Archive through 10 October 2001

** 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 10 October 2001

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy: Jack the Ripper was Joseph Barnett,again!: Archive through 10 October 2001

Author: Philip C. Dowe Friday, 05 October 2001 - 06:31 am
Hi there, by looking at the photos it is clear that there was not much left to identify her with. I know my wife's body from head to toe, but if somebody had carved her up, peeled the skin off and dismissed of her upper body - I would not be able to say straight of that that person is my wife without hesitating or breaking down. Barnett was able to. The problem is, that there is no hesitation mentioned. There are now 3 possibilities: 1) He knew the body was Kelly's because he murdered her. 2) He knew the body was Kelly's because he knew she was dead before identifing her. 3) He knew the body was Kelly's because he recognized certain parts. There is no ground to believe in 1). Bad news travels fast, so 2) is likely. 3) is stated in the files. Barnett as Jack? The idea is worth looking at, but there are too many questions left open (why the other four, what did he do after Kelly's murder, why Kelly, ....) Yours, Philip
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 05 October 2001 - 06:52 am
In the case of both Barnett and Hutchinson,these seem to be the only two persons that can be said to both know one of the victims and been in the vicinity of the crime sometime during the evening and night of her death.That is, the only named persons out of the list of suspects so far put forward. While it is true that both were interviewed by Aberline and allowed to go,that would be because at that time there would be no evidence on which to hold them.Whether indeed there was any suspicions in the mind of Aberline we shall never know,not withstanding the fact that Aberline indicated to his superiors he believed their stories.We can't read minds,and this at least is true,not all police divulge what they suspect. Also there is no written information available that can substantiate whether the alibis or explanations were thouroghly checked.The police were so hard pressed that it may have been a case of hearing and believing,and leaving it at that. Not a wise thing to do.Both Christie and Sutcliffe were able to pass initial scrutiny,why not Barnett. Regards,H.Mann.
Author: Monty Friday, 05 October 2001 - 09:00 am
Christie and Sutcliffe were caught. They may have passed initial scrutiny but eventually they were stopped. Sutcliffe albeit by accident. But my point is that they didn't stop murdering or attempted murder. We do not know what really happened to Barnett after 1888 and there in very little in the police files. That,for me,points to pilfering of files or that the police believed that Barnett ain't Jack. Whatever the reason one thing was that Jack never committed murder on the same scale after Kelly's death and those murders post Kelly are even doubted to belong to JtR. Are we to believe that the police would just let Barnett toddle off on his way if they thought he was JtR? Monty
Author: Tom Wescott Friday, 05 October 2001 - 02:09 pm
Caz, Since not too much importance in put on relationships in this day and age, I can see why the very business-like term 'partners' has taken hold. Of course, I must concede that in terms of the Ripper victims, that word certainly applies better than 'lovers' or even 'couples' (the term I much prefer). Barnett noted that he and Mary decided it was in their best interest to stay together. John Kelly noted that he and Eddowes kept getting thrown together and decided to strike a regular bargain. Now, that certainly fits the bill of 'partners'! I guess I'm just too much of an old romantic to fall in line with the modern way of thought. When I see a young couple glowing with love, I don't go 'my, what cute partners they make'! That just takes all the fun out of it. Yours truly, Tom Wescott P.S. I think Hutchinson serves more interest as a suspect than Barnett. I don't necessarily think he was the killer, but it is possible he knew more than he let on.
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 05:56 am
Monty, There are indications that quite a few inhabitants of the area came under suspicion but were allowed to toddle off. Christie too was not caught untill some outside knowledge of his murders came to light,it was not police suspicion that was his undoing. Regards,H.Mann.
