|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 275
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 2:05 pm: |       |
Hi all
Re Eddowes murder : is it likely that Barnett waited until he was right outside his home before washing his hands, then that he carefully left some bloody water in the sink, before ducking inside and devoting his attention to the problem of hiding a uterus and a kidney somewhere in that tiny room where Kelly wouldn't find them, with Smith just outside his window muttering "The bounder's beaten me completely!".....I mean, is it likely?
Besides, if Barnett was that determined to be caught, he'd have nailed Eddowes's uterus to the outside of his door and hung the apron in his window for an extra curtain.
Robert |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
I'm sorry this sink nonsense really has gone far enough. The sink described would probably be one of two types. One is a real sink that was placed at strategic points (like Millers Court) to allow people to wash their clothes. It would just like the old fashioned white sinks we remember from days gone by, a large earthenware cube with its top cut off and a plug hole! Feeding it would be a hand crank pump. Try this experiment. Put some red poster paint on your hands. Turn on the tap in your own sink and wash your hands. Now turn off the tap, what has happened to the red stained water? Why its run away down the plughole! For anyone to have seen bloodstained water in this sink he would have to have been standing looking over his shoulder!
Next you have a horse trough type sink. Fill a bucket with water and stain it red. Now take it outside in the dark. Thats right you cant see what colour the water is.
Even if we suppose that Smith did come across a container with bloodstained water in it and by judicious sampling and illuminating he showed this? What does it prove? In an area surrounded by slaughter houses and abbatoirs somebody washed some stained hands in some water. Well I never. Who would have thought that?
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 277
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 6:18 pm: | |
I agree, Bob. If it was a sink, Barnett would have been careful to sluice round the inner surface, to make sure all the blood had gone. And the sink couldn't have been blocked, if the water was running away when Smith saw it. Finally, if it was a bucket-type arrangement, Barnett would surely have upended it, getting rid of the stained water, before entering the room.
A drawing in Paley's book shows a bucket outside 13 room, but I'm not sure how trustworthy it is.
My point is that Barnett must be one of the least likely people to have washed his hands in the Court, as he lived there. But if he did, he wouldn't have left traces behind if he could help it.
Robert |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 2:27 pm: | |
The idea that JTR was targeting prostitutes because he hated prostitutes is just a theory. Maybe all the victims were prostitutes because they were easy targets? Maybe they were all prostitutes because that was the only type of woman JTR ever associated with? Maybe his crimes had nothing to do with sex and were just plain blood-lust? You can't rule out this area as JTR's home just because people assume he hated prostitutes. I'm sure not too many respectable Victorian women were wandering the streets in the hours the murders took place. And these ghastly deeds would have been impossible to pull off in broad daylight. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 5:34 am: | |
Hi Valerie,
'The idea that JTR was targeting prostitutes because he hated prostitutes is just a theory.'
Yes, but some people here are arguing that Barnett was Kelly's killer because he hated her being a prostitute and inviting other prostitutes to stay in the room the couple had shared. One or two even argue that Barnett was the ripper and killed the other prostitutes to frighten Kelly off the streets.
I agree with you that Jack may have targeted prostitutes simply, or mainly, because they were far more available and vulnerable than any other victim type. But that is not what the Barnettites were saying. I wasn't ruling out this area as JtR's home, but your own argument about easy targets, and not too many respectable women wandering the streets, would fit with either scenario - a Whitechapel man born and bred who targets any woman who has the audacity to be on his patch, or someone on the outside looking in, who targets Whitechapel specifically because of its rich pickings.
Barnett would have been my 'glutton for punishment', living where he did and choosing one of the resident prostitutes to co-habit with, if the argument goes that he actually loathed this sordid set-up to the point of murder.
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 6:35 am: | |
G'day Caz,
Barnett tried in vain to stop Kelly from prostituting herself, as soon as he met her!
