|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 7:31 pm: |       |
G'day Brian,
What I'm saying is that it appears as if Joseph Barnett's mother deserted him and his siblings and may have been attracted away by prostitution. MAYBE! There are no records of her existence, following her being 'informant' on her husband's death certificate.
That could be why he was so against prostitution. A lot of 'married' men turned a blind eye towards it back then, because there weren't many other ways available, for the female half of the deal to contribute to the household income.
Barnett was losing Mary fast, and Flemming wanted her back! His providing Mary with money was keeping her clinging to him.
When he lost his well-paying job, he was keeping her clinging to him tighter, by reading her the newspapers that made her scared.
Martha Tabram had lived on George Street, where he and Kelly first lived , but I still don't know whether to include her murder in the Ripper series.
The first murder attributed to 'Jack the Ripper' happened just over three weeks later, to 43 year old Mary Ann Nichols. (who could have been a 'mother figure' to 'Jack').
His second victim was 47 year old Annie Chapman, who was a long-time habitue of various Dorset Street doss houses and in 1886 she lived at number 30 Dorset street. From May 1888, she lived mainly at 'Crossingham's Lodging House' at 35 Dorset Street.
Then there was 45 year old Elizabeth Stride who was Michael Kidney's lover, and we all know that he lived at 33 Dorset Street.
Then there was 46 year old Catharine Eddowes who often stayed in the empty shed on Dorset Street.
And then surprise surprise: 25 year old Mary Kelly and we all know where she lived and with whom!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 7:45 pm: | |
G'day Brian,
A dashboard is not a knife! I was in the front passengar seat of a car accident once, and when the driver slamed on the brakes, I yelled "GET DOWN, GET DOWN!" and hid my head on my lap! Which is what I think Mary would have done if she saw a knife heading her way...sat up at least!
LEANNE |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 10:12 pm: | |
Kevin,
Thanks, but let's not jump the gun. All the evidence I have amassed against McLaurin is circumstantial, but it is circumstantial that can not be refuted. I know this because I confronted McLaurin twice in public, making sure there were witnesses and accused him of being Kassies killer. I was hoping he and his lawyer would take me to court but they haven't. He can't account for his time, he can't prove he has a hatred for women, he can't prove he has not fantasized about killing women, he can't disprove any aspect of the profile. But right now its in the hands of the task force to pick up physical evidence.
I may also be wrong. He may not be the serial killer but he is the murderer of Kassie Federer.
Peace,
Scott
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 4:39 am: | |
Hi,
Good research Chris, but none of these Barnetts seem to fit the original, unless one of them left his wife and stayed with Kelly, and returned to her after Kellys death.. possibility?.
Richard, |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 5:04 am: | |
Hi everyone,
I am afraid its imagination time again,
I just thought about Barnetts words to either Nephew or grandson years after the murders.' I always felt sorry for her killer , for he could never come forward for fear of being topped'
I have always believed that Barnett had an insight to the identity of Kellys killer, and I also felt that he believed that her murder was not part of the series.
Question.
Why should he think that?.
My point is was she killed by somebody in Barnetts past, because he was associating with her?.
Imagination.. If barnett left his wife and children to move in with kelly, then mayby a friend of the wife or relative sought out to kill Kelly, and turned the murder into a ripper like event.
I know it is pure assumptions, but Barnett could have believed that , or had some evidence to come to that conclusion, therefore his remark ' He could never come forward for fear of being topped, would or could mean , He would not just be branded as the killer of Kelly, but the other victims also which he was not.
This post is just a thought as all the suitable Barnetts that we know of were married with children, therefore if our Joseph was one of them, he must have seperated from his wife for a period and lived with Kelly.
The history books on crimes, are full of cases of revenge.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 6:24 am: | |
G'day,
RICHARD: If that story about what Barnett said is true, I'd say it was to his nephew. Our Barnett never had children, so how could he have had a grandson?
Bruce Paley researched Barnett for thirteen years and the forward to his book, written by Colin Wilson starts with: 'If I had to recommend a single book on Jack the Ripper to someone who knew nothing about the subject, I would unhesitatingly choose this one.' If Barnett did say those words, how could he know what her killer was thinking?
IMAGINATION: Ok, if Barnett planned to kill Mary and make it look like a Ripper crime if she didn't take him back, he'd read the newspapers, so he knew to slice her throat first from left to right.
Mary refused to have him back, so he sliced her neck and got carried away mutilating her and couldn't just put her intestines over her shoulder or anything simple.
When he was through, he took her heart and not her kidney or uterus like he'd read about. In fact, he made no other attempts to make it look like 'unknown's' work, than slice her throat from left to right! The scene looked nothing like the previous murder scenes!
