| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 12:20 am: |       |
The subject was brought up once in conversation about the possiblilty of Daniel Barnett having killed Mary Jane Kelly. Maurice Lewis stated he had seen a man known as "Dan" with MJK at the Horn-of Plenty Pub the day of the murder. Due to his statement, there was a possibility he was mistaken about which Barnett he saw that night, believing it was Joe and he had made a mistake on the name. What if he was correct about the identification and it really was Dan Barnett she was with? What is known about him, his feelings towards his brother and if he is capable of the crime against MJK?
Again, only a hypothetical situation...
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 5:09 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
A good thread started here
What indeed did Danny think of his brothers involvement with Kelly?.
Obviously Leanne and myself are of the opinion, that the culpret was Joe.
But on the form book Maurice Lewis did implicate Danny....
I shall watch this thread with intrest,
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 7:42 am: | |
G'day,
Bruce Paley wrote about the Maurice Lewis reported sighting of Mary Kelly with 'Dan', and added that he was described as an orange seller with whom Kelly had recently been living.
As Maurice Lewis was merely a tailor who worked on Dorset Street, I'd say he just confused Joseph's name with his brother's, and Kelly met with Joseph Barnett.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
Look under 'HORN OF PLENTY' in the Dissertation by A.M.Phypers called: 'The Houses Where Jack Swilled?', for more about this reported Lewis sighting!
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 9:00 am: | |
It's an interesting possibility, but can I ask are you suggesting Daniel Barnett only carried out this murder and if so, what was the reason for the mutilation?
I ask because if this was his only murder then the mutilation could not have been simply to have the killing associated with the others, based on psychological study of murderers. Mutilation on this scale was not done lightly, if this was the work of a first time killer then either he was so psychologically unbalanced that this would have been noticable in his daily life, or else he was in such a blind rage that he wasn't even aware what he was doing. If it had been only to disguise this as another Ripper murder then he would have performed the minimum mutilation he thought he could get away with. Few people would have the stomach for the kind of things done to Kelly. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 679
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
G'day Alan,
I'm not suggesting Daniel Barnett killed anyone. Maurice Lewis was obviously confused when he called the man 'Dan', but it does suggest the possibility that Joseph Barnett did meet with Mary Kelly, later than he said he did.
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 16
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 9:35 am: | |
But the thread is called "Is it possible Daniel Barnett killed MJK". The query was directed as a kind of general thing (mainly at Shannon who started the thread). |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 9:55 am: | |
G'day Alan,
That reported sighting of Maurice Lewis hasn't been discussed much. I think Shannon just wanted to start a discussion about it, and by calling the thread that would catch peoples eye like a gunshot!
LEANNE |
Warwick Marshall Parminter
Police Constable
Username: Rick
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 3:34 pm: | |
I don't particularly think Dan killed for Joe, but, I think it is very possible Joe received all help possible to give from Dan after Joe had murdered Mary,--- in the way he murdered her,-- and the trauma it must have caused him.
Please excuse if this as been gone over before, I've been out of touch.
Rick. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 879
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
Hi all
Just picked this up after ages!!!' Still cant totally dismiss this Dan/Joe/Horn of Plenty thing out of hand!.......pick it up again 'eh!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 880
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
Must just say WHY ,WHY,.. did Joe have the nickname of the name of his brother!!!??? Actually how much is known about Danny Barnett?
Also The Rev Sam Barnett he of the 'wicked quarter mile'!must never be thrown out here!!!! after all he suggested that'women be stopped from stripping to the waist for fights!'!!! (A-Z)
Cheers
Suzi
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 60
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 1:01 am: | |
Hi all,
The Star
November 10, 1888
In a public-house close by Buller's the reporter succeded later on in finding Barnett, who is an Irishman by parentage and a Londoner by birth. He had lived with her for a year and a half, he said, and should not have left her except for her violent habits. She was a Limerick woman by birth, he says, but had lived in Dublin for some time. She went by the name of Mary Jane, but her real name was Marie Jeanette. He knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her, except that his brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her.
Nina |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 2:57 am: | |
G'day,
Well, for a start we know that saying he knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her was a lie, because he visited her regularly to give her money.
He spoke to this reporter on the Friday the 9th, which was the day her body was discovered, so Thursday was the day before. I wonder did his brother go there before, (probably to plead for his return), or after he made his final visit that night? I also wonder why he never said anything about this at her inquest!