He forbade her to go out on the streets, and said that he would leave her if she did. After Barnett lost his job and the couple could no longer afford the 'luxuries' they were used to, Kelly returned to prostitution and the Whitechapel murders increased!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 11:46 am: | |
Well, quite. Yet he did stay with her for quite some time, and his eventual moving out apparently also came at a time when she could no longer bear him.
If Kelly's way of life when they met was so repugnant to his senses that he would resort to murder and mutilation if she wouldn't give it up, or went back to it when times were hardest, I'd have thought she would have seen some stronger and more direct warning signs. It seems a bit too subtle, if not rather drastic, to kill at least three other women in order to get the simple point across that you won't or can't tolerate your woman doing what she was doing when you first asked her to shack up with you. Whatever happened to communicating your feelings and wishes directly? Besides which, Kelly would have been aware that the ripper had killed much older women than herself, and attacked them all outdoors. She was also desperate for money, if not to keep up with the rent, to pay for her drink habit and put food in her belly. If Barnett's cunning plan was to stop her selling herself by making her think she would soon get ripped just like the others if she carried on, it backfired spectacularly and showed his poor grasp of what made and kept women like Kelly what they were. She carried on regardless, of course, and did get ripped.
It would at least help the theory if there was some indication that good hidings had been administered along the way which had failed to have the desired effect on Kelly's behaviour. This would fit more with the idea of Barnett the frustrated control freak, who finally had to destroy the shrew because he couldn't tame her using more conventional means.
Love,
Caz
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
That is proberly exactly what happened, that Barnett Could not control her by using conventional means, I believe there is a spark which set him off, and he just flipped in a rage which caused him to kill the other victims.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 425
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 12:44 am: | |
G'day Caz, Richard,
When Joe Barnett moved out of Miller's Court he obviously expected to be asked back, because he kept returning to give her money. Then Maria Harvey left and took another room, but he still wasn't asked back. He had lived with her for eighteen months, eight of those in Millers Court.
Yes SHE could no longer bear HIM, but she kept encouraging him because he gave her money. I wonder did she loved him at all! He even gave her money when she was still seeing Joseph Flemming, (who saw prostitution as just another means of earning money).
Why didn't Barnett just kill Flemming? Because prostitutes were easy targets and he could hide behind the monster he created. He would have had a clear motive for killing Flemming.
He continually gave the impression that he was nothing more than a stammering, mourning lover and it worked! Not even the greatest detective minds in London at the time could see through this cover.
Mary Kelly didn't see the warning signs and he butchered her in a fit of rage....and then took her heart!
The Ripper murders ceased...or did they...the Jack the Ripper myth was dead, but I just read that Alice McKenzie used to go by the name of "KELLY"!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 1:01 am: | |
G'day,
....and you know why everyone is ignoring the blood stained sink in Dorset Street as evidence, because it doesn't fit nicely into their theories! Bob Hinted even calls it 'nonsense', because it doesn't fit his theory! Bob, do you think that they lied?
Dorset Street was mentioned in the case a lot, but no one saw this!
LEANNE
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 5:13 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Where's your evidence for Barnett trying 'conventional' means to control Kelly? It's not enough to say that he 'probably' went straight from expressing his dislike of her selling herself - "pp-please MM-Mary, I'll tt-try to gg-give you mm-more mm-money" - to explosive and fatal violence, against at least three other women, before turning this fury on Kelly. There appears to be no hint in the historical record that this man ever became angry and violent towards her or anyone else before, during or since.
Leanne, you are speculating again. There's no 'obviously' about it. Barnett could just as easily have returned to give her money because he was a nice fella and had a conscience about such things. You don't know that he was only doing it in the hope that she'd ask him back (although if true this indicates a pretty placid and ineffectual chap when it comes to trying to impose his will on women, not someone who has been going around imposing his nise sharp knif on them  ). You don't know how cut up he was (sorry!) that their relationship was over. You said in a previous post that he told her he would leave if she didn't mend her ways. Perhaps he meant it - she didn't mend her ways, his money and his company weren't enough to make any difference, so he gave up the uneven struggle.
