Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 05:44 pm |        |
G'day Paul,
Check out these:
http://www.4fishing.com/galeries/jcarter/cleaning/clean2.html
http://www.msue.msu.edu/msue/imp/mod01/01600798.html
Leanne |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 09 September 2000 - 05:55 pm | |
G'day everyone,
For more on Billingsgate Fish Market:
http://www.sea-world.com/billingsgate/history.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LONbillingsgate.htm
Leanne! |
Author: Paul Branch
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 05:41 am | |
Many thanks,
Caz, I have to admit I agree with you. It's just that it would be nice to be able to say, with some degree of certainty, that Barnett did job X and we know that job X required skill with a knife. Should be quite simple......right, who am I kidding we're talking about the JTR case are we not ?
Leanne, thank you for the reference sites, I see I've got some trawling (pun intended) to do !
regards
Paul |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 06:21 am | |
G'day Paul and everyone,
I'll see if there are any references to how long Barnetts working day was, knowing that his portering work would be over in four hours!
If he stayed for longer, then chances are that he mutilated a few dead fish!
By the way, that reminds me of something......mutilation after death!!!hmmmmmm.
Read the second address I gave you above, word-for-word!
I'll be absent for the next 4 days, to work on Ripperoo! Be Good!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 03:57 pm | |
Hi Leanne,
Rick's post in th archive:"Barnet was lucky, for a youth in his day and age, thanks I suppose to his brothers who already worked there. If the reports and calculations are correct concerning his wages he was getting more than a police constable, office clerks, and a lot of trades men, so I would think he was doing pretty good."
Your post on september 8: 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.
on september 7: A basic education was a luxury!
These are the writings I reacted on when I wrote in my post of september 8:"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, ... "
One of the only relevant facts about his job (besides what he did with the fish) is that he lost it. And I haven't forgotten it. That is the reason I didn't wrote "...if he was lucky to have his job, AND LOST IT,..."
So I'll change my statement so no misinterpretations can occur:
I can see the importance in the discussion of Barnett being a possible suspect in that he was unlucky to lose his job where he MAYBE learned how a fish looked like inside and MAYBE learned to wield a knife, that his education gave him no rudimentary mammal anatomy, that MAYBE he COULD HAVE BEEN unhappy because he never was a clerk...but I can't see the relevance in this discussion of him having the luxury of a basic education so he could read, write and calculate, of him being lucky to have had a job, of a very slight chance that he could have been a clerk instead (something we can't verify at all), and that even then he was better off than a clerk because as a porter he possibly earned more than a PC.
Also you can clearly see that all this relevant pieces of information are SO circumstancial that I can't base even a pro-suspect verdict over his case.
Greetings,
Jill
PS. Hope I made things clear now. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 04:23 pm | |
| Re: echolalia. I have stated before on this site that I am a Kindergarten Teacher. I changed jobs this fall. I now teach Special Education and am working in an Autistic Unit. In order to prepare for my new position I read between 10 and 20 books on autism this summer. Autistics (some of them -- not all) have a penchant for arranging small items in neat rows. When I read that I immediately thought of the items arranged at Annie Chapman's feet. I know that there is a lot of dispute about what exactly was lying there and for purposes of this discussion it is not necessary to establish what was and was not there. The telling fact is that it seems to have been carefully arranged in a row. Echolalia occurs in autism as well as schizophrenia. I frequently have the experience of asking my students a question and having them repeat the last half of the question rather than giving the answer. In 1888 nobody would have put the echolalia and the neat rows together because autism was first described as a distinct disorder by Leo Kanner in the 1940's. Thus if Barnett was autistic it would have gone undiagnosed. 70 to 80% (depending on which expert you are consulting) of autistics are retarded. The remaining 20 to 30% have normal or even above average intelligence. I do not know if adult autistics are prone to violence. There are a lot of problems with tantrums in children. Autism is a neurological disorder the nature and cause of which has yet to be described. Many (all? I'm not sure.) autistics are born without the ability to read body language, facial expression, or tone of voice. This makes it very difficult for them to develop social skills and many of them (as adults) wind up as loners. That fact reminds me of the Douglas profile. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 05:32 pm | |
You raise some interesting points, Diana. What is missing is a good reason to connect Barnett with the other victims.
