Archive through January 11, 2000

** 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 January 11, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Barnett, Joseph: Archive through January 11, 2000

Author: Sarah R. Jacobs Thursday, 21 October 1999 - 10:08 am
LEEANNE!-- I am supposing that you never go the Thank-You package for your wonderful Australia package, so I am in the process of selecting some items for you which are truly indicative of native New york living. And THANK YOU :) :) :) for the pages. I am incredibly abliged to you. If you ever need my help with JtR, tell me!!! :-) To ALL-- If Joseph Barnett truly was educated in Copperplate, and if that is the style of handwriting in which all of the suspects (their, after all, being within the same age range -- "demographic group," if you will -- as he) have been trained, then I propose to you that he had a younger accomplice. I looked at a number of websites on the history of handwriting exempla, and it seems that there would have to have been an accomplice who was either, A) Capable of instructing Barnett in Zaner-Bloser (aka Palmer Method) hadwriting, which is what has been used in the USA since at least the Civil War era (1861-65), or, B) Was capable of writing in that hand him- or herself. It would have to be a young American, probably around twenty years old or so. It would have to be an American, because the Palmer Method was not very popular at the time in GB, and was at the same time the most commonly-taught hadn in the USA. I have compared a United States reading and handwriting primer from the latter half of the 19th century (the most popular of its time, the _McGuffey's First_ primer, which was first copyrighted (meaning it might have been printed beforehand, with copyrights pending), in 1879. Interrupting myself, I have just turned to the third-to-last story in the _Second Reader_, and paragraphs 11-16 of the story (the paragraphs are numbered in McGuffey's) are: 11.Then he told her [,his teacher,] all his trouble. When he ended, she said, cheerily, "I have a plan, Davy, that I think will help you." 12."Oh, what is it?" he said, stiing up with a look of hop, while a tear fell upon a blue violet. 13."Well, how would you like to be a little flower merchant?" 14."And earn money?" said Davy. "That would be jolly. But where shall I get my flowers?" 15."Right in these woods, and in the fields," said his teacher. "Here are lovely blue violets, down by the brook are white ones, and among the rocks are ferns and mosses. Bring them all to my house, and I will help you arrange them." 16.So, day after day, Davy hunted the woods for the prettiest flowers, and the most dainty ferns and mosses. After his teacher had helped to arrange them, he took them to the city that was near, and sold them. My question to all of you is, considering what a "flower-seller" really was then, especially in the East End of London, is it not posiibly that this is our man's sense of humour, the "violet from" the "mother's grave," etc.? Sarah
Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 22 October 1999 - 01:44 am
Sarah - An alternative view of handwriting history from an acknowledged expert: The "Spencerian" system (1865-90) represented the fruits of the two ostensibly competing copybook systems...for a time Spencerian became synonymous with penmanship...succeeding Spencerian, the "modern vertical" system (1890-1900) represented a reversion to a slower, more legible hand...Overlapping modern vertical as a successor to Spencerian were a number of "basic popular systems" (1890-1945)...they were termed "American arm-movement writing and included the American Book Company, the Palmer, and Zaner-Bloser methods. Lacking the heavy pressure shading that Spencerian had retained (mostly on the capitals), these systems of handwriting were easy and fast to use and were made popular by the commercial schools. (Joe Nickell: Detecting Forgery - Forensic Investigation of Documents, pp12-14. All the Best Guy
Author: Caz Friday, 22 October 1999 - 02:17 am
Hi Sarah, I know I'll be blasted for this, but you've hit on something with your flowers that had already occurred to me. We have the euphemistically-titled flower-sellers possibly targeted as victims, a song about violets (connected with death and therefore graves) sung by Kelly shortly before her own death, and the usual references in the popular songs of the era (as in any other era of course) about women being represented by flowers, usually roses, lilies or violets. I did wonder whether there was some irony at work here in the killer's mind, a kind of grim reaping process, weeding out the fallen flowers while worshipping the pure English rose, wishing all females could be like the latter. Doesn't get us far, but just wanted to let you know I had been thinking along the same lines recently. Leaving you all with thoughts of Monty Pythonesque highway men shouting 'Your lupins or your life'..... Love, Caz
Author: ChrisGeorge Friday, 22 October 1999 - 06:26 am
Hi, Sarah: It might be helpful for my own research, and I am sure others may be interested to know, the addresses for the websites on the history of handwriting that you mentioned. Thanks! Chris George
Author: Leanne Friday, 22 October 1999 - 01:54 pm
G'day Sarah, That's twice I've read your 'Thankyou' for those pages, here on 'Casebook'. That's nice. Thankyou for the "Thankyous"! I never received a 'Thankyou package', and assume that means something in the mail. Thankyou if that's what you mean and Thankyou for offering to help with anything on JTR. I am writing pages on various aspects of the case, for the 'Australian Cloak & Dagger Club' newsletter, so I just may need help one day on a particular aspect. Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou!!!!!!!!! LEANNE! (How come all Americans seem to have trouble spelling my name right?)- It's pronounced: 'LEEEEEE-ANNE'.
