|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 09, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through September 09, 2000
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 10:35 am |        | Hi Rick,
The schooling issue of Barnett goes no further than proving us that he had some schooling, but tells us nothing of his intelligence (note I'm not saying he was neither dumb or the genius: we just can't make any conclusions on his IQ) or Barnetts motivations to go to school. For all we know it could have been Daniels ambition to help his younger siblings to learn things he hadn't, and have a better chance to let themselves work up the social ladder. The only thing still left of provable relevance with this issue is what he learned at school, in a mixed age class: writing, reading and calculation. Is this of any importance in trying to motivate that Barnett was JtR? No, it only tells us that he could read papers and write his name.
What tells Barnett's job us: he earned his money well (good for him), he lost it (a pitty), he knew how a fish looked like on the inside, he could wield a knife. What doesn't it tell us: it tells us nothing about his IQ (high or low), it doesn't prove he knew anything about human or mammal anatomy(theoretical or practical). A Jumper in a nuclear-power-plant earns big time, but his job doesn't say anything else than that he is for example willing to risk his health for the green.
These two facts about Barnett gives us this knowledge (no less, no more): had learned to read, write and calculate, earned good wages but lost it, used a knife for his work, as far as we know he knew no other anatomy than the one of a fish. (note again I can't say one iota about his intelligence: dumb, average or genius). This knowledge is only usable in two arguments him being able to be JtR: a knife (weapon) and lost job (stress button). Very meager I'd say.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 06:55 pm | | G'day Jill,
You say that Barnett 'only had a bare education'. In 1888 many parents with families who lived in Whitechapel, kept their children from attending school (illegally), and sent them to earn a wage as it was necessary for the familys survival. Good ol Daniel didn't! A basic education was a luxury!
Dr. Halstead was stationed at London Hospital at the time. The statement I mentioned, is from his memoirs.
During the 4 hour interrogation, police inquired about Barnett and Kelly's relationship.
Julia Venturney observed that Barnett was "adomant that Kelly should not go back on the streets" and also said that she "could not bear him, despite his kindness". Barnett however, kept insisting that they "Lived together hapily and comfortably". If we are not going to take notice of what witnesses said because 'People like to gossip', then are we ever going to solve this?
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 07:04 pm | | G'day Warwick,
Barnett's echolalia would not have effected his intelligence. In 1888, people mistakingly believed this and that would have added to his frustration! It can also be a symptom of schizophrenia and can occur at times of high anxiety.
Billingsgate Fish Market was a warf used for the import of fish. Portering was unloading, weighing, then carrying trunks for distribution. A docker is a word used to describe a person who works at a warf, so it was an accurate description for his death certificate.
As he wasn't recorded on a census form until he was 61, Paley wasn't able to trace those 30 years of his life!
Leanne! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 03:22 am | | Hi Leanne,
'Only a bare education' must be regarded in reference to what he did acquire, also comparing to schooled people nowadays, and particularly what he could not have learned in reference to theoretical anatomy. Of course, if you refer to it in the light of other Whitechapel inhabtitants, then he was educated, and the majority not. It was a luxury going to school until your 13, but that doesn't make it less basic. This still has nothing to do with the measurement of his intelligence and gave him no aquirements more than others on the subject of anatomy.
Dr.Halstead: can you please say in what book I can still have my hands on, this statement can be found, and how he fits in the search for JtR. Was he in any inquest? It's just that memory isn't helping me with this at the moment, and that out of curiosity I want to read it myself.:-)
Gossip: I never said we can't take notice what witnesses said. I was only saying with 'people like to gossip', that their tongues would be loose enough to willingly tell what they knew to the police, helping the enquiry after Barnett along faster. And the mentioning of Julia Venturney underlines what I said in my post on September 5: if we can deduct that Barnett didn't like it MJK prostituting herself because of witness declarations, then the police back-then knew it too.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 06:01 am | | G'day Jill,
Can we really compare todays schooling with education back then? Especially in Whitechapel, where an employer would have been lucky to have an employee with a basic education.
All it would have required to be a clerk or have any non-labouring job, would have been a basic education.
Joseph Barnett used to dress like a clerk. Bruce Paley comments: 'his appearance resembles that of a gentleman more than of a common East End labourer or fish porter.' This was how he was able to attract and keep Mary!
All it would have taken, was for Jack (whoever he was), to have worked as a doctors or mortuary assistant at some time.