Attempting to scare MJK off the streets is preposterous. If Barnett had led a dubious life before & after his meeting with MJK it might be easier to link him with the crimes.
As it is, he may be only connected with the death of MJK, even that is only an outside possibility.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 06:38 pm | |
I have copied here from the web page of Dr. Temple Grandin, a very famous and intelligent autistic woman with a PHD. She describes the social problems experienced by even the most intelligent autistics due to their lack of social skills. I insert her words here: Recently I talked to the sister of a brilliant mechanic who has autism. He has been marred five times. Four of the girls stole his money. I have also talked to high functioning women with autism who were date raped several times because they did not understand the subtle dangers signals. There are a few people with autism that are successfully married. They often marry an eccentric or handicapped person (Newson, 1982). Many persons with autism chose celibacy because it avoids many complicated and upsetting problems. That is the choice I have made. I simply avoided the most complex and difficult to learn social interactions. My social life revolves around my interests in engineering, livestock and autism. Many of the people with autism who have adapted well have chosen a similar lifestyle. (Kanner, 1972) states how an autistic person's obsessive and specialized interests are used to open a door of social contact. They become recognized for special knowledge of chemistry, astronomy, trains, etc. (end quote)
It is apparent from Dr. Grandin's words that the lack of social skills in autistic individuals often leads to their being taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. This is a problem even for the most intelligent.
Her description of the brilliant mechanic who has been married 5 times and ripped off 5 times reminds me of the relationship between Kelly and Barnett. She probably told him she loved him when what she really loved was his pounds and pence. If autistic he was easy to fool. Then he loses his job and Kelly begins to lose interest. When she refuses his advances he seeks the company of prostitutes, but since he is jobless he can only afford the most broken down ones. Most of those women had an eye to the main chance. If a man could not detect a lie or a ripoff coming he might be persuaded to part with his money before being serviced. Then he would be given the brushoff. Imagine his rage. Stride's comment, "Not tonight, perhaps some other night" takes on a new significance. But Barnett is in a state of denial relative to Mary. Even as she works to ease him out of her life he hopes against hope. Finally on that night in November he realizes that her scam differs from the others only in duration and degree. He is again overwhelmed with anger and grief. The rest is history. Somebody is going to ask if autistic or not, Joe could have been fooled the same way by 5 different women. My answer is look at Temple Grandin's mechanic.
When he was cheated by the other 4 he was cheated in essentially a business deal. He took or sought to take their uteri. When he was scammed by Kelly it was much more an affair of the heart and that was what he took. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 06:57 pm | |
Thanks Diana
In pursuing this echolalia thing, are we not building supposition on top of assumption?
I mean....who say's he had echolalia to begin with?.....he hesitated, didnt he?....is that all?
Jon |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 07:01 pm | |
| I don't know. Who started describing him as echolalic and on what basis? |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 07:40 pm | |
| In the course of my work I hear echolalia all the time. If there is a transcription of Barnett's exact words with hesitancies and repetitions included I might be able to tell something. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 September 2000 - 03:11 am | |
If Barnett was so easy to fool, it makes even less sense how the lengthy police questioning failed to trip him up and expose his guilty secrets. Or were the police even easier to fool?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 September 2000 - 03:16 am | |
If Barnett was so easy to fool, it makes even less sense how the lengthy police questioning failed to trip him up and expose his guilty secrets. Or were the police even easier to fool?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 September 2000 - 03:21 am | |
| Er, sorry, that repetition was entirely unintentional. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 11 September 2000 - 01:01 pm | |
Leanne:
So you get your information from one book and Bruce Paley gets his apparently from secondary sources. I presume that Bruce is the source for the echolalia suggestion or is there an earlier one?