Author: Sarah Rachel Jacobs Wednesday, 03 November 1999 - 06:03 am
ABOUT the supposed "FM" on the wall: I think, just looking at the versions of that photograph in Sugden's _Complete History_ and Fido, Begg and Skinner's _A-Z_, that these are not really "initials" after all, but rather water-stains or a crack and an uncovered bit of wood-grain which are probably continued below bed-surface level. To better get my point across, a rainbow is not really shaped like a bow, but like a perfect circle. We only ever see the top half, unless we're viewing the kind that forms in a waterfall, where the horizon isn't in the way of the rest of the "bow." Now, take a look at the alleged initials. Isn't it just a bit suspicious the way the supposed M curves as though it were really two conjoined almond-shaped water-stains, and the way the supposed F's vertical segment, to which the two horizontals are attached, runs along the same line as the second worst vertical crack in the wooden panelling? The "F" may have been produced during the undoubtedly violent struggle between Mary Jane Kelly and Jack. While Jack was strangling her, she fought for her life in the instinctive, adrenaline-fuelled way that persons about to lose their last breath of air almost invariably do. Her elbow, which is right next to the "F," could very, very plausibly have created such a crack in the wood as the supposed F. I tried such a thing myself on a bit of plywood (and I'm sure, just from looking at the photo, that the wood was no stronger than that at its point of deterioration), with my own elbow (I do not recommend this. Bruising is a given here, unless your blood stops flowing the minute after you do it, like Mary Jane's probably did.), and it produced a very similar-looking crack, only it was more like an "E" or half of a ladder. But the paint is probably what is visible in the picture. Now, on to the "M". It sould be a rusty water-stain, made of some sort of mineral deposit. Rust can look a great deal like dried blood, and especially so in b/w photography. Of sourse, it could also be the looping pattern of ordinary wood-grain, made evident by the wearing-through or peeling of the paint form the ill-use it had endured over the years. Look at any medium-grain wood for a comparison, and you'll see what I mean. Anyhow, if JtR had really *wanted* the "initials" to be legible and unmistakeable, he wouldv'e had the Copperplate-Manuscript man who wrote the letters for him inscribe the "F" and the "M" in grand style upon the wall... Sarah
Author: jeff.dd Monday, 08 November 1999 - 01:20 pm
Hello All ! As Joseph Barnett (or someone very like him) has been one of my prime suspects for some time now, I would just like to ask the experts (if possible), whether there are any records that would indicate that Joseph Barnett had any kind of criminal records prior to 1888 ? I guess this would be a very fundamental question, and I'm sure someone would have looked into this (not the least Bruce Pailey), but I've never found any reference to Joseph Barnett (1, 2 or 3) having been on any police file. Could someone tell me whether Barnett was squeeky clean, or had a criminal history of any kind at all ? Regards Jeff D
Author: ubchi2 Saturday, 27 November 1999 - 10:02 pm
As a fish porter, could it be that Barnett would be carrying a piece of chalk to mark prices or selections. Maybe to mark the price on a paper bag? This would make him more suspect as the author of the chalked "Juwes" message. Anybody know what a fish porter did back then? Please email me.