I first read about Dr. D. G. Halstead in Paley's 'Simple Truth' on page 214,
Then I found him in Paley's comments in 'The Mammoth Book of JtR' (page 237).
LEANNE! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 07:13 am | | Hi Leanne,
Again I'll explain that I started to mention Barnetts education to show only that it has no relevance to his make suppositions on his intelligence and that he would not have even the basic theoretical anatomic knowledge of a child of 12 nowadays. Any other discussion on the worth of education belongs to social conditions IMHO. I really can't see the importance to the discussion of Barnett being guilty, if he was lucky to have his job, that he could have been a clerk (we don't even know if he qualified for it), that he earned more than a PC, ...
About the importance of anatomic knowledge: I'm not saying there was practice needed. Our Thomas Ind is better qualified to judge than me if JtR showed any experience. But I stick with the opinion that as far as knowledge was required, at the least knowledge about mammal (not fish, not birds, not reptiles and not amfibians) anatomy was needed. Barnetts education nor his job give us the proof he had any such knowledge.
Thanks about the references.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Paul Branch
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 08:25 am | | Hi everyone,
I dont want to be a pain, but from time to time I see on the boards references to Barnett and his use of a knife for his work.
Can someone point me in the general direction of where the proof lies that a fish porter, more specifically Barnett, actually `guts fish as well.
Is Barnett's use of a knife in his daily work an assumption ?
cheers
Paul |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 10:02 am | | Hi Paul, Leanne
Paul- Actually you make a point there I guess. Because I'm not a native speaker, there are some words I have difficulty grasping, and one of them is Fish-porter. As most here are native speakers, and all the time he is regarded as filetting fish, I must admit to my regret I have included it as part of the job. But after rereading Leanne's description of what a fish-porter's job is, I'm stuck with the same question.
Leanne - Since you could adeptly describe the job-function, can you confirm if filetting fish was part of his job?
Lovely greetings,
Jill |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 11:17 am | | | Leanne, Thanks for putting me wise concerning Barnet's job description at the time of his death. Though to my old fashioned way of looking at things, dock workers would unload, carters would transport, and porters would distribute throughout the market. There is no accounting for the way the authoritive mind works or describes. The echolalia,---I didn't mean it would affect his intelligence, but it could have made him a person to poke fun at,---another barrier to climb, and another reason to give him that "anti" feeling and also another reason for the schizophrenic feelings to get stronger. Jill,I don't think I have ever suggested that because Barnet was a fish gutter and filliter that made him JtR, but it would have helped him and made him more of a candidate than say someone like Druit, Kosminski and numerous others. The fish gutting didn't help at all as far as anatomy goes but it did make him an expert, fast, dexterous knifeman. Judging from the photographs of the bodies, I've never thought he showed surgeonlike skill,--more pure butcher,-- but he was very fast and the being who performed on Kate Eddowes was very fast! Regards to you both Rick. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 11:37 am | | Hi Rick,
That's the question: was he even a fish gutter and filleter? Following the summire job-description Leanne has kindly give us here, it doesn't seem to be the case. But then I'm not so fishy :-) |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 11:38 am | | | Euh, no pun to anybody else there! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 11:50 am | | | Are there any Billingsgate fish market porters among us who can answer this question?. Personaly I except it was part of the job, Bruce Paley researched for his book and put it in writting, was he given false information or did he write down what he thought?--neither I think, and I don't think Barnet needed lessons in anatomy to do what he did---he improved as he went along. Rick |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 12:40 pm | | Leanne:
Based on the large number of schools in the Whitechapel area and the insistance of Jewish immigrant families that their children be educated I would be interested in the origin of your statement: ". In 1888
many parents with families who lived in Whitechapel, kept
their children from attending school (illegally), and sent
them to earn a wage as it was necessary for the familys
survival."
I'm also interested as to why it now seems cold sober fact on this board that Barnett had echolalia when there appears little or no evidence for it other than an understandable nervousness at the inquest.
Billingsgate was a market especially for selling fish on to distributors, fish shops and local restaurants. It was not a wharf and persons working there could not be described as dockers, that being a description for persons physically working in dockyards.
You also say: "As he wasn't recorded on a census form until he was 61,
Paley wasn't able to trace those 30 years of his life!"
