|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 552
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 7:15 pm: |       |
Hi Leanne
Presumably all you have to do is make a note of the Aussie time of your next message, and note the American time registered for it on the screen. Then you can work out the time difference.
It'll be daytime for you, won't it?
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 227
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 8:04 pm: | |
G'Day Leanne
You post at such various different times of the day I wonder when you sleep; or are you one of those lucky people who can get by on a few hours sleep and catnaps.
With my insomnia I have posted at some odd times of the day and night. Sometimes I wonder about things I've said while trying to make sense in the middle of the night.
All The Best
Gary |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 32
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 12:26 am: | |
Leanne,
A few posts ago, you asked a bunch of questions, which I'll try and answer.
JEFF: Why would Dan Farson lie about receiving that information?
First, I don't know but I could offer all sorts of speculations which simply would be a list of possible reasons why a person might lie about something. I would most likely be wrong in any of my offered answers because they would simply be speculations which would not be based on any real information apart from "general reasons why people might lie".
Also, I think we might want to avoid the use of the word "lie" because it implies a certain "intentionality" to it. Meaning, by saying "Dan Farson lied ...", implies he actually knew better. If, however, he is faithfully re-telling a story as told to him, he's not "lieing" even if the information is not accurate (even if the story didn't actually happen). We could then get into why the story teller lied, but that's the same thing again. Also, for lots of reasons, people sometime remember events that just did not happen. They believe they happened, so when the tell these stories, are they "lieing"? Not really because they think they're telling the truth, but the information is no more accurate simply because of their belief in it.
Evaluating evidence isn't about "lies" and "truth" of the witness, but about deciding what statements are reliable (and so likely to contain information we can be sure resembles actual events) and which ones are not reliable.
Just because we decide that some bit of information is not reliable, doesn't mean we have to accuse the source of deliberately lieing.
So, the story may be "told in good faith" (meaning he was actually told the story as he re-tells it), but the story itself may be inaccurate.
This gets to your next question.
"And if he wasn't, why would a mother tell such a story if it wasn't true?"
Again, you're asking me to speculate on the motivations of the person telling the original story. But, debating over why the story was told won't answer the important question of whether or not the story contains accurate information.
"Do you think that she wanted to make her daughter wet the bed?"
See, here's an example of speculating a reason for the story. But let me ask you, even if the story was 100% accurate (let's pretend it did actually happen), how does it being true make telling the daughter the story in the first place any less of a "bed-wetting" story? How does the "factuality" of the story change what you're asking me to answer?
Let me ask you why you think she told this "true" story to her daughter? Do you think she wanted to make her daughter wet the bed?
The very example you gave, which I assume must have been to demonstrate how silly it is to think she would tell such a story if it was false since all it could do is induce bed wetting, seems to rule against the story being true as well.
"I don't see it as a bad choice choosing Barnett out of the 'given suspects' and I won't even consider that it was the Catholic priest!"
This has two parts to it. The first part I agree with. Barnett is a very good suspect out of the list of people there.
The problem I've been trying to point out to you is that your evaluation of the quote uses a totally different criterion than your evaluation of other quotes. This change in criterion seems to be based on "what gets you to Barnett", and that form of "sliding criterion" is what will impact negatively on your book if you continue to use in that form of writing.
The fact that you will not even consider the priest is another dangerous thing when it comes to the interpretation of evidence. Remember, there is nothing what-so-ever in the quote that rules out the priest. He fits just as well as Barnett, the only difference is that the priest is not your suspect. Letting your conclusion colour the way you look at the evidence is what has led to some very unfortunate books in the past, and hopefully won't be something that is included your efforts.
Anyway, the need for independent verification of facts is so important when doing research that you simply have to avoid making too much out of stories like this grave spitting incident.
There are reasons why Barnett is worthy of research and I for one would not recommend him being removed from the suspect list. However, the case against him is not that strong and it is only his relationship to Kelly that keeps him in there. So far, the evidence doesn't really convict him, but it hasn't got him off the hook either.
