|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 276
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:46 am: |       |
Peter, Joseph Barnett lived with the last victim, he lived across the street 20 feet from the second victim, less than 50 feet from the 3rd (4th if you count Liz) and had motive, means, and opportunity. If you can produce any other suspect with as much in common with the victims, he will take Joe's place as the #1 suspect, until then I would say what Richard stated may be a bold statment but it is also one that is backed by enough credible evidence to place him there, and to state so with conviction...
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 45
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:54 am: | |
Richard,
I am glad that you guys have that type of attitude. A positive one and confidence can get you guys far.
Problem is, without that “big thing” against Barnett, in my opinion, he is more innocent than guilty.
One problem with him is that ALL THE INFO we got from him and Mary came from HIS mouth.
There are just better suspects out there.
-Peter-
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 46
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 4:07 am: | |
Shannon,
Of course, if you JUST showed that information to somebody, anybody would pick Barnett. Problem is, you didn't give the other side of the story.
Please explain:
How Lawende never would have stumbled upon Barnett and noticed that he was the man with Eddowes.
How he had hid his knife in such a small room without bringing suspicion.
How Mary never walked out or went to the police when she heard that all her close neighbors were slowly getting killed. Wouldn’t she be terrified?
How the majority of your evidence comes from what Barnett said. How do you know when he was telling the truth?
Connection with the victims should not be the number one thing we are looking for here. Barnett showed no previous violence or hatred towards women.
I can give you a better suspect. That better suspect is The Lodger. A lot more evidence and witness accounts.
Barnett just can't be named the number one suspect.
I will not say anybody is the Ripper for sure until we get something that PROVES it.
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on December 03, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 201
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:04 am: | |
Peter,
In all fairness Lawende did say that he wouldn't be able to recognise the man again. Maybe it wasn't Joe he saw with Kate, maybe the man he saw wasn't her killer. Also how can you know for certain that Lawende never was given the chance to see Barnett in a line up?
He may not have been called in to identify him but we don't know for sure.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 982
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:10 am: | |
G'day Peter,
'How Lawende never would have stumbled upon Barnett and noticed that he was the man with Eddowes.' Where does it show that witnesses at a victim's inquest, are brought to the next victims inquest? Lawende appeared at Eddowes's inquest, not Mary Kelly's! He said there that he would not be able to identify the man again! no newspaper published a photograph of Joe!
'How he hid his knife in such a small room without bringing suspicion.' Who said he hid it in his room? His 'job' took him all around the district, and he may not have used the same knife each time!
'How Mary never walked out or went to the police when she heard that all her close neighbours were slowly getting killed.' Only one victim could have been her next-door neighbour occasionally, and she wasn't a known prostitute. Dorset Street was full of hundreds of prostitutes. How many people did go to the police with fruitless suspicions?
'How the majority of your evidence comes from what Joe said.' I'll let Shannon reply to that one and the last, because they were directed at him.
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 277
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:43 am: | |
Please explain:
How Lawende never would have stumbled upon Barnett and noticed that he was the man with Eddowes.
A- simple - Lawende was not at the Kelly Inquest. He was a witness at the Eddowes inquest.
How he had hid his knife in such a small room without bringing suspicion.
A- why did he even have to hide it. If he carried it all the time Mary would have taken no notice of it.
How Mary never walked out or went to the police when she heard that all her close neighbors were slowly getting killed. Wouldn’t she be terrified?
A- My point exactly. That is what Joe's intention was. To scare Mary so bad that she didn't dare go out on the street and what better way to do that than to pick woman she knew from the neighborhood where she lived?
How the majority of your evidence comes from what Barnett said. How do you know when he was telling the truth?
A- my evidence doesn't so much come from what he said, but more from what he didn't say, or changed his story on. For a man who lived with someone he loved for a year and a half he didn't know even the basics about her. Why didn't he contact her family after she was murdered to let them know? How could he ID the body and not blow his lunch all over the room?
