Archive through September 03, 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 September 03, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Barnett, Joseph: Archive through September 03, 2000

Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 06:00 am
Dear Everyone, My fault I refer to him as Morris as I believe that to have been his name, I do appreciate his name is given as 'Maurice'. Personal affectation (I'm old I'm allowed them!) all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 03:00 pm
I have now managed to get hold of Bruce Paley's book ' Jack the Ripper : the Simple Truth ' and although previously a great doubter that Barnett could be the killer , I have to admit that what Paley says makes a lot of sense. I was very impressed. It hasn't shaken me from my own theories about who was the Ripper , but there is a definite case that Barnett could have been the murderer. In fact , I'd say the case against Barnett is stronger than at least 95% of the other Ripper suspects IMHO. Now we have the Message Boards back , lets accentuate the positive a bit and lets try to accumulate positive evidence to suggest a particular subject was the Ripper. Why not start with Barnett ?
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 06:44 pm
Simon, I bought Bruce Paley's book about two yrs ago, at first I pooh poohed it, how could a man who loved a woman to the point of ruining his life do to her what Jack the Ripper did. But after quite a while, thinking it over, reading it over and over,and taking note of other murders and considering what human beings are capable of in war, and through greed, vindictiveness and spite,I came to the conclusion that Bruce Paley is right. Barnet had all the opportunities and all the reasons in the world to do what he did. To a certain point Paley has ruined the Jack the Ripper mystery for me, I agree with him 100%. Regards Rick.
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 07:25 pm
G'day, People wont believe that Barnett could have been the Ripper, because they don't want to believe it! This reminds me of another recent murder case, involving a 6 year old girl! Leanne!
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 03:00 pm
G'day Leanne ! I have to say I didn't want to believe Barnett did it either , but Paley's evidence is very powerful. I still believe in the Conspiracy theory , but Barnett is my most likely suspect otherwise. You kind of have to twist your ideas about the case around , thats what put me off Barnett in the first place : the victims aren't really important in solving the case at all. If Barnett was the Ripper he became a serial killer by the conditions of his upbringing , especially to do with his abandonment by his parents. He was a serial killer ' placed ' in Victorian London. And he did what serial killers did. Its possible he killed Tabram first , he killed a prostitute to satisfy a hatred of women. Perhaps Mary Kelly caused this herself by performing tricks in secret or being unfaithful with Joe Fleming. Maybe he hoped the murders would keep Mary off the game. But they didn't , so he did Mary in as well and saved his ' best treatment ' for her at the end. He kept her heart as a trophy. It all kinda makes horrible sense. I'm convinced now then that , if the Ripper was a single man working alone , then he was Joe Barnett.
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 04:38 pm
G'day Simon, I have been researching the modern female serial killer, Aileen Wuornos, who had a horrific upbringing when her mother deserted her when she was just 6 months old. This caused her to rebel something fierce! When children are 'dumped' by their mothers, this causes really bad behavior problems. I'm not saying that everyone who is adopted is a potential serial killer! Barnett just had his brothers and sister to grow-up with.....in harsh Whitechapel!!!!!!! LEANNE!
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 05:09 pm
G'day Simon, CONFESSION: When I first found 'Casebook', I wanted so badly to believe 'The Diary'. I'd read Bruce Paley's book, along with many others, but they didn't have any appeal to me. Once I saw that 'The Diary' was thought of as a fake by so many, Bruce Paley's Barnett theory stood out! LEANNE!
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 06:45 pm
I think the thing that sealed Mary Kelly's fate was her refusal to take Barnet back as her common law husband when they met on the evening of the 8th Nov. If she had welcomed him back, she would'nt have stopped her street walking but she would have carried on living,and Barnet would have carried on killing! Her refusal and the way she put it to him was the last straw, I'd guess that tipped him over the love/hate line. If Kelly had taken him back we may have been reading now of Maria Harvey being his next victim, he must have had a terrible grudge against her, and also if he had carried on killing we would be reading who Jack the Ripper really was! Regards, Rick
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 01 September 2000 - 12:14 am
G'day Warwick, WOW YOUR GAIM! - Trying to write a different ending to this tale..."if only.....","if only....." Try thinking about why the Ripper stopped killing after Mary! Was he caught for something else? Did he die? or did he just stop because there was no longer a 'reason' to kill?...add a four hour questioning by police to that last reason. Is that enough to stop him? Leanne!
