|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 537
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 9:33 am: |       |
Hi Leanne
I'd always taken the grave spitting story to refer to an event alleged to have taken place after the mourners had left the graveyard. But if you're now saying that this incident occurred after the mourners outside the gates had gone home
(which effectively means all the mourners, if Barnett is supposed to have been alone and unseen by any mourners) then you're saying that Barnett would have missed his lift back to Spitalfields - he'd have had a long lonely walk back home, just so he could spit on Kelly's grave. Is that likely?
The article you refer to mentions the "filling up", which suggests to me that the grave was filled in. So why the boards?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 40
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 10:43 am: | |
Leanne,
"Now that would have sold papers because it was beautifully detailed, but would it have been lies?"
Why not? Can you confirme the actual event with accounts from another source (that isn't a paper article or a second-hand source)?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 1:12 pm: | |
Jeff,
Thanks! I think we're all on the same wavelength here. I loved your post, particularly about the importance of corroborating information by checking multiple, independent sources. Too often an unsupported newspaper claim is thrown out as fact, and a quick look at the papers of the time show that they're no more reliable than the papers of today.
You're absolutely right regarding the diary. It's certainly been proven to be a fake by any reasonable standard. But then some people believe the earth is flat and that the moon landing was faked.
I dunno about the value of the diary. Robert Smith paid a pound for it, and I'd be willing to go up to 2 or 3 pounds to complete my diary shelf. :-)
Regards,
John |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 1:43 pm: | |
Leanne,
"Why do you put Barnett in your highly unlikely pile?"
We've been going through this for years, but it boils down a few major points. The complete lack of evidence. He's an extremely unlikely cantidate from a psychological point of view. He was investigated, and his statement apparently satisfied the police. The very fact that he lived in such a confined space with someone would make the things awkward for him to be bringing organs home. Etc etc etc. There are a very few points that are suggestive against him, but they are very thin.
"About that funeral thing: Why would anyone tell such a lie to their daughter? Do you think that this woman, or the daughter who wrote to Farson, had some sinister motive for inventing such a story? Do you think they secretly wanted to become famous? Do you think they wanted to write 'The Diary of Jack the Spitter'?"
People lie, Leanne. It's a fact of life. And as we have no idea who the alleged correspondent was there is no way to evaluate her, her mother, or the alleged incident itself.
Keep in mind that one of the incidents recounted in Farsons book is a 90 year old man that claimed to have been the person who cleaned up the blood from one of the murder sites as a child. Contemporary records show that was not true. Why did he lie? I have no idea. But he did. So why should a nameless correspondent be considered to be above lying simply because the word "mother" was invoked?
Regards,
John |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 10:40 pm: | |
G'day,
Looking for more descriptions of Mary Kelly's funeral: A story by James Marsh for 'Ripperologist' titled 'The Funeral of Mary Jane Kelly': 'and Joseph Barnett her one-time life-in lover, had not the means to meet the cost of her funeral.' (so that answers the question as to whether he had any money stashed way!) '..after the service Barnett and the mourners visited 'The Burbeck' public house, which still stands close to the cemetery gates today.' (So he didn't miss his lift back home. Question is was he allowed any time to spend alone at the grave site?)
ROBERT: I mentioned 'parting of the boards', because that's what I read in someone's description of what Farson's correspondent wrote. Maybe it was a parting of all the sympathy cards that people placed on the coffin when it passed the crowds, or perhaps it was a lifting of the two wreaths.
JOHN: 'He was investigated and his statement apparently satisfied the police.' That argument has been thrown in his defence for years, but I can't for the life of me work out how it's strong. His statement that this interrigation lasted four hours, is just that! -his own statement! And another newspaper reported that his interrigation went for two and a half hours! Remember, we can't always rely on what we read in the newspapers!
In 1888 they knew nothing about schizophrenia. The word wasn't even invented yet!!! How did they checkout his alibi of being at Buller's all night? Did they find someone who watched him?
The guy travelled around the East End, selling oranges and looking for odd-jobs, why should he have to take things home?
Not everyone lies! We can say that, if they don't say what we think!
That 90 year old man that Farson wrote about is interesting! It's in the Home Office Files on the Nichols inquest that Inspector Spratling testified: 'At the time the blood was being washed away.'
Inspector Helston: 'He did not examine the spot until after the blood had been washed away.'
Mrs. Emma Green: 'She saw her son go out, directly the body was removed, with a pail of water to wash the stains of blood away. A constable was with him.' Was this 90 year old man Emma Green's son? Thanks for finding that 'lie'!!!! I'll write it into my book with all the other 'lies'!!! Any more 'lies'?
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 08, 2003 - 11:19 pm: | |
Caz,
I will of course be glad to re-evaluate my thinking in light of any new facts presented in your book. But it would take some serious evidence to outweigh that which is already available.