Anyway, good luck with your book. And I do hope you take what I'm suggesting as "good intentioned advice", as that is what it's supposed to be.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 33
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 12:54 am: | |
Caz,
I agree, it's not been proven that a "crime" has been committed. But since the diary debate often includes requests for naming those who forged the diary, I was trying to indicate that being able to identify who forged the diary isn't necessary in order to prove it is a forgery; assuming for a moment that it is a forgery in the first place.
Of course it goes without saying that if one could prove "Joe Bloggs" forged the diary, then this by itself proves the diary is forged. We just have to remember it isn't necessary to be able to name "Joe Bloggs".
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 2:07 am: | |
G'day Gary,
I pay a set Internet Bill each month for unlimited access, so I can turn Casebook on when I get an idea, turn if off when I make a post, read up on a subject, then turn it on to comment on it! The more times I turn it on, the more I get for my money!
I am not the only person in this house who's addicted to the internet, so it goes on and off at varying times during the day!!!!
As soon as I get up, I make myself a coffee and a bowl of 'Saltana Bran' and sit here at the computer reading last nights messages! I get adequate sleep thankyou! I have a catnap in the afternoon!
I'll make a note of the time difference with this post!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 2:22 am: | |
G'day,
2:07am Monday 11, is 4:07pm Monday in Sydney. So is that 14 hours difference? See ya 10:00am Wednesday!!!
LEANNE! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 7:45 am: | |
Hi All,
Sorry, but 'Quack the Ripper' has been done - or do we all agree that Tumblety disney fit the profile? 
Hi John,
Yes, indeed, I agree that the diary story has more than its fair share of amusing moments.
The trouble is that whenever someone proposes in public, like you do, that the diary and watch are modern hoaxes, they are, like it or not, making a public proposal that implies the guilt of certain individuals.
I have yet to hear proposed a plausible scenario, based on the diary and watch being modern hoaxes, that doesn't depend on anyone in 'the loop' being guilty. If anyone would like to try one on me sometime I'd be delighted to consider it, and it presumably wouldn't have to involve naming a single name.
But failing this I'm afraid the known suspects simply come with the territory, even if one tries to disregard them as irrelevant. And while I'm not requesting, or expecting, anyone to name their 'most likely' here, they might be well-advised to at least think before they talk publicly about modern hoaxes, whether it's as part of a serious discussion, or loosely and dismissively in some throwaway remark. Of course, if they have evidence that could show their opinions to be justified, there isn't much for them to worry about is there?
Hi Jeff,
Of course, in an ideal world, the forgers of a bogus document shouldn't have to be exposed in order to prove it is a bogus document. The Hitler Diaries would still have been proved fakes with or without identifying and dealing with the culprit. It just seemed, when I first read about the Maybrick diary, that exposing the forgers might have proved the easiest and quickest way of consigning the thing to the same eventual fate as the Hitler Diaries, ie the occasional retelling of the incident through the media, as an amusing cautionary tale about how not to try and fool people with fakes.
There may be many ways to skin a cat, but this one, like mine, is still far too fluffy and purring like mad, despite the heat. 
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 9:37 am: | |
Leanne,
I'm glad to hear you picked up a copy of Mr. Christopher's book, it's an interesting read. I do agree that there is plenty of speculation in there, but that comes with the territory of writing a suspect driven book. Suspect books can offer research on the crimes themselves and/or the accused, but to tie them together speculation is needed. Even the best of suspect books have to rely on speculation at some point, as there is no smoking gun to point at any particular person.
However, speculation can be done responsibly. By acknowledging other possibilities. By not basing speculations on speculation. And most importantly, by identifing speculation as what could have happened as opposed to stating what did happen. Mr. Christopher was very good for the most part about identifying his speculations as such. I also appreciated the fact that he was presenting a case for the reader to decide instead of presenting speculation as "The Final Solution, "Case Closed", or "The Simple Truth".
