| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 4:25 pm: |       |
Leanne, I won't say a word
.....until your book comes out
Robert |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 2:31 pm: | |
Excuse my maths, but I just worked out that if Joe earned £3 a week he could have indulged himself with 180 different unfortunates a week.
He gets three for a shilling, sixty for a pound.
Even Ted Bundy wouldn't have killed under those circumstances. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 942
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 3:19 pm: | |
G'day,
Back to Viper's piece:
Viper wrote: 'The four Barnett brothers did not all receive their licences at the same time, as Paley stated erroneously in his book, though Denis, Joe and John did all get theirs on 1st July 1878.' But after Bruce Paley mentions his belief that all Barnett brothers got their Billingsgate licenses, he wrote: 'though like Daniel they had probably already been working there for some time previously', So Paley did note that the eldest brother was already working at Billingsgate. No error there!
I don't understand why Viper critisized Paley for stating that Joseph Barnett was reissued with a Billingsgate licence in 1906, not 1907 as he discovered. So he got his license returned one year sooner. How does that ruin Paley's book?
Viper says that this is not a 'cast-iron certainty' to be the same man. There were other men named Joseph Barnett, but Bruce Paley found the same address on brother Daniel's death certificate, so there's a good chance this was the one! Viper doesn't bother to mention that!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:02 pm: | |
AP, that works out at over nine thousand a year. No wonder he had a stammer.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 77
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 5:37 am: | |
Please excuse my ignorance here but am I to believe that Joe was quite well off for the period? If he was earning so much more than others around that place then why was he living in whitechapel? Or was he still not paid enough to get out of that area? |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 945
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 5:44 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
That's something to think about! He was born in the East End of London, and lived there all his life!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 80
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 5:53 am: | |
So maybe it was more of a fondness of the area that kept him there? I don't know about that. The area was falling apart. You'd think that if you had the money that you would get away from there. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 946
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 6:13 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
I spose he didn't really know what was out there. His parents immigrated from Ireland. He worked at Billingsgate Market, like his father and all his brothers. He wasn't qualified to work in any other area, except fruit-selling, which also arrived via boat at Billingsgate and you didn't need a license to deal with it.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 82
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 6:24 am: | |
Leanne,
That's a good point. I hadn't actually thought of that. |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 83
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 6:44 am: | |
I have another question. If Mary had possession of the only key to their room, then how did Joe access it? They obviously weren't together all the time so how did he get in if she was asleep or out? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 7:10 am: | |
Hi
Surely there were better places to live than "the worst street in the Empire"? Why would a man who allegedly hated prostitutes not only live with one, but also live surrounded by dozens more of them?
Robert |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 28
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:45 pm: | |
Hello All, Robert -
I'm not sure the killer hated prostitutes just yet, but perhaps one available answer to your question is that A) If he were smart enough, it would be a great way to hide out. No one would suspect him. "Oh that's just XYZ, he's always round, never hurt a fly" Hiding in plain sight kinda of thing. B) Perhaps it's deeper than that... perhaps our man loved women profusely, just that a few of them made the mistake of setting him off and found out how mean he was and he killed them to keep them quite and sustain his reputation. C) I'm way off and rambling again, in which case, ignore my whole post 
crix0r |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Jason
I can see that Jack may well have lived in the area. If he did, and yet hated prostitutes, his living there may have been a matter of economic necessity.
But in Joe's case, with his income, he surely could have found somewhere a bit less prostitute-ridden. Yet this guy who's supposed to hate prostiutes so much, lives right in the thick of them.
Re your idea that Jack cunningly lived in the area so as to blend in : it's possible, but in Joe's case he'd have had to have been planning this series of crimes since Easter '87, because he'd lived in this kind of area at least since he met Kelly.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 92
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:16 am: | |
Hi all,
It's a possibility that Jason is right when he said "I'm not sure the killer hated prostitutes just yet". If Joe was the killer and he grew up around that area then he may have been used to that way of life. He took up with Mary but didn't mind what she was/had been as it was common round there and besides, he had money enough to support them both so she didn't have to work the streets. He got used to that way of life, but maybe when he lost his job and she had to go back to the streets, he just snapped. He had got used to having Mary to himself and now she seemed to be sharing herself with the whole of Whitechapel. I know many men turned a blind eye to their partner's whoring but I'm sure that not every man was ok with it. |
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 3
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 8:39 am: | |
Sarah,
That clearly relates to the assumption that Joe maybe killed Kelly, but how does this all relate to Joe killing Polly, Annie, Liz, or Catherine?
-Peter- |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 30
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:18 am: | |
Perhaps Joe did kill mary. Perhaps someone else killed stride, someone else eddowes, someone else polly and yet again someone else for chapman and all the others.