Connection with the victims should not be the number one thing we are looking for here.
A- sorry, yes it is - first rule of police work - you have to be able to put the victim and the perp at the scene of the crime at the same time. While that might not be possible with Polly or Annie, it appears that Joe was the last one seen with Kate, and since he lived with Mary, it places him there.
Barnett showed no previous violence or hatred towards women.
You dont know that. As some have suggested, serial killers start by killing small animals; no one in Whitechapel wouid have thought twice about finding a mutilated cat in an alley. They would have just deposited it in the nearest trash can and went on about thier way. Some suggest that serial killer manifest their hatred in other ways, perhaps starting fires. You may note that on the nights of two of the murders there were major fires set in the area. NO, I am not saying Joe had anything to do with them, but someone did.
I can give you a better suspect. That better suspect is The Lodger. A lot more evidence and witness accounts. The lodger? Fine, now that you have a place to start, give your "lodger" a name instead of the faceless visitor on Batty Street...
Barnett just can't be named the number one suspect.
Yes, and he is growing in popularity as the #1 suspect.
I will not say anybody is the Ripper for sure until we get something that PROVES it
I will, Leanne will, Richard will, Stewart P. Evans will, and the list goes on...
Shannon |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 206
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:58 am: | |
Shannon,
To be fair here, I don't think anybody can say for sure who the Ripper was. You say you do and those others do, well I was under the impression that all this is your opinion based on the facts. That is not the same as saying something is true. Peter has a point about not saying anyone is the Ripper for sure until there is proof. I realise that the evidence keeps running out and there is a small amount of speculation but that is exactly why no-one should go about saying that anyone was Jack. After all, we may be wrong. I also think of Joe as the number one suspect but I may be wrong so I don't go about saying he was for certain, no-one can do that. Look what Patricia Cornwell did and how much she got slated for doing the exact same thing.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 213
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:30 am: | |
The list does indeed go on Shannon....
Patricia Cornwell will, Ivor Edwards will, Stephen Knight will.....
Peter, in answer to your earlier "Dr Who" question, Dr Sequira did see Catherine Eddowes in situ, but to the best of my knowledge this was the only victim he was involved with. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 457
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:47 am: | |
Folks,
Blimey, what a flurry of posts !
Im waiting Brian.....just waiting quietly for your input.
Believe me people....this is going to be good.
Monty
PS Re Tabram. She had wounds which were commited by a knife and Bayonet no?
Someone (Tom Westcott I believe, apologies if not him) stated that its possible that they started to stab Martha with a knife but during the course of this the knife broke. The killer carried on with a broken blade thus creating a 'bayonet' type wounds. Obvious probs with this is what the hell happend to the broken end of the knife ?
Just a thought. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Shannon and Leanne
Shannon, please explain your remark "It appears that Joe was the last one seen with Kate."
Leanne, I see, so Joe knows all the victims but Mary doesn't?
I notice that Lawende is being shoved back into the Whitechapel darkness. A while ago, his description "matched Joseph Barnett in every particular!" Such are the ups and downs of being a witness.
If Joe was trying to scare Mary, why didn't she get a letter from Jack? In any case, isn't disembowelling a tad extreme?
Yes, Barnett didn't seem to know much about Mary. Maybe he didn't love her after all? Or maybe he just got bored by hearing her droning on? Could be anything.
I take it Barnett is now under suspicion for not vomiting. Maybe he hadn't had any lunch? He told Mary he had no money.
It looks to me as if Joe can't win here. How could the police know that they were looking for someone with Multiple Personality Disorder - cunning psychopath one minute, crazy paranoid schizophrenic the next. Oh well, if one Barnett wasn't the killer, I suppose the second or third Barnett may have been....
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 218
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Robert,
Mary didn't get a letter from Jack because I don't think he sent any letters. Also, even if he had sent any, sending Mary one would be a bit of a give away, she would have gone to the police.