Unfortunately it was not as well sourced as Paley's book, which was one of the strongest points in favor of "The Simple Truth".
I really hope we see you at the chat on Tues. :-)
Caz,
Well I've yet to hear anyone propose a reasonable scenario that suggests they are anything BUT a modern hoax. :-) I'm sorry if you find that troubling, but there it is. There is plenty of strong evidence that suggests that they are in fact modern hoaxes and little to counter that. This is all in the public domain, and has been discussed to death on the diary boards already. I'm not really eager to go through it all again.
While I will NOT get into naming specific suspects, I will certainly not ignore the strong evidence that these are recent productions simply because that can be read as an allegation against one or more of the inner circle. It would be incredibly irresponsible to write off evidence simply because of where it could point.
While it might on it's face suggest the guilt of certain individuals, a couple of jumps through some (admittedly unlikely) hoops could have the usual suspects be innocent and have it still be a modern hoax. But then to make the diary be an "old" forgery, you have to do some incredible hoop jumping as well.
I have no qualms whatsoever in stating that I believe it to be a modern forgery, and I'm certainly not worried on that point. :-) There is a world of difference between that and a public accusation of guilt towards any specific person or persons.
And with that, I'm done with polluting the Barnett boards with diary speculation. If you wish to discuss this further, feel free to drop me an email and we can discuss the philosophy of what constitutes appropriate areas of discussion offline.
Regards,
John |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 5:31 pm: | |
G'day John,
I haven't had time to read Mr Christopher's book cover to cover, but I've picked out bits like: 'she further tormented him by working the streets bringing men back to her place, whether Joseph was there or not'. If that comment was put here on the boards, people would literally rip it to bits! I'll piont out what Barnett said at the inquest, that she "never walked the streets, while she was with him!" If she did prostitute herself over those 18 months, she probably serviced clients away from Miller's Court, while Joe was out selling oranges!
I'm going to ask him how he came to such speculations, that have the potential of ruining the case against Barnett!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 34
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
Caz,
I agree fully, that if one could prove who the forgers were, it immediately follows that the diary would be a forgery. Possibly it would lead to a quicker resolution, but then given that in order to present that solution one has to actually have exceptionally strong evidence or face legal action, we're unlikely to be given any names unless exceptionally strong evidence is found. So, maybe it will take longer? It's a hard one to discuss in a public formum as well, because of the consquences of suggesting "Joe Bloggs" is the forger means you have to accuse "Joe Bloggs" of committing a crime, which could be considered "defimation of character". So, public discussion on this line can't really be done. Pity, but then, I'm not a suspect so perhaps I would feel differently if I was.
- Jeff
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 559
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 5:56 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I haven't read Mr Christopher's book, but I take it we are no nearer solving the riddle of Barnett's census entries and his marital, or non-marital, status at the time of the crimes - something I hope your and Richard's book will do.
Robert |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 6:06 pm: | |
Leanne,
Pure speculation. Absolutely true. But it is certainly no worse than the speculation in Bruce Paley's book which at many points in the book masquerade as facts.
If you'll look up 3 paragraphs from where you found the "working the streets quote", you'll find the following lines which makes it clear that he is knowingly indulging in speculation "Yes, it is all hypothetical at this point; however, looking at the psychological profile that Joseph presents, it is more than theory, it's a possibility, and one with the aid of modern psychology becomes a strong probability."
There's really no danger of Mr. Christopher "ruining" the case against Barnett because a compelling case has never been established. Both Paley and Christopher rely on an entirely hyphothetical psychological profile of Joseph as the cornerstone of their case. (Based on an entirely hypothetical interpertation of his life.) One which is frankly not supported by modern understanding of the nature of serial killers.
If he were to advance the "working the streets" bit on the board clearly identified as speculation (As he did in his book), people would certainly challenge that idea, ask him to defend it, and undoubtedly offer alternative possibilities.