Author: ChrisGeorge Sunday, 28 November 1999 - 10:45 am
Hi ubchi2: A Billingsgate fish porter hauls around fish in Billingsgate Market. I would question that Barnett gutted fish (and by extension humans) as has been said on these boards. As for whether he would chalk up prices, I would say it is doubtful that he would have done that either. He was a laborer, he did porting or hauling for the market. At the time of the murders, he had also been out of his job at the market for some time so it is doubtful if he would have had the chalk even if he used one in his job. Chris George
Author: Leanne Sunday, 28 November 1999 - 09:43 pm
G'day Chris, Ubchi2, Jeff and all, Let me remind you, that there is dispute as to whether those words were or weren't written by the murderer, in his flight from the scene. It is my opinion that he wouldn't bother stopping, for more than a second, to catch his breathe. But if he did, who's to say that he didn't pinch the piece of chalk from Catherine Eddowes? She may have been going to chalk some graffiti, herself? Who knows? Ubchi: Bruce Paley says that portering at Billingsgate consisted mainly of unloading and transporting fish and was hard, strenuous work. Fish were packed, weighed then carried (on their heads). He worked there for over 10 years and may have used chalk to mark '90 lbs' on the large trunks, but I'm yet to be convinced that the graffito in question was written by the killer. Jeff: Paley points out that 'According to market bylaws, the prime causes of dismissal were theft, drunkenness, abusive language or behaviour.' He points out that: 'Lesser infractions of the rules, were delt with by fines or suspension.' As Barnett had been there for over 10 years, I doubt that he did anything but the worst offense. He probably stole heaps of fish?/money? to keep his girlfriend off the streets! LEANNE!
Author: Jeff D Monday, 29 November 1999 - 12:07 am
Hello Leanne, CG, & Everybody, I called in here yesterday and maaan it was quiet. Where'd everyone go ? Oh well, anyway......... Joseph Barnett's "sacking" from his porter job is a bit of a mystery in itself. He had been working at this post for some considerable time, and if you accept that there probably was all sorts of minor thefts happening at the time, it would seem that he must have done something quite serious to have received the ultimate discipline of being fired. Didn't it also take him 10 years to get back his porters' license ? Without wishing to sound like I am condemming Barnett to the hang-man's noose with the mantle "Jack the Ripper" I would like to ask 'wouldn't Billingsgate fish porters have carried a knife, or collection of knives ? Would they have only carried around boxes of fish ? Were fish simply sold whole, and unprepared, or would any of the days catch have been prepared in some way ? I would have imagined it to be quite a smelly job really. A porters' clothes would have the smell right through that even the best of washing powders, even "with that fresh outdoor spring scent" couldn't get out. I guess you would be able to smell a fish porter coming from a mile away wouldn't you ? It's not as though they had immediate clothes washing and shower facilities available. Would they have also worn overalls or a smock of some-kind ? You can smell your way to Billingsgate from a mile away, can't you ? Descriptions of Barnett have him as being dressed above his station in life. He does appear to have cared about his appearance, and I could easily imagine Barnett being described as sort of "shabby Genteel", but that is simply my opinion. The Ripper himself, while taking care not to have blood splashed over his person, would still have blood on his arms, and at least his cuffs. He would have to dispose of, or clean the evidence off his clothing someway, somewhere. How did people clean their clothes in those days ? If you were fortunate enough to be able to leave your shirts with a washer woman, how did she go about cleaning them ? There weren't laundrymats or any such facility were there ? Just how did the Ripper clean himself up, I wonder? He must have had his own room and washing facilities, this is quite obvious. The Ripper could not have been a man who shared accomodations in one of the local boarding houses, that's for sure. I would guess though, that if Barnett were ever doing anything suspicious, Kelly would have known about it. Many people interested in this mystery