|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 11:14 am: |       |
Leanne,
"Mary Kelly had a room! She wasn't running a lodging house! The couple had lived in their own room at 3 seperate addresses before Miller's Court. I'd say they were able to afford a private room, because of Barnett's well paying job and his 10 year experience at it."
I didn't say that they didn't. What I said was that it was remarkable that they had a private room, and it probably wasn't odd that MJK would let other, less fortunate, people stay with them, as this was common throughout the area. Again, look at 29 Hanbury Street. My point wasn't that she was making money off of letting out the space, my point was that there were an incredible number of people staying in that one small house - and that was their normal way of living. Having one extra person stay on the floor wouldn't have put off someone living in Whitechapel at the time. They would've been used to it.
And if Barnett had been so well off, why the three moves?
"What I was saying in that paragraph was that the Ripper didn't know right from wrong, as we know it. To him whores meant nothing, so bumping them off was alright. He didn't just bump them off, he mutilated them so he was sending a message to someone!"
If bumping them off "was alright", why take pains to hide your identity? And like Caz asked, why do you think he was sending a message? I don't see any message in his mutilations other than "Gee, this is fun". Am I missing something?
"Mutilation after death, increased in intensity from Nichol's to Kelly's. I think this proves that the killer wasn't merely driven by a mission to kill. He was possessed by anger and wanted to kill over and over again."
I agree - he wasn't driven by a mission to kill. He was driven by hormones.
"You said: 'Each murder and each crime scene suggests...' Be careful there Brian, people don't like it when we suggest things to try and fill in the gaps. They need to see FACTS!"
Leanne, it's not that people (me) don't like it when you suggest things and try to fill in gaps. They don't like it when you take a press report or a witness statement (both of which are notoriously unreliable) and then make a wild guess about what they could mean. Supposition and assumption are okay, so long as they are based in some semblence of fact or reality and the thread that goes from fact to assumption is logical.
Good assumption:
Fact - The victims were mutilated after they were killed. There is no pattern to the mutilations.
Supposition - The killer had some personal reason to mutilate the victims.
Facts - Serial killers sometimes mutilate victims for sexual release.
Conclusion - the Ripper mutilations could be indicative of a sexual serial killer who derived pleasure from them.
Bad assumption:
"Facts" - People in newspaper articles claimed that Pearly Poll was very "masculine" and she didn't say much at the inquest.
Supposition - She was hiding something at the inquest which is why she didn't say much.
Facts - There are such things as transvestite prostitutes.
Conclusion - Pearly Poll was a really a man, posing as a woman, and didn't speak loudly at the inquest so (s)he could hide that fact.
There's big difference there.
I don't go after responsible, logical assumptions based on some kind of verifiable or accepted evidence. I just go after the ones that aren't.
B |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 222
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Thanks for the well wishes re my wrist.
As to your point: my examples were originally posted in regards to the argument that boyfriends/husbands didn't mutilate their loved ones. So I posted examples of men who had no problem with disrespecting the corpses of their partners.
Then I responded to your point regarding the fact that Joe had been questioned and released, by saying that guilty men have walked away from police interviews, and only been found guilty at a later date. And I can post examples of men who were almost certainly guilty, but were found 'not guilty' in a court of law.
Victorian police were working without the benefit of fingerprinting. So if a killer took the weapon away from the scene, had a seemingly good alibi, and destroyed any blood-soaked clothing, they had a good chance of getting away with the murder.
There are modern serial killers who get away with it in defiance of modern policing methods. So I believe it is quite possible that Joe could fit into the category of a killer who got away with it (when policing methods were still in their infancy)- although there is no hard evidence to suggest the fact that he killed anyone.
PS: appreciate the tree jokes.
'Tree surgeons do it out on a limb'.
-M. 
|
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 1:29 pm: | |
I'd like to raise a question for the Barnett advocates: How do you explain away George Hutchinson's failure to see him on the night of the murder?
Personally, Hutchinson's story has always raised serious questions in my mind. But for the sake of discussion here, we are assuming Barnett was Kelly's murderer.