Have you even considered that Kelly didn't see any 'warning signs' because there may not have been any? It makes no difference what her feelings were towards him, none of this makes Barnett a violent man just because she ended up dead. She was a prostitute who liked her drink. She lived in one of the dodgiest areas known to man. She was killed and mutilated in the autumn of 1888, along with several others. Give me one good reason why her murder should be singled out and considered a domestic one.
Bloody sinks, mythical or real, don't count as a good reason for believing Barnett to be a violent man. They just don't.
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 285
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 7:44 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I have no theory, and no axe to grind about the sink. For all we know, yes, perhaps Jack did wash his hands in Dorset Street that night. But even if he did, surely that doesn't mean that he must have lived there - any more than his leaving the apron in Goulston Street means he must have lived there. And I doubt if Smith was breathing down his neck all the way.
I don't know whether the police patrolled Dorset Street at night (although I think Hutchinson said that no policeman came down the street during his vigil). If the police didn't patrol the street, then I suppose the Court might have been a logical place for Jack to go and clean up - logical, that is, unless Jack was Barnett, for then he'd be bringing the crime home to his own door.
Then, on entering the room, he'd presumably have had to find a hiding place for the uterus and kidney, without awakening Kelly.
I just don't get it!
Robert |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
I have just read that three photographs, one of Joseph Barnett, one of his brother and one of Mary Kelly, together with a clay pipe supposed to be the property of JB are in existance.
Has anyone else heard of this?
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 4:08 pm: | |
Hi Bob.
If any of those pictures existed, that would be manna from heaven, The word priceless would spring to mind.
Being a natural suspicious person if such pictures should turn up after 115 years , I would be amazed if they were authentic, I for one have victorian , photos of relatives and relatives friends, who I could claim were pictures of Barnett, brother and Kelly,I even have pictures with men with clay pipes visable.
We hold therfore our breath
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 288
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 4:43 pm: | |
Hi Bob
This would be marvellous, but like Richard, I am sceptical - particularly about the survival, after all these years, of the pipe!!!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 427
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
G'day Bob,
You say: 'I have just read...' Where did you just read this????
LEANNE |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 6:11 pm: | |
I read in an article by Paul Harrison called JTR More Confusion in the Criminologist Volume 18 No 3 Autumn 1994.
I reproduce the relevant section here:
"Since the publication of my book, I have
continued to research the case and have been fortuitous in locating official correspondence relating to Barnett being a suspect, originally
penned by Sergeant Rolf and Inspector Beck presumably after they had left the force. Other Ripper suspects are further mentioned in
what appears to be a general survey. It does seem likely that some officers believed Barnett to be guilty of the Mary Kelly murder.
Accompanying this intriguing paperwork is a Victorian clay pipe and three photographs. I am told that these are of Joseph Barnett, a
brother, and none other than Mary Jane Kelly. The pipe is allegedly the one left behind in Millers Court by Joseph Barnett. "
Now I am not for one moment suggesting this account is entirely accurate, but what is the truth behind this revelation?
This was why I was wondering if anyone else had heard o something similar before?
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 292
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 7:38 pm: | |
Hi all
Mr Harrison doesn't seem to have mentioned this in his chapter for "The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper" of 1999.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 429
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 10:47 pm: | |
G'day,
Paul Harrison researched the wrong Joseph Barnett and it says here in Casebook that his book was marred by flawed research. I'd be interested in seeing this official correspondence.
LEANNE |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 2:43 pm: | |
Perhaps I was wrong on the "well-dressed" part. Going over the witness descriptions, I only find one stating he was "well-dressed". I still think JTR had a little more money to throw around than Joseph Barnet could possibly have had. How often did 18th Royal Irish pensioners receive their pensions? |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 8:24 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
Wow! If there are really 3 new photographs that would be wonderful. Also, if Barnett was considered a suspect by some officers, though not surprising as then as now the ex-lover is always suspect until proven otherwise, it would be interesting to find out on what they based this suspicion. If nothing more than he was her ex-lover, then we're no furhter along of course, but if there were more ... cool. Also, it would be interesting to see if their suspicions were for Barnett to be responsible for more of murders, or if they were specific to Mary Jane Kelly alone. And, if the "list of suspects" introduced some new names as well, that would provide some new paths to follow. The importance of the suspect list alone is huge.