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 06:09 am
G'day everyone, PLEAES READ THIS CAREFULLY: JOHN: What makes you think that Mary and Joes relationship was "normal"? Mary's former lover, Joseph Flemming, continued to visit her behind Barnett's back and bring her gifts of money! Mary's friend Julia Ventourney pointed out that Kelly was "very fond" of her former lover and that he "often abused Kelly because she cohabitated with Barnett". Julia also noted: "I have frequently seen her the worse for drink, but when she was cross Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone". I wonder exactly when he went out! Plus she "could not bear him", (Barnett), despite his kindness. TO BE CONTINUED:
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 06:26 am
So their relationship endured as long as Joe brought Kelly gifts "such as meat and other things" coming home from work. Joe lost this job at Billingsgate just before the murder of Martha Tabram. The loss of his job, the continuing visits of Flemming, the loss of the battle to keep Mary from a life on the streets, being forced from his home at Millers Court in favour of her prostitute friends was enough, in my opinion,(if he was so obsessed with her), to cause him to kill in a sadistic frenzy of madness! You're right Caroline, in saying that Barnett wasn't the type of 'monster' that the police were looking for at the time! He wasn't a sinister looking foreigner! Kosminski was a Polish Jew....perfect! Tumblety was an Irish born/American/'Electric Doctor'.....even better! Druitt happened to committ suicide at the right time! Joseph Barnett's height, colouring, age and moustache match two of the eyewitness descriptions!.....but he had lived in the East End most of his life and had fair hair!
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 07:35 am
In 1888 detection methods were crude and unsophistocated and the great policemen, (yes even Abberline!) had few cases to guide them, especially in apparent motiveless murders! As for Barnetts identification of Mary's body: Whether he said "ears" or "hair", it doesn't matter. Her hair was saturated with blood and her ear, (I'd say the one within view), was 'partly removed'. He was certain it was her, before even hesitatingly hoping that it could have been one of her prostitute friends. SORRY TO SPOIL EVERYONE'S FAIRYTAIL! LEANNE!
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 07:51 pm
G'day again, For those who can't believe that a man could kill a woman he loved, even in a frenzy: * Nikolay Soltys killed his pregnant wife, (didn't get the year). * In 1981, Robert Nolan Jr. killed his wife, who tried to leave him. * Stephen Fulton shot his wife after hearing of an affair. * Ray Holloway strangled his wife Carolyn in 1998. * Mitchell Quy murdered his wife, then butchered her body. * Noel Calvert kicked, stabbed and then beat his wife to death last year, after "provocation". These are just a few recent cases I was able to find this morning. In 1888, the police and public would have been shocked!!! Leanne!
Author: Peter Wood Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 08:54 pm
Dear All I hope you don't mind me hijacking your discussion as I haven't contributed to it before, but the banter that is going backwards and forwards between you all has given me one of the best laughs I've had in ages (I could have said 'Gave me real fits', but thought better of it). Harry and a few others, life isn't like a soap opera where everyone in the street knows everyone else's business and they all happily play around each other's houses and drink together in the same pub each night! Am I the only miserable sod in the whole world who couldn't tell you the names of any of my neighbours excepting for the two either side of my house? Do you really know everyone in your street/neighbourhood? Whitechapel back then was the same size as it is today, obviously, but the population was massive, what was it they used to say? Twenty people to a room? How many lodging houses on Dorset Street, where Kelly lived? Do the maths, she would have had to have had intimate knowledge of about four thousand people. Also, the biggest flaw I can see in any of your arguments of Barnett for the Ripper is the night of the double event. Having killed Stride but been disturbed and thus been frustrated at having not been able to mutilate her body he went off and a few minutes later found and killed Kate Eddowes. Now considering that she had been in police custody until a few minutes earlier - how could Barnett possibly have known where to find her? Come to think of it, how could he have possibly known where to find any of the women? Interesting observation on Hutchinson and Barnett though, I must admit - but the police back then weren't really so different to today, if they had even an inkling that Barnett had killed Mary Kelly they would have gone through his whereabouts on the relevant nights with a fine toothcomb and if he hadn't been able to prove his whereabouts they would have had him in court faster than you could say 'Jack the Ripper'! If you don't believe this then just have a look at the evidence that convicts people these days, for instance Michael Stone, not one jot of forensic evidence against him, all they had was the word of a fellow inmate that Stone confessed to him. Hearsay evidence! And Stone is now spending the rest of his life in prison. I repeat my earlier objection to the Barnett for Ripper idea, the most obvious being the night of the double event, but at least you all discuss it with a good sense of humour. Take Care Peter
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 02:44 am
G'day Peter, Why is it that he had to know the other four victims at all? On the night of the Double Event after being disturbed before mutilating Stride, 'Jack' headed towards Mitre Square, (which adjoined an Orange Market). People were gearing up for work, so 'Jack' could have just blended into the scenery! What makes you think that 'Jack' went looking for Catharine Eddowes in particular? Leanne!