The same would apply if he'd hired someone else to to do it!
LEANNE |
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 32
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 10:59 am: | |
Hi Leanne, Richard, everyone,
Richard, you wrote: "I have always believed that Barnett had an insight to the identity of Kellys killer, and I also felt that he believed that her murder was not part of the series. Imagination- If barnett left his wife and children to move in with kelly, then mayby a friend of the wife or relative sought out to kill Kelly, and turned the murder into a ripper like event."
While I understand that your last post was just a thought, I'm still not sure where you were going with it. Were you provoking a change of outlook and especially gradual
doubt and suspicion in that perhaps it was the non-existent 'wife' or 'ex-wife' of Joseph Barnett who killed Kelly? Or pehaps, on the flipside, Joseph Fleming? Who do you think he believed to be her killer?
IMHO, I believe that if Joseph Barnett did happen to know the true identity of Kelly's killer he would've been stuttering his own name in a fit of echolalia.
Imagination time? Hmmm, kooky.
More like Nurse Ratched's medication time from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, which is precisely what I need to help invoke the elusive Mr. Sandman. Counting sheep just doesn't do the trick.
Redrum cabaret, only forty winks away...
Scott (with a Z, but with hopes of several more very soon)
|
Amy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 12:39 pm: | |
Hi all! 
Do you all think Joseph killed all of them people?!!!  i think he has a link in the mary kelly murder!
speak soon,
From
Amy  |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 5:31 am: | |
G'day,
ZCOT: I think Richard was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to imagine wild stories using extremely vague 'evidence'. Am I right Rich?
After Joseph Barnett gave his inquest testimony the Coroner said: "You have given your evidence very well indeed." He didn't even ask Barnett to repeat his alibi for the jury, so I'd say that he laboured greatly while giving it, (stuttered). This could have caused everyone to pitty him and feel sorry for him. Everyone at the time wanted Jack the Ripper to be a Jew!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
While my post may read tonque in cheek, I am quite serious. lets ask ourselves some questions..
Lets get some points straight.
Most people see Barnett as the weak character in the relationship, a stuttering individual, that tried to hang on to a doomed relationship with Kelly, and that he was against prostitution, and that was his motive to murder her.
It could well be that Barnett was a rotter , a cad, a man that left his wife and children to move in with Kelly, lets not forget she was described as as fair as a lilly, and was not short of attributes.
I will now make a few points that we should consider with their relationship.
I have mentioned on these boards before that I truely believe the letter Dan Farson received in 1959 in response to Farsons guide to the British mentioning the incident at leytonstone cemetary, was accurate. Human nature tells us , that it would be extremely unlikely that an elderly woman would write in , telling lies about her dead mothers life, making up such a imaginative tale.
The letter quite clearly states , that at the service one man stayed behind, and when He believed he was alone spat several times on the grave once he parted the boards.
My point is simply as their was only 6 women and two men present at the actual service[ I think we can discount the priest. who was one of the two men] the other was our Barnett.
Common sence must prevail, in saying that he had to be the perpretator of this act,an act that would show rage , even uncontrolable rage, lets face it anybody who could disrespect a burial in that fashion, could have certainly showed open anger when she was alive...
Of course people can hate individuals in life but not all of them end up murdering them in cold blood.
The second point I wish to make concerns Kelly herself, by all accounts she was a person who stood out amongst the crowd, walter Dew, who I am sure did not know every prostitute in the east end , knew Kelly by sight saying she was always dressed in a spotless white apron, and was always in the company of women of her sort.
Clark gable[ the actor] was described when he wore an uniform in world war two how he stood out in the ranks, and that is how I see kellys presence in whitechapel, therefore the last point I need to make is are we suggesting that Mrs Maxwell, who lived opposite kelly ,and Maurice Lewis, who knew Kelly for some time.failed to reconize her that morning, they were mistaken with such a well known figure, surely not?.
To sum up Barnett may not have killed her , but there is circumstancial evidence that he hated her guts..and I believe that Kelly was either killed by him after 9am that morning, or by someone close to Kelly , such as Flemming, or a person close to Barnett, such as mayby a spurned spouse, or a relation or friend,
May seem vague , but I feel this murder mayby the only murder in what appears to be a series, may be eventually be the most solveable.
Regards Richard. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 5:24 pm: | |
Richard
Has it never occured to you that the act of spitting on someone's grave could be an act of the deepest passion and love?
Maybe you have not lived the life that I have, but to my certain knowledge the act of spitting can be a deeply carnal means of communicating between two lovers whose love may sometimes be unrequited.