LEANNE
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 71
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:56 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I saw your post on the Billingsgate market porters' licenses for 1877 under "Why I don't think Joe is the ripper".
The dissertation "Hey Joe your porter story sounds fishy" lists Joe's height as 5'7" as you stated, but Dan's height slightly different at 5'4 1/2" on the 1877 licenses.
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-barnettporter.html
In Caroline Maxwell's statement to the police on Nov. 9 she stated that she saw Mary with a man standing outside Ringers public house and that the man was 5'5" and dressed as a market porter.
At the inquest she stated that he was not a tall man and wore dark clothes with a plaid coat.
Caroline Maxwell seems to be describing Dan not Joe.
Nina 
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:53 am: | |
G'day Nina,
Well to quote what Bruce Paley wrote exactly: 'According to their licences, all of the Barnetts were fair complexioned and none were particularly large men. John and Daniel stood only 5ft 4ins and 5ft 6ins respectively, and Denis was 5ft 6ins. Joseph was the tallest at 5ft 7ins and it was recorded that he had blue eyes.' I took it as meaning that John was 5ft 4ins and Daniel was 5ft 6ins.
Paley also said that new bylaws came into effect at Billingsgate in '1878', making it compulsory for all porters to hold a licence. Unless The Viper found a porter's licence that was issued the year before they were made compulsory, I'd say that he misread Paley's research.
When Barnett's father died and his mother disappeared, the eldest son Denis became 'father'. When Denis married and moved away Daniel took over, so it wouldn't surprise me if Joe sent his 'father-figure' brother to Mary Kelly's to try to reason with her.
LEANNE
"Mummy, Mummy, what are you doing with that ax?"
"Shut up and put your father's leg in the fridge!"
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 75
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 12:20 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I'm not trying to imply that Dan was the killer, only that he was more likely to be the man seen that morning. That is, if Lewis and Maxwell are to be believed. He may also have been the man that Mary Ann Cox saw with Mary.
The Viper:
The argument seemed to hinge on Bruce Paley’s interpretation of the Billingsgate Market Porter’s records in “The Simple Truth”. So, it seemed the best thing to do was to take a trip, (to the Corporation of London Records Office at Guildhall, that is) to see just how much information those ledgers would yield up.
Nina
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
G'day Nina,
I read through Viper's dissertation closely, and have been taking a close look at Billingsgate Market at the time for the book I am co-writing with Richard.
Viper did alot of research into actual Porter's Licences held in London, but I have been reading actual eye-witness descriptions of the market on display on Websites that have nothing to do with the case.
Author Bruce Paley suggested in his book that Barnett's job may have given him experience with a knife.
In Viper's 'Conclusions - Set A' he said: 'There is nothing to indicate that porters of any grade were expected to gut fish.'
A website on life in Victorian London reveals that the main market at Billingsgate was over by noon. A porter's job was over but some were permanently employed by market shops to clean and pack fish until 5:00p.m.
In Viper's: 'Conclusions - Set B': 'The four Barnett brothers did not all receive their licences at the same time as Paley erroneously stated in his book, though Denis, Joe and John did all get theirs on the 1st of July 1887.'
On that date it became compulsory for all porters to be licenced. Daniel Barnett took over as head of the Barnett household and worked at Billingsgate market like his father did before he died, while his brothers continued their schooling so it's likely that Daniel already had his licence. All that is in Bruce Paley's book!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on September 29, 2004) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 5:38 am: | |
G'day,
Viper stated: 'The Joseph Barnett issued a licence in 1907, (not 1906 as Paley says), is not a cast iron certainty to be the same man who worked at Billingsgate in the late 1870s.'
But that Joseph Barnett lived at the exact same address that appeared on Daniel Barnett's death certificate. Seems pretty 'cast iron' to me!
LEANNE
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 79
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 12:12 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I understand that your writing a book and I have no intention of interfering . As a matter of fact I will be pleased to purchase your book where it has been published. I also would be interested in getting a copy of "the simple truth", but it seems to be a hard book to get a hold of.
I just wanted to make the point that Dan fit the descriptions of Lewis and maxwell, and possibly Mrs. Cox man.
Nina  |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 7:51 am: | |
G'day Nina,
I believe 'The Simple Truth' is now out-of-print so look for it in second hand bookshops. Every now and then I'll find a 'gem' in a second-hand bookshop.
LEANNE |
Robert J. McLaughlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
Seems pretty 'cast iron' to me!
