|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Geeper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 10:12 am: |       |
Barnett's pipe often comes up as being a solid piece of evidence found in Mary Kelly's room. Fact is he could have forgotten it there after their fight, but it does lead me to ask how did we know it was his pipe?
I'm a long time pipe smoker and I'm wondering how the police knew it was his pipe.
Clay pipes were common for poorer people during this time and were practically a dime a dozen. There would be no way to tie a clay pipe to anyone. It would be like tieing a Coke can to an individual with no finger prints or DNA evidence. They were so common pubs would often supply them to their customers for free while they were in the pub.
Wooden pipes were more expensive, and I'd reckon most pople in Whitechappel couldn't have afforded them, and if they could have they would have been quite a prized possession, not to be simply forgotten. Even today a good wood (Briar) pipe costs several hundreds of dollars, could Barnett have afforded such a thing? And would he have forgotten it?
I can't seem to find out how they knew it was Barnett's pipe. |
David O'Flaherty
Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 3:23 pm: | |
Hi Geeper,
Barnett told Abberline it was his pipe.
http://casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881113.html
I agree that the pipe's prescence is evidence of nothing. As far as briars go, I'm not sure if they were in broad circulation in 1888 or not. I think cherrywoods and meerschaums were more readily available to those with the money to spend.
I do disagree with you about not being able to tie a clay pipe to anyone--haven't you been reading your Sherlock Holmes? 
Cheers,
A Castello fan |
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 6:57 am: | |
G'day,
I believe the clay pipe was found on Mary Jane's mantlepiece. If Barnett knew it was his pipe, he must have put it there as an excuse to return later! If Mary Jane had picked it up and put it there when tidying up, then how could Barnett be 100% sure that it was his? Clay pipes were so common!
LEANNE PERRY
|
David O'Flaherty
Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 9:38 am: | |
Hi, Leanne
You might be right, but I think you'd recognize your pipe the same way you'd recognize your cat or dog in a pet store. There are lots of identifying characteristics even a clay pipe might have after having been smoked for a bit--teeth marks, the cake in the bowl, tobacco left in the bowl (if any). I guess it's more true for briars which last a lifetime, but I think it holds true for a clay pipe. But I'd be able to know one of my pipes if I had to compare any of them with an identical copy.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Geeper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 3:40 pm: | |
I bought a clay a month ago, just out of curiousity's sake, and I have to say that after a couple of bowls everyday I could never tell it from another used clay.
My briars (wood) are a different story, I could pick them out blind folded.
This begs to ask which Barnett had? He was obviously poor and the police broke his pipe, so I'd guess it was clay.
If it *was* clay and he admitted it was his with no evidence of it's owner, then we must guess that he wasn't the ripper. Why, cause it would be pure stupidity to admit you owned anything at the crime site of a serial killer the police were dying to find for fear that they might pin the crimes on you. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 12:47 am: | |
Leanne,
Why did he put it there as an excuse to return? Barnett did spend a lot of time there. Leaving a pipe there back then would be akin to leaving a toothbrush somewhere nowadays.
B |
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 4:28 pm: | |
G'day everyone,
I haven't yet thought about this option much yet, but on the old message boards someone suggested that Barnett may have been responsible for just Mary's death, hiding this fact by disguising it as a Ripper slaying.
Barnett needed an excuse to return later, if he did, because he earlier told Mary that he had no money to give her. He'd already had his daily visit! Then went to play games with his friends. Surely he would have missed his pipe, and had no money to buy a new one!
If it was his pipe, and had been smoked by another person, he would have been ignoring a potentially important clue to the murder of his 'wife'.
LEANNE!
|
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 5:10 pm: | |
G'day,
If the pipe was found on the mantlepiece, (I'll have to check on that one. I used to know!), I'd say he habitually kept it there when he lived there. But why did he put it there if Mary wouldn't take him back? He wouldn't have had a second pipe, if he couldn't keep up paying the rent!
LEANNE!
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
Whatho Leanne,
Perhaps he put the pipe there whilst he murdered Mary. Then forgot in his haste to leave the scene of his crime.
Cheers, Mark |
David O'Flaherty
Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 5:39 pm: | |
Hi, Leanne
Clay pipes like Barnett's were cheap and easy to obtain--I've read that pubs often gave them out for free. And many pipe smokers have more than one pipe (they're like Lays Potato Chips, you can't just have one).
Cheers,
Dave |
Rachel Kirby
Police Constable
Username: Rachel
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 10:17 pm: | |
I agree with Leanne that he probably habitually kept his pipe on the mantlepiece, and so surely the obvious answer is that he simply forgot it.