So why didn't Hutchinson see him? It's even probable that he knew Barnett, as he certainly was acquainted with Kelly.
Sir Robert
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 116
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hi Sir Robert
I agree that if Jack was a client whom Kelly had
taken home, he'd have felt as if he'd won the lottery - there would have been the prospect of the time and privacy that would have allowed him to "go to town" on the body. But I take it you also mean that whereas in the previous murders circumstances had dictated that the women be killed with minimum loss of time, in Kelly's room Jack could adopt a more leisurely approach.
Before I joined these Boards I pictured Jack as a man who was extremely desperate to kill and mutilate women, in order to obtain some sort of twisted sexual gratification which only he could explain, and that's still the view I tend to go back to. I suppose it's my gut feeling. However, since I've been exposed to the various views on these Boards, I'm not as sure as I was precisely how desperate Jack would have been, or even, sometimes, whether the crimes need have been "sexual" at all.
Let's suppose that Jack was led back to Kelly's room, and that he waited for her to undress : what was his next move? Do you envisage him attacking her while she was still upright, or do you think he waited for her to lie down before he started?
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 117
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 5:32 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Re Barnett's not killing a young prostitute : it's a bit odd if he was trying to make Kelly fearful of how she'd end up twenty years down the road, when he would have known that all her worries were centred on her present troubles.
Re Barnett's shadowing Kelly : firstly, nobody saw him (and, as Sir Robert says, not even Hutchinson); secondly, the police were satisfied with Barnett's alibi, and now you're sending him out to spend half the night shadowing Kelly, and the other half mutilating her! Well!....I'm only surprised Barnett bothered to pop his head into his lodgings at all.
PS I still can't forget that Barnett moved to Bishopsgate after the split. It's almost as if he was trying to get away from her, not keep a beady eye on her.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 12:55 am: | |
G'day,
BRIAN: You asked: 'Why the 3 moves?':
Joseph and Mary first lived together in George Street, yet within a year they moved to Paternoster Row. According to a statement of Barnett's they were evicted for 'going on a drunk' instead of paying their rent. Then they moved to crowded Brick Lane for a spell before settling into the room that McCarthy partitioned off from his shed for them at Miller's Court. All of these addresses were private rooms.
I feel that the Ripper thought it was alright to bump off prostitutes, but society didn't. So Jack had to hide his dentity from society. Nichols was left right out in the open street, Chapman & Stride were bumped off in open yards, Kate was killed in a dark corner, then Kelly was butchered in her own room and the door was locked!
Did his hormones get harder to control, as his success increased?
Why do you say that witness testimonies are all unreliable? They weren't trying to sell anything! Testimonies were in the official files. Where do you say we should look for the facts?
Hutchinson's story is a worry!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 7:14 am: | |
Hi Sir Robert,
I would say their is every chance that Hutchinson knew Barnett,and the reason he never saw him whilst shadowing Kelly was simply Barnett was proberly asleep in his lodgings at 230am . for the clues if we analyze them point to Kelly being very much alive on the morning of the 9th.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 7:24 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Hutchinson said he waited for three quarters of an hour, then left!
Why are you surprised that Barnett bothered to pop his head in to his old lodgings? He used to go there everyday to give Mary money!
Two officers accompanied Hutchinson around the district for a few hours, after he volunteered his statement, with the view of finding the man he saw. Several arrests were made, but the persons were able to satisfy police with alibis.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 121
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 7:33 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I didn't say "old lodgings", I said "lodgings" - at Bishopsgate.
Robert |
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 41
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 11:48 am: | |
Hi Caz 
Who do the police look at when a murder has been committed?
Would that be the case in 1888?
Im just trying to get around the 'Police mentality' of the time.
Monty
 |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 224
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 2:47 pm: | |
Hi all,
If Joe killed Mary, I believe it would have been later than 2.30 am. Possibly he went to her room as soon as he woke up.
This is why I think his alibi may have covered her estimated time of death- but maybe not her actual time of death.
