|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 5:53 am: |       |
G'day,
About the comment: 'The police would have immediately suspected Barnett, why?':
Detectives work in a plan of 'circles' in a murder case. The inner 'circle' consists of those closest to the victim, (ie partner, husband, children, butler etc.)
Then they move to the next 'circle' of friends who (visited the victim, worked with the victim, or otherwise came into contact with the victim, often)
Then they move to the next 'circle', which consists of (complete strangers, one-off clients etc.)
As Barnett was in the 'inner circle', he had to be interviewed as a suspect. Standard proceedure!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:07 am: | |
G'day Brian,
I just found a question that you asked ages ago, concerning the reason why a prostitute who takes her client home, should be viewed as a sign of trust:
Mary Kelly was frightened, if not aware at least, of a butcher out on the streets in the neighbourhood targeting women of her class. A woman's home is her 'castle', her personal space, a place to unwind and take her clothes off.
Taking her clothes off and folding them neatly on a chair, shows me that she had no intentions of searching for another client that night.
The next day was 'Lord Mayor's Day' and with all those potential clients about, surely she was expecting to rake in a few bucks! And the clothes that Maria Harvey left would probably make some cash too!
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 207
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:12 am: | |
Hi Caz,
You wrote: "Yes, but your example was not ‘people’ – it was Bundy"
Ok, let's scrap Bundy. The serial killer aspect is getting in the way of the point I'm trying to make.
A quick Google search found me several examples of first-time violence resulting in death, including a battered women's advocate, who was killed by her boyfriend. Said boyfriend showed no previous signs of violence towards her. I found a study done by Caroline Lee Block, a senior research analyst for the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. The study claimed that:
"However, while previous violence was an important factor, the researchers also found that a first incident of violence could be fatal or life threatening. In 15 percent of the deaths there was no previous history of violence, says Block."
Do I think that Joe could have killed only Mary, and inflicted those horrible mutilations upon her? Yes, I think it's possible, particularly if he was influenced by the newspaper reports of the Ripper killings.
However, I'm not committed to the idea that Joe only killed Mary. I think it's possible that he may have committed the other murders, too.
You also wrote: "Were the cops blind to the suggestion that someone like Barnett could have been responsible for the scene in Kelly’s room"
Caz, I think we've covered this already, in another thread.
If I had to list all the innocent guys who have been jailed, and all the guilty guys who have been released by the Police, I would be writing a very long list indeed.
Joe was a man of motive, and means. He's a very viable suspect, in my opinion. This whole argument keeps coming back to the fact that he was released after questioning, and there is no evidence against him. I've answered the fact that I think the Ripper could have been released by the Police, whoever he was. It happens less today- but I'm willing to bet it happened more in the Victorian era, when profiling and forensics were virtually non-existant. I'm sure the Police were doing a marvellous job, but they weren't infallible. I think it's unwise to assume that they were.
Obviously, there is no evidence against Joe. What we have against him, is motive and means. There is no evidence against ANY suspect, or else this case would have been solved.
I'm not making an airtight case against Joe, but I do think I'm making a decent case. Sorry, but I'm not reading any compelling enough reasons to scratch Joe from my own list of viable suspects.
PS: is it just me, or is this discussion getting circular?
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:17 am: | |
Hi Sir Robert, Richard,
"Does grave spitting indicate a decent mourning soul?. "
'First off, there is no hard evidence that this happened. Secondly, even if there was, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS BARNETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
What if Barnett did spit on her grave? It is well known that a common sign of grief is anger - deep and illogical anger towards the loved one who has left you on your own, permanently. If it can grip someone who loses a partner to a slow illness, like cancer, why couldn't Barnett have been angry with Kelly, when reality set in, and it dawned on him she would still be alive had she done what he wanted and come off the streets and the booze?
If Barnett had been hoping that his separation from Kelly was only a temporary one, the separation of her bodily parts from all semblance of her own life, let alone from his, would have been an extreme and traumatic blow for him. Spitting on her grave may have been the only way for a man in Barnett's situation to express his emotions - if this is what he did.