When asked about it by the police he did what all of us would do - see a (clay?) pipe lying there and automatically assume it was his, and that he must have left it there. I never thought there was any great mystery here - but maybe I'm wrong . .? |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 3:56 pm: | |
G'day,
I haven't yet checked the distances on a contemporary map of the East End, but do we believe that Barnett decided to go to his sister's place, (were he had his things, because he was staying there), to pick up his second pipe, rather than go back to Millers Court to collect his first pipe? He must have known he left it there, if it was the last place he smoked it!
LEANNE!
|
Neil K. MacMillan
Police Constable
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 12:53 pm: | |
Back in the days when I used tobacco, I usually used cigarettes. However, I did on occassion smoke a pipe and I had two or three as I remember, (Two wood and one clay) All of them were readily identifiable by me as mine. First they tend to burn uniquely, secondly i did mark the clay pipe with a small "M" etched on the bowl.
It may be that Barnett knew his pipe for the same reason. Also, while wooden pipes bought at a taobbacanists shop would have been out of the price range of most of Whitechapel's indigents, that doesn't mean they might not have hand carved one.
Also, if Barnett killed MAry Jane Kelly, losing a pipe even if it was wood would be a small price to pay to get away with her murder. I don't think he would so readily identify it if he thought he was a suspect. I believe he would have thought he was a suspect if he had murdered her. Kindest regards, Neil |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 4:08 am: | |
G'day Neil,
Referring to your belief that Barnett wouldn't have so readily have identified the pipe as his:
Picture this: The police have finally entered the room where you had earlier been, there's your 'wife' dead on the bed, a pipe is found on the mantlepiece and you want them to forget it and ignore it as evidence. What do you do?...Say "oh it's alright, that's only mine". The same would have applied if Barnett had claimed ownership later when he was interviewed at the police station.
Barnett was a suspect when he was taken the the Station for a four hour interview.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 7:41 pm: | |
G'day,
Barnett's pipe was not a red herring. It was a potentially important clue that was overlooked.
In 1908, Sir Robert Anderson wrote: 'In two cases of theat terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed, wiped out absolutely. Clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assisin.
In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fireplace and smashed it beyond recognition.
In the other case there was writing in chalk on the wall....'
People stubbornly argue that the pipe in question was the pipe found near the body of Alice McKenzie, but I think it is stupid to believe this, as that pipe was quickly believed to have belonged to the victim. And look at the line: '..thrown it into the FIRE-PLACE' There was no fireplace where McKenzies body was found!
People say that the doctor could have thrown the pipe into the fireplace when he was performing the autopsy on McKenzie, but look at Anderson's line: "Before we could get to the SCENE OF THE MURDER,'
Barnett's pipe wasn't shown at Kelly's inquest, because it had been destroyed.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 9:15 pm: | |
G'day,
None of the above proves that Anderson suspected Joseph Barnett. It just proves that a pipe could have been an important clue and should have been considered more than it actually was!
In later writings, Anderson continued to discuss the second destroyed clue, that being of the grafitto, which means he no longer thought of the pipe. The Galton Street grafitto could have pointed to which direction the killer took when escsaping the scene.....towards Spitalfields!
He didn't mention the clay pipe any further, so it's obvious that he too was satisfied that it belonged to Barnett.
Instead of seeing the apron and grafitto as proof that the killer headed back to Dorset Street, he was attracted to the 'proof' that the Ripper was a Jew!
I can't post for the next 10 days, as I am going on vacation! But I'll read everyone's comments when I return!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 6:33 am: | |
Why would Sir Robert claim, in 1908, that Barnett's pipe was a 'distinct clue' that 'might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin'?
I don't get this. Even if his pipe had been destroyed twenty years previously, wasn't Barnett himself still very much intact in 1908? And didn't he admit, back in November 1888, that the pipe found in No.13 was his own?
To describe the pipe as a distinct clue implies an assumption that it may have belonged to the killer. So why was Barnett not arrested for this crucial admission between 1888 and 1908?
This idea that the police, who tried everything to find Jack, would have ignored such an admission because it only came from Mary's grieving former lover, but would have pounced on some Jew for less, is getting silly.
How did Sir Robert imagine that Barnett's pipe could have 'very easily' secured proof of the assassin's identity, if he thought the man was innocent?
Love,
Caz |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 1:36 pm: | |
Leanne and All; After reading over this thread again, I agree the pipe is far more important than I gave it credit. Having said that, I think Barnett might have known who the killer was but not neccessarily that he was the killer. I hope that makes sense? In which case, he would identify the pipe but might be reluctant to finger the killer. I believe if BArnett knew who the killer was then it is because they ran in the same circles. Which is a bit of a pill to swallow because I've always favoured the theory that it was a medical man. However, onward and upward. HAppy weekend to all, Neil |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 2:32 am: | |
Dear Everyone,
I think the pipe is a complete red herring. The pipe was on the mantlepiece which says a lot. It points to the pipe belonging to someone who was resident in the room at some time. If you live there you smoke your pipe, then put it on the mantlepiece after you've finished. Why the mantlepiece. Two reasons one because that is the 'trophy' section of your dwelling, all your important nic nacks go there, photographs ornaments etc, anything on the mantlepiece declares I belong to the owner. Secondly it is the one place you could leave something fragile, such as a clay pipe, without risking it getting broken.