The Joseph Barnett at that address could have been a relative and not necessarily the one who lived with Mary Kelly. There are several Robert's in my family over a couple generations. Any Perry's in your family, spanning several generations, that share the same first name?
Websites and books are useful for cross-referencing facts but original sources should be consulted whenever possible.
Paley's word (or any other author/researcher) is not always correct. Every Ripper book I have ever read has errors and problems. Do you have any primary sources that show Paley's conclusion regarding the 1907 licence to be more valid than Viper's (Adrian Phypers)?
A little friendly advice: you would be better served, Leanne, if you start to question Paley's conclusions as closely as you question those of others on these boards.
All the best,
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
Hi Nina
To obtain a copy of the 'simple Truth' just E mail me and I will send you it , i have read it till the cows come home, and i will gladly foreward it on to you postage and packing.
Regards richard. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
The notes on Daniel that I dug out may be of some use:
Daniel Barnett
1871
24 and Half Great Pearl Street, Spitalfields
Head:
Daniel Barnett aged 20 born Whitechapel - Fishmonger
Sister:
Catherine Barnett aged 17 born Whitechapel
Brothers:
Joseph Barnett aged 13 born Whitechapel
John Barnett aged 9 born Whitechapel
1881
9 Aldred Street, Bermondsey
Lodger:
Daniel Barnett aged 28 born Middlesex - Fish Porter
At same addres there was also the following family living:
Head:
Ellen Kelly (Widow) aged 55 born Kerry, Ireland - Housekeeper
Sons:
Michael Kelly aged 23 - Sugar boiler
John Kelly aged 20 - Leather dresser
Both sons born in London
1891:
Charles William Mowl Victoria Home No 1
Commercial Street, Whitechapel
Lodger:
Daniel Barnett aged 44 born Whitechapel - Fish Porter
Cannot trace Daniel in 1901 census
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 5:59 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
After reading closely Viper's dissertation, (that contradicts Bruce Paley's research), I thought: "How would Paley react?"
Then I looked at the references that Paley gave in his book and saw that he quoted: '1906 18 New Gravel Lane, Shadwell, with brother Daniel [new Billingsgate porter's licence, Daniel's death certificate].'
Bruce Paley studied Joseph Barnett's life, all over London, for years. Viper was in the record office at Guildhall for how long? I think the chances of another Joseph Barnett in the same family, living with Daniel Barnett are very slim indeed. Daniel Barnett was Joe's 'father-figure'.
At the time of Mary Kelly's inquest, and up until the time he lived with his brother Daniel, Joe lived with his sister at Portpool Lane, Holborn.
He couldn't get his fish porter's licence at Billingsgate back for some reason, so he decided to try at 'Shadwell Fish Market', a rival to Billingsgate.
If this wasn't the Joseph Barnett that lived with Mary Kelly, then the Joseph Barnett on the Shadwell porter's licence that was listed as being married to Louisa Barnett in 1919 wasn't him either!
LEANNE |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 81
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:54 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Sent you an email.
Nina  |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 82
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 1:14 am: | |
Chris,
Thanks for that information. The porters license listed Daniel at 9 Aldeny (?) Road, Bermondsey in 1881. Now we can conclude that it was 9 Aldred Street.
Nina
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
G'day Robert,
No, no two Perry's have ever shared the same first name, and I've never heard of any two relatives with the same first name, of a similar age, plus with a similar occupation!
LEANNE |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 677
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I am not a proponent of the Joe Barnett theory, as you probably know, but I would not rule out Nina's comments. I agree with her that the Ripper's description better fits Dan than Joe Barnett. I have been curious for quite some time now, about what Dan thought of prostitutes in general and his brothers consorting with prostitutes in particular.
All The Best
Gary
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
Hi all1
Gosh this turning into quite a thread!! have just read it all back through and was amazed at my post of 20th June!!!I Dont remember that!!!!oooh well seemed to have made some sort of sense!!!!
For me ....there is still a problem with our Daniel...he seems a shadowy character who seems to have been a well known but well forgotten character...useful I guess if you frequent the Horn Of Plenty with our Mary!
Cheers
Suzi
Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do! |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 83
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 8:36 pm: | |
This is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps the relationship between Dan and Mary was a little more than platonic.
Just thinking out loud!
Nina |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 8:15 am: | |
G'day,
According to Bruce Paley the first Barnett boy, Denis, was born in 1849 in Chalk Kent. The second was Daniel who was born in 1851, then came Catharine two years later. Joseph was born in 1858, and John in 1860. All Barnett children, except for Denis, were born in Whitechapel.