I see no more unrequited love than when the object of that love dies suddenly.
The world is bigger than us.
Flip the coin, it helps.
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 1:17 am: | |
G'day Rickie,
I can't find any proof that Barnett was never 'married' before he met Kelly. Bruce Paley, who chased him for 13 years, just says about the time the two met: 'To Joseph Barnett, still single at 29...' and in the last paragraph says: 'There appears to be no record od any children born...' You are applauded for looking at every possibility!
Let's look at Kelly's funeral. Paley says: 'Mary Kelly was buried on Monday 19 November, after attempts to locate her family failed. Joseph Barnett and John McCarthy reportedly saw to it that Kelly received a proper Catholic burial...Expenses were covered by the undertaker...' several thousand people watched as the coffin went into the hearse. Joe followed in one of 2 mourning carriages.
Revd. Father Columbant conducted the service at 2pm, as Barnett and several lady friends knelt on the cold ground. The coffin was incensed, lowered, then sprinkled with holy water. I'd say John McCarthy was the other man and why would he pit on her grave? 'Jack the Ripper's Spit'. Yuk, sounds like the title of a book!
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 178
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 7:39 am: | |
AP wrote: "Maybe you have not lived the life that I have, but to my certain knowledge the act of spitting can be a deeply carnal means of communicating between two lovers whose love may sometimes be unrequited."
Whoa! I really like that idea, AP. It's a complete turnaround, and perfectly possible.
Building upon the 'gravespitting' is speculation, but....
Joe's love for Mary seems to have been unrequieted, because she didn't seem to want him anymore. Perhaps killing her was his way of keeping her.
I still see the taking of her heart as symbolic. Perhaps spitting in her grave was an act of love, a final act of physical communication from a spurned lover.
Many women have been killed by men who cannot let go.
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 1:54 pm: | |
Quite right Marie
we must not always look at events with our own eyes, but try to look with many eyes.
Yes, building on the grave spitting episode is pure speculation whichever way we take it.
I cannot make the step that you do between the heart of the soul & mind and the actual machine that pumps blood around our body.
Again this is interpretation pumped by speculation but the ancient Egyptians believed the physical heart was the soul of man, and I like to think we have come a little way since then and now realise that the heart of man is in his brain... but did the late Victorians know that?
I don't know.
You will have to study some medical textbooks from that period to support your theory, but be careful, the study of such things leads one onto some very strange paths indeed. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi
I cannot agree that spitting on her grave , would be a symbol of love, In my experience, losing someone you love is a heartbreak experience, and the thought of doing such an act, would be repulsive.
I maintain that who ever did that deed , was in no loving frame of mind.
I must stress that we cannot take the graveyard incident as gospel, but as i have stated it is a intresting peice of imformation, that should be considered at the very least.
Leanne.
You stated, there is no record of Barnett being married, but according to the 1891 census, the list Chris has found, that are possible candidates,all were married with children, so what I stated was a strong possibility.
Regards Richard. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 4:27 pm: | |
The exchange of saliva is intimate.
When one partner is infinitely absent, perhaps the remaining partner may 'express' a sentiment thus.
It would be useful to remember that spitting in many ancient cultures - and some modern - symbolises the act of creation.
Then it would be a fitting tribute.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 75
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 4:37 pm: | |
Hi Richard
If the right Barnett (Kelly's Barnett) did indeed say that he always felt sorry for Kelly's killer, because he could never own up for fear of being killed himself, why is this such a mystery? Regardless of the other murders, Kelly's killer would have been executed for her death alone. Barnett, if he did say this, might have been imagining a situation where the killer wanted to unburden himself, but couldn't. Why is it such an incriminating remark?
Another point I'd like to raise is, if Barnett killed Kelly later in the morning, wasn't he taking an awful risk? He would have known that someone would be knocking for the rent, and he also would have known that, if the door wasn't answered, a determined caller would be able to peer through the window.
Again, if Barnett had a family, how can we not have heard of them? His name was all over the papers!
Further, if someone - anyone - killed Kelly and disguised the crime as a Ripper murder, wasn't this actually the one way to ensure that the maximum publicity, resources and police time would be spent trying to solve the crime?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 5:28 pm: | |
G'day,
"I'VE GOT YOUR HEART...YOU'VE GOT MY SPIT!"
As for Mary's killer being fully aware that someone was going to be around soon to collect the rent: It wasn't a regular rent-collecting time/day. I read somewhere that McCarthy told Bowyer to see if he could get some of the rent Kelly owed. It was 'Lord Mayor's Day', and everyone was getting ready to go out and spend all their spare money!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 76
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 7:18 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Re the rent collection: I thought I read somewhere that Friday was the day! However, you may be right.
