|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 05 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
Jack the Ripper was Joseph Barnett,again!:
Archive through 05 October 2001
Author: Clyde Steven Ford
Friday, 28 September 2001 - 12:32 pm |        | I think Jack the Ripper was Joseph Barnett,again.My name is Steve.I don't understand why noone thinks it him.My theroy seems logical.
Here are my reason's again:
1.He met Mary Kelly for the first time on April 8,1887.He lived with her for a time.
2.He had a year before the murders to plan how he was going to do it.In that time,he could had met all the women he was going to kill.
3.He was in a mental instution for killing one of his wives.He played his cards right,and straighten his act up to get out,and then eventually started killing again.
4.It seem like all the women knew their attacker.It had to be someone they knew and trusted.
E-Mail and let me know what you think.Thank you! |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 28 September 2001 - 01:43 pm | | Hi,
your arguments are not better, so why repeat them? Or would you like an explanation of what a forum is about :-))
Cheers, Philip |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 28 September 2001 - 03:14 pm | | Clyde,
Lose #3. Call a time out. Then punt.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 07:58 am | | G'day Clyde,
I don't believe that the murders were planned for a year, as you state. Barnett harboured a strong disliking for prostitution ever since the disappearance of his mother when he was 13. I believe that the murders occurred during a sadistic frenzy of his, (possibly while he was drunk.)
He picked Mary Kelly up as she was 'walking the streets' and tried to discourage her from that lifestyle. It became obvious that he was losing this battle and Mary had reached the point where she "could no longer bear" Joseph Barnett.
Where did you read the information that he was in a mental institution after killing one of his wives? As far as I knew, he never legally married!
I agree that the Ripper had to be known to his victims!
Leanne! |
Author: R.J.P.
Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Clyde--Hello. I think what you might have heard is a strange & confusing mixture between two so-called 'suspects': Joe Barnett & James Kelly. When you say that Barnett was in a mental institute for murdering his wife, this sounds an awful lot like you might mean James Kelly, a Ripper candidate who was brought to light by a writer named James Tully in his book Prisoner 1167: The Madman who was Jack the Ripper. Kelly had murdered his wife and was committed to an insane asylum [Broadmoor] but had escaped several months before the Whitechapel crimes. He was almost certainly not related to Mary Kelly, by the way.
But this is not meant as a lecture. I'm no expert, and make frequent mistakes. Keep plugging away. Cheers, RP |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 09:05 pm | | Dear Clyde,
Come in number four! Can you enlarge on this statement: It seem like all the women knew their attacker. It had to be someone they knew and trusted.
Why did none of these women suspect HIM?
Rosey:-) |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 11:28 pm | | Old school crime author, Hargrave Lee Adam, was well-acquainted with many of the police officials involved in the Ripper case. In his book, 'Police Work From Within', he states, "The man she [Mary Kelly] had been living with till recently was found, but he was able to give a satisfactory account of himself."
Now, as desperate as the police were to catch the Ripper, don't you think Barnett's alibi would had to have been pretty darn sound to clear him so quickly?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 12:59 am | | What evidence is there that these women knew their killer? I see this opinion bandied about quite frequently, but have yet to see any real evidence to support it.
AAA88 |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 05:43 am | | Jesse,
There will never be any evidence that the killer knew any of his victims.In a hundred years time there will be no evidence that you or I or millions of other people knew their neighbours.But of course we will have known them.
So too would the Ripper have known his neighbours.He would have walked among them,drank with them,conversed with them and frequeted the places that they did,the same as we do with ours.
It is not a question of proof as I see it,but a sensible appreciation of the fact that when people live in fairly close proximity to one another,they become aquainted,and it is fact that a large number of persons,lived in quite a small area of Whitechapel including the victims.
Now you may say that there is no evidence that the killer lived in that area,but the theorists who proclaim the likes of Barnett or Hutchinson as that individual,have other thoughts,and I firmly believe that those two persons at least,knowing Kelly,would have known some of the others who met the same fate. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 06:13 pm | | G'day,
There is no way of knowing whether or not 'Jack' approached more women than he actually murdered. Chances are that he did but only killed at least five. There was no need for these 'lucky' women to report to the police, if their customer was an innocent, clean looking and familiar customer, that abandoned the murder because the circumstances didn't suit him!
The only record that survives of Barnett's alibi for one of the murders, (that of his wife/girlfriend), is: "...and was playing whist there until half past twelve when I went to bed". She was murdered well after 12:30 am anyway!