If however it were offered as fact and all other possibilities arbitrarily denied, then it's time for the ketchup, cause we'd have him for lunch.
Regards,
John
P.S. Isn't it kind of ironic to use Barnett's own words at the inquest to refute his speculation when you yourself believe he was lying at the inquest to hide his own guilt? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 265
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
Hi John,
Very briefly, while imagining people printing off a comment from the boards so they can ‘literally’ rip it to bits (sorry, Leanne, I couldn’t resist  ), I don’t find it troubling that you have settled on a scenario that suits you, but I do admire your confidence. I’m sorry that I can’t share it, but there it is. But I couldn’t agree more with you when you write: ‘It would be incredibly irresponsible to write off evidence simply because of where it could point.’
Hi Jeff,
Wise words. And you have hit on something that seems to escape some people. Yes it should be considered a serious matter to accuse anyone of something they may not be guilty of. But it’s interesting to see people considering first and foremost the possible consequences to themselves if they were to make an accusation that was untrue. The consequences to the accused in such circumstances appear to come a poor second, when they are considered at all, while limping along in third place, presumably, come the consequences for the historical record if a false accusation were to stick.
Love,
Caz
|
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 35
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 5:12 pm: | |
Caz,
Very true. I suppose it's easier to understand the seriousness of something when you put yourself in the hotseat. Don't like it. Nope, don't like it one bit. It's taking that realisation and then allowing "Joe Bloggs" to justifiably feel the same that is often missed.
What complicates the matter, of course, is that if I (for example) truely believed that Joe Bloggs was guilty, then I might not care if Joe Bloggs is uphappy of the accusation. I could place that in the "it's part of the consequences of your actions, you brought this on yourself", etc. And, that's acceptable because we do expect people to suffer the consequences of their "bad" actions just as we expect people to reap the rewards of their "good" actions.
Problem is, just because I truely believe something doesn't mean my belief is of something true. It is this fundamentel principle, that belief and truth are separate "things", that requires researchers to work very hard at being "objective". Meaning, put your beliefs aside, and only interpret the evidence as far as it will go, not as far as you want to take it.
And it's hard, it usually means we can't talk about the "fun stuff" with as much confidence as we would like to. Confidence from evidence, not confidence of belief which really doesn't require any evidence.
And here's the rub. It's also impossible to be 100% objective. This is why the sharing of our ideas is so useful, such as on these boards. If I make a statement, believing I'm being objective, but someone points out to me "Wait a minute! You're assuming x, y, and/or z", then either I have to 1) show I can back up that assumption 2) show that the assumption is not actually necessary to the statement or 3) admit my mistake and try and do some more research. If x,y, and/or z are then found to be false, well, you have to drop everything above it and start over. At least now you know where not to go.
But if one can't discuss and share their "evidence about Joe Bloggs" for legal reasons, then there's always the worry that when they say "I have iron clad proof of who committed this action", then we don't know if that's because only their belief is strong and has coloured their interpretation of weak evidence (so their iron clad evidence won't float) or if it's because their belief is strong because it's derived from strong evidence (so their iron clad evidence is strong and easy to defend).
I just love metaphors.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 2:47 am: | |
G'day John,
Yes there is some speculation in Bruce Paley's book, but he gives the source that lead to him making that speculation! eg:
'Given the situation, Kelly was probably seeking a diversion and relief from Barnett's stifling presence when she disregarded his objections and took in her prostitute friend Julia to stay with her and Barnett, on or around 27 October.' - The number 1. underneath, refers you to the source at the back, which was: 'Julia was Kelly's friend Julia Venturney, who testified at her inquest. Barnett referred to her as a prostitute in his Central News Agency statement, carried in 'Lloyds Newspaper', 11 November.'
In the book Richard and I are doing, we won't do it that way with reference pages at the back, (because it wrecks the book having to turn to the back all the time, plus we didn't start doing that as soon as we started the book, making it a difficult task). But as I am doing the typing, I am including the source in the actual text so it's all there in front of a reader! I have said to Richard: "What's your source for making that statement?" and if he tells me that he read it somewhere, so I advise him to find it or we'll have to leave it out.