Love,
Caz |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:22 am: | |
Hi everyone,
I agree with Leanne on her summary above.If Barnett was her killer , he would have known that the police would want to interview him, so I believe he was on his way to Millers court, to show himself , rather then be picked up, we must not forget that a lack of forensic science, meant that if Barnett was not showing any signs of bloodstains on his person , and his clothes were not soiled, there would be nothing to be suspicious of.
What we know of Barnett suggests he was rather a dapper man , always well turned out, therefore it would be fair to say proberly had more then one set of clothes.
In all intents and purposes he would have come acrossed as a shaken distressed man , who had just identified the woman he loved , and nothing more.
If only the police in 88, had been aware of the grave spitting incident, our Joseph would have more questions to answer
I know the threads on Barnett are getting repetitive, but to take a phrase from tvs Through the keyhole' The clues are there'
Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 208
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:23 am: | |
Hi Robert,
You wrote: "Surely it would have been quite on the cards for a client or female friend to stay at least till sunup? And I'm not sure that Kelly had habits!"
I think Kelly had some habits. Wasn't Maxwell surprised to see Mary up and about so early in the morning? I think she may have regularly stayed out late drinking, and slept in late.
I think it would have been normal for a female guest to have stayed 'til sun-up, but I'm not convinced that a client would have. I think a good portion of them would have left for home, as soon as they'd got what they came for.
I'm still not sure what to make of the fire. And yes, we'll agree to disagree on the interpretation of Joe's statements.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:42 am: | |
Hi Marie,
'If I had to list all the innocent guys who have been jailed, and all the guilty guys who have been released by the Police, I would be writing a very long list indeed.'
Yes, but how long would your list be if you could only include the guilty guys released by the police whose victim was one of their nearest and dearest?
I don't want anyone scratched from the current list of suspects unless or until there is proof that they couldn't have done it.
But I would like to see one tiny tiny scrap of evidence against Barnett that the police failed to find, despite having the motive, means and opportunity to give him a right old 'inner circle' going-over - not only in the immediate aftermath of Kelly's murder, but for the rest of his natural.
If and when I see it, I'll be happy to reconsider my current opinion that the case against him is no more decent than any other.
Love,
Caz
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:46 am: | |
Hi Caz,
I agree with you about the feelings people go through after a loss, remorse, feeling sorry for ones self , ' the why did you have to leave me this way feelings'
However I throughly disagree that grave spitting would be common practise that is a pure sign of hatred, whereas the natural feelings in my first paragraph would be honest feelings of love.
I have explained the facts about the letter to Dan Farson in 1959 on many other threads, we have sketchings made at the cemetary showing the actual mourners present, out of those actual mourners the only male who could have committed that act was Barnett.
People on these boards have said mayby it was one of many people witnessing the event, but the phrase' after the service one man stayed behind' implies that the culprit was at the grave during the service.
Leanne ,And Marie.
I hope that the three of us are not giving the impression, to the many who view these boards, that we do not have an open mind on this subject,
Also that there are no other suspects but Barnett.
We just happen to believe, until somebody can produce a more likely candidate, he is our man.
Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 211
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:59 am: | |
Hi Caz,
you wrote: "Yes, but how long would your list be if you could only include the guilty guys released by the police whose victim was one of their nearest and dearest?"
Well, I think it would be long enough to be significant.
In a post a while back, I quoted a case from the early 1900s, of a man who killed his prostitute girlfriend, and set her alight. He was seen to enter her room, but he still got off. Without forensics, police had to rely mainly on corroberation of alibi, and checking for bloodstains.
Richard, you wrote: "I hope that the three of us are not giving the impression, to the many who view these boards, that we do not have an open mind on this subject, Also that there are no other suspects but Barnett"
Oh, that's not the impression I wish to give, at all! I do have quite a few other likely suspects, to my own mind. I'm quite happy to agree with Caz's:
"the case against him is no more decent than any other."
But I'd have to argue that the case against Joe is better than the case against Lewis Carroll. 
