|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 15, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through September 15, 2000
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 12 September 2000 - 09:53 pm |        | The suspicion raised against Barnett is a good example of how an ordinary individual can be labelled, Framed?, and almost lynched by those who know little about him.
Isnt it typical how people will take the simplest circumstances and twist, manipulate and misrepresent details of his life in order to cast a dark shadow over him.
Stephens analogy of a 'Witch-Hunt' is very apt.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 07:21 am | | G'day,
PETER: In 1878, bylaws at Billingsgate Market insisted that all porters were licenced by the corporation of the city of London. All four Barnett brothers got their licences on 1 July 1878. Take 1878 from 1888 and you get 10!
(Billingsgate porters licences are all on file in the Guildhall London EC2).
Josephs father worked at the docks and also as a fish porter at Billingsgate Market. His older brother Daniel, found work at billingsgate when he took over as breadwinner, so I'd say it's safe to assume that Joseph found work there as soon as he left school.
In 1906 he was given a new porter's licence. On his death certicifate under 'Occupation' it says 'Dock Labourer', so I think it's safe to assume that he stayed on cleaning fish for the market shops.
About the newspaper reports of Barnetts speech impediment: Several reporters reported that he 'stammered', so it was a pretty noticable characteristic. Amoung these were 'The Standard', 'The Illustrated Police News', 'The Daily Chronicle' and 'The Cardiff Times'. He didn't just 'hesitate', One reported: 'a curious effect was produced by the witness, begining every answer by repeating the last word of every question asked'.
Are you sure that the 'Barnett' who called himself a 'Labourer' in the 1881 census is the correct one?
LEANNE! |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 07:46 am | | Hello Everybody,
I don't think it is neccessarily a witch-hunt to consider Joe Barnett as a viable suspect. Certainly in consideration to the murder of Mary Kelly. However, fish porter or labourer, Barnett would not have had the requisite anatomical skills displayed by the real JTR.
I, some time ago, had reason to be shown around an Aberdeen fish house. Not withstanding the ludicrous assumption that practising on cod etc would be ideal preparation for dissecting humans, the most noticeable aspect was the tool of the trade. Fish gutters use a long flat blade. Not the pointed knife that has become synonomous with the killings.
To my mind the last killing is a work of frenzy, in many respects a crime of passion. After the murder of Mary Kelly the doctors attending the Post Mortem could not discern the direction nor the ultimate killing cut. Compare that with other victims that, in complete darkness, had their eyelids cut. Is this not some slight proof that a different hand may have been at work for the last crime?
Also the testimony of Hutchinson and, crucially, the timing of his appearance seem to indicate red herring. I think that he turned up to protect someone and to ensure that the murder was attributed to Jack the Ripper.
But who would Hutchinson protect? A friend, a neighbour, a relative? And who would be in a position to know how to get into a room with a missing door key et al? Were his feelings of love tipped into hate by some news that he was told? Could these hypotheses somehow be related?
I think a case against Barnett for the murder of Mary Kelly could be built up. I also, however, accept that there is basically no other evidence linking him with the previous murders. In Barnett's example, what would be the motive? Well it probably hinges upon the notion of Kelly's pregnancy. And this itself seems to attract conflicting reports. I personally feel that Joe Barnett should be prime suspect for the killing of his common law wife.
Finally to Jill. The only provable fact in this post is an observation of the excellence of your English skills.
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 11:09 am | | Hi all and a fond hello to my old chatroom pals!
Just a quick line to let you know the aproned one is still alive and well. He's also anxiously awaiting the return of our chattery. It is returning, right?
Thanks Spryder and Johnno for your hard work on returning the site many of us have come to love!
Jon,
Barnett the result of a "witch hunt"? All right then, let's round up the villagers and pitchforks, chase him to the old barn, burn it down. ;-)
Glad to see you're still around. An interesting and entertaining movie about Witchfinders (General) is WARLOCK. I wrote a story about a modern day, pseudo-witchfinder called NECROMANCER about 7 years ago. The necromancer's name? Stephan Hopkins.
Well I have to run. As Barnett might have written... "Triple event this time. Had much time to keep key from police."
Yours Truly,
Leather Apron (aka Jack)
PS With some minor detective work, one can find my real name on this site under the story JACK/KNIFE. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 12:28 pm | | Leanne:
A dock labourer is not a fish porter. Especially a dock labourer would not be involved in filletting fish. It's therefore unsafe for you to assume that he "stayed on cleaning fish for the market shops."
The 1881 census shows Joseph Barnett as born 1858/9 in Whitechapel which agrees with the information given by Paley. Visiting him on the night of the census is John Barnett born 1860/1 who is a fish porter. Paley says Joseph had a younger brother John. You say that all four Barnett brothers were fish porters. Does Paley suggest another possible census entry for Joseph or did he fail to find this entry? I would be surprised if he hadn't. I leave it to others to say whether or not it's a likely entry for Mary Kelly's Joseph. Although Joseph may have been licensed at Billingsgate in 1878 that doesn't mean that he continuously worked there over the ten years. I presume that Paley found census entries for the family from 1861 to 1891 which would give further information. All those censuses were available when he wrote his book.