Denis was 14 when their father died, Daniel was 12, Joseph was 6, Catherine was 10 and John was 3. Denis was chief bread-winner until 1869, when he married and left the East End. It then fell to Daniel to take over as head of the family.
Considering his year of birth, Daniel would have been 37 years of age in 1888. Mary Kelly was 25.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1391
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Hi Leanne and Nina!
Right have been trawling the stuff as you do and the only thing that worries me here is the line from the A - Z that says..Nicknamed DANNY according to press report..................which press report?!
Of course Maurice Lewis claimed to have seen'Mary' drinking with 'Danny' in the good old Horn of Plenty and or Julia!!!!
.hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Wasnt it also Mary that was seen with Daniel in The Blue Boy?
may be wrong here....late here!
Cheers
Suzi
Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do! |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
G'day,
According to Bruce Paley: 'According to a statement he gave to the press, Lewis saw Kelly in the Horn of Plenty where she was drinking with some companions, among them her friend Julia and a man identified as 'Dan', described as an orange seller with whom Kelly had recently been living.'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
G'day,
Obviously the tailor who lived on Dorset Street confused Joseph Barnett with his older brother Dan. Daniel was a Billingsgate fish porter but was he also an orange seller?
The statement made by Maurice Lewis was carried in 'Lloyds Newspaper' 11 November.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
G'day,
'Lloyds Newspaper' 11 November is not available to view here, but 'The Illustrated Police News' 17 November stated the Lewis said: 'She was drinking with some woman and also with "Dan", a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields Markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago.'
Should we believe that Joe's brother Dan also lived with Mary Kelly, or is it easier to believe that the tailor simply confused one brother with the other?
LEANNE |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 85
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 8:35 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Good point! That is if the "Illustrated Police News" copied the statement exactly as it was in the "Lloyds". It still dosn't convince me that Dan wasn't the man seen by Maxwell or Cox. Their man was much too short to be Joe. Also Lewis' statement on Mary's height seems off at 5" 3". Will this confusion never cease!
Nina
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 86
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 8:42 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
I don't remember reading anything about Mary and Daniel in the Blue Boy. That would be interesting to find.
Are you wearing your helmet/kit? 
Nina |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 87
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 8:47 pm: | |
Leanne,
An age difference of 12 years dosn't seem to be odd to me. My daughter married a man 13 years her senior.
Nina |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 12:42 am: | |
G'day Nina,
As I understand it: Interviewees spoke to the Central News Agency or at Press conferences, then the individual newspapers chose to publish the information as they saw fit. One newspaper didn't copy straight from another newspaper. Especially not the 'Illustrated Police News'.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 4:40 am: | |
G'day,
Bruce Paley wrote in his book: 'Neither Lewis, [Maurice], nor Elizabeth Foster, who claimed to see Kelly earlier that night drinking at the Ten Bells pub, was called to testify at Kelly's inquest, which was abruptly concluded.'
That's the first I've heard of the name Elizabeth Foster. Can anybody supply further information?
LEANNE |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 88
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
This is the first that I have heard of of Elizabeth Foster. Could the paper have confused her name with Fisher? There were so many aliases going around at the time.
Nina |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1394
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 2:41 pm: | |
Hi Leanne and Nina!
I think at the end of the day that there is some sort of confusion between our Joe and the ubiquitous Daniel!
Ok there is a small age difference but maybe they looked similar or whatever...ie dark and a bit slitty eyed!
I like to think that maybe Mary ,Joe and Daniel used to hang out together at the local pubs.. ie The Horn of Plenty and the Blue Boy etc
...has a sort of thats what you do thing about it!....
ELISABETH FOSTER!!!!!!!!!! aaaaaaagh ! Foster ?Fisher could be a bit close but.........Help someone!!!!OK... Lizzie Fisher's one thing to deal with..with all the Lizzie Albrooks of this world is getting a tad hectic here!!
Whatever you do dont turn out as I have 'eh?
cheers
Suzi
Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do!
Jean Paul Satre |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
G'day Nina,
Paley failed to state the name and date of the newspaper he read the name ELIZABETH FOSTER in.
LIZZIE FISHER is the name they thought belonged to the body laying mutilated on the bed in room 13 Millers Court: 'Her name is believed to have been Lizzie Fisher but to most of the habitues of the haunts she visited she was known as Mary Jane.'