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 7:10 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I never said anything about grave spitting being a 'common practice', merely that Barnett's extremely rare situation - having his loved one hacked to pieces by the man who has been ripping up other fallen women - could have caused him to make such a gesture, to express his anger and frustration at what had happened.
Love,
Caz |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 7:11 am: | |
Marie,
There is no case against any other suspect , Druitt, Tumblety,Stephen, Gull,James Kelly,Duke of clarence,and a host of others.
Question . Has any suspect come to light that has a report albeit.. not substanciated that was seen with a victim close to her death.
Answer no.
As for 'The case against him is no more decent then others' I fail to see the logic in that.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 7:18 am: | |
Hi Marie,
'Well, I think it would be long enough to be significant.'
And your list would consist entirely of, er, guilty guys who had finally been rumbled for one reason or another.
That doesn't apply to Barnett.
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 213
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 7:24 am: | |
Richard: in my opinion, some suspects are FAR more decent than others. Still others are downright silly.
I'm intrigued by Barnett, Hutchinson, anyone that hung around John McCarthy, any rogue member of an East End 'gang', the soldiers who were seen with Tabram and Poll, and still others who haven't been mentioned yet...
As far as the supects that seemingly *genuinely* have nothing to do with the case, I just don't enter those discussions. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 214
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 7:28 am: | |
Caz, you wrote: "And your list would consist entirely of, er, guilty guys who had finally been rumbled for one reason or another."
My point being- there are plenty of people throughout history, who have murdered intimates, and gotten away with it.
Still other who have been serial killers, and gotten away with it.
|
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 9:15 am: | |
"Taking her clothes off and folding them neatly on a chair, shows me that she had no
intentions of searching for another client that night. "
Leanne,
Kelly was a prostitute alone with a client. Of course she took her clothes off. How can we read anything into this ?
Sir Robert |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 9:17 am: | |
"I'd have to argue that the case against Joe is better than the case against Lewis
Carroll. "
Amen to that. Barnett should definitely be on any comprehensive list of suspects.
Sir Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 10:51 am: | |
Hi Marie,
'My point being- there are plenty of people throughout history, who have murdered intimates, and gotten away with it.'
Sorry - I'm obviously not expressing myself clearly. My point is that all those on your list are there because we finally knew they were guilty, whether they 'got away with it' initially and were eventually convicted, or whether the proof only came to light after their deaths.
Barnett doesn't even begin to come into that category because if he is guilty, he has been getting away with it ever since first being questioned in November 1888, and there has been no new evidence to change that situation - apart from the fact that our ideas have changed about serial killers and he is back under suspicion simply because he didn't stand out from the crowd.
Love,
Caz |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 215
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:38 am: | |
Caz, you wrote: "and he is back under suspicion simply because he didn't stand out from the crowd"
Sorry, but he's under suspicion for a lot more than that.
As I've stated several times in this thread, he had motive and means. And that's a heck of a lot more than some of our suspects.
My point in providing the example of many killers who have gotten away with it- is that Joe could fit into that category. As could any other suspect with a good case for him.
I don't present Joe *as* the Ripper, or even *as* the man who killed Kelly. I present him as a good possibility.
Back to the evidence point again: I'm aware there is no new evidence against Joe, and I think we've exhausted that point. There is no new evidence against any of our suspects. |
John Hacker
Police Constable
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:50 am: | |
Marie,
There is nothing that establishes a motive for Joe beyond the simple fact that he was involved with MJK. And this motive would ONLY apply for the murder of MJK as a standalone crime. Anything beyond that is simply unsupported supposition.
Regards,
John |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 216
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 12:12 pm: | |
John, you wrote: "There is nothing that establishes a motive for Joe beyond the simple fact that he was involved with MJK"
Joe had a motive for killing Mary, as an ex-lover who moved out after an argument regarding the fact that another woman had moved in.
When a woman is killed, especially shortly after a break-up, who is one of the first people that the police look at? The estranged boyfriend, or husband.
Beyond that, it is speculation, but that is all we can do for any suspect. Many suspects have been named simply because they were nuts, or they were in the area and interested in the crimes. |
John Hacker
Police Constable
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 12:53 pm: | |
Marie,
"Joe had a motive for killing Mary, as an ex-lover who moved out after an argument regarding the fact that another woman had moved in."
