| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 257
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 7:31 am: |       |
Sarah, normally, there was one key issued to the tenant on record. The night Joe moved out (Oct 30th) is the night the window was broken in a fight between him and Mary. (IMHO) Joe took the key with him claiming it was lost in the event he wanted to come back and the window had been repaired.
Unlike most, I do not believe that Joe was the one who decided to leave. I believe Mary booted him out because he had no money, no job, and wouldn't allow her to "earn" a living the only way she knew how...
If he were the one who left, why did he come back every day/night to see here afterwards?
Joe claimed to Abberline that he and Mary had to reach through the broken window to unlatch the door when they returned after having been out. Question is, the key went missing the night Joe left, so why would he have ever had to reach though the window to open the door as the only time he should have been there was when Mary was there too since he no longer lived there?
There is more to this then Joe lets on...
Shannon |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 123
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 7:45 am: | |
Shannon,
Well exactly. I mean you just said that the window also broken on the night Joe left so how could he have reached through it to open the door. Sounds to me like he used to go into the room after he had left. I agree that Mary probably booted him out for the reasons you have already said.
Oh by the way I already have Adobe on this machine so I don't know why that document you sent me won't open.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 8:31 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Why should Joe take the key? If Mary had the power to boot him out, she could have booted him out if she came back and found him sitting there.
It's all too much of a coincidence - first the window is broken in just such a way as will allow someone to open the door from the outside. Then the key goes missing. Surely it's the other way round?
Robert |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 125
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 9:07 am: | |
Robert,
I do agree with you that it would have made more sense that they broke the window to obtain access as they had lost the key. Apparently it was broken during an argument but I don't see how unless they were standing right next to the window and if it was because Mary slammed the door then she must have been very strong.
How often was the rent collected? It's just that I thought McCarthy wasn't aware of the broken window until she was murdered. If it was collected weekly then surely the window would have been noted on 2nd November if it was supposed to have broken before this time. I always thought that odd.
Sarah |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 36
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 9:22 am: | |
Hello All -
Perhaps the window was broken by the door? Slamming the door open might have pushed the door handle through the window payne. I'm not sure if it's ever been said how it was broken during their argument, but it's just a random thought 
Also, another random thought. If Joe was the killer (I do not advocate this or anyone else just yet for that matter. Just a random thought) and he broke it during the murder, it would be rather easy for him to say that it was broken during an argument. It would also explain why the landlord didn't know about the broken window until after the murder.
Of course, so could any number of things.
crix0r |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 37
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 9:34 am: | |
Shannon -
Just a thought. I feel there is a lot more to this than many have let on. Evidence has gone missing, stolen or lost forever. This makes it very difficult to get any research done. >=/
And while I find it unlikely for Joe to be the ripper, I do find it likely that he killed Kelly. For me it might make more sense. Of course, I'm not an expert on anything so that's just my opinion. Not that anyone was asking for it
I'd be interested in seeing his movements before and after (like from that day till death) the crime. Anyone ever dig up that info? If so, where could I dig it up?
crix0r |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 126
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 9:39 am: | |
Does anyone know if Joe was ever questioned about any of the other ripper murders? They thought that Mary was killed by the same person as the others and they interviewed Joe about he murder so I was curious to see if they questioned him about the others at all.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1390
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 10:51 am: | |
Hi Sarah, Jason
Venturney said that Kelly broke the windows when drunk. This would be consistent with a row concerning the door, but also with her throwing things at Joe, or the pair of them struggling and barging into the window - it was only a tiny room.
I think the door would have opened towards the right of anyone standing outside it (i.e. with the handle on the left), and when the police gained entry after the murder it knocked against the bedside table.
I don't think much is known about Barnett after 1888. In fact, there's been some difficulty in pinning down the 'right' Joe Barnett up to 1888!
I don't know if Barnett was questioned about the other murders, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't. Of course the police could have had previous witnesses like Lawende take a look at him, if they had any doubts about him.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 2:17 pm: | |
Kidney and Stride certainly only shared one key between them when they lived together, that's confirmed by inquest testimony.
I don't know, the more I read on these boards about Kelly and Joe the more I am reminded of Kidney and Stride, as if someone is taking that model and reapplying it to another situation.
It will work, for I too have sincere doubts - sometimes - about Kelly as a Jack victim and the earlier post about staging was provoking and stimulating.
For me there is just not enough flesh to Joe to make him bite, but I do hope that Leanne and her cohorts are able to realistically flesh Joe out and give him the background and character that is painfully lacking in his case.
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 16
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 2:35 pm: | |
AP,
A serial killer can be anybody. A boy, a girl, a man, a woman, a grandmother, a grandfather. It doesn't matter how they act or look or anything like that. I'm sure you've heard this before.