LEANNE |
Robert J. McLaughlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 7:36 pm: | |
Leanne,
You are not Bruce Paley. How you think he would react is only relevant to showing your emotional bias toward his work. Try distancing yourself from Paley's book and Viper's dissertation. Contact the Records Office at Guildhall personally or have someone go there on your behalf.
Is Paley correct or is Viper? I don't know. Perhaps if you did some original research, Leanne, instead of just quoting from books and websites, you may find different answers than both men, or new avenues of study that they missed. I like the way you noted how long had Viper spent in Guildhall. This is a good question. As I noted in my last post, critique Paley in the same way.
I own Paley's book. You can quote him all you want to me. Yes, he studied the case for years, but it doesn't make his sources, endnotes, or conclusions correct. As an example, Paley refers to Mitre Square having five lamps and being well lit. One look at Frederick Foster's survey proves this wrong. All non-fiction writers make simple errors like this. It is why these things need to be checked.
The reason why authors list sources in books and articles is so that other researchers can go back to check the data from which conclusions have been made. Good research brings new information to light all the time. I hope that you (and Richard) are spending some of your time trying to find out more about Joe Barnett. Little nuggets that Paley, Harrison, Chris Scott and others have not found.
I know you favour Barnett as a suspect, that's fine. It doesn't mean Paley is the gospel. Even people like Fido and Hinton have accepted some of the errors of their research and problem points of their theories.
When you have looked at and cross-referenced Bruce Paley's and Adrian Phypers' original sources, get back to me regarding their differing viewpoints. I want facts and evidence to support the arguments not personal belief.
All the best,
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Leanne and myself are not able to pinpoint Barnetts movements between 1888-1906, the guy was untraceable, to even contemplate that, is impossible.
All we can deliver in our publication[ god willing] is a lot of [hopefuly] intresting submissions that readers will find intresting.
We are living in the 21st century, and to trace a whitechapel resident of the 1880s throughout his lifetime is virtually impossible.
I have read Paley inside out, and i utmostly respect his researches, and thank the guy for bringing Mr Barnett to life.
The book is not a bible , there are flaws, but i believe his suspect is a first rate contender, and the only suspect that personally i can accept.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
I live in Australia mate! I haven't got the money to travel to the Records Office at Guildhall, and do my own research.
Viper searched through the porter's licences at Guildhall. That's where his research ended. Bruce Paley read the address on that porter's licence, then found the same address on his brother's death certificate.
I understand you when you say that I should do my own origional research. Living where I do I can't, so I frequent Victorian London Websites that have nothing to do with the case. I read origional eyewitness descriptions of the places, and have been quoting them as my source. No one can provide origional research when they can't travel to London. That's where Richard can help!
Richard, can you go to Guildhall?
LEANNE |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 90
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 12:06 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Didn't Mary claim to have a relative on the London stage? It's a long shot but maybe Elizabeth Foster was her relative.
I was searching the 1881 census and I came up with a Lizzie Foster.
Lizzie Foster (lodger)
Married 34
Born London
Professional actress
Charles Foster (lodger)
Married 38
Born Devon
Painter
Source information
dwelling: Theater Street
Census Place: East Dereham, Norfolk, England
Family History Library Film: 1341476
Public Records Office Reference: RG11
Piece/Folio: 1980/21
Page Number: 37
I wish I could access the 1891 census!
Nina
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
G'day,
The 'Star' on November 9 reported: 'she lived in the room in which she has been murdered with a man and her little son about 10 or 11 years old........where she slept last night with her mother and a man who passed as her husband. She had one child.'
This report appeared the day before the ones claiming that her name was believed to have been Lizzie Fisher. Obviously the body hadn't been positively identified at that time, neighbours thought it could have been someone else, and I'd say that's how the story of her having a little boy started.
They were confusing her with someone else!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 471
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Leanne,
If this story came about before the body was identified, that would lend support the idea that Barnett did not identify the body at the scene, but at the mortuary. Which would also suggest why Barnett didn't mention the window trick for the door opening because we would have no reason to place Barnett at the scene before the door was opened and the body removed.
Of course, it could also simply reflect the reporter wasn't at the scene, and was reporting on gossip he heard in the street as the rumour mill turned the handle.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 4:42 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
I have always believed that Barnett was asked to sign an identification at the mortuary, and remember reading a report that proved that.