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 06:11 am
Hi, Leanne: While I don't subscribe to your Joe Barnett theory, I agree with you that the women, with the possible exception of MJK, were randomly targeted and that Jack took the life of the women that were available, when time and circumstances permitted. Best regards Chris George
Author: Harry Mann Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 07:21 am
Peter, Today people do'nt do those things,but life is so very different from the conditions that existed in the latter part of the nineteenth century,or indeed of the 20's and 30's of the twentieth century.Then people did know a great number of their fellow citizens.I myself can remember every family that lived on my street,and that is going back at least 60 years.We had no television to keep us indoors,and of course in 1888 there was no radio.No cars to isolate one person from another,and entertainment for the poor was to be had at the public house,which on most evenings was thronged with locals. If you have a copy of Jack the ripper A to Z,look closely at the front and back cover,you will see how the populance gathered in groups in the public thouroughfares.These are not posed photos,it is how things were.Of course they knew a lot of each others business,it was the main topic of conversation. Study the case closely,and observe how closely grouped were the stated residence of the victims at one time or another.Where do you think they drank and solicited.Where did the likes of Barnett and Hutchinson also reside.A hundred yards or just over would cover the lot.One could prowl the pubs of Whitechapel,and in the course of one week identify a score of those unfortunates,and so too could a score of unfortunates identify each other. Have your laugh Peter,because I'm smiling too,but from an opposite point of view. By the way,Hutchinson is my favourite. Regards,H.Mann.
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 08:04 am
Hi, Harry: I have to agree with you that people in prior decades pretty much did know their neighbors, at least by name. I can remember living in the 1950s and 1960s with my grandparents on Aigburth Hall Avenue in Liverpool up the street from where Jim and Florie lived at Battlecrease mansion and I can recall even today the majority of persons' names up and down the street for possibly a dozen or so households. . . and I may have forgotten a few! What possibly makes Whitechapel and Spitalfields a bit different though is the number of transients and persons living in dosshouses whose names probably would not have been known in the same way that the names of permanent residents might have been known by people who lived in the area. Best regards Chris George
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 08:34 am
Dear Leanne I think you may have misunderstood me, I do not believe that 'Jack' knew his victims, I was actually trying to argue against that supposition in an attempt to weed out Barnett as a suspect, i.e. to argue against Barnett. Dear Harry I take your point on times gone by - but I don't think the streets were full of 'jolly cockneys', I think they were full of people consumed with mutual distrust. Please don't think I was in any way laughing at you, rather I took one or two of the entries here in the spirit I hope they were intended and it momentarily amused me, nothing more or less than that. I like your views on Hutchinson, but of course there is no tangible evidence against him - after all he put himself in the frame really, didn't he? Incidentally Hutchinson's story of standing at the top of the narrow passage into Miller's court was corroborated by at least one independent witness - although, I suspect like yourself, I find his reasons for standing there so long as somewhat..............suspicious? Anyway, at least you have motivated me to get to know my neighbours better. Peter.
