet Watkins sees no one....and mentions no market.
These are just an example of those that were in the area at the same time the Orange market was suposedly being set up yet they do not mention this.
Is this not odd ?
Monty
|
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 5:40 am: | |
Hi Leanne, you posted: "He probably met Kelly quite alot, heard her talk about her 'husbands' occupation as an orange seller, and heard that he had recently left her, and said: "Dan, the one that sold oranges sold oranges and recently left her."
I agree. I'm personally pretty sure that was the case.
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 2:53 am: | |
G'day All,
MONTY: Paley's book gives his reference for his belief that Barnett was an orange seller as: 'The Daily News, 10 November, said Barnett sold oranges on the streets'.
Writing about the description that Lawende gave to police, (an exact description of Joseph Barnett in every detail), Paley says that 'the same couple were seen according to the 'Daily Telegraph' 13 November, in the covered passage leading to Mitre Square, by two persons who were in the orange market.'
The 'Daily Telegraph' 13 November can be found here in 'Press Reports': 'About ten minutes before the body of Catharine Eddowes was found in Mitre Square, a man about thirty years of age, of fair complexion and with a fair moustache, was said to have been seen talking with her in the covered passage leading to the square. On the morning of the Hanbury Street murder, a suspicious looking man entered a public house in the neighbourhood. He was of shabby genteel appearance and had a sandy moustache. The first of these descriptions was given by two persons who were in the orange market and closely observed the man.'
Hmmmmm Hanbury Street was the sight of Annie Chapman's murder. Thanks for helping me find the missing link!
ROBERT: About the newspaper reading lessons: 'Barnett told of Kelly's heightened fear of the Whitechapel murderer and how she would ask him to read her the latest developments on the case from the newspapers.' Even if she could read herself, Barnett would have bought the paper on his way home from Billingsgate around midday, plopped his bottom down on a seat with the newspaper in his hands, opened it to read himself and she probably walked behind him, eager to hear the latest news.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 4:28 pm: | |
Hi Diana
I have now moved to the Barnett boards, leaving Schwartz to make the best of being a Hungarian with a German name living in England, who has just witnessed an attack on a Swede.
Re echolalia, I suppose we all do it ("Are you going to the shops?" "To the shops? Why, do you want something?") Your example ("What is your name?" "Your name") serves to separate out the "abnormal" variety. Most people would switch to the first person ("My name? It's...")
I do feel that we should make some allowance for Barnett's situation at the inquest. He may have felt intimidated by the proceedings (I don't know whether or not he'd been in a court before). He'd have been trying very hard to "get the right answers". And, even if he was innocent, he probably felt that he'd let Kelly down.
Still, at the end of the day (or the sentence!),
if he had echolalia, then he had echolalia! The question is, how badly did he have it?
Robert
|
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Hey, I seem to have been promoted to Sergeant.Now I don't have to walk to the end of Church Passage any more.
I suppose it would be a big bonus for the Barnett theory if Barnett's echolalia/stammer had been really bad, because it would have given him an additional chip on his shoulder and another source of "inner rage". I just don't see how we can judge, at this remove, precisely how severe it was. But it's not vitally important to the theory, because I imagine that losing his father and being abandoned by his mother could have been quite sufficient to embitter him.
Your point about Barnett's sleeping habits goes back to what I said : how well would these two actually have known each other, at least while Barnett was working at Billingsgate? Bruce Paley thinks that Barnett might well have stayed on in the afternoon, for extra work. He'd have been obliged to turn in fairly early, in order to rise well before five next morning. Kelly was probably a bit of a night owl, going to bed and getting up late (Maxwell was surprised to see her up as early as 8.30).
Of course, after Barnett lost his job, they may have been thrown together TOO much, getting on each other's nerves. I don't know what his work record was during this time, but if he was working in an orange market in the middle of the night, it doesn't sound as if their lives were meshing very well.
I know he gave some information about Kelly, but it's still pretty sketchy, isn't it? Some people tell you more than that about themselves in an evening. In the end, he knew so much about Kelly's family that not one of them could be contacted to attend the funeral. And for a man who is supposed to have been so jealous and possessive, he seems to have been fairly uninterested in Morganstone and Flemming. He certainly doesn't seem to have grilled Kelly about them.
I imagine the police would have been quite keen to speak to those two (especially Fleemming, who was said to have ill-used Kelly), but Barnett doesn't appear to have known enough about them to have really been any help.
Mind you, I don't know what to make of Barnett's statement "she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me".
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 47
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 5:23 am: | |
Hi Robert, you posted: "And for a man who is supposed to have been so jealous and possessive, he seems to have been fairly uninterested in Morganstone and Flemming."