That in no way proves at what time he showed up! Why do we have 'no reason to place.....'?
That report stated that the reporter was speaking to a neighbour who lived opposite.
We've moved way off the topic here....Let's move!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on October 05, 2004) |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 91
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
The following press report if correct, identifies Barnett as viewing the body at the mortuary.
Te Aroha News
New Zealand
12, December 1888
The woman had a paramour, a man who sells oranges on the streets, and on whom, as he could not be found, suspicion at once reverted, but he turned up all right tonight, and fainted when he was shown the woman's body.
Nina |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 472
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
As I recall, the bulk of the evidence fits with the idea that the identification occurred at the mortuary. The reason we have "no reason to believe that Barnett was at the scene" is because there is no reliable evidence to put him there. In other words, although we can't rule out the possibility that Barnett was at the scene before the door was forced, at the same time, we can't rule out the possibility that he was anywhere else in London that morning. Since he could have been anywhere, we have no reason to believe he was at any particular location, including the crime scene. That's all. I didn't mean that it was impossible for him to be there, only that we can't prove that he was. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, it's not about what we believe, but what we can prove. And we can't prove Barnett was at the scene with any certainty. In fact, Nina's article, suggests he was not (but the usual caveate concerning newspaper reports must be given as always).
Hi Nina,
Interesting report! Depending upon it's accuracy (as always), it suggests that Barnett's whereabouts were unknown until well after the body was removed from the scene.
I have a question though. Is that report really from the 12th of December? Barnett was clearly located before then as he was present at the inquest.
And for those in the Northern Hemisphere, due to the date line, the 12th in New Zealand would be the 11th in England. For now, I'll assume that the report came out on the 12th of November, rather than 12th of December. If this is an error on my part, then the rest is bogus, and the article should be considered as unreliable.
Since that report suggests Barnett only turned up on the evening of the 11th (England time), and one could argue that means the evening of the 10th (the 11th New Zealand time, and then the report wasn't published until the next days news, making it the 12th in New Zealand, etc), this report would suggest Barnett was not at the crime scene prior to the door being forced, or even prior to the body being removed. So, although this doesn't tell us where he was, it does suggest where he wasn't. Of course, this would have to be compared with any reports that tell us he was there (if any), and then we have conflicting reports and still don't know what to believe. Isn't this fun? ha!
If Decemeber is the correct date, it seems something is fishy about it since we know Barnett wasn't "missing for over a month" after the murder.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 5:55 am: | |
G'day,
OK, I feel another book should be published outling Barnett's guilt for this and other reasons:
The 'Star'newspaper, November 10 revealed underneath the sub-heading 'JOE BARNETTS STATEMENT: 'In a public-house close by Buller's the reporter succeded later on in finding Barnett......He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window.'
I know there were other reports leading to the conclusion that he formally identified the body at the mortuary, Jeff, I've seen them. But the above report suggests he initially viewed the body at Miller's Court, and as he did it through the window it would seem as though it was prior to the forcing of the door..
We shouldn't take that New Zealand newspaper report as proof of anything. It would have been written well before the 12th of December, and we can only guess how long it took to be sent across the world!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
G'day,
Don't reply to my above post here!
I've just started a new one, as we've moved right off the topic of Daniel Barnett.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 500
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
Hi,
This actually refers to Dan (which is the topic of the thread after all!).
I was nosing about the press reports, and found the following report.
The Star
LONDON. SATURDAY, 10 NOVEMBER, 1888.
She went by the name of Mary Jane, but her real name was Marie Jeanette. He (Joe) knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her, except that his brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her.
In this newspaper report, the reporter claims to be taking a statement directly from Joe. So, if that is true, Joe himself clears up the mystery. Dan is Joe's brother, and the identification of Dan being the fellow who lived with Mary would be in error.
So, if the newspapers are to be believed, then this mystery is solved. If, as we all know, the newspapers should be viewed with a more critical eye, well. Perhaps this reporter heard Joe had a brother named Dan, and so assumed the sighting of Mary with a man named Dan referred to Joe's brother, etc.
Why do I question this report? Well, it seems odd to me that Dan wasn't called to the inquest if he was known to be speaking to her on the eve of her murder. It seems odd to me that Dan is never mentioned by the police as someone to talk to, etc. The lack of any other source indicating that Joe's brother might be worth speaking to, even if just to get some information about what Mary was like on that evening, makes me wonder just how much of this story is only a story?
- Jeff |