I still wouldn't want to be Barnett in that room!
The sun was up, people were going back and forth. Some folks were playing (was it pitch and toss?) outside, plus there was the prospect that at any time one of Kelly's cronies would try to knock her up, and call through the window.....
And then he'd have had to be very careful how he left. He must have been a tad bloody! I don't suppose he'd have wanted to use the pump outside the room for his ablutions. And what if someone had seen and recognised him?
I think Barnett is a perfectly reasonable suspect. But I don't think it's been proved that he was Jack. And it seems to me that, as far as Kelly's murder goes, he's actually unlikely to have done it.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 2:55 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Barnett used to live there! If he was seen by any neighbours, he would have had to claim that he just found the body! But no one saw him.
Where did you read that people were playing pitch and toss just outside, at that hour?
If he was a tad bloody and had to clean-up, how did the real killer, (if it was someone else), do it? This is all based on the argument that she was killed later than her estimated time-of-death. I don't think 'Jack the Ripper' did any of his 'jobs', once the sun was up!
For all these years, no one has come up with an answer that satisfies everyone. Excluding Bruce Paley! Jack the Ripper wasn't a doctor, an artist, the Queen's physician or anyone obvious....'Tttthe Simple Tttttruth'!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 4:16 am: | |
Hi Robert,
With reference to Barnetts crptic message[ if infact such a remark was ever made], of course the perpretrator of that murder would have been executed, however my interpretation of that remark was the killer of Kelly did not want to be branded as the much sought after Jack.
Regarding the killer taking a risk killing her in daylight, I would agree but murder commited in the spur of the moment, in a fit of rage,would not be a rational act, if this happened, then her killer would have a choice, ie. leave the room as quickly as possible with a victim lying on the bed with mayby a cut throat, or strangualation, in which case if the killer was Barnett,and taking in consideration the state of their relationship at that time, he would have been a major suspect, or go all the way with extensive mutalation, in which case the killing would have had all the hallmarks of a Ripper killing.
As for the possibility that he may be seen. my thoughts are if you are determined to make every effort not to be spotted. you have every chance of succeeding, He may well have been seen by people , but he was such a familiar face in Dorset Street he could have gone unnoticed, people would have put no relevance to that fact.
Leanne,
Regarding the game of pitch, Maurice Lewis said that he was playing pitch in the court about 9am,He had seen her return to her room with some milk.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 6:04 am: | |
G'day,
About the covered in blood issue: Maria Harvey said she left "2 mens shirts,...". If the killer was covered in blood, couldn't he have swapped with one of these shirts and burnt his own? He would have left the black coat, because it was covering the window!
It says here in Paley's 'Sources and Notes':'Maurice Lewis, a tailor who claimed to have known Kelly for several years, said that he had seen her in or about Ringers' Britannia pub on the morning of Friday, 9 November.' Obviously he was mistaken!
Are you mistaking her with the man who lived at 3 Millers Court, who told the police that he heard nothing of the murder until he went out in the morning at half-past ten to get some milk, and was stopped by the police? The man's name didn't appear in this newspaper report.
I'll tell you why I think that Barnett didn't want to be 'nailed' or 'branded' or whatever he said: "Jack the Ripper's motive had to do with LOVE. But the press created a cruel, unfeeling monster!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 6:32 am: | |
G'day,
I'll tell you why I came to the conclusion that it wasn't a usual rent collecting time: The 'East London Advertiser', 17 November said: 'At a quarter to 11, as the woman was 35s in arrears with her rent, Mr M'Carhty said to a man employed by him in his shop, "Go to No.13 and try to get some rent". Bowyer had to be instructed, therefore it probably wasn't the usual time.
A lot of other newspapers reported that Mrs. McCarthy went to fetch the rent, with her son, in a 'customary visit'. I'd say it was normally her job.
I also found in 'The Manchester Guardian' 10 November: 'A tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock this morning and go back' None of the claims of her being seen the next morning, made it to the inquest!
LEANNE |
Tim
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 7:44 pm: | |
Sorry to disturb this conversation, but I have found a sketch of Joesph Barnett on one website that I have not seen before and a picture of George Hutchinson. I do not know if these are real, but just wanted to ask if I could put up the pictures on the boards without any trouble as long as I name the website from where I got it from. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 78
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 2:04 pm: | |
Hi Tim
I can't say for sure. Just to be safe, if no one more knowledgeable than me spots your post soon, maybe you could post only the link?
Regards
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