The true Whitechapel murderer, I believe, was someone that was questioned yet cleared too soon by the police.
Leanne! |
Author: Kevin Braun
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 07:23 pm | | JtR only needed to fit into the victims (however soft) comfort zone. I think Leanne is probably correct in that he approached many more women than he actually murdered. He was not impotent. Rather, he frequented ladies of the night.
The best knock on Barnett is that serial killers do not stop. They either die, are put away (jail, sanatorium) or move to another location. That said, he is a possible, but not a probable.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 11:23 pm | | Harry,
If the victims knew each other, then surely they would have had mutual friends. The friends of all the victims were interviewed by the police and I'm sure at least one would have made notice that her friends keep getting butchered. It didn't happen. Of course it's possible, even likely, that a couple of the victims knew each other by sight, like Mary Kelly and Annie Chapman, but there is certainly nothing significant in that.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 01 October 2001 - 04:51 pm | | Dear Tom,
Fair play, laddie. But, supposing the mutual friend who noticed that her friends were being killed was the LAST ONE to die? Could it explain
the shift in the crime-scene? Keep yer eyeball on the wheel!
Rosey:-) |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Monday, 01 October 2001 - 08:12 pm | | Harry-
I didn't ask for proof. Only evidence. Unfortunately, your post offers neither.
Do you really mean to suggest that because the killer probably (not definitely) lived in the East End (not necessarily Whitechapel or Spitalfields), that he must have known his victims personally? Certainly I need hardly point out the speciousness of this line of reasoning.
Those of you who are looking for a pat, easily explainable motive for these crimes are bound to be disappointed. The man who committed these crimes was , in the words of Phil Sugden, a "murderer of strangers." While I do not blindly accept all of Mr. Sugden's conclusions, in this particular instance I believe he has hit the nail on the head. The only motive in this case is the psychopathology of the murderer. What does he seek to destroy, to obliterate, to possess? Come on. It's Abnormal Psych 101.
I'm sick of this Barnett business. I hereby challenge anyone to submit one single shred of evidence ( not conjecture, not theorizing, not extrapolation, but EVIDENCE) that this poor bastard had anything to do with these crimes.
Because there isn't any.
AAA88 |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 04:40 am | | Come on Jesse, if thats the way you are going to reason, think about it a bit, is there any evidence that you can use and say it was very likely any of the suspects!!If people get up your nose so much because they think they have a reasonable theory,-- why don't YOU prove without doubt that it wasn't BARNETT!! You have to have proof though, 
Rick |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 05:56 am | | Yes, come on Jesse,
Are you telling us that no theory should ever be put forward, or argued for, in the absence of real hard evidence?
If that's what you really are saying, why are you only sick of the Barnett business? What about the poor bastards Maybrick, Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski et al? Are you going to be consistent and condemn anyone who has ever written a ripper book naming someone as the ripper?
Of course every suspect will remain innocent unless or until the evidence proves one of them otherwise. In the meantime, all we have is our conjecture and our theorising - that's a big part of what we do here.
I personally don't think Barnett could have been the ripper, or that he just killed his Mary. But that is purely gut feeling in the absence of evidence. Serial killers, when finally caught, tend to take everyone by surprise, including their closest friends and relatives. So who am I to say never, when it comes to any man whose alibi may not be rock solid?
Love,
Caz
PS Rick, it was so lovely to meet you and your wife at the conference. Neither of you ever stopped smiling, so I assume you had as good a time as I did. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 06:21 am | | Jesse,
Like I said,there is no evidence,and I do not offer any.What I say,is that when a small area is populated by a large number of people,it is inevitable that each one would have knowledge of a considerable number of the rest,and such was the conditions in Whitechapel.
Neither have I offered proof that the killer lived there,but the probability that he did,and much has been written on the subject,is quite strong.It is a belief based on experience,I can go no further than that,but one has to start somewhere.
Tom,
We cannot be sure that all the friends of the victims were interviewed by the police.Hutchinson,
A stated aquaintance of Kelly,was not named as such by anyone,he came forward of his own accord.Perhaps there were many that didn't do so.
It is,to my belief,not a question of whether the victims knew each other,but whether the killer knew the victims.It would have been a simple task,in the Whitechapel of 1888,to gain knowledge of a great number of unfortunate women of the class the killer sought,and not improbable that the five unfortunate victims were but a few that the killer knew from a list of many.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 06:34 am | | Hi there,
Kevin:
Serial killers have been known to have stopped. When they realize that the police are "hot on their trial". No evidence either way, but aline of thought that I prefer to "Kelly way the main target".