He may simply not have shown his jealousy, or rage. He may have internalized it. Particularly if any jealousy would have caused another row between Mary and himself (and subsquently made Mary move further away from him emotionally).
I've met people who have quite explosive tempraments, and people who you simply can't tell if they're angry (except by small signs they give, like clenching/grinding their teeth).
That statement you quoted was interesting.
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 6:00 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Yes, I'm sure we can all think of at least one time when we've done it, but one paper saw fit to write that he did it after every question.
I'm also sure that he did feel intimidated, but he was thinking straight enough when he contradicted a key statement he gave Inspector Abberline on the morning Kelly's body was found. On the afternoon of the 9th Nov, he claimed that he left Kelly "in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her, and her resorting to prostitution."
At Kelly's inquest, he said it was: "Because she took in an immoral woman." Then he added: "My being out of work had nothing to do with it." Abberline was there too and should have sensed that something was not right, but he said nothing!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 6:02 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Congradulations on the promotion! LEANNE! |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 6:12 am: | |
G'day,
"She did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me." Yes that was a very interesting statement! It shows that his mind was on the defensive and because the Coroner's question was meant to identify who could have killed her, he immediately thought of those rows they had!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 4:13 pm: | |
Hi Marie and Leanne
Yes, it may be that Barnett didn't want to provoke Kelly. They did have rows, but that might have made Barnett all the more determined to keep them to a minimum, especially if at such times his speech impediment came into play, embarrassing him and giving Kelly the chance to ridicule him. Or he just might not have been interested!
I don't really see how, after 115 years, we can hope to unravel the domestic intricacies of this couple.
On the matter of the change of story at the inquest, could I here put in a word for Barnett
(at the risk of being demoted to Workhouse Pauper, Second Class)? Surely there is an alternative, more innocent explanation?
When Barnett made his statement to the police, he said that he had taken Kelly from the streets, but then left her when she returned to prostitution. The local police would have known that Kelly was a prostitute, so there was no point in pussyfooting round the matter.
However, at the court, in public, the tune changes. There (I'm using the Ultimate Sourcebook version) he seems reluctant to call Kelly a prostitute, but says as much in a more roundabout way, preferring to speak of her "following a bad life" and living at a "gay house", and he only speaks of her doing this kind of thing in the past tense. Perhaps it would have been too much like speaking ill of the dead to admit that she was a prostitute when she died.
I think that maybe Barnett would have associated his losing his job, Kelly's return to prostitution, and his leaving Kelly as causally connected and constituting one event. So if he'd admitted he'd left her because he was out of work, he might just as well have added "So she went back on the streets".
Barnett may also have felt guilty that his inadequacy as a breadwinner had forced Kelly into the arms of the Ripper, and it could have been a raw wound with him.
More cynical explanations for why he changed his story might be the fear of being publicly branded a pimp, and (if indeed he was sacked for theft) a desire to steer the line of questioning away from his employment history.
In any case, I don't see why Barnett should have found the admission that he left Kelly because he couldn't earn enough money to keep her, and because she went back on the streets, so terribly incriminating.
But now, just to be nasty to Barnett : he doesn't seem to have objected to her going on the streets out of fear for her safety, does he? The moral condemnation seems uppermost. Maybe he KNEW she was safe?
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 5:10 pm: | |
Marie and Leanne, about Barnett's puzzling statement at the inquest :
Unless Barnett was admitting that he sometimes made Kelly frightened of him (which would have been an honest but stupid admission), the only tentative gloss I can put on his remark is, maybe she was frightened of someone associated with Barnett, someone they maybe rowed over, maybe someone she didn't want him inviting round. Possibly Dan? Didn't a witness claim to have seen Kelly with Dan?
Just about everything said about Joe could also apply to Dan. He was a local. He worked at Billingsgate, where he may have acquired skill with the knife. He had a troubled family background. He may have been protective towards Joe, whom he'd helped to bring up, and may have blamed Kelly personally for messing Joe up emotionally. He may even have blamed her for the loss of Joe's job, if Joe was sacked for stealing fishy treats for her. Dan would have known how to reach through the window, and may have got his hands on the key. And Bruce Paley says that Joe sent Dan to plead his case the night Kelly died. I don't know whether the police checked Dan's alibi, but they presumably checked Joe's, and he's still a suspect.
So why couldn't it have been Dan?
Robert
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 8:44 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: The only way Barnett could control Mary, was to supply her with gifts: "Such as meat and other things, as my hard earnings would allow." According to Julia Venturney, Barnett often gave Kelly money as well. All to keep her off the streets.....and then he lost his job!
He also read to Mary about the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabrum, who were both heavy-drinking local prostitutes. This seems to have been frightening her, and he knew it. But they weren't working enough, the murders had to sound more gruesome!