I see that the AtoZ(available at all good bookshops) calles Barnett's early years "deprived and orphaned." I presume that the death of his father about 1864 and the subsequent disapearance of his mother would verify "orphaned" but I would be interested in any evidence showing that Barnett's childhood was any more deprived than that of a great many people living at the same time. I frankly do not understand the comments about his education (which again seems to have been much the same as any other child of his class at the time) and fail to see why it should argue for or against him being JtR.
I note your quote from Mr. Paley:
'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."
Is this really what is behind all the discussion about fish-gutting and Barnett's dexterity with the knife? Many men worked solely as movers of fish from one place to another, and worked at it for several years. Do we know that Barnett worked at Billingsgate for 10 years? His appearance on the 1881 census when he calls himself a Labourer does perhaps imply that he didn't porter continuously. And to the last sentence quoted above: "As Joseph Barnett worked at Billingsgate for at least ten years, it is likely that he held such a position." one must in truth say that it is equally as likely that he didn't.
I would suspect that the news articles you cite are reports from the time of the inquest or shortly thereafter when Barnett could be excused a certain amount of nervous anxiety. Unless there is evidence that he customarily exhibited the so-called symptons of echolalia during other times of stress, then I think that there is no reason to believe that he suffered from it and comments about autism although interesting, have nothing to do with Barnett or the case in general.
His appearance in the 1919 electoral register would be understandable as it was the first register compiled under the more liberal Act of that year which allowed the vote to a much larger number of people. Given the commoness of the name, without knowing more about Paley's research, I would not be convinced that this is the correct Barnett. |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 11 September 2000 - 05:10 pm | |
I suppose If Barnett had the sole to commit the murders, he could put it down to Act Of Cod...but I don't think floundering about his precise job or state of health advances us much....seriously it's his very ordinariness that makes him seem a viable suspect to me,...I think he deserves mor serious consideration than many other named suspects, No,I don't necessarily believe he was the murderer,but shoud'nt be dismissed out-of-hand
Steve S. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 11 September 2000 - 07:14 pm | |
Good grief.
Now we are down to adding 'ordinary' people to the suspect list.....have we spent all the names in the book of "Who's who"?
Forget any description, forget any evidence, forget motive, frame of mind or anything credible to connect him with the crimes......just lynch him 'cause he's ordinary.
:-)
Matthew Hopkins is alive & well.
Jon
(just having fun) |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 12 September 2000 - 04:50 pm | |
Actually......
No one knows what happened to Hopkins (unless you believe the Vincent Price film).....maybe he was reincarnated in 1888 and continued his private war on females? (no ,I don't mean it ,honest!!)
By Barnett's ordinariness, I meant that if it had not been for MJK's murder we would never had heard of him....At least he has more connection to the murders than Maybrick,Tumblety,Druitt,etc.etc.(in provable fact,anyway)
By the By..I once played Hopkins in a civil war re-enactment so I have some standing to lead a Witch-hunt!!!!!
Steve S. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 12 September 2000 - 08:56 pm | |
Hi all:
I know that when I have had to appear in court I have not been exactly as steady as a rock, and I should think Barnett was similarly unnerved at having to appear at the inquest, particularly after having to identify his love interest who had just been hacked to pieces by an evil malefactor. One can just imagine how he felt, a working man in front of the forces of officialdom in the wake of the foul murder of a loved one. No wonder his voice betrayed him.... But guilty? No.
As with the case for George Hutchinson as a suspect, because both Barnett and Hutchinson's candidacy necessitates a fixation on Mary Jane Kelly, it takes remarkably tortured logic to project back and encompass the earlier murders to enable one to fit either of these two men in the frame.
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 12 September 2000 - 09:32 pm | |
I have a copy of "The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology" (1965 edition)
In this it is reported....
"Matthew Hopkins is said to have retired in the summer of 1646 to his home in Manningtree and within a year died of tuberculosis.
The legend that he was 'swum' on suspicion of witchcraft is apocryphal.
John Stearne retired to Bury St. Edmunds."
Regards, Jon |