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 01 September 2000 - 10:33 am
Mornin Leanne, I've got your attention at last, you've made me feel I belong J You mentioned a key word---reason. Most experts and people in general would say a s/k will never stop until stopped, they are doing what they love doing,-- it's an addiction, I would certainly go along with that. But how do you explain the conspiracy theory then? You can, because they would have been doing it for a reason! So it goes for Barnet, he was committing murder to solve his problems. He was'nt a true blue s/k. He may not have even liked doing it, but there was no other way to his mind, and his mind must have been bent to allow him to do such things. Basicly I don't think he was an evil man, he was a man tormented and pushed to extreme thoughts and his mind could'nt cope with the right and wrongs of it. His method of killing could show he wanted to be humane about it. Some may say he cut their throats in a savage fashion, but it may be he wanted to be sure they died instantly, [ that they did'nt suffer death slowly]. On the evening of the 8th when Kelly told him what she really thought of him, his mind must have really flipped, I don't think there was any row, I think he took in her words in silence then walked out and back to Buller's, spent seven hrs with his mind in complete turmoil. He returned at around 3:45am and let himself in by reaching through the window , Mary would have woken up, realized someone was in the room, screamed out "Oh murder" then pulled the bedclothes over her head. Barnet cut her throat through the sheet. Barnet mutilated Mary's body the way he did for two reasons, No1, to make it really look like a Ripper killing, otherwise he---Barnet---would immediatly be suspect, No2, she deserved the treatment more than the previous three. He took her heart because she was a deceiver who had never given him her heart in all the time they had been together, now it was his for the taking. He locked the door on leaving, with the key he had never lost to give himself more time to compose his mind for the onslaught of police questions he knew would come.But to my way of thinking that gave the show away, only Barnet needed to or could have locked that door,if the Ripper had been any one else he would most likely have left the door ajar or wide open. Barnet I'm sure, would have found it very easy to stop, especially after the questioning. The reason for the killings had gone, I'll bet he was glad it was over. Best Regards Rick
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 01 September 2000 - 11:28 am
Hi Rick, Welcome to the boards. Just some remarks: you think it is humanity why the victims were almost decapitated? Actually there is a very simple explenation for that. A common feature for all dissociative criminals (rapists, child molesters, serial killers, pyromaniacs) is that they see there victims as an object, somesort of doll to impose their fantasy world on. With a serial killer like JtR this was evidently mutlitation, Barnett or no Barnett. With some serial killers reality does not imposes to much on their fantasy world, and they even like the interaction of the reality with their fantasy. But other serial killers do not want to be disturbed in any way by reality to show them time and time again that they are hurting a person instead of playing with an object. Maybe you can call that some sort of sick notion of humanity, but it's nothing more than a child that is playing a story and hates it when mother calles it to the table for dinner. I can agree that Barnett has a background that can result into a possible serial killer, and I also can agree that the trouble with MKJ was the 'on' button of the potential. But once it's on, it's on. The lust of killing would have taken over, and would not have been discarded as easily as you say it would after MJK's murder. Yes, she coudl have been the onset at that moment. But all the previous murders were an outlet of something deeper than just the anger of Mary. To have such fun in mutilating women (no humanity) and playing with the cops, there was a much deeper current. It is just not feasable for the mind to go for years on such a horrific fantasy world to escape pain, to let the dam go, and then just stop the thing it is mentally doing already for more than 20 years (aka an acre where a farmer is tracking the same traces for 20 years), and to think mature about a threatening, injustice world, suddenly for the first time (when the farmeer tries to track a new trace, the machine will always fall in the old track again). Our mind and how it builds up its defence mechanisms in our early youth, work exactly like the farmer example. If he was not a true blue serial killer, and partly humane as you say, he would not have hold on during the inquest and the police questioning. He would have broke and blubbered everything out. He would not have even been able to do the mutilations that were done, not even on MJK. Greetings, Jill
Author: Roger O'Donnell Friday, 01 September 2000 - 01:42 pm
Although I can't say I agree with Rick's opinion that there was a 'humane' edge to the killing,he may have a point. The concept of the SSK is currently de rigeur, but there may be other flavours of killer. I think the Beth Short case was an interesting parallel, in that it looked like and SSK (and a well developed and confident one at that) yet it seems likely from the evidence I've seen, that its was a 'sequence of one' - i.e. Beth was the only target, and the man who did it never killed again(as far as is known). If the Paley theory is correct Joseph may have did what he did and then stopped since the driving force to his killings was gone. Just a consideration, since profiling is somewhere between a young science and a black art at the moment (see Carl's comments elsewhere on profiling from the sharp end), and the human psyche can throw up infinite variation... Roger
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 01 September 2000 - 02:26 pm
If Barnett was the Ripper , then I think killing prostitutes might have been a way for him to regain some control - albeit in an extreme way - in his life. He may have always been suspicious of Mary , wondering whether she was prostituting herself while he was not around. He certainly tried to control her behaviour , he tried to keep her off the streets , but this failed in the end. Mary's behaviour could have led him to hate prostitutes ; thus he went out prepared to kill or torture one of them , and he may have met Martha Tabram. Thus she could have been the killer's first victim. Barnett certainly knew the area of the East End and thus could have easily escaped from a murder scene using his local knowledge.