Leanne:
Just what I think and in line with above. Somewhere in the files is Jack. The police either interviewed him a suspect or witness. Or what is more common, he came forward and offered information.
Jesse:
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! If there was, we would have a 100% suspect. And we would have no fun. :-)
Personally I prefer suspect like Hutchinson and Barnett compared to royal cover-ups or diary-writers.
More later, work is calling
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 08:37 am | | Barnett-heads,
In case you didn't already know, I thought you might find it interesting to know that one of the latest crop of Ripper movies (there's at least 3 in the can awaiting release as we speak) is called 'Ripper' and names Barnett as the killer, although the film takes place in modern times.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 08:48 am | | If the victims knew each other either closely or just by sight is neither here nor there. Such a small area is bound to produce such acquaintances.
Now if they knew Jack or not is questionable,but I for one, cannot quite figure out why he must have been know to his victims. I mean given the nature of the victims alleged trade some prostitutes may have as many strangers as regulars if not more.
I may as well make the statement that JtR must not have been know to his victims. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 09:23 am | | Philip,
I love the picture of your pet rabbit.
I mean stop, fine. Not stop for a period of time.
My gut (sorry) feeling about JtR is that he was an opportunist. He did not target a specific victim.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 09:50 am | | Hi Kevin,
a) thanks, I will pass on the compliments.
b) o.k. - misunderstood you, sorry.
c) Why sorry? I have the same gut feeling concerning the victims. IF Barnett was Jack THEN Mary COULD have been picked because either she guessed something was wrong or knew that he was Jack. All the other theories are - in my eyes - not worth the paper they are written on. Even though I am not sure that the last victim was Mary J. Kelly....
Yours, Philip |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 12:21 pm | | Caz, what can I say, except, it was good wasn't it?. It was nice meeting you and all the others, in fact there was a touch of magic about it!!, Pat loved it all. I'm still sorting through my booty. Only one thing tarnished the whole thing,--I brought a really red hot head cold back with me, personally I think it was worth it, I just hope Pat can avoid it. Our love and best wishes to you Caz, and all the other girls we spoke with, and our best wishes and regards to the blokes we drank and joked with.
Rick and Pat. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 02:07 pm | | It really was nice to see you and Pat at the Conference Rick , a fellow ' Shropshire lad ' you are too ! Maybe drinking the ' Jack the Ripper ' beer might cure your headcold !
Caz , lovely to see you too at the conference ! ( For those that didn't attend , Caz dressed in a sexy black mini-dress throughout the event - can you imagine it ! ) 
Simon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 06:22 pm | | G'day,
'Jack the Ripper's' presence wouldn't have alarmed anyone. He would have been a "nobody", hence his great confidence and ability to dodge suspicion. He sought and got his 'fame' in his crimes. I believe he was familiar by sight at least, if he wasn't personally known to his victims. His presence didn't arrouse alarm or suspicion.
Yes the best 'knock' on Barnett is his life after MJKs inquest. There are no immediate records of his whereabouts, but there is no reason to suppose that he ever left the East End. Why should there be records? He was a rather insignificant, seemingly ordinary man, but why must we assume that he was squeaky clean?
Leanne! |
Author: Scott Weidman
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 11:39 pm | | Hello everyone.
So, I'm not the only one who flew (or drove) home with a severe head cold then? I normally don't get colds, but this one sure is a doozy! My head feels like an anvil at the mercy (or lackthereof) of Mjolnir. Must've been something in the air... Or beer...
'Twas a ripping good time indeed!
I'm not particularly fond of the Barnett theory, but that doesn't mean it should go the way of the dodo. However, I'm not exactly fond of the Gull theory either, and it should definitely go the way of the dodo. Just kidding. All theories are game, I suppose, until "and then there were none" (save one ever-elusive true final solution).
Ah yes, the plot thickens like glue... or red ink... or whatever.
Regards,
Hammerhead |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 04:48 am | | Hi Simon,
Thanks my dear, it was lovely to see you too, but you'd have made a terrible witness if asked to describe a woman's clothes in the ripper's time.
'[She was] dressed in a...black mini-dress throughout the event...'