How could the police know that they were looking for someone with Multiple Personality Disorder - cunning psychopath one minute, crazy paranoid schizophrenic the next.
The police didn't know what they were looking for anyway.
Have to say though that Joe shouldn't be under suspicion for not vomiting though, I looked at the photo and thought how terrible it was but I didn't feel sick and that doesn't make a mad serial killer, at least I hope not.
Joe Barnett is still the strongest suspect in my eyes though. The only argument for it not being Joe is the same one over and over again which is the "the police released him" excuse. It's old and worn out. I haven't heard any good reasons for him not being the Ripper that can't be answered.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 12:45 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
What would now make you reconsider and think that Joe could have been innocent? What is there in the case evidence that couldn’t argue as well for his innocence as for his guilt?
I think what Robert is getting at is how easily Joe can change from one kind of killer to another, according to individual speculation and in line with the various challenges, based on the facts, to the assorted guilty-as-hell Joe theories. The man is a veritable chameleon, changing colour to suit his would-be hangmen, when in reality they have nothing to indicate he is not a constant grey.
The gaps in our knowledge about Joe allow us to fill them with whatever we like. The question is, why would anyone seek to fill them with dark or colourful deeds if they could equally well be filled with light ones? Or better still, leave the gaps as they are unless or until new information sheds genuine light and colour that can’t be argued against?
Love,
Caz
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 278
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 2:09 pm: | |
Lets see... fake letters to the police and then one questionable (which I believe to be real) to George Lusk, and then one to the next victim on the list. Who is writing this story Patsy Cornball?
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 279
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 2:19 pm: | |
Robert, if (and it’s a big if) Abberline had asked Lawende to have a look at Joe Barnett after the MJK murder, he may (or may not, we just don’t know) have picked Joe out as the man he saw Kate with the night she was murdered. For Joe, or a man with his description (5'7" fair completion, red hair and mustache) to be spotted with the victim within minutes of her death is circumstantial, but also strange as it was in a predominately Jewish part of town, in the middle of the night, and near a fruit coster's stand which is what Joe had taken to doing when he lost his job at the fish market. Yes, circumstantial, but something that questionable bares further investigation. For me, to add it to the list and take in consideration with the fact that Joe lived with the next and final victim moves it from mere speculation to a very possible scenario...
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
Shannon, you think tnat Joe would have believed he'd have more chance of frightening Mary if he sent a kidney to Lusk rather than to her?
Your remark "it appears that Joe was the last one seen with Kate" sounded awfully definite.
Is Joe supposed to have killed Kate (I know you don't count Stride) on the way to, or the way from, work?
I don't know where the red hair comes from. Fair hair maybe, as his moustache was fair.
Robert
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 280
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
Robert, yes I do. For a number of reasons. First, MJK is not implicated in this beyond the confines of #13 Miller's Court so why would Joe send her the kidney.
The reasons for sending the kidney to Lusk are:
1, Lusk has stated that his Vigilance Committee would do what the police wouldn’t and that was to protect the citizens of Whitechapel.
2, Since Lusk lived in Whitechapel, Joe was able to deliver the package at night without having to go thorough the RMS which would have raised a lot of suspicion about the contents of the package.
3, Joe knew that by sending the package to Lusk it would hit the streets with a bang. Now the killer wasn’t content with killing the women of Whitechapel, he was doing it two at time (double event with Liz and Kate), and now has the audacity to send the kidney of a victim to the man who claimed he would be able to protect them.
4, By signing the letter with something other than the trade name give by the newspaper it also confirms to the public that the police and the papers are tracking the wrong suspect.
If you want to make a statement there is no better way.
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1463
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:09 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
Your argument is that Joe was trying to scare Mary off the streets. If getting a piece of a dead prostitute's kidney in the post wouldn't scare a prostitute off the streets, it's hard to think of what would.
If you're saying that by sending the kidney to Mary, Joe risked coming under suspicion - well, according to you he was prepared to skeletonise her in the room he'd lived in ten days previously.