I happen to like the standard of reasonable doubt myself, and I think a case that would convince a jury could be built on the information we already have to date. But as I've indicated, that's not a current focus of mine.
I certainly wish you the best of luck with your new book, and I'm looking forward to the opportunity to read it.
Leanne,
You asked me a question and I gave you the courtesy of an answer. And I'll even go the extra mile and answer the new one. No, it was NOT Emma Green's son. The man who Farson talked to was a Mr. Wright.
As to the rest of it... As you've noted we've been through all this before, so it hardly seems worthwhile going through it again if all you're going to offer is speculation and sarcasm.
But as you are the one who is proposing that Barnett is guilty, the onus is on YOU to build a an actual case that supports your belief. Instead we get an completely inconsistent series of rhetorical questions, abuse, and bizzare opinions attributed to anyone who doesn't agree with you.
The only constant is that you belive Barnett is guilty. Super. That's certainly your right.
Now if you would be so kind as to acutally make a consistent case for his guilt instead of the random stream of rhetoric, abuse, and scorn towards anyone who disagrees with you, you might actually get somewhere.
It seems to me that people on this board (particularly of late) have been very tolerant, and are actually trying to understand your position whether they agree with it or not. It seems to me that the least you could do is work with them.
Just some friendly advice.
Regards,
John
"I don't state "maybe", because I don't think I draw 'wild conclusions'. I'm quoting from newspapers, inquest statements, books!"
"Remember, we can't always rely on what we read in the newspapers!" |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 545
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 4:19 am: | |
Hi Leanne
No, "parted the boards" was in the passage in Farson's book. If the grave was filled in, then either the informant's mother, or the informant, or Farson made a mistake with this part of the story at least - which wouldn't inspire confidence in the rest of the tale.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 45
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 5:58 am: | |
Good luck with your book, Caz. Sounds interesting.
"G'day" Leanne,
"Not everyone lies!"
That is absolutely right, but when only hear-say or a news-paper article becomes the basis for a "fact", then we must consider the possibiliy. Everything coming from a second-hand source (a book, news-paper article, hearsay etc.) should be verified, I think, before one makes too big a deal of the information in question. If we can't, we can always include it in the investigation, but we must treat it with care and suspicion.
Again, I still haven't seen anything, I'm afraid, to convince me why Barnett should be Mary Kelly's murderer -- or Jack the Ripper.
You say Barnett killed and mutilated Kelly, on personal and emotional grounds.
I'd say we still have nothing whatsoever to base such an assumption on. Barnett has no criminal record (if one doesen't count the stealing incident) and no history of violence at all.
The only thing that goes against him, is that he knew Mary Kelly intimately, had some emotional bounds to her (or at least had emotional bounds -- we can't even be sure of Barnett's romantic feelings towards Kelly during the last period) and that he didn't enjoy that she walked the streets or socialized with other prostitutes. Period!
Now, that is hardly a case that could hold up in court. My belief about the mutilations is that they've been done by someone who has done it before in a criminal context, due to the exaggerated nature of the injures. You may think that that is rubbish, but unfortunately we haven't seen any evidence presented, that can prove otherwise. I can't say for sure if Jack the Ripper killed Mary Kelly (or if Barnett in fact was Jack the Ripper), but as far as Barnett is concerned, we must take the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" in consideration here -- especially as everything is only based hear-say, speculations and facts investigated in a highly subjective manner. Therefore, as John so excellently put it, it's up to you to present vital arguments that supports your accusations.
You have every right, Leanne, to have your opinions about the case, and we all have the right to disagree -- that's no problem. Some of us here have urged you, though, to at least try to see things from a different point of view and be critical to your own material and personal opinions on the matter, as all authors should (which seldom is the case, I fear). I'm afraid we haven't seen any signs on that yet. 
If you're going to write a book about this, I recommend that you take this advice to your heart, however, or else you'll be doing the same mistake as Cornwell or Stephen Knight, the latter who's fantasies, totally based on prestige and a complete hoax, for a long time distorted all JTR investigation and today is taken seriously by practically noone -- except Hollywood.
Remember, Leanne, the most interesting authors in the JTR context are the ones who's working from a relatively objective point of view and who's trying to investigate facts to sort them out from fiction -- NOT the one's who's claiming they have found the killer and set out to "prove" it with loose arguments and speculations. Unfortunately there's been a lack of authors from the first group while we're drowning in the more or less ludicros attempts from the latter category of authors.
None of us here are trying to insult you in any way, Leanne, but we all have different opinions in a case like this and it has nothing to do with you as a person, remember that, so there's no need to burn energy by taking things here too personally.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 7:26 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
But no one from Scotland Yard was at that funeral, or heard that Farson thing! The Diary came to light well after the event, and some of the public would rather consider that as honest! There was an obvious motive of financial gain with it, so we should consider the possibility of it being a lie, but what were the motives behind telling a radio personality a lie? We can't even identify it's source!