Hutchinson may have already left, by the time Barnett came to Mary's room.
Then again, perhaps George Hutchinson killed Mary.
Robert, you wrote: "I still can't forget that Barnett moved to Bishopsgate after the split. It's almost as if he was trying to get away from her, not keep a beady eye on her."
But he was still coming to see her every day. Which doesn't make sense if he was trying to get away from her. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 124
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 3:43 pm: | |
Hi Marie
Well, I'm not saying he wanted to cut her out of his life completely.
His visiting Mary and giving her money may have been partly due to a feeling on his part that he owed her his share of the rent arrears. The woman was near eviction and he may have felt that a bit of money would buy her more time with McCarthy. But I grant you that if he did think like this, it would have made more sense to give it to McCarthy himself, rather than to Kelly who would probably spend it on booze.
PS You see! Despite what you said, you just can't keep away from the Barnett thread!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 3:14 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: Barnett visited Kelly every day in the hope that he would be invited back! He said he'd return if Harvey found lodgings eleswhere. Harvey did! - Nothing to do with the rent!
Barnett's alibi of being in bed, only needed to be verified by seeing his name on the register. That wouldn't have proved that he was there all night and all morning. Police never recorded who they asked to verify Barnett's alibi.
I just read a newspaper report that said that McCarthy said that Barnett went to lodge at BISHOPSGATE STREET.
Bruce Paley says that Barnett told the police that he was at Buller's Lodging House in NEW STREET.
The 'Boston Daily Globe' 10 November reported: 'The woman has a paramour a man who sells oranges in the streets..' (obviously Joe) '...and on whom, as he could not be found, suspicion at once reverted. But he turned up all right tonight and fainted when he was shown the murdered woman's body.'
As he turned up that night, this report leads me to believe that he never saw Kelly's body, until it was taken to the mortuary. A faint, (true or faked), describes a person's reaction after the first sighting. And he was suspected at once, so he had no choice but to voluntarily go to the police. They couldn't have checked out his alibi until he gave it.
As I've said, it's standard detective proceedure to suspect/interview the victims 'inner-circle' first. I don't think the police could have suspected him for long, because no one wrote the slightest report about him.
Bruce Paley wrote that Barnett told 'Lloyd's Newspaper' 11 November: 'They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free.' Speaking to the 'Star' newspaper he said that police kept him for two and a half hours.
LEANNE
|
Tim
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 7:21 pm: | |
I put the picture of George Hutchinson and skecth of Barnett on Microsoft Word. So I copied and pasted them onto here, but nothing would show up. Then I got angry because I didn't write the adress down from where I got it from, but the good thing is that I know I searched it from Google and i'll try my very best to find it. The good news is that I have the adress to a skecth of Mary Kelly. I haven't seen it before from any book or website so it should be pretty interesting even though the website isn't the greatest. I hope it works.
http://www.accomodata.co.uk/victims.htm
|
Tim
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 9:00 pm: | |
I just found the adress to the website that has a different skecth of Barnett and a picture of George Hutchinson that I was looking for. I can't tell you if these are real or fake. Just thought this information would interest you guys because I don't think theres ever been a picture of him. Hope you enjoy.
http://www.holmesonscreen.com/RipperSuspects.htm
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 125
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 2:16 pm: | |
Tim, thanks very much for posting that.
Regards
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 126
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 2:57 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Could I list some of the reasons why I don't believe Barnett was the Ripper? I'm not saying he wasn't the Ripper, just that I can't see any particular reason why he should have been.
Regarding October 30th, why can't Barnett have voluntarily left Kelly, glad and relieved to be out of there? Why must he have been evicted? For all we know, Kelly may have wanted him to stay. Barnett may have promised to return if Harvey buzzed off, but he may have said this to soften the blow. Alternatively, he may have meant it, but changed his mind later. Or he may even not have said it at all! If Barnett is to be judged capable of faking a faint and generally lying through his teeth, surely mendacity can be invoked on the other side of the argument? Barnett may have lied when he claimed to have promised to return if Harvey left. After all, it would have looked suspicious if he'd admitted that he'd stormed out on Kelly because he no longer wanted to live with her. Also, he might not have wanted people to think that he'd abandoned a woman down on her luck.
