|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 09, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through May 09, 2000
Author: The Viper
Monday, 10 April 2000 - 05:10 pm |        | Leanne,
It is the case that newspapers reported the inquests varyingly. Not everything that was said was taken down either by the pressmen or indeed by the recorder at the court. It was all according to which details the individual scribe thought were important and the time available. Additionally, a number of persons, some (but not all) of whom appeared at the inquests, gave press interviews. Sometimes, like Matthew Packer, they went on and on doing so. Joe Barnett also seems to have been one of the more forthcoming witnesses.
Newspapers get details wrong and they sometimes state things out of context. For us modern day investigators, those problems can be compounded by faulty reporting in books or by our own misinterpretation. For instance, you wrote The 'Daily Telegraph' reports that at her inquest he answered the Coroners question: "Did you drink together?" with "No sir, she was quite sober", then you go on to draw an inference from it. I would contend that Barnett was asked that question specifically in relation to the evening of 8th November, that he answered it accordingly, and that no inference should be drawn from it.
Concerning the reliance on newspaper reports, much depends on what the individual is prepared to accept as evidence. Where a press story can be supported by official evidence, such as an Inquest or MEPO file, there shouldn’t be a problem in accepting it. An example here would be the reporting of some of the biographical details given by Barnett about MJK, (though whether or not he had his facts correct is another question entirely). When no such cross-references can be made, if a number of the papers were printing broadly the same story then the essence of it is probably true.
In cases where a story in just one or two newspapers is not supported by others, I think personally that far more caution should be exercised. The details can be noted as possibly correct, but no conclusion drawn unless and until some independent source of evidence is turned up. This category appears (to me) like the best fit for your original references to Barnett’s alleged presents.
Bottom of the scale are those instances where the press reports conflict, (such as in the many details about Kelly’s personal circumstances and appearance that were published just after her murder). In these cases it would be dangerous to give them any credence and evidence must be sought elsewhere.
Regards, V. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 10 April 2000 - 11:24 pm | | G'day Viper,
I see what you mean about Kelly being "quite sober", on the evening of the 8th. The Coroner's next question was: "Was she, generally speaking, of sober habits?" Barnett: "When she was with me I found her of sober habits, but she has been drunk several times in my presence".
This implies that Kelly was an 'angel', in his presence and they lived together in perfect harmony. The minute his back was turned, she'd go out drinking. Note: 'She was DRUNK in his presence', but never DRANK in his presence.'
I think it's interesting how when the Coroner asked: "Have you heard her speak of being afraid of anyone?" He replied: "Yes several times. I bought newspapers and I read to her everything about the murders,..."
The Coroner then asked: "Did she express fear of any particular individual?" He replied: "No sir, Our own quarrels were very soon over."
It is obvious to him that the Coroner was finding out if she knew her killer. (The Whitechapel murderer). Then he immediately tried to 'increase the distance' between the killer and himself.
Leanne |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - 11:18 pm | | G'day Leanne, Viper,
Showered with gifts hey? Hmmmm, I'd like to gift myself with a shower, sudsy back rub, scalp massage etc, Sorry, I'm getting off the subject.
If we look at all the victims we can possibly find that they were all showered with gifts. Polly's new bonnett, Annie I'm not sure, Lizzie's flower, Catherines ciggy case and Mary? Well what exactly do we know he gave her. No-one knows the contents of Mary's room BEFORE she was murdered. How do we know that Joe didn't by clothes for her but because that's just one of the things a bloke does for a woman he loves, didn't mention it at the inquest.
And to top off this thought, where did the clothes come from that were burnt in the fire? A fire so hot it melted the spout on the kettle. It would take a lot of clothes to get a fire that hot.
I'm going back to my keyboard mannicure.
Jules |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 05:12 am | | G'day Jules,
It is understood that the clothes that burnt, belonged to Maria Harvey, who left 2 mens shirts, a little boys shirt, a black crepe bonnet and a little girls white petticote, with Kelly on the arternoon of the 8th.
A mans black overcoat, that she also left, was seen by her in a room of the court on the afternoon of the 9th. She never said who's room, so Kelly could have already sold that item.
Four items of clothing, couldn't have made such a large fire.
She was there when Barnett arrived to tell Kelly that he had no money to give her. If he was so 'intersted in her welfare', he could have brought her more clothes or items to sell.
