|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 331
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 10:21 pm: |       |
Thanks Shannon
Best
Gary |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 805
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 3:53 am: | |
G'day,
A.P.Wolf: A lot of 'husbands' did ignore their wives prostituting, because they were desperate. But not our Barnett!
Barnett told inspector Abberline on the morning that Kelly's body was discovered, that he left her: 'in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her, and her resorting to prostitution.' That fact is in the Coroner's files.
Mary's close friend Julia Venturney said: "Joe Barnett would not let her go on the streets." (Inquest testimony). "He said he would not live with her while she led that course of life." (Coroners Files)
ROBERT: Kelly was known to be a drinker. John McCarthy: "But when in drink, she had more to say." Julia Venturney: She often got drunk." Not Joe, who had to be at Billingsgate Market at 5:00a.m. for the start of trade. I'm sure if the couple often got drunk together, that fact would have been made clear. They weren't evicted from their previous residence because they were drunk, but because they failed to pay their rent instead!
Why did he team up with Kelly? We can never know what the pair promised each other when they had that first drink together. But since Mary tried to stay off the streets when they started living together, I bet it had something to do with that!
Don't you mean: 'Killing TWO birds with ONE stone.'?
ALAN: You say that you doubt that you will know very many people at the pub, but I bet there's at least one face that's familiar!
RODNEY: Catharine Eddowes often stayed in the empty shed that was literally next door to Joe and Mary. Maybe this part-time neighbour said she saw or heard something that's worth a few pence, causing the Ripper to give her a face-lift. I believe that he didn't plan to take the most drastic step, but in the end lost his cool. That explains his reaction when he viewed the body through the window, on that morning. "OH WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?"
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 12:40 pm: | |
Shannon, all Joe had to do was look dazed and confused? If he carried out a murder in such a manner, he would actually have been dazed and confused - and for so long it's not true!
Leanne, I thought that Joe actually used the words "going on a drunk".
Robert |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
Leanne
I hope you got a good agent to help you get rid of the exclamation marks and bold type out of your volume. Publishers do not like them.
You make a valid point concerning Barnett’s attitude and behaviour to Kelly’s prostitution, but hey Leanne, if I was a guy living with a prostitute I would say exactly the same thing to friends, police and press, simply because if I said otherwise I could very well be prosecuted for ‘living off the immoral earnings’ which is a criminal offence.
I also have the feeling that Joe was trying to paint himself as Mister Nice Guy but believe me there were no Mister Nice Guys living in Dorset Street at that time. In fact the street was so infested with Irish thugs that the police would only patrol it in squads.
No, Robert meant ‘killing one bird with two stones.’
And I thought it most eloquent.
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 4:21 am: | |
G'day Robert,
I thought I just typed this somewhere else but can't find it now, so I'll type it again:
'Going on a drunk' is what a newspaper reported, not 'WE went on a drunk'. he would have lost his job sooner.
AP: There are no exclaimation marks or bold text. Thanks for the tip.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 1:54 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
But he was evicted for non-payment of rent. And from a dump like Paternoster Row. The money obviously went somewhere. Are you saying it was just Kelly who went on the drunk?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | |
Hi,
I Believe we can assume that Barnett also liked a drink, lets face it when he met Kelly it was proberly in a public house, and did he not state that they arranged to meet the following day , Where the high street?. outside Tescos.......
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 4:36 pm: | |
G'day,
Bruce Paley wrote: 'From George Street they moved to Paternoster Row, a narrow passageway that ran between Dorset Street to Spitalfields Market, on Brushfield Street. According to Barnett they were evicted from their room there for 'going on a drunk' instead of paying their rent,...' ('Lloyds Newspaper', 11 Nov.)
As Barnett was giving Mary money after they parted and Mary wasn't paying her rent with it, I'd say it was HER drinking that got them evicted from the last place.
RICHARD: We can't assume that Barnett was a heavy drinker just because he was in a public house when he met her. He met her in a street anyway! At Mary's inquest he when he was asked how he met her, he said: "I picked up with her in Commercial Street, Spitalfields. The first night we had a drink together and I arranged to see her the next day..."
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 5:43 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
We don't know how heavily Joe may have drunk. I would have thought though that to get evicted, they would have had to default on their rent more than once, in which case (if Mary was drinking the rent money) why didn't Joe stop giving the rent money to Mary to pay, and pay it over directly himself? I can't help feeling that Joe liked a few jars too - which may after all be the very reason he lost his job in the end.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 819
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 6:52 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: Why did Joe keep returning to give Mary money after he left her, if her rent wasn't getting paid? Why didn't he just give it to the landlord?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1120
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 7:13 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
If Joe was out of regular work, he may not have been able to give Mary much money at all - on the last night, nothing. What money he did manage to give her in the last few days of her life may have been meant for food, although some may inevitably have gone into the pub.
