|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 566
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 8:12 am: |       |
Hi Richard
You are assuming a lot here, surely? First, that the informant's mother correctly interpreted what she saw. Second, that the informant's mother correctly remembered the event when relating it years later. Third, that the informant correctly heard and understood the story when told it by the mother. Fourth, that the informant correctly remembered the story when relating it yet more years later. Fifth, that Farson transcribed the story correctly when told it. Sixth, that the informant wasn't just making up the story altogether.
Also, the story doesn't seem to make sense. For one thing, the newspaper mentioned by Leanne seems to say that the grave was filled in.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 2:29 am: | |
Hi Robert,
The press reported ,that the grave was filled in,before the onlookers outside the cemetary boundarys were admitted,therefore only the people inside the cemetary, which were the official mourners , and people already tending graves, could have been responsible if such an event occured, and as farsons imformant said the culpret parted the boards with his feet, and one man stayed behind, then I believe that suggesting Barnett could have been the perpretrator is a good bet.
Of course the story could have been made up, but all clues have to be suggested and discussed in this baffling case..
Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 77
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
Yet, remember, even if the story is 100% true, spitting on a grave does not mean "I murdered you."
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 573
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 6:29 pm: | |
Hi Andy and Richard
Andy I agree that even if Barnett did spit, it doesn't prove anything - although if he did spit, I think it would be a small factor I'd place in the scales against Barnett. But I don't see any reason to think he did spit.
Richard, don't get me wrong, I'm all for hearing these traditions, stories, rumours etc. But I don't see that we can glean anything from this particular one.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 5:50 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I'm new on this thread, so I hope you don't mind my 'intruding'.
On the posts above there's a lot of speculating going on. Andy and Caroline have suggested it before, and I would like to do it again: why don't we cut through all the red tape (all the 'if's' Robert pointed at) and assume that Barnett was the Spitter. What would we be left with? What would it mean?
All the best,
Frank  |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 4:01 am: | |
G'day,
Sorry I haven't made a post for a while, I've been having computer trouble.
Look at the last paragraph in the newspaper article: 'Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian' 24 Nov. for a description of Kelly's funeral.
Now look at: The 'Times' 20 Nov. Search for the part that says: 'Two mourning coaches followed...' [the coffin past the gates],'....one containing three the other five persons, mourners who had been fortifying themselves for the journey at the public house close to the church gates. Joe Barnett was amoungst them with someone from McCarthys the landlord, [Julia Venturney, I believe], and the others were WOMEN who had given evidence at the inquest.'
"Parting the boards" was what 2 young girls interpreted they saw. They didn't report seeing a culpret dressed in religious garb.
As the tale teller noted that the incident happen following the funeral of one Ripper victim, it's not likely to have occured a long time after the service. Gary it doesn't matter what you or I would have done.
When the cemetary gates were made off limits to the curious public, they couldn't chuck out the mourners visiting other graves. That would have been sacreligious!
GARY: No official person attended Mary's funeral and the incident was never reported. Why do you need to see evidence in official reports, before you consider them?
Everyone: If this incident occured, what do you think the grave-spitters motives could have been?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 579
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 4:44 am: | |
Hi Leanne
If the witness can be wrong about "parting the boards" then where does that leave the rest of the story?
Robert
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 6:01 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Maybe the man they saw was an ghost!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 581
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 6:37 am: | |
Hi Leanne
A ghost with a speech impediment?
But seriously, I doubt if the story is worth much. But I'll play your game for a while. I think you suggested on another thread that "parting the boards" might have been the "spitter" moving the cards and floral tributes on the grave. In which case, how do we know that he wasn't spitting at one of these - say, a card from someone he didn't like, or from someone who he thought was being hypocritical in sending one at all?
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 79
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 1:43 pm: | |
If this incident occured, what do you think the grave-spitters motives could have been?
Hi Leanne,
Assuming the "spitter" was Barnett, it could merely be an expression of disgust that Mary's now permenant absence from him was caused by her refusal to follow his directions, i.e. that it was her fault they could no longer be together.
Andy
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
Hi.
I Believe everyone is making excuses here, If this incident did occur [If] . Then Barnett is the most likely person to have committed the act. of course this is not proof of murder, but it is a act of gross disrespect, and certainly not the actions of a poor widowed man that he portrayed.
It is not a sign of love, nor is it why Have you left me like this, it is the action of a man who was deranged, and who could not control his emotions.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 588
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 6:35 pm: | |
Hi Richard
If Barnett hated Kelly and her class to such an extent, that not content with skeletonising her he felt compelled to spit on her grave, and he was deranged and couldn't control his emotions, then one would have expected more bloodbaths to come in the ensuing weeks.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 80
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 2:30 pm: | |
It is not a sign of love, nor is it why Have you left me like this, it is the action of a man who was deranged, and who could not control his emotions.
Richard,
What is your basis for saying this? It is just your opinion or have you something on which to base it?
While I have never personally witnessed anyone spitting on a loved one's grave, I have seen grieving loved ones express anger at the deceased.
Andy
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 3:14 am: | |
Hi Andy,
If this incident took place[I am not taking it as a fact], then it shows that Barnett[if he was the culpret?.]was at the very least deceitful, for he obviously behaved impeccably whilst he was in the company of the other mourners, at the graveside, then when he had an opportunety he changed his personality, to that of pure hatred.