This must be wrong as that would make Barnett's census appearance in 1919, a year when there was no census the nearest being the one in 1921 which won't be available until 2021. Here is Joseph (and his brother John) on the 1881 census:
Dwelling: 1 Horatio Street
Census Place: Bethnal Green, London, Middlesex, England
Source: FHL Film 1341089 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0411 Folio 98 Page 26
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
George BAILEY M 28 M London City Of, Middlesex, England
Rel: Head
Occ: General Dealer
Mary A. BAILEY M 26 F St Lukes
Rel: Wife
James BAILEY 5 M St Lukes
Rel: Son
Lizzie BAILEY 3 F Shoreditch
Rel: Daur
Alfred BAILEY 1 M Shoreditch
Rel: Son
Joseph BARNETT U 22 M Whitechapel
Rel: Lodger
Occ: General Labourer
John BARNETT U 20 M Whitechapel
Rel: Visitor
Occ: Fish Porter
A lot of the information on this particular board is not quite accurate and I wonder if the reason is that it all comes from one book: that of Bruce Paley?
Peter |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 08:29 pm | | Hi, all:
I have thought for some time that all Barnett may have done at Billingsgate was haul boxes of fish around rather than to be dexterous with a knife as Paley implies. A "porter" after all does move things around. Possibly some porters did also gut fish but that does not mean that Barnett was one of them.
Chris George |
Author: Feebles
Friday, 08 September 2000 - 09:22 pm | | The dictionary definition of porter is one who carries or moves things around (from Latin portre, to carry). Of course there may be a specialized definition in this context. There is a porter now at Billingsgate who gives tours of the new market. Are there any Londoners who would care to ring him up? He may be knowledgeable.
I enclose a couple of photos that back up the definition:
_____________________________
_____________________________
You will also find some interesting information at the Old Stepney Website . |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 07:18 am | | G'day Folks,
To answer as many questions as I can all at once, I'll quote what Bruce Paley writes in 'The Simple Truth':
'Portering at Billingsgate consisted mainly of unloading and transporting fish....The porters work began at 5am and was over 4 hours later, though those permanently employed by a market shop generally stayed on for another 4 hours, cleaning and packing fish. As Joseph Barnett worked at Billingsgate for at least ten years, it is likely that he held such a position. Porters were paid by the piece at varying rates, so wages varied, but a steady, diligent worker could earn as much as 3 pounds per week'.
As a reference he gives: 'Records of Billingsgate Market fish porters, deposited at the Guildhall Record Room, London'.
Jill: I can't understand your remark: 'You can't see the importance of discussing Barnett as being guilty, if he was lucky to have his job'.....Barnett lost his job, just before these murders started!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 08:21 am | | G'day Peter,
Paley get's his information from a number of books: 'Ordinary Lives 100 years Ago' Carol Adams, 'Life and Labour of the People of London' Charles Booth, 'The People of the Abyss' Jack London and 'British Historical Facts'.
OK his echolalia: I don't for a minute believe that JB stammered with every sentence, but at times of high anxiety, as noted by the 'Standard', 'The Illustrated Police news', 'The Daily Chronicle' and the 'Cardiff Times & South Wales Weekly News'.
I appologise, I mistakingly said "1919 Census form"
'He was listed in the Electoral Rolls....as living with a Louisa Barnett.' That's what you get for trying to type late at night!
Leanne |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 11:22 am | | I don't know about anyone else, but a good definition for me of a time of high anxiety would be four hours of police questioning after my ex had been found hacked almost beyond recognition.
But if Joe took his knife to Mary that day, having killed up to four other women, and hung around afterwards to bluff it out, he must have been one cool customer, taking a huge gamble that the police would find nothing to connect him with the grisly scene.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Branch
Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 11:47 am | | So Barnett was a porter, mainly unloading and transporting fish.
He worked at Billingsgate for at least 10 years therefore (assumption) he probably cleaned and packed fish for 4 hours after he'd finished porting.
Does cleaning include gutting, and require a knife ?
My understanding is that the words cleaning and gutting have different meanings, but maybe in a certain context one may imply the other, who knows.
Regards
Paul |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 12:29 pm | | Hi Paul,
I have always understood cleaning and gutting to be synonymous. "Want yer mackerel cleaned madam?" does not mean a quick spit and polish to make the scales gleam, but a swift sharp movement to remove all the bits you don't want to see when preparing your mustard sauce.
There, bet you didn't realise your average fishmonger went in for euphemisms.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