If your are a visitor you smoke your pipe and put it away in your pocket, you don't get up walk across the room and stick it on the mantlepiece. Therefore I believe the pipe belonged to someone who lived or used to live in that room - Barnett. I say its Barnetts, he says it's his - well lats say its his!
Secondly the doctor didn't deliberately throw the pipe and smash it, he knocked it off accidentally.
Thirdly even if the pipe did belong to the killer I fail to see how it could have been an important clue, unless of course the killer took the time and trouble to write his name on a cheap clay pipe!
Finally Anderson is not to be trusted in this matter. Remember this is the man who boasted he could easily catch the killer if he put his mind to it, and was quite taken aback when Matthews took him at his word! As we all know Anderson failed miserably and was constantly making excuses for his failure ever since. You can almost hear him:
"I was just on the point of arresting the killer myself when two vital clues that would have sealed the case were destroyed. Not my fault"
Don't forget according to Anderson, he knew who the killer was, but he didn't want to tell anyone! this was the man labelled ' vain and boastful' by a Parlimentary enquiry later on.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 174
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 8:00 am: | |
Hi all
Yes, Anderson's remark sounds very odd. Surely the first thing Philips did on entering the room was to examine the body. While he was doing that, the police would have looked round the room. Anderson makes it sound as if Philips dashed into the room and for some incomprehensible reason made a beeline for the pipe.
Robert |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 11:41 pm: | |
As Leanne has alluded to above, we've really got to figure out why Anderson said:
1) the murder scene had a fireplace; 2) that Kelly, according to Anderson, was the last ripper victim, thereby ruling out McKenzie as a ripper victim; so 3) if a pipe was found on McKenzie, why was it a "distinct clue" that "might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin." 3) Anderson said before "we" got to the scene of the crime, a doctor had smashed the pipe in the fireplace (doesn't sound accidental to me, but thoughtless). It is known that Anderson personally visited the Kelly murder scene, ariving after 1:00 pm, but I have yet to find any documentation that he visited the murder scenes of Tabram, Nichols or Chapman, or that of McKenzie; 4) there were several other doctors besides George Bagster Phillips examining the body of Mary Kelly, any one of which could have thrown a pipe into the fireplace; 5) Abberline's inventory of the contents of Kelly's room has not survived, so we don't know what was found there. My opinion is that there was a pipe found in the room, that probably wasn't Barnett's, and that this piece of evidence was reported to the higher police authorities after it had been inadvertently destroyed, including, Anderson, and that because of the nature of the pipe and it's contents (the residual blend of a particular tobacco type or oder that was observed before the pipe was destroyed), they regarded it as a very significant clue. |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 181
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 5:30 pm: | |
Hi all
Scott, yes I suppose it's possible that, with space at a premium, the police let all the doctors enter the room first, to examine the body. During this time one of the doctors may have destroyed a pipe, and this may have been a pipe other than the one belonging to Barnett. If it had turned out that the owner of this pipe had smoked some kind of exotic mixture of tobacco in it, then this would have been an important clue.
But I can't understand why Anderson himself should have attached such importance to the pipe. Surely a rare blend of tobacco would point to the upper end of the market, beyond the pocket of a poor Polish Jew? And while I suppose a pipe may conceivably acquire characteristics that can help identify its owner, surely the life of a clay pipe in those days would have been too brief for this?
Robert |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 8:31 pm: | |
Scott,
There's any easy explanation as to the things Anderson said.
1.) It was 20 years later - his memory was faulty.
2.) His ego required him to justify never catching the Ripper.
3.) He wasn't an investigator. He was a typical Victorian bureaucrat.
The man was a failure at almost everything he did. He was a horrible intelligence officer, an even more horrible spymaster, and a mediocre police administrator, well skilled in the art of covering his own butt.
If Monro, Swanson, Williamson, Reid, Dew, Abberline or any of the other actual detectives had written what Anderson wrote, it would be important to determine what exactly they meant. But we can safely ignore Anderson. He more likely than not was remembering things that didn't happen.
B |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 12:58 pm: | |
Sorry Brian, that's the easy way out. We'll just have to disagree. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 1:55 pm: | |
Scott,
It may be the easy way out, but it answers all of your questions.
The reason for the discrepancies was simply because he was wrong.
And he never visited Tabram, Nichols or Chapman's site, because he wasn't a police official when Tabram was killed, he took over as head of CID the day that Nichols was killed and was in Switzerland on vacation when Chapman died.
Trying to determine what Anderson meant is nearly impossible, because you're assuming that he's not made any mistakes with his facts. But it is obvious that he has.
B |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