If you haven't seen anything to convince you that Barnett should at least be looked at as a good suspect, try reading Bruce Paley's book: 'Jack the Ripper, The Simple Truth', if you can find a copy and get the chance! Someone has to re-write a well-researched case against his suspect, because the book is now out-of-print and there's a danger of his suspect fading back into obscurity. I hope to learn from the mistakes made by other authors!
We'll give credit where-ever credits due, and carefully consider everyone's criticism, use minimal speculation (when we do we'll make it clear that it's our speculation), state all sources, and in the end leave it up to a reader to decide. I am not doing this for the love of money. I am doing it for the love of writing, and the love of a new 'hobby'!
I only teamed up with the other author about 3 months ago, and we already have six long chapters on a disc!
I never take anything that is said here to heart. If I wanted to, I'd have gotten all upset when someone called me a les***** on the boards! Now I think it was so funny, because that's the type of person I am!
By the way, when I add something like: 'thanks for finding that lie!', I don't mean to upset anyone by being sarcastic! I just try to be cheeky, to lighten-up the debate!
ROBERT: 'Parting the boards' was what two young girls thought they saw!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 547
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 8:31 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I remember your saying that you wanted to update Paley's book, before it got lost in the mists of time. Best of luck with it.
But please leave out the grave-spitting, which is (I have to say it) literally an oral tradition.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 8:34 am: | |
Hi John,
'I think a case that would convince a jury could be built on the information we already have to date.'
Super. And yes, as you rightly say to Leanne about Barnett, the onus is on whoever is proposing that there are people who are guilty of involvement in forging the diary and watch in recent times to build an actual case that supports their belief'.
(And no, I'm not proposing anyone's guilt for anything here, before someone pipes up and says the onus is on me to build a case for something.)
So I hope someone somewhere will actually try building such a case on the information to date. Presumably any jury would need to see at least one person in the dock in order to be convinced. So this should be very interesting indeed. I wish you the very best of luck with this challenge, if you decide to take it up. 
Love,
Caz
PS And no, you can't choose your own 12 jury members! 
|
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 47
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 8:37 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I'm glad to see that you're not taking anyting here personally (even thou some of your answers have revealed a certain degree of sarcasm).
I don't believe for a moment that you're doing it for the money (as probably it probably partly was in the case with Cornwell), that would be disrespectful to you and your work. Of course most of us here, whether we're writing a book or not, is obsessed with the case in one way or the other and has an earnest drive to investigate it, and I do believe that certainly goes for you as well. And I certainly don't approve of people calling each other things here on the board, that is not OK.
"But no one from Scotland Yard was at that funeral, or heard that Farson thing! The Diary came to light well after the event..."
Well, Leanne, that is just the problem with it and also the main reason why I wouldn't state it as a reliable source.
"There was an obvious motive of financial gain with it, so we should consider the possibility of it being a lie [...] We'll give credit where-ever credits due, and carefully consider everyone's criticism, use minimal speculation (when we do we'll make it clear that it's our speculation), state all sources, and in the end leave it up to a reader to decide.[...] I hope to learn from the mistakes made by other authors!"
Thank you, Leanne. That was all I needed to hear from you, since the biggest concern here has been that speculations has been regarded as facts, and that arguments against your theories doesen't have seemed to sink in. Hopefully your last statement really reflects the air of your coming book, if that is the case it could as well as any other have something to contribute to the case.
As I indicated earlier, the books to be regarded as valid contributions are -- in my opinion -- the ones who leave it up the reader and not the ones that "claiming they have found the killer and set out to 'prove' it with loose arguments and speculations". This is really essential because I think we've had too much on the contrary already.
Now, I didn't say that I couldn't be convinced that Barnett is a likely suspect. I said that I find it most unikely, but I won't rule anything or anybody out -- that would be a stupid thing to do. Nevertheless, there are theories one finds more appealing than others, that's unavoidable, but I wouldn't state anything for certain -- for or against. As I've said before: Barnett could very well be the killer in question, we can't be sure, but I find it questinable because the theory to me seems far fetched and theoretical in its construction -- there are other theories and suspects that feels more suitable as far as I am concerned. But that doesen't mean that I totally would rule a suspect out altogether.
Regarding Paley's book, I'd love to read it, even though I've become sceptical to books who claim they had identified the killer. As I said before, the most interesting books presented are the ones who deal with the subject in a relative objective manner. It's hard for any writer to fully convince me of anything and that goes even for the ones who's presenting an idea that's appealing to me! One can't be completely convinced about anything or anyone in the case of Jack the Ripper -- those who claim that's possible, can hardly be taken seriously, I think.