If she went out at night drinking with her friends, then woke Barnett when she came home drunk, he probably couldn't get back to sleep, so he left for work to keep the rows at a minimum.
At the inquest, everyone else spoke of Kelly's frequent drunkeness and Julia Venturney told how her intoxication would trigger rows with Barnett. He told the inquest that she was generally sober in his presence. Of course she was, and this is a tell-tale sign that he never went drinking with her.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 9:15 pm: | |
G'day,
According to 'The Simple Truth', once the Barnetts lost their father, their mother disappeared so the eldest brother Dennis assumed the mantle of family breadwinner. Then he married in 1869, so Daniel worked as a fish-porter at Billingsgate, while the others finished their schooling.
In 1878, new bylaws came into effect at Billingsgate whereby it became compulsory for all porters to be licensed. All four Barnett brothers received their licenses on the 1st of July 1878.
Barnett may have turned to Dan for support after Kelly rejected his return just before she died. It was thought by Maurice Lewis, (a tailor on Dorset Street), that she was drinking in a pub the night of her death, with her friend Julia and a man he called Dan the orange seller whom Kelly had recently been living.
We discussed this sighting on another board, and came to the conclusion that a tailor, (who probably never met Joseph Barnett), confused him with his brother.
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 50
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 5:42 am: | |
Hi Robert, Leanne,
Robert, you posted: "In any case, I don't see why Barnett should have found the admission that he left Kelly because he couldn't earn enough money to keep her, and because she went back on the streets, so terribly incriminating"
It's possible that to his mind, this admission would make him seem suspect, because it gives him a motivation for her murder. You've got jealousy, rejection, and humiliation right there.
This could apply, whether he was innocent, or guilty.
I particularly agree with this statement: "especially if at such times his speech impediment came into play, embarrassing him and giving Kelly the chance to ridicule him."
But I would argue that he probably *was* interested in her previous relationships, because he seems to have been quite besotted with her. Especially taking into account the fact that they moved in together, the day after they met.
But you're right, this is all guesswork.
Regarding Dan, though- I do agree he's as likely a suspect as Joe. Or he may have been a sympathizer/accomplice.
I also agree that the moral condemnation of Mary's return to prostitution seems uppermost. That's quite interesting. |
Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 5:39 pm: | |
Hi Leanne and Marie
We don't know how much the other women, too, may have teased Barnett over his impediment. "F-f-fancy a g-good time-time-time?" might have aroused some resentment!
If Barnett had a special motive for reading to Kelly about the fate of the heavy-drinking prostitutes, might it not have been to try and steer her away from booze (with which we know she had a problem)? On the other hand, wasn't it Kelly who suggested that he read to her, anyway?
I think Kelly came out of the inquest quite well.
Several of the witnesses seem to have been asked about Kelly's drinking right at the end of their evidence. They were on oath, so they told the truth. Barnett tried to be coy about her drinking, until pressed.
There probably was an element of self-concern in Barnett's testimony. He wouldn't have wanted to admit that he'd lived with a drunken prostitute for a year and a half. His reputation was bound up with hers.
I don't know how much money Barnett gave Kelly, and how much of that was for rent, food etc. He certainly OWED her money at the end, because he was responsible for his share of the rent arrears (or at least for the period until oct 30th).
PS Do either of you have any ideas on why McCarthy let Kelly accumulate the arrears?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 07, 2003 - 5:57 am: | |
G'day Robert, Marie,
ROBERT: Barnett may have been teased a bit before any murders if the prostitutes didn't see a sure opportunity to earn a quick buck, but he would've seemed like a quick SAFE buck, at the time everyone feared a foreign looking animal with black hair! The real killer had a remarkable way of dodging suspicion!
He may have had his mother's drinking habit to blame for her decision to desert her children. Following the death of her husband, she obviously found herself unable to cope with raising 5 children on her own, in the harsh East End. (Thankyou Bruce Paley!)
Mr Paley was unable to find anything about her death in English records, so she may have moved back to her native Ireland.
We only have Barnett's inquest testimony to conclude that Mary Kelly asked him to read the newspapers to her. But it was him that brought them home!
Kelly & Barnett rented room 13, Millers Court at a rate of 4s 6d per week, in HER name. She was owing arears of about 4 weeks when she died. That would mean she stopped paying about the time Barnett moved out! Was she spending all the money that Joseph Barnett and Joseph Fleming were giving her on drink?
There was definately an element of self-concern in Barnett's testimony, and his reputation was 'bound up with hers', but he too was under oath!
No idea why McCarthy let her accumulate rent arrears. We discussed this here ages ago, and it was suggested that Kelly may have been paying McCarthy with 'little favours' or he may have been a pimp.
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.
|
|
|
|
