|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 9:48 pm: |       |
Bruce Paley spent about 13 years looking at new & second hand true crime books;
The British Newspaper Library;
The Greater London Record Office;
The Guildhall Record Room and Library;
The London Museum of Jewish Life;
The Public Record Office, London;
The Ragged School Museum;
St. Catherine's House;
The Tower Hamlets Library; and
Billingsgate Porter's Licences.
He includes the sources of all his writings at the back of his book.
Paley wasn't able to locate any records of Joseph Barnett's mother, beyond her being 'informant' on her husband's death certificate. John Barnett died when Joe was six. Paley offers the possibility that the mother of five returned alone to her native Ireland, or perhaps she changed her name and 'drowned' into the world of prostitution.
The suggested motive here, of trying to 'keep Mary Kelly off the streets', has always turned people off suspecting Joseph Barnett. But add this to his lonely upbringing, the jelousy he must have felt towards Kelly's "fondness" of her former lover and his apparent resorting to a 'lower-class' in order to keep his woman and I believe Joseph Barnett had plenty of motive.
Everyone then wanted 'Jack the Ripper' to be a foreign, dark, ghoul with fangs and blood soaking off his clothes, to match the image that newspapers helped to create.
As for Joseph Barnett 'fooling Scotland Yards finest': They did suspect at first, or wanted to eliminate him at least, because they interviewed him at the station. The first place detectives must look in a murder case, is within the victims closest 'circle'. They examined his clothes for blood stains, then asked him where he was during the night. All records of this interview are now lost, but one newspaper reported that he was at Buller's playing whist, until 12 o'clock when he went to bed. This may well have checked out to be correct, but Kelly's estimated time-of-death wasn't established until her inquest was held. They failed to ask him anything about alibis at that!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 97
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 7:02 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
What do you say to the idea of just having two Barnett threads - one for discussion of Kelly's murder alone, the other for the full-blooded Paley theory that he killed all the women? At the moment, Barnett is running riot on the Boards.
I've come here because I wanted to bring in Lawende, and I didn't want to do anything that might get things even more mixed up.
It seems to me that Bruce Paley slightly overpitches his case when he deals with Lawende's description of the man seen near Mitre Square. Paley says it's "an exact description of Joseph Barnett in every particular". Well yes, only it's not very particular!
Even if the police did initially feel sorry for Barnett, and didn't investigate him thoroughly (which I very much doubt), in the days after the murder they'd have had time to toughen their stance. If they ever had any suspicions concerning Barnett, surely they would have asked Lawende to take a look at him? If this did happen, then Lawende can't have picked him out.
So, it seems to me that either the police never did have any doubts over Barnett (except for the first few hours, when they checked him out), or that Lawende's description wasn't the almost photographic record Bruce Paley's book seems to imply.
Robert
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:49 am: | |
G'day Robert,
About the idea of having two Barnett threads: Don't ask me mate. Ask the boss! I'm like yourself. I just pop in here every morning then again in the evening. I handwrite my post during the day, check that it's correct with my books, before I submit, then I ask myself which thread it is most suited to.
About Barnett's Interview: First of all only he says it was 4 hours. One press report says it was just 2. A person who stutters may have said: "Ttttthey kept me there fffffor hours", and the press may have written: 'They kept him there four hours'.
They checked his clothes for blood stains and asked his whereabouts for the previous night. It was standard proceedure for the detectives to interview those closest to the victim. They may not have even suspected him!
Mary Kelly's most likely time-of-death wasn't even known at the time!
I know Bruce Paley's book has it's faults. For instance he believed that more of the letters were authentic, but at the time of his writing it, 'Ripperologists' probably did too.
As his book is out of print at the moment, I'd like to vote for it's re-publishing, before Barnett as a suspect vanishes in history. As writing has become a mad hobby for me, I'd even consider writing a book to up-date the theory, but feel I need assistance, know-how.
Do you think that 4 or 2 hours was long enough for police to check his clothes, hear about Kelly's history, his history, check his alibi of being in bed etc, then to organize for Lawende to have a look at him? He stuttered under stress remember!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 100
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 7:51 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I think Paley's book should certainly be reprinted/updated,
1. Because, despite its faults, it's a good book.
2. Marie would get a chance to read it!
I think the police would certainly have kept Barnett until they were quite satisfied with him. They wouldn't have given him any chance to go off and "fix up" an alibi. Vagueness as to time of death would have made the police investigation all the more thorough.The Court's residents were kept inside the Court till late afternoon, and the police would have been asking for last sightings, any sounds heard in the night, did she have any enemies etc etc. Surely they'd have mentioned Barnett's name during this questioning, and found out some of the relationship details.
They wouldn't have contacted Lawende immediately. My point was that IF the police ever did have any reason to take another look at Barnett - say, the following month - they could have asked Lawende to view him. So it seems to me that either the police never had any doubts about Barnett, or Lawende failed to pick him out.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 9:55 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Some Ripperologists believe that Jack the Ripper could have been someone whom the police almost had their clutches on.
Why would they have asked Lawende to take a look at a stuttering, whimpering, grieving, man who just lost his loved one under brutal circumstances?
The police were under the critical, watchful eye of the public at the time, and their chief retired just after Kelly's murder!