Leanne! |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 10:37 pm | | G'day Lea, and everyone,
Yeah, I know the idea about the cloths is a bit far fetched but no-one has satisfacorily explained how such a hot fire was created. I just thought I'd throw that in for something to think about.
And Joe was interested in Marys welfare. He supported her financially until he lost his job, and his interest in her welfare extended to his concern about her prostituting herself and sharing her room with another woman when there was barely enough room for one person to live there.
Jules |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 01:18 am | | Leanne, Maria Harvey's testimony at the inquest of Mary Kelly ran as follows:
"I left some clothes in the room....,- I have seen nothing of them since except the overcoat produced to me by the police..."
In her written statement she said:
"I left an overcoat,... in the room, the overcoat shewn me by police is the one I left there."
It was Harvey's overcoat that was covering the broken window in Kelly's room..
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 09:35 am | | G'day Folks,
Thanks Wolf. I got my information from: 'The Daily Telegraph' Inquest report.
Leanne |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 08:49 pm | | ALEX: About 3 weeks ago you posted a story from the Nov. 10, 1888 edition of the Star. I have excerpted below a small portion which I hope you can help me with:
“In a public-house close by Buller’s the reporter succeeded later on in finding Barnett, who is an Irishman by parentage and a Londoner by birth ... She went by the name of Mary Jane, but her real name was Marie Jeanette. He knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her, except that his brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her."
Of course, I take this and similar reports with a grain of salt. In this particular instance, a later paragraph erroneously reports that MJK had a small son living with her.
To the best of your knowledge, is the excerpt above the source of some folk's belief that Dan Barnett met with MJK (at his brother's request) in an effort to persuade her to live with Joe Barnett again? If there aren't any further reports along this line, this story can easily be interpreted as meaning Dan Barnett bumped into Mary on the street or in a bar, they said -- 'ello, and went about their separate business.
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: alex chisholm
Saturday, 06 May 2000 - 10:21 pm | | Hi Janice
I think this is the source Bruce Paley uses to support the claim that Dan met with Kelly on the night before her death. But for me, even accounting for the usual caution required with newspaper sources, this whole report is very dubious. Even the claim that Barnett “knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her, except that his brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her” is contradicted in the next paragraph where it is claimed that (after leaving her) “The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half-past seven and eight.”
So if this report isn’t hopelessly confused or simply telling porkies, and for me it’s a big IF, then your interpretation of the possible meeting is certainly as sound as any other. But then to further muddy the waters we have to consider Maurice Lewis’ claim to have seen Kelly drinking in the Horn of Plenty on Thursday night with “some women and also with ‘Dan,’ a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago.”
In the end I suppose it all comes down to how you view the clarity and accuracy of the Star reporter’s interview with Barnett; the reliability of Lewis and his recognition of Kelly and her companions; and whether or not Joe and Dan were so similar as to be confused for each other, or that Joe was known to some as Dan. In this respect I’m sure your guess is as good as mine or anyone else’s.
Sorry I can’t be of much help here.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 07 May 2000 - 10:54 am | | G'day Ashling and Alex,
When Barnett's father died and mother vanished, DENIS BARNETT, (the oldest), took over as bread-winner and saw to it that his brothers continued to attend school. Of all four boys, only Denis left the East End to marry legally and raise a family.
It all then fell to DANIEL to take over as 'head'. Daniel saw to it that his younger brothers remained at school, while he worked at Billingsgate. By 1887, all four Barnett boys, recieved their licenses at Billingsgate. Being so distraught after his failure to keep Kelly, why wouldn't he turn to his brother/'father', when he had no one else.
Seeing that Joseph Barnett seemed to be the only one who knew Kelly as "Marie Jeanette", (and said so at her inquest), I'd say that this 'Star' reporter wrote exactly what he heard!
As the Barnetts lived in the East End their entire lives, I's say Joe & Dan would have rarely been confused with one another. Maurice Lewis was just Mary's tailor and probably never even met her boyfriend!
Leanne! |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 07 May 2000 - 10:44 pm | | Leanne,
How do we know that Lewis was MJ's tailor, as opposed to having been just a tailor?
Thank you.