It might explain why I can't seem to really link the crimes other than vaguely (they all took place in this area around this time, etc.) just yet. Then again, I might not be able to link them just yet because I've missed something...
Of course, there are many more viable explanations, so I'm not saying that the above is the case, only that it is a possibility. One that I might have to chase down in the near future.
crix0r |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 102
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:20 am: | |
Well I'll put it this way. Have you ever been really really pi**ed off with someone who you feel you can't retaliate against? Of course you have. Have you ever then taken that anger out on someone else? Sure you have. Everyone has at some point. My idea is that Joe got upset and angry with Mary for going back to being a prostitute and so took out his frustration on other prostitutes. The first one, be it Polly or Martha, just happened while he was angry and then when he saw that Mary was a little frightened about it he killed another but made it worse. She got more afraid, but then there was a point when he finally realised that she wasn't going to stop and that's when he killed her. Personally I think that if this was the way, then he killed Martha Tabram first as most people wouldn't think to cut someone's abdomen up but maybe he thought it would scare Mary, which it actually did.
Anyway, enough of that, is anyone gonna answer my question about the key? I've read in one place that there was only one key between them but somewhere else that he had a key too. I'm confused.
Sarah  |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 32
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
Hey Sarah -
While I can't just yet agree with you about Joe killing more than one, I can agree with you on the very human action of taking something out on someone who doesn't deserve it... Well put.
On to the key, off the top of my head, I can not answer. However, I can say that I don't think a lot of people put much thought into it because it was said that after the key was lost, (neither of them had one at that point I'm told) all one needed to do was reach in through the window to open the door.
Of course, the landlord had a key, perhaps his maintenance man (if such a thing existed back then and if it did, wasn't the responsibility of the landlord solely). And anyone else who might have roomed there and just kept the key. Today's policy is to change the locks when a resident moves out and doesn't turn in the key.. I do not know what the policy was back then given that I'm fairly sure locks weren't nearly as cheap back then as they are today.
crix0r |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 107
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:32 am: | |
Jason,
Thanks for your comments. The reason for me asking about the key isn't to do with Joe unlocking her door to kill her, it's just a question. I mean before the key was lost and before the window was broken. It sounds like a daft question but I have a point.
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 1:15 pm: | |
Hi.
With reference to the key, McCarthy clearly did not have one, for there would have been no need to smash open the door.
Richard |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1379
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 2:18 pm: | |
Hi Sarah
Further to the key, one very possible explanation is that when they were both out, they simply left the door unlocked. They wouldn't have had anything much worth stealing. However if one of them absent-mindedly pulled the door to and locked it, then it would be necessary to reach through the window to get in.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 113
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 4:29 am: | |
Robert,
Do you think that if they had accidently locked the door then they would have had to break the window to get in as I don't think it opened, especially from the outside. I shouldn't have thought that their landlord would have liked them to leave the room unlocked, in case anyone decided to make use of an empty, unlocked room for free.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1385
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 5:46 am: | |
Hi Sarah
Aaaagh! I can feel myself being sucked back into the door and key maelstrom.
I don't know whether the window opened, but let's suppose that they could only unlock the door from outside provided the window was broken. It's been suggested that Barnett took the key after the row on Oct 30th, when the window was smashed. But isn't it possible that the window was smashed because one of them had inadvertently locked the door - i.e. that the key had gone missing beforehand? If one of them had inadvertently locked the door, and the window was fastened, then they would have had to smash a window and reach in - making the place permanently cold and putting a bit more on what they owed McCarthy. I can see such a scenario generating a fair bit of heat between Joe and Mary. Barnett then moved out.
It was quite common for doors to be left unlocked - 29 Hanbury St for example (though whether the doors of the individual rooms inside number 29 had locks I don't know, but I doubt it).
Robert
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 120
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 6:07 am: | |
Robert,
Do you think it would be feasible for Mary and Joe to each have a key? Could it have been possible? Joe had lost his job and they had little money so I can't see them breaking a window to unlock the door. I'd just wait for the one with the key to return rather than have to pay their landlord more. It just seems all rather silly to me that there was only one key.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1386
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 6:23 am: | |
Hi Sarah
I raised this point in connection with McCarthy - a landlord not having a spare key to his property seems very strange. But I was told that getting keys cut would have been expensive.
From the fact that the door had to be prised open, it looks as if McCarthy didn't have a key, so I would imagine that there was only one key between Joe and Mary. Also, Prater said that when she went to bed she put two tables against her door, so it looks as if her key had got lost too, if she ever had one.
Robert |