Author: Arfa Kidney Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 09:44 am
Hello Leanne, Correct me if I'm wrong but do you still hold with the belief that Barnett killed Polly,Annie,Liz and Kate to frighten Mary off the streets?Forgive me Leanne,but I think that theory is absolute rot!I have said it many times before and I will say it again!We are talking about a deranged serial killer,not someone bumped off a few whores because a woman drove him to it. The Idea is ridiculous.If Barnett had set himself the task of killing these women to scare Mary,Why would he go to the trouble of mutilaing them?. You may of course argue that Joe cut up the bodies for extra horrific effect to ensure that Mary stayed indoors.This idea makes no sense either.Why would Barnett risk being permanently parted from the girl he loved by hanging around a second longer than he needed to,after each murder? The fact that Jack did hang around to mutilate and to arrange the viscera in pretty paterns,the fact that he "Doodled" on Eddowes'face and the fact that he neatly layed Chapman's possessions at her feet,make Paley's theory laughable. So why DID Jack hang around and carry out these finishing touches? Simple-He got great pleasure from it all!No apparent rhyme or reason he was a nutter. Having said all that if the possibility exists that Paley has identified the wrong Joe Barnett when he tells us that he lived on until 1926,and the real Joe Barnett just disappeared,things might become interesting. For me,Barnett has always seemed to be a bit of an odd carachter and definitely worthy of investigation. But the stumbling block has always been the "fact" that he went on to live a murder free life right up until he died in 1926.If Paley is wrong,then I believe Barnett might be back in with a chance! Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: Monty Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 10:44 am
Arfa, I agree. Why go from what he did in Mitre Sq and Dorset St to the relative mild fatal attacks (contradiction I know) of Cole, McKenzie and Mylett? And then stop all together? Monty
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 01:31 pm
Some of you Ripperologists do get riled up about Bruce Paley's theory. His book is as good as any that I've read about JtR, and better than a lot, it's a good read, it makes more sense than some I've read. You can go along with his theory --or not!! you please your self,-- you can try as much as you like to make fun of his theory,, it doesn't work. All that comes through (to me) from your critisism is, Paley came too close to a sensible solution, and that won't do, will it?. You all say there's no proof to link him with the murders. That makes for a successful s/k to my mind. You say a man wouldn't kill "to get to" his girlfriend,---that sort of thing has been happening through history, kidnap and ransom, you are making excuses in not wanting to consider Barnett. If yer hactual JACK came back from the dead,-- and confessed-- you wouldn't believe him,-- or your first words would be, "Do you have proof, show us your proof. And if he did, you wouldn't believe that. You say a man like Barnett wouldn't kill the first three, what was Barnett like???, do you know what he and his filleting knife could have been capable of?. Oh, I forgot, he very likely didn't use a knife at his work so perhaps that could rule him out.From his very start in life, his life had been pretty nigh unbearable,--- he thought Kelly could make his life better at last. Kelly made his life worse, as he could have finally realised at 7:45pm Nov8th. And maybe thats why Kelly died so soon after seeing Barnett that evening. Kelly didn't know what she had made, with her selfishness and obvious contempt she felt and showed to Barnett, she didn't know what she was playing with. Some of you will make the concession that JtR was a local man. You say it couldn't be Barnett, he carried on living til 1926,-- s/k's don't stop so it couldn't be him. Barnett wasn't a kill for pleasure man, he was strictly a kill for a reason man,--- he could stop when there was no longer a reason. Somebody killed Kelly, and then stopped, if not Barnett, what local man died or disappeared after Kelly's murder. Rick
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 02:18 pm
Harry, again I agree with you, the village I spent my first eight years of life living in, and my next eighteen years in close proximity to, was as you describe, at a guess, 2000 folks more or less. Everyone knew everyone, it couldn't be avoided, and everybody knew everybody's affairs. Put a foot wrong scandalwise and your life would not be worth living. This was in the thirties, not like that now,-- people are only interested in themselves. I've just seen, the Yanks and Brits are in Afganistan. Good luck to them, and skin the b_____d when you catch him/them. All the Best Harry, Rick
Author: Arfa Kidney Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 02:19 pm
Hello Rick, Let Me ask you this -- Do you think any man in Barnetts position would have been driven to commit these murders. This may seem like a stupid question as everybody is different but bare with me. Of course the fact that everybody is different goes for serial killers as well,but if we forget the fine details of each killers M.O,the broad picture is much the same in every case.My point is that the Whitechapel murderer fits the category of serial killer like a glove. I would like to hear your thoughts and feelings as to the question of why ,If Joe was Jack,he lingered to "Play around" with each corpse,surely he would want to get his grisley task over with as quickly as possible,then get quickly away. Regards, Mick
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 06:28 pm
Dear Warwick If your arguments hold good for Barnett, then they must surely hold good for Michael Kidney and 'the pensioner' and any other scoundrel who had a passing claim to be the boyfriend/lover of a Ripper victim. Why pick on Barnett? I reiterate my earlier view that, had the police suspected Barnett, they would have dissected his movements on the dates of the other murders piece by piece and he would have been hung out to dry. Bruce Paley's book may well make interesting reading, but it is pure speculation. There is nothing to connect Barnett with the Ripper apart from the fact that his girlfriend was killed by said fiend. Why not spend your time discussing a more likely suspect such as Maybrick? There is a rather interesting discussion going on in the diary part of the message boards right now........ Peter.