Yep. I agree. But only in the sense that any partner (current or recent) of a murder victim is immediately considered to be under suspicion.
The point I was trying to make is this motive (such as it is) cannot be projected onto the other victims. (For example, Joe Barnett had no motive for killing Polly Nichols.)
I do agree with you in a broader sense that most suspect cases are speculative. However the case against Joe is far more speculative than most. In the case of the "crazy" suspects, most are actually known to be crazy, or have displayed hostility to women or other facutal indicators that can be historically documented. The actual nature of Joe and Mary's relationship is not particularly well documented, and there is nothing in the historical record that allows us to determine with any degree of certainty what the feelings between the two of them are. Comparing the testimony of Maria Harvey to that of Julia Venturney yields two completely different pictures of the relationship between the two.
I will grant that Joe's relationship with Mary gets him on the suspect list, but there isn't anything in the historical record that elevates him above a possibility. And an in my opinion, an extremely remote one considering that Joe is one of the few suspects that we know were interviewed and apparently cleared.
Regards,
John
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 217
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi John,
Sorry, but I just cannot agree in the slightest with your 'remote possibility' comment. As I've stated before, I'm sure that the Police at the time were doing a very good job. But they weren't infallible, and they certainly didn't have the benefits of modern policing techniques, such as forensics.
To my mind, Joe remains on the list of good suspects.
As to the suspects who displayed characteristics such as hatred of women, or overt insanity- I quite like some of them, myself.
HOWEVER, some of these suspects still have no really tangible connection to the case.
|
John Hacker
Police Constable
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 2:13 pm: | |
Marie,
You're certainly free to disagree. :-) That's what makes the case so interesting to me, how people can look at the same facts and come away with such wildly divergent opinions.
Personally I don't think that forensics would enter into the elimination of Joe as a suspect any more than it does in the majority of cases today. It seems far more likely to me that the reason he was questioned and released so quickly is that his alibi simply checked out. Checking the alibi is a timeless method of eliminating suspects and one that the police of the time were quite aware of.
I certainly wouldn't suggest that Joe be removed from the list. He shouldn't be until he can be catagorically eliminated.
However, there isn't any information that seriously suggests that he actually IS the killer. (As opposed being a simple possibility) And in my opinion, what is known about him tends more to exonerate him than to implicate him.
Regards,
John |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 2:47 pm: | |
"It seems far more likely to me that the reason he was questioned and released so quickly is that his alibi simply checked out. Checking the alibi is a timeless method of eliminating suspects and one that the police of the time were quite aware of. "
John,
To me this is the heart of the matter. Abberline wasn't about to give him the benefit of the doubt, either.
In Barnett's own words, "....finally finding the account of myself to be correct, (the police) let me go free"
Sir Robert |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 218
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 3:06 pm: | |
Hi John, Sir Robert,
John, you wrote: "That's what makes the case so interesting to me, how people can look at the same facts and come away with such wildly divergent opinions"
I agree, and that's why I love it here so much. Actually, I was supposed to be working at the computer all day- but instead I've been goofing off here at 'Casebook'. I need to find some way to curb my obsession- starting with only replying to posts that are directly addressed to me, I think. 
I would have to disagree that forensics couldn't have helped in the Ripper case, and in the murder of Kelly. If those crime scenes could have been checked for DNA (and all that other cool stuff they do nowadays), they most likely would have caught their killer. The advances in Police work since the Victorian era, have been simply astounding.
I personally question Joe's alibi, as I'm not convinced that the time of death for Mary was entirely accurate.
And I do think that the Police were looking for someone who was more like 'Leather Apron', as evidenced by the general feeling in the populace, and press at the time. As I stated in an earlier post, serial killers were new to Victorian Whitechapel, and they really didn't have much experience with them.
BUT...I'm not trying to convince you, or Sir Robert. I'm merely stating my firm belief that Joe should remain on the list of viable, good suspects.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