believe that Kelly is central to the investigation in some way, but how ? Kelly is different in so many ways from the other victims, besides the fact that she was killed indoors, but just what was it that made her a victim ? As I hope to get accross, I am in no way convinced that Barnett is implicated in any of the crimes in any way. He is a central character though, and I think it would be worth it, to find out anything we can about the man himself, and what he did before, and after the autumn of 1888. Bruce Paley himself was not able to determine the reason for his sacking, but surely if he had any kind of criminal history it would be possible to find this out, wouldn't it? Regards Jeff D
Author: Leanne Monday, 29 November 1999 - 05:04 am
G'day Jeff, I was here yesterday, reading everyones comments. I only make one when I have something worth 'saying'. Where did you read that it took Joseph Barnett ten years to get his porters' license back? At the back of Paleys' book it says that he got his 'Billingsgate' license back in 1906, that's 18 years later. He may have, of course, worked at Billingsgates rival of 'Shadwell Fish Market'. LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Monday, 29 November 1999 - 05:47 am
Hi all, Whilst agreeing with almost every one of the points above, it may be said that in Victorian times, even petty crimes were dealt with much more harshly than nowadays. Joe must not necessarily have pinched the crown jewels, it would have been enough to get caught red-handed with a bit more than just a bit of fish. I also suspect that he had nicked a bit more than just 'hand-to-mouth', maybe selling the loot to get more money than what he earnt. I do wonder, though, why he risked so much. He was claimed to have been 'respectable'. Maybe just relative. Best regards Bob
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Monday, 29 November 1999 - 09:26 am
Regarding poor old Joe Barnett, we know that he and Mary Kelly got drunk together. Isn't it therefore more likely that he got thrown out of Billingsgate because he was drunk in charge of a fish barrow? Peter
Author: Leanne Monday, 29 November 1999 - 02:02 pm
G'day everyone, Peter: Yeah, Mary and Joe often got drunk. But as many people drank in the area, isn't it more likely that he stole fish/money to support this habit? Considering his experience, I reckon it had to be a bad infringement to lose his license. And of course, Paley points out that the laws of Billingsgate said that 'abusive language or behavior' on the job, would cause one's licence to be banned. LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 01:11 am
Hi all, Of course many things were possible as reason for Barnett getting kicked out. If it's true that he first got his licence back much later, it were probably more than his just saying 'Oh s...' Stealing from his employers, or worse, the customers of his employers, would, I think, be enough. For abusive language or behaviour to have been the cause, then he must have been pretty serious at the time! Best regards Bob
Author: wrecker Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 12:49 pm
Re: Joe Barnett I recently read JtR a psychic Investigation by Pamela Ball. In it she states (P76) there were two possible Joe Barnetts, one born 25/5/1868 and a second born 23/12/1860. Further, a third, Joseph Charles Barnett emerged in her research. Has anyone come across this info before, and what does anyone think of the matter, ie which Joe was the real Joe?
Author: Leanne Wednesday, 01 December 1999 - 12:25 am
G'day Wrecker, Bruce Paley says that Joseph Barnett was born on the 25th of May 1858, a short walk from the heart of Whitechapel. His book contains a photograph of JBs birth and death certificates, and on the Birth one, it gives the 'occupation of Father' as 'Dock Labourer' and the Death one gives his occupation as a 'Dock Labourer'. He died at age 68 and as he was 30 when Kelly died, I reckon he researched the right one. LEANNE!
Author: Rick Moore Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 03:51 pm
Hi All, New here, This site is great and seemes to be quite complete. Im assuming everyone here feels Joseph Barnett was the Ripper? After researching I pretty certain it was he... Just my 2 cents..
Author: JocktheSipper Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 07:03 pm
We owe you a $.01 refund, do you have a mailing address ? Oh, welcome to the Boards.