That was in fact only on Friday night - most of the time I was in trousers (my own, everyone, my own!  ), except for Saturday night when I wore a black and pink dress down to my ankles.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 05:57 am | | To those at the conference,
Can anyone these few days after being in company with each other,describe the clothing worn by any other participant,as minutely as did Hutchinson descibe Kelly's reputed companion.Remember his was only a fleeting glance in poor light,far different ,I imagine,from the hours of scrutiny enjoyed by those present at Bournemouth,
Be honest Lassies and lads,test your memory,and then consider Hutchinson's statement from what you remember.
Monty,
It is not so important that the victims knew each other,or indeed knew their killer, though both scenarios are possible,what might be more argueable is whether the killer knew the victims,and how would he be so aquainted.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: Scott Weidman
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 09:46 am | | Adam,
Rest easy, my friend, the misplaced raffle tickets caused not a stir at our table whatsoever. A few of us, including myself, had purchased some of them, but we didn't feel slighted in any way at all. And the fact that there were a few raffle rounds exclusively held for those people who had those specific tickets made it all the better. No harm done at all. Minor, extremely minor, details. And, for the record, I heard not one single bad word about it. We're holding you responsible for just one thing though, Adam, and that's your being one of the key persons responsible for us having had the time of our lives. You did a outstanding job organizing such a grand event and we all had a total blast. I can't recall the last time I've had that much fun. Lifelong friendships have been established and Ripperology has further extended its branches as well.
Take care,
Scott |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 12:53 pm | | Hello all-
Upon reflection I feel I should apologize for the rather strident tone of my last post- I'm afraid I let a bad day get the better of me. However I realize there is no excuse for boorishness, and will endeavor not to let it happen again. That being said,
Caroline,
Barnett should not be classified with the likes of Kosminski, Druitt or Tumblety because evidence exists against these people-they were all named as suspects by senior police officials. While it may not conclusively prove the guilt of any of them, it is certainly more substantial than the smoke and air upon which the Barnett hypothesis is built. Everyone is of course free to launch accusations against whomever they wish to, but I admit that I sometimes despair of the excessive fictioneering that surrounds this case, of which the Barnett theory is (IMHO) only the most egregious example. I suppose it's because I still harbor the (probably forlorn) hope that the case might someday be solved, and feel that fake diaries, Masonic conspiracies and
groundless speculation only serve to muddy the waters.
AAA88 |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 02:16 pm | | | Strange Caz , only seem to remember the incredibly short mini-dress...wonder why that is |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 05:09 am | | Hi Simon,
Hi Jesse,
The point is that the top policemen involved with the case named and favoured several different suspects, so at best they were all wrong but one.
Barnett would have been a strong suspect today, being the ex-partner of the last victim. I assume that would have been the case at the time as well, but that the police had good reasons to eliminate him which may not all have survived on file.
But, as in the case of Peter Sutcliffe, The Yorkshire Ripper, where the police interviewed him several times and let him go each time suspecting nothing, if Joe Barnett was a cold, calculating killer (I'm playing devil's advocate here), he obviously kept a cool head when being questioned, and also managed to avoid doing anything in the future to focus police attention back on him. Sutcliffe succeeded with the former, but failed in the latter, otherwise he may never have been caught.
They had no evidence against Barnett and he wasn't the type they were looking for anyway (ie not a raving loony with two heads), so there would have been no reason for him to be among the suspects named in police memoirs and such years later. That, by itself, means very little IMHO.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 08:11 am | | Caz,
I have to disagree with your assesment that Barnett would have been a "strong suspect" today. He would undoubtedly be looked at as MJK's killer, and they would certainly ask questions regarding the other killings. But then they'd be interviewing pretty much anyone and everyone in the area. (According to the handy dandy "Encyclopedia of Serial Killers", which is rife with inaccuracies of course, police intereviewed 250,000 people and took 32,000 statements in regards to the Yorkshire Ripper killings.)
However beyond being in the unfortunate position of having been close one of the victims there's nothing else there. Except for the damning evidence that he may have sold oranges of course.
SKs rarely kill anyone close to them, that's a big part of why they are so difficult to catch. Also, modern profilers seem to see Jack as a disorganized type that would be unlikely to have a normal relationship with a woman, as opposed to the cold calculating killer that some would have us believe Barnett was. (I don't buy into the profile completely myself.) Joe Barnett wasn't the type of person they were looking for in 1888, but neither would he be the type that would be looked for today. Not without considerable more evidence than exists to support the current "case" against him.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 08:51 am | | So if Barnett is being looked at as a suspect then should we be looking at other victims partners ??
Caz, Thank you for running through your weekends attire. The my imagination was running wild about the "black mini-dress" and I would be grateful for any further updates.