Joseph Barnett moved out of Miller's Court because Mary invited her prostitute friends to stay, out of the kindness of her own heart. Why didn't Joe dig into the kindness in his heart? - because he had no respect for these low-life' women, who he saw were the cause of Kelly's downfall! Why do you call it a strong possibility that Barnett chose to use 13 Miller's Court as a brothel?
Speculation is alright if you quote the source to support your making that speculation. If Jack the Ripper's motives and description was that clear, there's a good chance he would've been caught, and no one would have to make any speculation! However I think it will turn people off the case if we surround it with unsupported speculations. Like assuming that Barnett was: 'spending much of his day in the court' as he was now unemployed. (statement in Shannon's book). I prefer to consider that he was out most of the day looking for odd-jobs, which meant that he had to get up early before the markets opened, and had to go to bed reasonable early, so he couldn't have gone out drinking at night with Mary and her friends, (which she was reported to do frequently). That's how I come up with the speculation that Barnett wasn't a big part of Mary's life - merely a means of support!
But no official ever wrote that into a report, so should we just ignore it?
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 62
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 7:09 am: | |
"G'day", Leanne.
I must say I reacted to these lines (which I'm taking the liberty to insert here) in your message:
"Joseph Barnett moved out of Miller's Court because Mary invited her prostitute friends to stay, out of the kindness of her own heart. Why didn't Joe dig into the kindness in his heart? - because he had no respect for these low-life' women, who he saw were the cause of Kelly's downfall!"
This is pure speculation once again, based how you estimate that he must feel in certain situations. Neither you -- or any of us -- can know his feelings and emotions!
I honestly think you ask to much of Mr. Barnett here. Firstly, the room was very small. I don't see how you can be surprised over the fact that he was against the arrangement. There was hardly much room for three people.
And more important; of course he didn't want to have anything to do with women belonging to a class of occupation that he saw as the "cause of Kelly's downfall". I should have acted and reacted in exactly the same way as Barnett did! Why should he be kind-hearted about it, and why didn't his opinion count? I can easily see his frustration and understand it, but that doesen't make me a murderer.
Barnett's reaction and following decision to leave is absolutely sound, healthy and understandable and is no explanation whatsoever to why he should butcher a number of women or just Kelly (depending on which theory you prefer).
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 565
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 8:00 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I agree with Glenn. If Barnett did indeed sleep on the floor, then it wasn't UNKIND of him to object to it. And if Kelly slept in the bed with the prostitute, then it wasn't KIND of her to invite the prostitute in - you can't be kind by giving away someone else's berth.
If there's no room at the inn, then there's no room at the inn!
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 64
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 8:38 am: | |
Hi there.
Thanks, Robert.
By the way, I don't know if this has been discussed here earlier, but -- regarding the propagandies for Barnett as a suspect -- has any of you (Robert, Leanne, Richard, Jeff, Caz etc.) read Dr. Fredrick Walker's "dissertations" (can be found on this website) and Alex Chrisholm's paper on the subject?
I have read the first two (by Walker) -- which I found highly questionable and full of speculations and factual errors -- and an extract from Alex's paper (I haven't been able to find or get hold of the full paper)? Have you any comments on them? Would be interesting to hear. If any of these have been subject to discussions in the past before me entering the board, I apologize.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 569
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
I'm not at all convinced by Dr Walker's arguments. For example, he says that Barnett washed his hands at the sink outside 13 room. But Dr Walker knows that Barnett would have had a hard job hiding his gruesome collection in that tiny room. So, like a rabbit out of a hat, up pops an accomplice - apparently invoked just to salvage this part of the theory.
Don't worry about raising points that may have been raised before. I myself only joined the Boards in March, and discussing the crimes with fellow enthusiasts is a new experience for me - though I understand if some of the people who've been posting for years sometimes feel like they're going over the same old ground.