Fingers crossed that Mr. Harrison publishes these findings, if, as you say, they really exist. How one could verify that these photos are who they say they are, and even who's pipe it was, will be difficult though.
My suspicions, however, are that given the time of the published article (1994), which was probably written in 1993 (new and interesting finding, first manuscript written, REPEAT reviewed, revised UNTIL published: ah the joys of publishing research), and the lack of any further mention suggests one of three things, and only one of the positive:
1) further research determined the photos were not of the people whom it was originally thought, likewise the pipe
2) further research was unable to determine between "really is" and "really isn't"
3) further research has proven the identities to be the "interesting people" and these findings will be presented to the public, hopefully soon.
Given the difficulties of actually obtaining #3, most likely we have outcome 1 or 2. At least 2 leaves hope that 3 can be achieved.
Fingers crossed, let's hope. If anyone has contact with Mr. Harrison, maybe they could ask what the outcome was and if he would give them permission to inform us here if the result was negative? Negative findings are not often published because it's hard to make them interesting despite the fact they can be important in a broader context.
- Jeff
|
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 4:07 pm: | |
Hi again!
I also wanted to point out that Joseph Barnet, like many people in Whitechapel, probably wasn't living in Whitechapel because he liked the terrain. I'm sure he was living there because it was all he'd ever knowm and all he could afford. He wouldn't have to like prostitutes too live there and he could very well have despised them. And I'm sure quite a few of the hard-working people who were trying to eek out a living as well as raise families in Whitechapel despised them as well.
Valerie |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
Thanks Caz! I agree with you, it could just as easily have been someone who didn't live in Whitechapel. In fact, after mulling it over a bit, I've come to the conclusion that JTR couldn't have been Joseph Barnet, John Kelly or likely any of the men who lived in Whitechapel that were romantically involved with these women. Most of the eyewitness descriptions of the man thought to be JTR described him as well dressed, Joseph Barnet was dirt poor. I doubt he owned a nice set of clothes, and I seriously doubt he could have afforded to replace any items soiled during the attacks. Considering a few of the women appeared to have recently eaten, I've wondered if Jack bought them Dinner before slaughtering them. I did read an interview with a green grocer who sold grapes to one of the victims(Catherine?) and a man, before JTR killed her. I think JTR was far too well off to be Joseph Barnet.
Valerie |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 295
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 2:38 pm: | |
Hi all
If there really is a pre-death photo of Mary whose authenticity we can feel confident of - and we can only hope! - then I suppose that would tend to suggest that at some point the police had contact with her family. I don't suppose poor people were photographed much in those days, except for family album purposes. Wouldn't it be great if a record of such a contact was lying around somewhere!
If there is a new photo, I imagine it would be pre-death rather than post-death, as Mr Harrison was "told" that it was of Kelly. We're in the bizarre situation that the poor woman is at her most recognizable when she's unrecognizable.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 443
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 4:32 am: | |
G'day Valerie,
No it couldn't have just as easily been someone who didn't live in Whitechapel. The ease at which the killer escaped the persuing police, showed that he knew the area like the back of his hand. He knew the habits of local prostitutes, where they took customers, what kind of men they trusted.....mull over that!
Joseph Barnett really wanted Kelly, but did Kelly really adore Joseph Barnett? He was only 'dirt poor' after he lost his well-paying job!
That green-grocer you read about was Matthew Packer, and he claimed he sold grapes to Elizabeth Stride and a man. This was after he'd told police that he saw nothing, so lots of people believe he repeated the descriptions that he read in the newspaper to put in a bid for the reward money offered.
LEANNE |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