-Peter- |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 951
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 5:53 am: | |
G'day Robert,
If Lawende, Sarah Lewis, George Hutchinson, or anyone was told to take a good, close look at Joseph Barnett, under all lighting conditions, and from several distances, how come there is no record of this? And how can they expect anyone to truthfully answer the question: "Where were you on this morning, at this time? and on this morning, at this time?, and on this morning, at this time?"
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 131
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 6:00 am: | |
Leanne,
I'd be suspicious of anyone who could answer those questions straight away. If someone asked you what you had been doing on a certain day over a month ago would you remember straight away. I know I wouldn't. This is sort of a round about way of agreeing with you be the way. Just thought I'd clarify this as I seemed to write it in an argumentative way.
Sarah
P.S Am enjoying the book. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 952
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 6:16 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
I have trouble with remembering what I did last weekend!
If anyone is wondering what book Sarah is enjoying, I posted her my old copy of 'Jack the Ripper, The Simple Truth', instead of throwing it away! It is still readable, and she can start reading, while she keeps looking for a fresh copy.
That was fast delivery, Sarah. I only posted it on Monday!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 495
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:29 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I took Robert to mean that if the police had any doubts about Joe, they could have asked witnesses to check him over.
If there is no record of this happening, it could be because the records are lost, or it could be that the police had no doubts because they were able to eliminate Joe from their murder enquiries on other grounds – now lost.
Or it could even be that the red-faced police let a red-handed Joe, wearing Mary’s heart on his sleeve, slip right through their butter fingers.
In this case, anything is possible if you really put your mind to it. 
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 134
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:31 am: | |
Leanne,
I know, I was a bit surprised upon finding a package on the kitchen table from Australia. I thought it was quick. I read the summary at the back as to why Joe fits the profile first, I always read things like this in a strange order. Have gone back to the beginning now though and have found out some things I didn't know. It's very helpful.
Sarah
P.S. After I posted that last comment I realised it may have sounded a bit like I meant YOUR book. Should have said which one. Don't want people to think you've finished it and are handing out secret copies. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1398
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:39 am: | |
Hi Leanne
We don't know for sure if Lawende was asked to view Barnett, and if he was, what happened to the record of it. Maybe it was in the same file as the Barnett interrogation.
One point I'd like to make is, I don't think we can believe that Barnett washed his hands outside his own front door on Sept 30th, and that the police saw bloody water there, and yet didn't suspect Joe later on. I think either you or Richard had an idea like this.
By the way, I'm trying very hard to keep up with all these accusations about Barnett. There are three Barnettists, all posting different theories. Sometimes Joe kills Mary in a fit of jealous rage, sometimes he cynically plans her murder. Sometimes he kills her around 4 AM, sometimes much later in the morning. Sometimes he's the man seen by Lawende, sometimes he isn't. Sometimes he kills Stride, sometimes he doesn't...
Robert |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 137
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
Robert,
I think that if he killed her then it was in a jealous rage in the early hours of the morning. Just to make that clear, but I have one idea that it going to go into my story that I'm sure the other "Barnettists", as you so fondly call them, won't agree with, but I don't think I'll say....
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1399
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 7:59 am: | |
Not more sticking plasters!
Robert |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 138
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 9:32 am: | |
Robert,
And there's plenty more where that came from.
Leanne,
Just out of interest, do you think that, if Joe was the ripper that he wrote that graffiti in Goulston Street?
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 425
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 11:40 am: | |
Hi,
I dont think the rossers would just be interested in where Joe was on the night of November the 9th.
He would have been questioned regarding 31st August, 8/29/30th September along with possibly 3rd of April and the 7th of August.
Yes, I do indeed think he was questioned for hours.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 144
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 12:06 pm: | |
No, Monty, you're right. Why would they care where Joe was on the night of 9th November when it was the early hours of the 9th or the night of the 8th that she died.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 429
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 12:13 pm: | |
Sarah,
Well done, I was wondering who would be the first to spot that deliberate mistake. 
Erm, of course I had to make sure you were following......but you know what I mean.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 147
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 12:17 pm: | |
Monty,
Deliberate mistake my toothbrush!
What was the likelihood that Joe would remember where he was on all those dates? I'd be suspicious if he did know.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 432
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 12:25 pm: | |
Sarah,
Yes, Id be a bit wary too. It would also raise alarm bells with Joe.
"$hit, they think Im Jack"
He is bound to have registered those dates.
Monty
PS...A deliberate honest mistake !! |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 150
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 12:29 pm: | |
Monty,
Very true. Now, I'm off home and shall argue, err I mean, comment more tomorrow.
Sarah |