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 05:13 am
G'day People, Warwick: You may be correct there. Everyone is and was trying to find Jack, assuming that he simply loved to cause pain, torture and spill blood and he chose prostitutes for the simple reason that they were easy-targets. For this reason they look at psycho doctors, medical students and lunatics. I prefer to look behind this 'camouflage', for someone who was considered 'safe' in the neighborhood. Also someone who knew well the streets of the East End and the habits of the people and constables. Joseph Barnett lived in the East End his entire life. He was born there and by 1888, he had lived near all of the murder sites. There was definately a heated row when Joe went to Kelly's to tell her he had no money. Julia Venturney told Inspector Abberline and 'The Times' that at 5 or 6pm: "they engaged in a violent heated row in which objects were thrown, breaking 2 window panes". Whether he returned again later is the big question. Maybe he was the "man leaving the court at 6:15am", heard by Mary Ann Cox. Jill: I understand what Warwick means by 'humanity'. It's a term that I've read in books describing the psychology of criminals. Think of every living human being as being born with a level of 'humanity'. When a butcher like the Ripper renders his victims dead, before torturing them, this is considered an element of 'humanity'. If Barnett stole Mary's heart, after he killer her, that too could be considered an element of 'humanity'. LEANNE!
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 03:37 pm
Thank you Leanne, you understand me perfectly My best regards to you, Rick.
Author: Roger O'Donnell Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 04:33 pm
Interesting... A new (to me) term, with a very precise meaning. Leanne or Rick, could you supply me references? Either here or to my personal mail Thanks Rog (Ever the knowledge junkie )
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 02 September 2000 - 08:29 pm
Rog, If this is what you meant, this is what I looked up [it's in Lotus suite]. Humanity. No1 human beings collectively. No2 condition or quality of being human. No3 the quality of being humane. Humane.--kindness, compassion, merciful. Now I know no one can say JtR was kind, compassionate, or merciful, never the less in my book he killed in as humane a way as was possible for him, the victims were dead before they knew what hit them,except Annie Chapman, she maybe saw it comming, but she died instantly. He did'nt torture like a lot of S/Ks do today. What he did afterwards to the bodies did'nt matter---to the victims, repulsive and blood curdling to us,but to the the victims it did'nt matter. Poor Martha Tabram suffered and died slowly,so did Liz Stride. I would'nt care to guess who killed Tabram, but I feel sure that Jack the Ripper did'nt kill Stride. I hope that was of some interest to you Rog. Rick
Author: Roger O'Donnell Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 03:37 am
Rick, Not exactly. Jill made a reference to a term used in a psychology text that seemed to have a specific defined meaning beyond the commonly excepted use of the word. I was interested to find the book she was referring to, but thanks for the expansion of what you meant by JtR's (or JB's) humanity I too am unsure for the relation of Tabram and Stride to the JtR murders (the sig is, as you point out wrong, Tabram was concious, and Stride doesnt fit) As an idea for Barnet not being a standard SSK (if there is such a creature), is one of the better arguments Regards R
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 04:24 pm
Hello everyone, I hope you will excuse me deviating a while. A couple of nights ago I watched a film called Hands of the Ripper, another load of rubbish! I've never seen a good film of the Ripper mystery yet. Do you folks agree with me that the mystery has the potential for a wonderful film if a company would stick to the facts--what facts there are. The story is full of atmosphere. Bustling eastend main streets,lonely back streets, dim gaslit corners, eerie Mitre Square, strange sounds, and young frightened constables nervous to enter a sinister looking street. The look on PC Watkins face as he rounded the corner and confronted Eddowes body. John Davis and his panic on his discovery of Chapmans body. PC Neil standing alone by the body of Nichols in menacing surroundings flashing his torch to attract a colleague. The arrival of the killer at the window of 13 Miller's Court,----- without ever seeing his face,--- then the aftermath, the poverty of the surroundings and the room. Then the funeral and the black horses and hearse moving between the crowds. The film could end with the statement coming up on the screen "This murder committed on November the 9th 1888 was the last in a series of murders attributed to a man known as JACK the RIPPER, a man who remains unknown, unidentified to this day. Why must they always solve the mystery with Sherlock Holmes or some other superduper detective! A real film, sticking to the real story really whets my appetite. What do you folks think? Thank you for your patience Rick
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 05:46 pm
G'day Warwick, I agree mate! A film that doesn't favour any one suspect in particular. That way the facts that are known, aren't 'bent'! LEANNE!