It may be that when the couple saw how far behind they were with the rent, realising that they'd never be able to make up the backlog, and couldn't even pay a full week's rent at all, they may have felt that there was no point in trying to give as much as possible to McCarthy if they were going to end up evicted anyway. They may have slipped him the odd sixpence to try and keep him sweet, just to buy themselves a few more days in the room.
I get the feeling that poor people in the area who fell behind with the rent weren't prosecuted, just evicted. Of course they'd try to pay the rent rather than have to go back to a doss house, but in the end it seems that eviction was the worst that could happen, and that there was no trouble later on with the courts. So maybe they just thought that they'd play McCarthy along until the inevitable eviction.
I may be wrong about whether rent defaulters were prosecuted. If they were, I imagine the courts were pretty clogged up.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 9:20 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Lets see, Joe lost his well-paying wage, (about 2 or 3 pounds a week), sometime in July and weeks before the murder of Martha Tabram. Kelly's rent arrears at the time of her death seem to date back to that time. The room was in her name.
I'd say SHE was the one who handled the rent payments, otherwize why didn't Barnett give his money-gifts directly to McCarthy?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Now you're going back to the time before Joe and Mary split up. Well, we don't know how much rent they managed to pay once Joe lost his job. I suppose it's possible that Joe was giving Kelly money, or at least some money, for the rent and only found out about her drinking this money instead of giving it to McCarthy at the end of October. Hence the row and hence the need to take in a third person to help out financially? Maybe at McCarthy's insistence?
Or maybe Joe just wasn't able to give her much money at all for the rent. Who knows?
By the way, we don't really know when Joe lost his job, do we? If you go just by the rent arrears, it's about six and a half weeks - taking us back to around Sept 25th. Obviously this is no good for the Barnett theory. I'd like to point out that, as far as I can see, it's just as likely that Joe lost his job after August 31st, as it is that he lost it before August 31st - that is, unless you and Richard have dug something up!
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 5:43 pm: | |
PS Leanne, I of course am puzzled as to why McCarthy let the couple run up such rent arrears. Maybe this wasn't unique though - did you notice in the Sourcebook/Companion chapter 23, Nikaner Benelius was said by his landlord to be 25s in debt to him?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 823
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 10:17 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Why do you say it's no good for the Barnett theory if he lost his job around Sept 25th? Martha Tabram was killed two weeks later, and Mary Ann Nichols was killed just over three weeks after that!
I must go, and I'll look closer at your last post when I get home! BYE!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:42 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
OK, I've had a shower and read your post again:
After Joe lost his job, none of the rent was paid. When this was discussed on the old message boards someone calculated how many weeks rent was in arrears at the time Mary died, and ended up in mid July, so it was agreed that rent payments stopped when Joe lost his job.
Bruce Paley wrote:'In a statement to Inspector Frederick Abberline on 9 November, Barnett said that he had been out of work for three or four months, or any time from the begining of July to the begining of August.'
There is no chance that he lost his job after August 31st.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 4:50 am: | |
You're quite right, Leanne : Barnett said three or four months. This would be before the Nichols murder. There's no way of knowing whether it would precede the Tabram murder.
I don't understand your rent calculation. Surely the rent was six and a half weeks in arrears?
PS Don't you find it strange that Barnett said "three or four months"? One would have thought losing his job would have been a traumatic event for him, and he'd have remembered the date. Could he have just slowly seen his work cut, i.e. was he gradually laid off?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 7:27 am: | |
G'day Robert,
I can't imagine a fish porter being gradually laid off. Bruce Paley says that a casual dock labourer earned about 6s 3d per week, a sum far below 2-3 pounds per week. He couldn't have earned much more around the fruit markets.
The couples weekly rent was 4s 6d.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Well, all I can suggest is that either Kelly earnt some money to help with the rent, or the couple had some savings put by and drew on that, or McCarthy let them pay half rent for 13 weeks or so.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 831
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 6:52 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Can you imagine living in a 12x12ft room, with a couple of tables, a chair, one small bed, a pail, a washstand and a tattered rug, on Dorset Street in 1888, with money put aside? If they had any money put aside, it would have went to McCarthy. There was nothing to save for....except a double bed!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 7:16 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
i once suggested that Joe's living in Miller's Court, when he could have afforded somewhere better, perhaps indicated that he didn't hate prostitutes as much as you claimed. Your response was, perhaps Mary insisted on living there.