And why not send the womb for good measure? Surely you're not suggesting he ate it?
Robert |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 47
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 8:48 pm: | |
Sarah:
Lawende said that he wouldn't be able to identify the man again, yet he did just the opposite in 1895.
It can almost be certain that the man who Lawende saw was the actual killer. The time from when Lawende saw him and when the victim was discovered are too close to one another to be two different men. It would have taken too much time for the "second unknown man" to get her into the Square and murder her.
Leanne:
This is what I am saying about Lawende and Barnett: When the Kelly murder happened, Barnett was held by the police. There had to be a moment where Lawende noticed Barnett. He could have seen him at the police station or even when Barnett was riding through town for Mary Kelly's funeral. He did remember his face. Otherwise, he would have never identified the man seven years later.
Regarding the knife, you want me to believe that he always kept it at work? So, he got up early in the a.m., went to get his knife, kill somebody, get some of his clothes bloody, go back to work with those HUMAN bloody clothes, then went home to clean those bloody clothes? I am sure Mary would be the one doing the cleaning. Mary would not get suspicious?
Shannon:
Regarding the knife, I think it might have been pretty risky to carry it wherever he went.
Like Robert had said, killing these three or four prostitutes was clearly UNNECESSARY.
Anyway, where is the previous sign of hatred or violence toward prostitutes or even Kelly that I had asked earlier?
Evidence on what he didn’t say? How does that make any sense? You’re evidence, therefore cannot exist if that is what you are trying to get across here.
How do you know Barnett never contacted her family? Just because Barnett had little knowledge of Mary’s past, that does not mean a thing.
I think the “blowing his lunch” evidence, if you would like to call it that, is just absurd.
Perhaps, Barnett had a strong stomach. Perhaps, he didn’t love her enough to do so. Did you see any of the other victims’ family members throwing up when they saw their daughter/sister/wife dead?
So Joe’s “connection with the victim” is only with Mary and Kate now?
Shannon, how was Joe the last one seen with Kate? I am sure Joe looked similar to many other people in Whitechapel.
Yes, I do know that Barnett showed no previous signs of violent or hatred towards women. I’m sorry, but this is the rule-innocent until proven guilty. Until you can come up with something that did show his violence or hatred-I’m sticking with the fact that he showed no previous signs.
So Joe was now killing fish before he killed women? Is this a step-by-step process now?
Shannon, yes The Lodger is a better suspect:
There was suspicion towards him, unlike Barnett
The police were looking for him at the time, unlike Barnett
There were witness accounts of his strange habits, unlike Barnett
Bloodstained clothes were found in his possession, unlike Barnett
He came back in the early morning on one of the murder nights, unlike Barnett
He just disappeared, probably after he found out the police were after him, unlike Barnett
What does popularity have anything to do with who is the Ripper or not?
If you are basing your suspect off that, then I’m afraid you are headed in a wrong direction. Currently, you should be supporting Maybrick. He’s the number one suspect, isn’t he?
You guys name a suspect as strong as you want. MANY authors have stated suspects as fact-it’s irrelevant.
I will not state any suspect as being the Ripper factually like you and Leanne seem to be doing.
And I don’t think it matters what authors have done it or not-weather they are good authors or not.
I just think those are the bad directions to go.
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on December 03, 2003) |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 1:16 am: | |
Shannon,
“…, but also strange as it was in a predominately Jewish part of town, in the middle of the night, and near a fruit coster's stand which is what Joe had taken to doing when he lost his job at the fish market.”
St. Botolph's Church, on Aldgate High Street was very near Mitre Square. This church was known as the prostitutes' church, because the ladies would walk around it in order to attract clients. This is what might have attrackted Jack like honey would a bee, whether it was a predominantly Jewish part of town or not and whether there was a coster's fruit stand or not (did Joseph actually work at this stand?)