I'd read Alex's paper if I could get a copy.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 67
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 3:51 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I totally agree with you regarding Dr Walker's arguments and there are also fatal factual errors that he never seemed to be aware of before writing -- I don't want to be accused of slander, but I get the feeling that he's picked out factual details from books or other sources that suits his theory, but unfortunately never bothered to check them.
I'm a bit stressed for time at the moment, but let's get back on this issue and discuss his and hopefully Chrisholm's arguments more in detail later.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 36
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 1:17 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I've just had a look at one of Dr. Walker's articles (the Reply to Scott's article). Unfortunately, the original article to which Scott has replied appears to be missing; or I just didn't see it.
Anyway, at the end of his reply he lists 7 points of circumstantial evidence he feels points towards Barnett. Most of these are actually rebutted by Stephen Ryder and Mark Feldman at the end of the article itself. However, I'll list his points, and summarise the problems with them here so those who haven't read the dissertations recently can be reminded.
1) The locked door of the murder room, for which only Barnett and one other man likely had keys -- the other man has an alibi.
problem: as has been discussed elsewhere, the key is not a mystery. There is nothing to suggested that "Jack" had to have a key.
2) The Hanbury envelope with Barnett's initials.
problem: the envelope was a piece of scrap paper found by Annie Chapman at the doss house when her original pill box broke. The "initials" are part of an address, not someone's initials. They do not correspond to Barnett's address.
3) The Lusk Letter (with kidney) written in Barnett's dialect.
problem: Apart from the question of authenticity of this letter, obviously Barnett did not have his own dialect.
3) The bloody water in Barnett's sink, seen by a major police witness on the night of a different murder!
problem: this event never happened
4) The anti-semitic graffiti, by a gentile who fled north.
problem: a Jew could have written this, someone other than the killer could have written this, and even if it is by a gentile killer, obviously more than Barnett lived in this direction. Also, an extention of the line from Mitre Square through Goulston street will pass closer to 29 Hanbury Street than Kelly's, it points directly to Flower and Dean where the police were searching, etc.
5) Barnett's striking physical resemblance to police sketches and credible eyewitness descriptions.
problem: the eye-witness descriptions are so general that it's generally hard to find someone who doesn't fit (almost all "suspects" are generally refered to as a good fit for the discriptions). Combine this with the general unreliability of such descriptions and this evidence is worth just about nothing.
6) Barnett's address, central to the homes of all victims, canonical and non-canonical. This is only true of Barnett
problem: Barnett's residence at the time of the murders (apart from Kelly's) is not central, but on the outer edge.
Anyway, what's missing that makes Barnett worth investigating is:
1) he had a relationship with one of the victims
2) they had recently separated before she was killed
But, this just makes him worthy of further investigation and it certainly doesn't convict him. Until something turns up more damning than these kinds of facts, he's one of many.
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 3:05 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
I just wanted to say that I gave your earlier post five stars before I even finished reading it! Thank you for expressing it far better than I could have done.
We have seen this argument before where “Joe Bloggs is known to be a ‘bad man’ so he deserves everything he gets”. How ironic to see the ‘good men’ ready to shift the blame onto the ‘bad man’ if truth becomes the victim – “it’s Joe Bloggs’ fault if he invites false accusations". Why the ‘bad man’ would suddenly be expected to give a tinker’s cuss about the accuracy of the historical record, and therefore the truth, I haven’t the foggiest notion. But it's what his accusers claim to care about beyond all else.
Could Joe Bloggs easily retaliate if ‘iron clad evidence’ was produced to confirm a suspicion about him? I suspect not. If such evidence exists, it doesn’t appear to be Joe Bloggs’ fault that no one is using it to flog him - nor his fault when dead horses are flogged instead.
Back to the other Joe B now with apologies for this final diversion - I just felt it had to be said. See you all next week.
Love,
Caz
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 231
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 4:59 am: | |
Hi to All
This is my first question and I am using my dad'susername, I hope that is okay.