I'm having a lot of reading to do at the moment, but it's not impossible I'll study Paley's book as well later on.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 48
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 8:49 am: | |
P.S. I agree with Robert here:
If I were you I'd treat the grave-spitting incident with ultimate care and suspicion as you analyse it in the book, Leanne. Don't build your case on it. 
You probably know what you're doing, but anyway ... just an advice...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 12:50 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
As Leanne has stated she is co writing a book , and I am proud to announce that I am the co writer,I feel very strongly that Lea, and myself are very much in tune, with this case, and I feel we can produce a worthy book , we are as you may have gathered very much in agreement regarding the perpretrator of these crimes, we have differences of opinions on certain issues, but that can only be healthy, if presented correctly.
Regarding speculation , this will be kept to the minimum, Lea is very clear on that matter, and lets me know if my speculation goes to extreme, as anyone who has read my posts on these boards , and the old,will gather I love to speculate, as long as it is plausible.
As Leanne has said we are working well into the book, and hopefully all will go well, and the end product will give everyone a good talking point.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 548
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 2:32 pm: | |
Hi Richard
So the mysterious co-writer is revealed! Well good luck with it Richard, I'm sure it'll be an interesting read.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 3:09 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Thanks for that,my only regret, is that working so hard on the book, I have negleted the boards, I now find that I am a long way behind on the boards and I have lost rank. If I had continued the way I started I would have been able to look you in the eye Gov.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 49
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 4:04 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Well well, that was interesting. Good luck both of you with the project, we're looking forward to see the result. 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 549
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 4:06 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Never mind about rank, me lad. Besides, you still outrank young whipper-snapper Fido.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 4:18 pm: | |
Hi,Robert,
Thats true. But these young coppers have potential.and he is one I have great respect for.
Good thought. I shall retire tonight, with an air of importance.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 7:33 pm: | |
G'day,
Richard and I have taken on the task of preserving Bruce Paley's research and keeping Barnett there on the suspect list. Otherwise someone will invent a theory that Donald Duck was the Ripper, every one in the world will buy the book, and Donald Duck will shoot up to the top of the favourite suspect list! 
Whenever I come up with a light-hearted comment like that one, perhaps I should add a clipart smile so that everyone will see that I'm not serious???????
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 550
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2003 - 7:40 pm: | |
Donald Duck!? Quack the Ripper.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 51
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 8:57 am: | |
Strange. I've always thought it was Mickey Mouse.
"Quack the Ripper". Good one, Robert.  . Next Disney movie?
"Whenever I come up with a light-hearted comment like that one, perhaps I should add a clipart smile so that everyone will see that I'm not serious?"
Well, yes, Leanne. That's part of the intention with the whole clip-art thing. "Did you just find that out?" 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 9:28 am: | |
Caz,
"And yes, as you rightly say to Leanne about Barnett, the onus is on whoever is proposing that there are people who are guilty of involvement in forging the diary and watch in recent times to build an actual case that supports their belief'."
I'm not making any public proposal of guilt, but rest assured if I were to ever go beyond theorizing to say "<x> did it." that I would put the complete basis for my belief into public doman. In an organized, sourced fashion.
I don't forsee ever doing that though. I've satisfied myself, and I have no interest in going through the grief of arguing about it publically. And frankly, I don't want to open myself up to the sorts of legal threats being made of late. It's simply not worth it. My real interest is, and always has been the JtR case. The Maybrick hoax is merely an amusing side story.
(And I wouldn't want to pick my own jury memebers. All I would ask is that they NOT be accquiantence of the accused.)
So how much longer do I need to wait for your book? :-)
Enjoy your weekend Caz!
Richard and Leanne,
Congratulations on your new book! I am eagerly looking forward to the opportunity read through your case in it's entirety, and examine it in detail. I wish you both the best of luck. :-)
All,
For those interesting in Barnett as a suspect, we will have Shannon Christopher, the author of the recently released "Unfortunates" (A Barnett-centric suspect book) as a guest in the Casebook chatroom this coming Tuesday at 8PM Central time. Everyone is welcome and indeed, encouraged to come for what should no doubt be an interesting discussion. For anyone interested in obtaining a copy of Mr. Christophers book, it can be purchased through www.booksurge.com
Regards,
John
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 585
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
G'day John,
I ordered and recieved Mr. Christophers book.
Mr Christopher doesn't introduce anything new to the Barnett theory. Specualtion, speculation, speculation! That's my opinion, am I allowed to say that? 
That's why I'm right here, in the thick of things! Studying every aspect of the case!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 6:47 pm: | |
G'day John,
Any idea what Tuesday 8PM is in Australia time? I'll set my alarm clock and wear my hearing aid in bed if I have to!
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.
|
|
|
|