David |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 07:50 am | | ALEX: Yes, you did help, thanks. Now I know there aren't any other news stories--excluding the unreliable M. Lewis.
After reading the full newspaper story several times, I think it's possible the reporter was jumping around, speaking of different time periods. Joe may have meant--after he left her on the Thursday night Nov. 8th (when he came back to visit)... he didn't know how she spent the rest of her evening, except that he heard later that she had spoken to his brother Dan.
And the next paragraph could be jumping backwards to the time when Barnett moved out, and his ensuing visits.
Incidentally, is it just one of those coincidences or more garbled info ... That Tom Cullen in When London Walked in Terror interviewed retired market porter Dennis Barrett who knew Mary Kelly by sight when he was a young boy. (Chapter 13) 'Tis odd that he had the same profession and very similar name to Joe's oldest brother which Leanne mentions above. If this area of the case has been explored to death (enjoyed your article in Ripper Notes, Alex!) ... well, my apologies to long-time Ripper Hunters.
Thanks,
Janice
P.S.
If anyone suggests that Dennis Barrett forged/faked the 'diary' and bequeathed it to his fourth cousin, twice removed--Mike Barrett ... I shall start screaming, I really shall. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 08:21 am | | G'day David,
Maurice Lewis is described as: 'The Dorset Street Tailor' and claimed to have known Kelly for five years.
But wait.....Kelly had only been in London since 1884 and worked in a West End brothel before drifting over to the East End.
I'd say he was exaggerating, when he said "five years" and probably only knew her for about three and it's safe to assume that she was a client of his, once she'd moved to the East End.
Leanne! |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 01:39 pm | | Leanne,
Thanks!
David |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 08:16 pm | | G'day David,
Another thought:
If I was a tailor, and Mary Jane was ONCE a client of mine, (even three years ago), I'd probably say that I'd known her for three years. His "FIVE" year comment, was obviously an exaggeration!
The reporter on this occasion, was obviously searching Spitalfields, for people to interview.
Leanne! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 04:35 am | | Dear Leanne,
I'm very reluctant to write this as it may seem I'm waging some sort of vendetta against you.
Lets clear up this about Morris Lewis being a tailor and having MJK as a client. Broadly speaking there were two types of workers who classified themselves as tailors.
On one hand you have tailors and dressmakers, who manufacture clothing from the bolt of cloth up to the finished article, and then you have the piecework tailor who did such jobs as finishing, alterations etc. (in this group you would have such people as collar finishers, seam setters etc etc)
It is most likely that Morris Lewis belonged to the second type, as the market for custom made
clothing would have been rather limited in Whitechapel and Spitalfields.
Secondly East End prostitutes did not have dressmakers, they wore whatever they could, if you look at the list of Catherine Eddowes posessions her clothes contain about as much mens clothing as womens.
The idea that MJK would ever earn enough to squander some of her income on a dressmaker is I think untenable.
By the way for conspiracy theorists among you. I have only found two Morris Lewis's in the 1881 who might be our man. One lived at 3 Tenter Court Spitalfields, married and aged 46 in 1881, and the other was in 4 Middlesex St Whitechapel. He was married and aged 38 in 1881. Middlesex St is in the vicinity of the graffitti and the family who lived next door? A Polish family named Pizer!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 07:56 am | | G'day Bob,
I agree with you. Morris Lewis, 'The Dorset Street Tailor', probably never kept order books and if Kelly was young and attractive, he probably just guessed and said "five years" instead of "Three" or "Two years"!
Why would I think you were waging a vendetta against me?
Leanne! |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 10:32 am | | Hello Leanne and Bob:
I think in matters of historical research it is best to err on the side of conservatism. I agree with Bob that it is dangerous to assume that Mary Jane Kelly was a client of Morris Lewis, the tailor. She may have been but we cannot assume it on the limited information that we have. By the way, I do though assume that Morris Lewis is yet another Jewish person in the case. Safe enough to assume that given his name I think.
Chris |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 05:10 pm | | Hi all. Evidently I've overlooked some crucial posts. Why is Lewis being referred to as Morris now, instead of Maurice?
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 09 May 2000 - 09:26 pm | | Hello Janice:
Exactly so, Janice, it should be Maurice Lewis, NOT Morris Lewis. Thank you for setting us right.
Chris |
|
|
|
|