I thought the diary was dated to the 1920's or early thirties from testing. Why could it not be a hoax from that time period? People who I am thinking of who would have a motive would be people trying to clear Mrs. Maybrick.
Trevor Weatherhead |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 69
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 6:17 am: | |
Hi Jeff
Scott Morro's paper Joe Barnett...Jack the Ripper...Not One in the Same can be found under "Dissertations -- suspects" on this website (it's the first one, on the top).
Now, before I go on let's just state which the papers written by Dr. Walker are (so we know which ones we refer to);
1. Odd Omissions: Scott Morro's Plea for Barnett's Innocence (with comments by Stewart P. Evans and Mark Feldman at the end)
2. an article simply called Joseph Barnett, also to be found under "Dissertations". (probably his first; Scott Morro's article could be a response to this one.)
I assume you refer to the first one of the two.
Thank you for listing the seven points. I agree totally with your comments. I, like you, find it remarkable, that if he should accuse Barnett, why didn't he list the most important two points, as the ones you mention?
What most struck me, was that he relies on "facts" that for many years now either been questioned or totally scrapped, like the envelope and the bloody water in the sink (which was a total stab in the dark). Like a few others (no names mentioned) he also makes too much of a fuzz about the clay pipe Barnett left behind.
In his article Joseph Barnett, he lists 12 "Cases for Barnett's guilt" (I have here left out some of those that are identical with the points listed above):
* One of 2 men likely to have had a key -- the other has an alibi.
Comment: as we know by now the door probably had a spring lock and could be opened by stretching the arm through the broken window and open from the inside. No key was needed, according to this fact.
* Likely to have known at least 3 of the victims.
Comment: Not impossible, but that hardly proves anything. This is an attempt to try and link Barnett to the killings of the other women. Again, merely speculations.
* Violent quarrel with last victim a week before her death.
Comment: Doesen't have to mean anything; couples quarrel everyday, that seldom results in one of the parties being ripped to pieces. It is also questionable how "violent" the quarrel really was.
* A former next-door neighbour, could have been Eddowes' suspect.
Comment: Pure speculations.
* As a market porter, he would have owned an appropriate weapon.
Comment: True, but so would a thousand others in East End. Since there are no stronger evidence showing Barnett being a violent man, this is insignificant.
* Left his pipe at the scene of the crime.
Comment 1: Clay pipes were NOT expensive, and -- as been said in the comments at the end of the paper -- he probably had more than one, that's why he didn't bother to come back and get it (sometimes things doesen't have to be more complicated than that). That's why the statement "Smoking is an addiction. A smoker does not forgets his pipe when he moves out..." have absolutely no bearing at all.
Comment 2: If the murderer had time enough to murder Kelly, light a big fire and mutilate her thoroughly to such an extent, why should he forget such a detail (he doesn't seem to have been in that much of a hurry, due to the secluded conditions indoors). It is possible, of course, but quite unlikely.
* Doesen't have to be a "psycho". Knowing the victims personally, he could have had a rational motive.
Comment: Possible. The only point of interest here, perhaps. Although I'm still having trouble seeing what the motive should be...
In his article he also claims that he's found the Ripper's (Barnett's) accomplice -- Ostrog! -- and that Barnett could have written the Maybrick diary after reading Anderson's interview in 1908, back-dated the diary and used it to frame Maybrick. Or to quote Walker himself: "The Diary of Jack the Ripper is a hoax -- by Jack the Ripper!"
Thank you for your comments and opinions, Jeff. I'm sure Dr. Walker had the best intentions with his studies and that he is an intelligent writer -- and there are probably some that would agree with his statements. Indeed there are circumstances in the Barnett case that makes it interesting to investigate him as a possible subject, but there is nothing whatsoever that convicts him beyond speculation.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 216
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:51 am: | |
Trevor,
'No Heart, No Heart'....thats about the crux of it.
Monty
 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