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 07:25 pm
What ho, Mick, no, I don't think any man in Barnett's position could have been driven to do what Barnett did,-- IF Barnett did it. I think Barnett was unique, and also unbalanced in mind. Why did he play with the bodies? To make his message as some kind of demon killer more forceful to Kelly. She had got to be made nervous and frightened to be anywhere without Joe Barnett to look after her!!. Killing was not enough, it had to be made horrific, unforgetable! Regards, Rick.
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 07:52 pm
Now Peter, what makes you think your Scouse suspect is better than my Cockney, right at the heart of the crime suspect?? Rick
Author: Harry Mann Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:34 am
Peter,Chris,Warwick, pleased you agree with most of my comments regarding the relationship aspect of the Whitechapel residents,and I accept the point that there were quite a number of relatively short term casuals. Perhaps the value of my opinions,is that those who figure prominently in the events of 88,both victims and suspects,were relative stable occupants of the district,or at leasst had been there long enough to gain a good knowledge of the district and a sizeable number of its inhabitants. I haven't read Paley's book,but I think Rick,Leanne and one or two others do a good job of supporting him,and makes Barnett as feasible a suspect as the rest. Do'nt worry about the laugh bit Peter,a few years in the military inured me to things of that nature.I have a few chucles of my own on occasion,but resist the temptation to openly express my merriment. Regards,H.Mann.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 08 October 2001 - 08:31 am
G'day, Peter: I know Bruce Paley's book makes a big issue of the fact that 3 of the victims, besides Kelly, lived at some time or another in Dorset Street, but I really don't think that is a strong 'clue' in his argument. It's probably weak also, to say that Barnett was simply trying to scare MJK from prostitution. I reckon Barnett just hated prostitutes and it had something to do with his mother disappearing. I think it's more realistic to say that Joseph Barnett was never convicted of a serious crime. Arfa: Some Ripperologists have noted that 'Jack' may have targeted a prostitutes ability to bear children, (ie, the womb, genetilia), do you think that he may have lingered to play around with the corpses as a child would play around with a toy? That would tie his motives to his own childhood! Peter: Have a read of Bruce Paley's book: 'Jack the Ripper, The Simple Truth'. Leanne!
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 08 October 2001 - 01:58 pm
Harry, Leanne, Warwick, Good evening to you all. I just spent ten minutes compiling a good old diatribe for you to chew over........and then went and deleted it before I could post it! To precis it: Yes Warwick, your Cockney did live in the heart of the district where the crimes took place, but then so did a million other people, most of whom have been nominated as a serious candidate for Jack The Ripper for one time or another. Maybrick also lived and worked in Whitechapel and had a secret wife down there.........but this discussion strand is about Barnett, so if you want to debate Maybrick with me then join me in the Diary strand or e mail me or something, o.k? So Harry, you say the victims were stable? That's not a word I would have chosen to use about a bunch of prostitutes who changed their doss houses more often than they changed their knickers. They were, probably not by choice, amongst life's chancers, the down and outs who would go where the next shilling or pint took them. No they weren't stable. Leanne, I have read Bruce Paley's book and indeed I own a copy, it is thoroughly entertaining. But what can you really make of your assertion that four of the victims had lived in Dorset Street? At the time of Kelly's death four thousand other people were living there and judging by the transient nature of doss houses and the high turnover rate there must have been a hell of a lot more than that lived there each calendar year. If you have ANY solid evidence against Barnett then please present it, because all I have seen so far is theories. Good theories, yes. Entertaining? Certainly! But factual? No, I am afraid not. Leanne, JTR whoever he was could have killed 5 or more prostitutes because his mother went missing or because his dad didn't buy him a whip and top for his seventh birthday, to suggest your reasoning behind Barnett's motive and the cause behind it is to say nothing more than we are all potential murderers. And let's face it, that's not a very strong argument for nominating Barnett, is it? Let's see your evidence! Good luck and see you all next time Peter.