I cannot consider such an act ,to be a natural grieving process, some people express sorrow, in a selfish way ie; why me?. what am I going to do now, how am I going to cope? but to disrespect in that manner, showing blatent hatred is unheard of in any sane person.
I think , and it is my opinion here, that this imformation is a positive mark against Barnett, and his possible involvement in at least The Kelly murder, if not the others.
For we have a indervidual showing unnatural behaviour, against one of the victims, and I feel sure in saying that if the police had been told at the time of such an occurence, Mr Barnett, would have been arrested on suspicion of murder.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 96
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 4:55 am: | |
Hi Richard,
"If this incident did occur [If]. Then Barnett is the most likely person to have committed the act. [...] I think , and it is my opinion here, that this imformation is a positive mark against Barnett, and his possible involvement in at least The Kelly murder, if not the others."
No no no no, Richard!!!!  If the grave spitting incident really took place, you can't even be sure that Barnett is the man in question. You're just assuming it. And once again; you can't draw such conclusions about someones emotional state, thoughts and behaviour when you don't have any concrete facts to back it up. Barnett isn't mentioned by name in your "sources" regarding this incident, I believe? You're making a hen out of a feather here. Such psychological speculations won't lead the Jack the Ripper investigation any further. I'm sorry. Let it go.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 5:43 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Fair play, I think we will just have to disagree on this point
I keep on watching that head being smashed against the wall, but the wall remains solid , and is resisting. I think I will back off this discussion , before I get a headache...
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 99
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 9:22 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Yes we certaily disagree, but just be careful about what draw conclusions from in that book of yours. The grave spitting incident may have a fictionous value as a curiousity, so therefore it should also be treated as such -- nothing else -- but it is not a clue. Just a friendly advice.
I think that clip-art piece is extremely funny -- and expressive. If you get a headache, how would that poor chap in the clip-art feel?
The head seems just as solid and resistant as the wall, though.. 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 86
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
Richard,
I'm not going to belabor this any further.
Suffice it to say that I deal with bereaved people professionally and I can firmly attest that it is not that unusual for the bereaved to express anger at the deceased, particularly in a case where the death could be seen as the deceased's own fault.
Andy
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 2:01 pm: | |
Well said, Andy. Richard can count his blessings if he has not (yet) had personal experience of anyone expressing anger towards a dear departed loved one as part of a natural - and very far from deranged - grieving process.
I think, if the grave-spitting incident goes in a book promoting Barnett as a killer, it has to made very clear what alternatives there are to any speculation offered by the author(s) that: a) the spitting actually happened; b) it was Barnett who did the spitting; and c) that this action after Kelly's murder means Barnett could have been deranged enough beforehand to have done the deed himself.
Love,
Caz
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 2:27 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
There are two types of anger, anger of love and anger of hate, the former, being a natural feeling of regret, and frustration of not having a love one in ones life, the latter being a pure hatred of the deseased.. In my opinion the last feeling is the one that Barnett expressed if this incident occured?.
We obviously were not present at the time , and have no way of knowing Barnett as a man , his feelings, and his character
To your question [a]
If this incident is pure fabrication, then it is a work of art, showing vivid imagination,with nothing to gain either financially, or fame wise.
Question[b]
It clearly states that after the service , one man stayed behind, and believing himself to be alone parted the boards with his feet, spitting several times on the coffin.
As the onlookers that surrounded the perimeter of the church were not allowed in until the grave was filled and the flowers mounted, no other male person , but Barnett and the priest, could have perpretrated this act.
Question [c].
If Barnett did commit this act, then he showed a hidden personality, one of the heartbroken common law husband kneeling on the cold clay, and when alone a vile beast, this to me shows a cunning and deceitful mind, that could control his emotions, when he so desired and could explode into anger at any time he wanted.
Lets not forget that the Ripper[ whoever he was ] had enough control after each murder to cease his atrocities until his next victim, and he proberly appeared as normal as any man between dates.
He could proberly control his anger when ever he wanted , and knew exactly how to flip out when he wanted , excessive alcohol, could bring on a change in personality.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 615
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 2:41 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Could you give the source you're using here? I have re-checked Farson's book and can find no reference to parting the boards WITH HIS FEET or spitting SEVERAL TIMES. Is this in a revised edition of Farson, or another source altogether? If so, do you think you could type it out, if it's not too long?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 4:09 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I have not had Farsons book in my procession for many years , I lent it to my ex brother in law, and it was never returned, however the parting of boards was mentioned, and the spitting several times also . I have no idea if your edition is the same one as mine, believe me I know what I read ,for it has been imprinted in my mind ever since.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 618
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 4:26 pm: | |
Hi Richard
It's just that mine doesn't mention the feet, or spitting several times. Mine is third impression January 1973.
I'm sure your memory is excellent, Richard, and the details I mentioned may seem nit-picking, but I wish we had the version you read in front of us, because it would appear that the story exists in more than one form.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 6:45 am: | |
G'day Caz,
I have just edited the bit going in this book about the grave spitting incident, saying that it has been suggested by enthusiasts frequenting the Website 'Casebook, Jack the Ripper', that the spitter could have been the priest, but we believe it highly unlikely that Father Columban would have forgotten an important part of the service and waited until he thought he was alone. Plus the two young witnesses would have noticed the distinctive dress of a holy man, and wouldn't have been so frightened to report such a sighting.
It's also clear that this is an unsupported secondary source. Happy????
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 629
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
G'day,
We're not trying to prepare a court case!!
We're just trying to add food-for-thought to this interest!
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