Whatever, it seems to me that Joe was earning good money until he lost his job. Now if he had no money put aside, and he wasn't spending it on booze, where was his money going?
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 218
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Robert, if Joe (or Mary) had any savings, the rent would not have gone unpaid for a number of weeks. Its September / October and turning colder, not a time to be homeless if you dont have to be. Their place may not have been the best, but it was private, had a bed, and a fire place.
I am still confused as to why McCarthy didn't evict them to get a paying tenant in their place and try to recover the lost rent. The deputies of the doss houses were fairly strict on payment ahead for the nights lodging.
Any idea as to why McCarthy showed this couple special consideration?
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:15 am: | |
HI shannon,
McCarthy, did state that when they first moved in he knew her as Mary jane McCarthy, although she was also known as Kelly.plain Mary Jane by the courts inhabitants.
That could imply that she may have been distantly related to Mccarthy, and that is why some degree of compassion was entertained.
It strikes me however that Mary and Joseph were a couple of oportunists, for eg. McCarthy thought Barnett was Joseph Kelly, that is why she did not use the name McCarthy, but took his name.
It was the norm in those days ,in that part of society in the east end, to use many names, to disguise who they were.
I believe we can safely assume that Joe, was joseph Barnett, but kelly could be Mary mccarthy, married name Davies, surely as the couple were not legally married , when they approached McCarthy, earlier in the year, he would have asked them there names, to which Mary Jane, added McCarthy, mayby to draw attention to the same name as the landlord to give them a better chance of a room, and Barnett, obviously said Joe Kelly
Thus Mary Jane became Mary jane Kelly whilst she occupied room 13.The fact that Barnett did not give his true name , suggests to me, he had something to hide, and was not all as straightforward, as he came across.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:37 am: | |
Hi Shannon
I thought that maybe savings could have covered the first few weeks after Barnett lost his job. Then when the savings ran out, six and a half weeks arrears would have accumulated.
As to the arrears, it's been suggested that maybe Kelly was giving McCarthy sexual favours, or alternatively that there may have been a blood relationship, or even a romance, between Kelly and McCarthy. I don't find any of this particularly convincing. For example, would a relative or a lover have allowed bloodstains to remain visible on the walls for some time after the murder?
All I can offer is a piece of pure speculation. McCarthy's chandler's shop doubled as a grocer's. I believe he had a brother in the same line of business. I remember reading a newspaper report to the effect that McCarthy later became quite a local villain.
It's been suggested that Barnett may have pinched fish from the market to give to Kelly. Well, what if he was stealing on a larger scale, and selling it to the McCarthy brothers? Some they would have sold in their shops, the rest re-sold somewhere else. When Barnett lost his job, McCarthy may have given him a few weeks grace, to see if he could establish himself in some other mutually advantageous position.
It's just a suggestion, with nothing to back it up. Its only merit is it might explain both the loss of Barnett's job and the rent arrears.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I agree with you totally. Personally I think Joe Barnett being JTR is not likely but I have been thinking about this a lot recently. Ideas did start to form in my mind, especially about the murder of Kate Eddowes. Just suppose she's staggering out of that shed next to MJK's place one morning and Joe is outside, crouched down and he seems to be wiping some knives or something. He turns to see Kate looking at him but she just smiles and greets him and then makes her way home. Maybe she suspected him, but didn't know his name, yet she recognised him, this would go along with Kate saying she knew who the ripper was but never said a name. Maybe he then killed her, not because she was a prostitute, but he is worried she knows. This is just speculation of course but it would make an interesting film to point the blame at Joe instead of the usual people like Sir William Gull.
I can just see it now, Mary meets Joe and they move in together. Later when Joe loses his job Mary goes back to selling herself. Joe gets mad and freaks out that he will lose her so he decides to scare her off the streets, so he kills Martha Tabram. This doesn't freak out Mary too much as these things happen in Whitechapel so when he kills Polly Nichols he rips her open so try and scare Mary more and so on with the other vitims. She has a discussion with him on the night before her murder and he reminds her about these murders and that she should stop but she says they won't stop her as she needs the money and they argue. She goes home and he follows. The rest is, as they say, history.
Except this is all speculation and as I said before I don't really think of Joe as a very likely suspect.
Ahh, what one can dream up when one is at work. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