If, at this remove in time, the remarks of Kelly's friends and acquaintances are claimed as evidence for Barnett's being an obsessive, insecure man who couldn't handle rejection, how much more strongly would the police have gained this impression when they interviewed these people in 1888! Yet no alarm bells rang. Surely the police were best placed to make an informed judgement?
The police eveidently were satisfied with Barnett's alibi etc. They were probably initially very optimistic that they'd caught Jack, almost willing Barnett to be the Ripper. I imagine it was a bitter blow to them when he checked out OK.
If later on they'd had any doubts about Barnett, there were a host of "witnesses" from the various murders whom they could have asked to take a look at him. It may be that none of these "witnesses"
actually saw the Ripper, but at any rate there's no record of their being asked to look at Barnett. And if they did look at him, none of them said "That's the man!"
There's no record of Barnett showing mental instability before, during or after the murders. There's no record of his being violent, or even rude, to Kelly's friends - not even the intrusive Harvey on the night of the 8th, when Barnett was supposedly teetering on the edge of apocalyptic meltdown. Nor is there any record of Barnett being violent to Kelly herself (perhaps I shouldn't say this as it may be seized on as evidence of how much under her spell he was!)
If Barnett went to Kelly's room in the middle of the night, he went despite not knowing how many people he'd find there.
If he pleaded with her, in the early hours of the 9th, to take him back, no one heard a row.
If Barnett, having lost his job, took to mutilation to keep Kelly off the streets, it would have been a grotesque overreaction. There were other things he could have done. But if he nevertheless did carry out a killing campaign, he didn't even do it properly - no young prostitutes killed, no threatening letters sent to Kelly from "Jack".
Yes, Barnett gave Kelly little gifts. Does that mean he was obsessed? It's not as if he was swimming shark-infested waters with a box of Milk Tray stuffed down his trousers.
Leanne, I've got to go for a cup of tea, but I'll continue shortly.
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 226
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I agree with the fact that if Joe simply wanted to pay his share of the arrears in rent- he most likely would have given them to McCarthy.
Instead, he would come and give Mary the money. This leads me to believe that he still wanted to see her.
You also wrote: "You see! Despite what you said, you just can't keep away from the Barnett thread!
Ummm...yeah.
But in my defense, the Hutchinson point was a new and interesting one!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 127
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 3:40 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Continuing on :
There's no need to believe Barnett locked the door with the key after the murder, if the door locked automatically.
I can't believe that Barnett took Kelly's heart as a symbol of love. What's romantic about a heart?
After murdering Kelly, Barnett would have had to clean himself up, and then get rid of bloodstained clothes, a knife, a heart and a supposedly stolen key. Quite a collection!
Barnett stammered at the inquest. Understandable surely?
Barnett may have given Kelly money after the 30th because he felt responsible for some of the rent arrears.
If Barnett was desperate enough to kill Kelly, why didn't he kill another prostitute instead? According to Paley, it had worked for a while after Sept 30th.
Barnett didn't like prostitutes. Well he wasn't - and isn't - unique in that. But he managed to set up home with one.
After the split with Kelly, Barnett moved to Bishopsgate. He didn't take lodgings in Dorset Street, where this insanely possessive man could have kept an eye on her.
Barnett was once evicted for going on a drunk. Odd behaviour for such a stiflingly prim man.
After Kelly's murder, as far as I know Barnett passed into anonymity. There don't seem to be any mentions of him in the case records. No retired policemen seem to have pointed the finger at him in their memoirs.
The police didn't even find the ginger beer bottles suspicious!
And now 115 years later, Joe Barnett is Jack the Ripper. Poor old Joe!
Robert
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 128
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 3:50 pm: | |
Hi Marie
If you're interested in Hutchinson, he's Bob Hinton's suspect in his book "From Hell". I don't know whether Hutchinson was or wasn't the Ripper, but it would be a nice change if someone other than Barnett was!