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Monday, 08 October 2001 - 06:53 pm
Hi Warwick: I have a couple of problems with this: "You all say there's no proof to link him with the murders. That makes for a successful s/k to my mind." This seems to me like saying that there's absolutely no proof that Barnett was JtR which proves that he was too clever for the Police and therefore he has to be Jack. Is it only me who sees how silly this sounds? The idea that Barnett committed the crimes to get his lady friend off the streets is romantic but is it really sensible? Can you pick any crime from recorded history that comes even close to this daft scenario? And bearing in mind the number of people who routinely confess to murders that they could not have committed, do you really think that, come the day of Judgement there will be only one Jack confessing to his crimes? Of course the Celestial Police Force would want proof. Where is the proof (sorry about that word) that Barnett the Fish Porter also moonlighted, filleting fish? On the scanty real evidence produced by Paley how do we know that his life had been any more unbearable than the average person? You fall into the common mistake of using a book to prove its own words. Our information about the normal Victorian is limited to what records tell us and such things as the census do not have a column listing "say if happy or sad." Maybe JtR was a local man but maybe not: we don't know. What we do know is that Barnett was investigated and then released. You, Leanne and Bruce Paley will have to go a long way beyond the very meager facts about his life to show that he could have been Jack.
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 08 October 2001 - 08:07 pm
Peter, all evidence, after 113yrs must come from a book or old newspaper,where else can I get it?. At a rough guess I would say 99% of working peoples lives, in Whitechapel, were pretty near unbearable,--the lowest workers I'm talking about,but some coped with it better than others. You say,"the idea that Barnett committed the crimes to get his ladyfriend off the streets is romantic, but is it sensible?,-- Was there anything sensible that Jack the Ripper did?? I can't prove anything particularly about Barnett perhaps being JtR, can you PROVE he wasn't?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 04:02 am
Hi Peter (Birchwood), You acknowledge that people routinely confess to murders they could not have committed. Do you also acknowledge that this could equally apply to diaries they could not have forged? Your Celestial Police Force would want proof here too, not suspicion. Love, Caz
Author: Harry Mann Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 05:41 am
Peter, Perhaps I may have worded my sentence wrongly,but I did say stable in relation to the district,and not to any particular part of it,or to the way they conducted themselves. Kelly and Barnett for instance,had been living at Millars Court for quite some months.Stride had lived on and off in a lodging house inFower and Dean st,since 1882. Chapman had lived at Crossinghams since May 1888,and in 1886 was living in a relationship with Jack Sivvey at 30 Dorset st.Eddowes was in 1881 living with a male person in Flower and dean st,and was said to be still with him 7 years later.She was also reported to be well known in Shoe lane.Only Nichols seems to be a late arrival to the district,arriving in Thrawl st 2August 1888 before moving to Flower and Dean st August24. So they didn't change district or partners on a day to day basis.To use a well known phrase,one could have thrown a blanket over their respective dwellings. As the length of time together may endear persons to each other,so may time foster hatred. Might Barnett have been of the latter,and might that hatred extend to others of Kelly's kind.I think Rick has a point,though as he says it's a 113 years to late to prove it.