Frank
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 222
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:35 am: | |
Robert,
As I think I've said before, why would he send Mary the kidney or a letter at all? He wouldn't. Unless he wanted to get caught. If Mary had been sent something to her personally, it would be obvious that this was all a personal attack on her and surely she would have gone straight to the police with her letter/kidney.
Peter,
I find it strange that he didn't think he could identify this man again and yet he does so 7 years later. Where did you find that information? It's all very fishy to me.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 983
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:46 am: | |
G'day,
PETER: Why do you say there HAD to be a time when Lawende saw Barnett? Abberline took Barnett to the station as part of routine detective work. They needed an official signiture on official papers to identify the body, and the corpses 'inner-circle' had to do this. In the other cases, the victims partners were sought firstly. They would have had to ask him his alibi, they probably went to Buller's to examine his clothes in his locker, as part of a routine. They would have done the same when they found Michael Kidney and John Kelly too. Neither of them turned up at the actual murder scene and one reporter got it wrong, and said an arrest has been made.
Do you think that Joseph Lawende set up camp at the police station? As for his positive identification of a man 7 years later, after he told them he would not be able to recognize the man again: I'd have serious doubts about that!
As for his knife: I have already said that the Ripper didn't have to use exactly the same knife each time. How can that be proved? DNA?
How much blood do you think the killer would have got on his clothing? Drops of blood on one's clothes was a normal thing in that area, at that time, with so many slaughter houses etc. And somebody had to do the washing. Why not Mary?
We are not going to put that the case is closed on this book! We are just going to show people why we believe that Barnett is a top suspect. Hopefully alot of debate will come out of it, and that is our aim!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:48 am: | |
Sarah, the argument I'm combatting says that Joe was so desperate to keep Mary off the streets that he killed and disembowelled several women to do it. It seems to me that if he was going to go that far, a letter to Kelly herself would have been in order. Yet this is supposed to have been too risky for him? A man who takes the sort of risks he is supposed to have taken in Hanbury St and Mitre Square, is supposed to be too scared to send Mary a letter? A man who is prepared to skeletonise her in her room, won't send her a letter in case it all leads back to him?
Besides, he could have written to several other whores from the area at the same time, if he'd wanted.
I myself think that the Lusk letter is the only one likely to be genuine. Only, I don't see Joe as the sender.
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 219
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:49 am: | |
Peter
It can almost be certain that the man who Lawende saw was the actual killer.
I think you need to qualify that statement "if the woman he saw was Catherine Eddowes." He only identified her by her clothes, so you have to allow for the possibility that this was an entirely different couple and that Kate and her killer were approaching the square from one of the other two directions. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 226
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:05 am: | |
Robert,
Yet this is supposed to have been too risky for him? A man who takes the sort of risks he is supposed to have taken in Hanbury St and Mitre Square, is supposed to be too scared to send Mary a letter?
Quite simply, yes. Those other risks are not directly linked to him. Sending Mary a letter would link to him. It's too close for comfort if you know what I mean. I know he eventually killed her and that was way too close but he wasn't planning to kill her, at least that's what I think. In my opinion, sending Mary a letter would be an absurd thing to do.
I don't know if the lusk letter was real. I haven't decided yet. If it was real I can't see Joe sending it. This is one of the few problems with Joe being Jack. He was an educated man and could read and write well. Why would he send a letter where things weren't spelt correctly and all over the place? On the other hand, he may have sent it as a sign to the police that the "Dear Boss" letter was a fake as he didn't sign it with that name. If it was Joe, I don't believe he wanted fame, especially not a nickname. He was just concerned about getting Mary off the streets and I don't think he enjoyed what he did at all. I believe that he was a slightly disturbed man because he was very much in love with Mary and yet she didn't seem to care for him anymore. Love can make people do very strange things.
Sarah |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:12 pm: | |
Shannon, for you to say that "Martha is NOT a ripper victim PERIOD!" immediately after you claim you are not making assumptions is a nice, quick confirmation that you have a serious problem separating your opinions from the facts of the case. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