Monty |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 09:24 am | | Hi there,
Barnett has only been looked at because Paley thought he fit the profile made by the FBI. Bad job. Lots of suspects fill the profile (which is not very good in my eyes). Barnett may have had a reason to murder Kelly - but why did he use so much violence? There is no reason to link him with the other 4 (?) unless he used them as guinea pigs.
I have stated somewhere above, that the only thing I find strange with Barnett is, that he was able to identify Kelly by her ears. I think it was graziano (where is he?) who pointed out that he may have meant "hair" and that it was wrongly transcribed.
Maybe the police let him go too soon. He is a better suspect than a lot other birds and puppets, but not that good.
Does anybody know what happened to him after December 1888?
Yours, Philip
PS Black mini-dress? When is the next conference? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 12:48 pm | | Caz, that was a very fair minded view, I couldn't wish for a better answer in a discussion.
Rick |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 03:18 pm | | Philip,
I would like to think that after living with a women (in a broom closet) for X number of months, Barnett would be able to identify MJK's pathetic remains. Ear, hair, toes, moles: whatever. He knew.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 05:30 pm | | Hello all.
All the attempts to incriminate Joe are usually rejected on one seemingly pertinent fact... There is no evidence whatsoever that Joe knew any of the earlier victims or had any connection (erm...) with these Ladies of the streets. That he may well have had contacts to prostitutes cannot be denied (or what the devil was Mary?)
Now, lack of expirience forces me to admit that I can make no statement as to how well a man will know a woman he has had a 'Knee-trembler' with for 4d. Or even 100 quid. I assume he would probably hardly recognise her again, at least from the waist up. Joe is, then, not such a bad suspect as evidence might indicate.
Why then do many of us exonerate him? Abberline, and others, must have held him for a possible, when not probable, suspect. He knew Mary well (certainly more than just from the waist down)and had evidently contact to the prostitute world. He lived during the terror in Millers Court, more or less in the middle of proceedings. His pipe was found in Kelly's room after the butchery and he knew of the entry method using the window access to open the door.
Why then, did Abberline consider him innocent? There must have been something about the man that convinced Abberline, and the others, that he was not Jacky-boy. Abberline and Co. were there at the time, looked him in the face, heard his evidence at a time as he, when innocent, must have suffered in the extreme. I can think of no better exoneration than that.
Goosey lives....
Bob |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 10:21 pm | | Hello all,
I have to agree with Kevin. Barnett's identification of Mary was satisfactory for Abberline, and it should be for us. She had pretty distinctive hair for girls in the East End, most of whom were old and had shorter, greying hair, and, like Kevin said, Barnett loved Mary and must have known every inch of her. I'd say we can take his identification as fact, whether he was the killer (in which case it would be certain) or not.
The thing about Barnett having been a suspect or not...He was certainly questioned, and according to writer Adam (who knew the important officials) was able to account for himself on the night of Mary's murder. The tricky thing about serial killers is that if you have a certain number of victims that you taken as 'certain' belong to the same hand, then a potential suspect only needs to clear himself of one of the crimes and he's scott free. It still works that way today in a lot of cases, and would most likely have applied even moreso back then. Hell, the Ripper could have been Charles Cross. After all, Robert Paul walked up on Mary Nichols body and out from the shadows comes Cross. The wounds on Polly were very, very recent. Paul thought she was still alive but Cross kept insisting she was dead, although he supposedly hadn't noticed any wounds. Any blood on his hands would have been accounted for by his handling of her body, and there's no reason to believe that either he nor Paul were searched for weapons. As the police, at that time, were in suspicion of gangs, Cross wouldn't have been suspected for a moment, but he WAS leaning over Polly's body, alone, immediately after she had been mutilated.
Of course, I'm not putting Cross forth as a suspect, just illustrating how suspicious circumstances were not properly investigated because the man in question didn't fit the current 'type' they were looking for.
However, as far as Barnett goes, he was apparently able to provide an alibi for Kelly's murder, and if he didn't do that, there's absolutely no argument for him having been the Ripper.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. What's with referring to the victim's lovers as 'partners'. That's a gay term. Or is that how you say lovers in England? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 03:37 am | | Hi Tom,
'Lovers' sleep together - they don't necessarily ever live together. 'Partners' can encompass any two people who choose to live together as a couple, whether married or not, and regardless of gender.
Hope that helps.
Hi Rick,
Thanks, I try my best.
Hi Bob,
Hope Goosey isn't still waking you up before dawn.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