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 11:13 am
Warwick: Try getting your evidence from old newspapers or original records rather than from a book which however well-written, is still using a kilo of assumption to a gramme of truth. Someone (Thoreau?) wrote something about "most mens lives are those of quiet desperation." Nuts. Most peoples lives are like Curate's eggs: good in parts. People worked harder and longer then but they still had time to enjoy themselves. If you can't prove anything about Barnett being JtR maybe you should stop trying. FRIENDS OF THE WRONGLY ACCUSED: We have so many poor goops who have been put into the frame by modern writers, for example Claude Conder, James Maybrick, Joe Barnett, Lewis Carroll, the Duke of Clarence and Avondale etc., that I'm tempted to start a discussion group for those who like me are annoyed when someone is accused with very little if any evidence. Anyone interested?
Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 11:25 am
Peter- Count me in. Maybe we can start a class-action lawsuit... AAA88
Author: Philip C. Dowe Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:13 pm
Hi Peter, I second your motion! Philip
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:32 pm
Dear Peter, I am certainly interested for such an idea is long overdue. Judging from the many comments I hear about all the various suspects a lot of people are fed up to the teeth with it. I know people who refer to the subject as something of a joke for this very reason. The suspect situation has now got out of all control to say the least.
Author: Arfa Kidney Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 03:04 pm
Hello all, What we have here is a case of Potentially good suspect but the wrong motive. If research can finally uncover details of the REAL joeseph Barnett and his subseqent movements after the murders, maybe then we can once and for all condemn, or let the poor chap go! Regards, Mick.
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 06:00 pm
Caroline Someone has confessed to forging the diary: Mike Barrett. Trouble is, no one believes him. Warwick, you say 'Can you prove he wasn't?' Well, that depends on what you will accept as 'proof', but I CAN prove it was VERY UNLIKELY that Barnett committed the crimes with one simple look at the night of the double event: The main argument in this strand appears to be that Barnett killed Mary's friends to warn her off going on the streets, correct? This is where the night of the double murder comes in (and I have mentioned this point before) - having killed Elizabeth Stride Barnett decides to go and kill Kate Eddowes, fair assumption? One problem, how did he know where to find her, considering that she had been in police custody until just minutes earlier? This proves that the ripper's victims were RANDOMLY chosen, not chosen because they were all mates with Mary. Anyone got anything to say on that? Peter P.S. Ivor, good to see you in here!
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 06:05 pm
Dear Peter Birchwood Whilst I would be tempted to join your little group I feel obliged to point out that we live in a democracy and people are entitled to their views, however silly they may appear to others. It's only like disagreeing over who is the best football team in town, the blues or the reds? It's called opinion. I notice you included James Maybrick in your list - but, very little evidence? Actually Peter, there are sixty three pages of it in the diary that he wrote. Buy it, it makes a good read. T'other Peter.
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 06:25 pm
G'day, OK Lets start a 'class-action lawsuit' against everyone who has a favourite Jack the Ripper suspect....They can't possibly all be right! Peter R.A:If we had some definate, 100% proof of Jack the Ripper's true identity, we wouldn't all be here debating the issue, darling! Lea!
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 07:50 pm
Peter,63 pages of a fairy story can not be concidered as hard facts or evidence.It is only your opinion that the diary is true. You cant back your idea up. Also how can you prove that Eddowes did not arrange to meet with the killer in Mitre Square.She may have been released in time to keep the appointment. And please dont assume that I believe they agreed to meet.It is just possible.
Author: Harry Mann Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 04:56 am
Peter, I think the majority of posters would enjoy discussing just those suspects against whom evidence is available,but who are these suspects who so stand out from the multitude. Who is the person of such enlightenment,that they alone can deduce who should be selected.Is it the policemen among us,or the worldly historians?. Maybe the medical faculty should be the ones,but are they better than the story tellers whose many books have claimed but failed to produce the goods. Let us the ordinary lassies and lads,have our ideas posted too,and if our selections do not meet with universal approval,bad luck,we only take up a small portion of the message boards. Ideas and propositions are all we have,who has anything better.Evidence?,Who has any?. Whoever met Eddowes probably met her by chance,but the chance is not lessend because it may have been Barnett.What evidence is there to the contrary?. Regards, H.Mann.