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 5:13 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
Sometimes the easiest solution , can turn out to be the truth.
We can all look for new suspects, however I personally at this date in time , can forward no one thats in the same league as our Mr Barnett,
Sorry Regards Richard. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 10:25 pm: | |
Rich,
I agree - the easiest solution more often than not is the truth.
But Barnett is by no means the "easiest" solution here. The easiest solution here is the Ripper.
And Barnett and the Ripper are most likely NOT one and the same.
B} |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 227
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 5:16 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Yeah, Bob Hinton's book is on my birthday wish list.
There are many things that cause me to personally suspect Hutchinson, and he figures quite high up in my 'top 10'.
Besides Barnett, I do have several 'suspects' that intrigue me. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 5:47 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: Barnett did leave Miller's Court voluntarily on Ovctober 30! At 5:00 or 6:00p.m. that evening, the couple engaged in a violent, heated row in which objects were thrown breaking two panes of glass of the window nearest the door. Barnett left, (voluntarily), taking a bed in nearby Buller's Lodging House on New Street. Barnett told 'Lloyd's Newspaper' on the 11th of November: : "We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia to sleep in the same room. I objected, and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left and took lodgings elsewhere. I told her that I would come back if Mrs. Harvey would go and live somewhere else."
I'd say Kelly did want him to stay, for financial support. If Joe changed his mind later and it was that easy to move back, why didn't he stay after one of his daily visits? Why didn't he just find someone else?
Regarding the faint: It may have been genuine! He may have thought: "What have I done?" No one is saying that he flipped on purpose!
Looking at Barnett's explainations as to why he left Kelly: He told Inspector Abberline on the 9th, that he left her "In consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her, and her resorting to prostitution." (Coroner's Files) Yet testifying at her inquest he said: "Because she took in an immoral woman. My being out of work had nothing to do with it."
Inspector Abberline was there too and heard every word of this, yet never queried it. This contradictory statement should have at least prompted him to take a closer look, but 'no alarm bells rang'!
No mental instability?
He developed a speech impediment, probably because of his difficult childhood. Did anyone look into that? It is now known that most serial killers come from dysfunctional families, marked by absentee fathers and cold distant mothers. Former FBI profiler Robert K. Ressler, concluded that 'potential murderers become solidified in their lonliness first during the age period of eight to 12.'
Why would police have asked an apparently grieving man to stand in an identification line up? The public's attitude to the police at the time was very poor!
'Lloyd's Newspaper' 11 Nov. and others said that Kelly's neighbour Lizzie Albrook said: 'she (Kelly) was heartily sick of the life she was leading and wished she had money enough to go back to Ireland where her people live.'
Another friend, Margaret, told the press that Kelly had: 'told me she had no money and intended to make away with herself'
If Barnett pleaded with her to take him back, why should there have been any noise?
No one is saying that Barnett locked the door with a key! The press and the public were saying that. The door locked automatically when it was shut, and Barnett knew how to open it! And the police didn't even look into this.
You say that Barnett would have had to clean himself up. How did the Ripper do it?
Barnett set up a home with an attractive woman/prostitute and immediately tried to change her ways! He and her were evicted once for 'going on a drunk' instead of paying their rent. At the time Joe was working at Billingsgate where they had to be ready for the start of trade at 5 or 6am in the morning. If he'd have been hungover at work, he would have lost his job sooner, as well as been evicted from his home!
Robert, if your sick of talking about Barnett as a suspect, why do you come here every day?
LEANNE |
Jack Traisson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 3:00 pm: | |
Hi Tim,
The Mary Kelly drawing, as well as the others from the site, comes from a highly collectable map, 'Jack's London' by Daryl Sullivan and Andrew Cockell put out by Geonex in 1993.
The photograph of George Hutchinson was first published by Melvin Fairclough in 'The Ripper and the Royals'. There is a great deal of skeptisicm that it is who it purports to be.
Cheers, |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