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 158
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 6:31 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
What I'm saying is, if at any time during the weeks and months after Kelly's murder the police had had any doubts about Barnett, they could have arranged for Lawende - or any of the other witnesses - to take a look at him. I don't think they'd have let his mourning Kelly get in their way.
Robert |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 65
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Robert,
Did a course Tuesday, Wednesday and today.
The bloke that ran it was an ex CID chap who now runs a detective agency. He was once based at Leman St many years ago. I asked him this...
....if you are running a series murder investigation and you suspect that the last victims murderer was her recent ex-partner, would you slap him in an ID parade despite his distress (or apparent distress) ?
Without hesitating he said 'Yes !', He said 'that he would persuede the suspect that it was routine and it would be in his best interests to get it out of the way asap, despite his distress. He also stated that it depends at what stage they suspected him. But the usual with murder cases is to start with the (ex)partners and work out'.
Call it heartless if you want but a result is a result...and you want to get it fast...especially if you're under pressure.
Any I guess the plod were under quite a bit of pressure.
Of course I must stress that this is one mans view and may not have been the policy in 1888....but in 1975 !! 
Monty
 |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 4:58 pm: | |
Leanne,
The fact that Warren had just resigned doesn't really matter, because he didn't actually leave office until later in November anyway. He was still in charge until Monro took over. And in any event, Swanson was still running the investigation - if he thought from the interview that Barnett deserved a second look, they would have authorized it.
I don't know why we keep second-guessing the police here. They did the best they could with the tools they had at the time. I'm willing to take their word for it that Barnett checked out.
B |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 161
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
Hi Monty
Yes, if the police had any doubts at the time, I don't suppose they'd have hung around long. If they did, then they must have been as infatuated with Barnett as Barnett is supposed to have been with Kelly.
Plus, at any time Barnett might deal the killer blow of shaving off his moustache!
I'm curious about the status of identity parades. E.g. with Lawende, obviously they wouldn't have asked him to view a parade from a few feet away, at night. But anything else isn't really fair to the suspect, is it?
Robert
|
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 69
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 11:26 am: | |
Robert,
I cant see that being unfair to the suspect would have stood in 1888.
Its only recently that Human Rights has 'kicked in'.
Different ways to ID...theres video (obviously out in 1888), confrontational (one on one), line up (the bog standard as see on TV) and then theres the group ID (in a crowd in public, as with the Noye case).
With Lewande and the seaside job I dont know. I think, if it did take place, it was the line up but if I was in charge Id see if Lewande could work the group ID.
Im with Brian. Im sure Barnett was suspect numero uno to begin with.
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 170
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 6:10 pm: | |
Hi Monty
Yes. Barnett was checked out, and as far as we know he then disappeared from the Ripper story. There are stronger suspects than him.
Just one more question, Monty : what do you and the ex CID man make of the police not knocking up Clapp and Co after the Eddowes murder? I just can't understand it.
Robert |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 75
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 11:16 am: | |
Robert,
My course has finished and Ex-CID long gone.
No excuses in my eyes really. The only possible one which may cover them is that seeing as Clapp was sleeping on the first floor and his wife and her nurse even higher, the police tried to knock them up but because of lack of movement on the ground floor they assumed no one was home.
Not much of an excuse but barring kicking the door in what could they do ?
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 189
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 7:14 pm: | |
OK, Monty, thanks.
Even if they had kicked the door in, I wouldn't trust Clapp not to have snoozed on!
Robert |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 79
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 11:25 am: | |
Robert,
Thinking on, another possible reason is priorities.
Knocking them up wasnt on the list of what to do next.
I'd be harder on Morris than Clapp...but only just.
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 193
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 5:38 pm: | |
Hi Monty
There's a few things about the Eddowes business I find odd. Not sinister (the murder excepted!), just odd.
At the inquest, Watkins mentioned Holland, who wasn't at the inquest, and failed to mention Harvey, who was!
Another thing is the evidence of Morris. The way he spoke at the inquest, it's as if Watkins's appearance at his door came out of the blue - he doesn't mention hearing the sound of running feet approaching his door, yet Watkins said he ran across the Square. I just sort of would have expected him to say "I suddenly heard feet running towards the warehouse, and then Watkins..."
It just seems a bit funny - and Morris claimed he'd have heard a cry!
Robert |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 82
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 7:49 am: | |
Robert,
Aye I know. Eddowes gets to me more than the other sites.
The square isnt that big, just 5 or so running paces and your at the door of the wearhouse from where the body was found (believe me, Ive done it, looked a prat though).
Add that to the high sides then the noise would obviously echo. It does today and its far more open than in 1888.
I just feel Morris was too absorbed in his work or its a fairly used thoroughfare and he just simpley took no notice.
But, and I hope Im right on this, Morris opened the door at roughly the time Jack and Kate was in the corner...if I remember correctly (and if Lewande and the unknown witness/s are correct).
The question is how far did he open the door. Ajar is such a vague description. Was it inches, feet or nearly open ?
Would the noise of Morris opening the door disract Jack ?
Would this chink of light from the door put Jack off ? or would it assist ??
So many ponderers, yeah ?
Monty
PS, This is on the wrong thread...fancy taking it over to the Eddowes thread ?
Sorry Folks
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 199
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 7:21 pm: | |
Oops Monty, yes, I'll transfer. Sorry everyone.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