A stammer is a perfectly reasonable reaction to a very stressfull situation. If his supposed echolalia was so obvious, how come only one journalist noticed it? There is no decent evidence to suggest that he suffered from echolalia or autism and I'm surprised that anyone can suggest that he did from such a minute scrap of material. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 01:52 pm | | | Jon, You said if Barnet had led a dubious life before and after his meeting with Kelly, it might be easier to link him with the murders. It may be that is the very reason Barnet managed to fox the police with his image of innocence during his four hr questioning.To my way of thinking no murder makes sense,-- theres always an alternative, but the murders previous to Kelly's were-- to us-- preposterous. I think they were display killings, and they made sense to someones mind! I wouldn't make a secret of the fact that I believe Barnet to have been the Ripper, you can't pigeonhole people and their types of insanity especially after 112yrs, we don't know much about Barnet except whats written down, but you have to admit he was a central figure--with access. I've believed for quite a while there are people who will kill to get what they want, to keep what they have, and when that venture fails or succeeds they will stop, and I think that applies to Barnet. Rick |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 03:25 pm | | The question of Barnett's motive for killing the other women seems to be a sticking point in the accusations against him , but I don't believe this is necessarily so.
My argument would be that he became a serial killer due to circumstance and that with the first four victims they could have been anyone ( with the possible exception of Eddowes ). The circumstances being the loss of his job and his troubled relationship with Kelly.
Because she was the main woman in his life it was inevitable that Kelly would become a victim of this serial killer at some stage , similarly it was inevitable that John Wayne Gacey's ( I think it was him ) mother would become one of his victims.
IMHO
Simon |
Author: stephen stanley
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 04:20 pm | | Jon,thanks for the Hopkins info....as far as Barnett goes,I certainly think a victim's 'significent other',who had recently left her, is a viable suspect in her case...but I agree that any attempt to tie him in to the other murders requires assumptions we don't have the knowledge to make....A thoughts just struck me ..as Hutchinson claimed to know MJK,presumably he also knew Barnett...well enough to give him an alibi?
Steve S. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 07:28 pm | | Simon, Warwick, Stephen.
I dont think anyone has contested the idea that the 'spouse' is always the first to be under suspicion in a murder case. The police knew it then, they know it now, and I and others quite often make the same comment.
But, that is where it ends.
What you have to do is come up with a good reason for Joe to go to such lengths after killing Mary. If Mary had been found dead due to a fight, or a simple accident then they would have gone after Joe just the same. But the difference is, we and anyone else would have found it believable that he could have killed her by accident or by a blow to the head, something simple.
Not, carving up her torso to such a terrible state, this is clearly over doing it, if Joe was responsible.
So, the excuses I hear are "he had to make it look like Jack did it" .....possibly, but what was found in that room was overkill even by Jack's standards.
All Barnett had to do was slice her throat and rip her stomach, nothing much more than that, and this is what points strongly to me that Barnett didnt do it. Because, he went overboard, I would suggest that a copy-cat kill would not go to such extreme's as we see in that picture.......only Jack was mad enough to do that.
So, based on the above and a few other little observations I think it's apparent that he did not kill her and leave her in such a state.
And as for Barnett killing the other's......pure unsubstantiated speculation, the witch-hunt I refered to was not killing Mary......but forcing the situation to make him Jack the Ripper, ie killing the other victims, and such a suggestion does not hold water at all.
Regards, Jon
But remember this, what all those who agree with me are saying is..."Paley (or anyone else) has not produced the required evidence to identify Barnett as Jack the Ripper"
Or in other words, whether he actually was or not has not been even reasonably supported. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 08:22 pm | | | Having cleaned many a trout in my fly-fishing days, I think it is safe to say that it takes no anatomical knowledge whatsoever. There are two incisions only: one the length of the underbelly, and one slightly above the gills. Done correctly, the internal organs are removed in one quick downward sweep, still attatched to the gills. It takes only a few seconds, and there is no real contact with the 'innards'. One can clean fish for 10 years or for 100 years and gain not even the slightest knowledge of anatomy, human or otherwise. There is no consideration of individual organs. Paley's claim that Barnett was "knowledgeable about anatomy" does not hold up to scrutiny. |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 10:14 pm | | Hi Jon
I entirely agree that there is absolutely nothing to connect Barnett to other victims, and little tangible evidence to link him with the Kelly murder. But I don’t accept that the over-kill in Millers-court necessarily precludes poor Joe.
With the benefit, or hindrance, of ‘series’ overview in hindsight, supplemented by official files, Inquest and medical reports, we are aware of the excesses of the Kelly crime. Barnett would not have been so informed. The press reports, which he made a point of claiming to have read to Kelly, consisted of liberal amounts of ‘Head nearly cut off;’ ‘Body ripped up;’ ‘Face mutilated beyond recognition;’ ‘Innards strewn about in a ghastly spectacle;’ ‘Organs placed behind head;’ and such like, all before 9 Nov. 1888.
Indeed as I see it the spectacle in Millers-court perhaps most accurately represented the sensationally sketchy, reported ‘Butchery’ of previous crimes. The fact that the actual deed was the most grossly extreme would not have been known to anyone whose only prior experience of Whitechapel murder was gleaned from the Press or local rumour until after Kelly’s murder was being reported as such. So IF Barnett had killed Kelly, and wanted to avoid detection by attempting to frame ‘Jack,’ Miller’s-court would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable result.
Just to avoid misunderstanding, I don’t think Barnett was ‘Jack the Ripper,’ and I couldn’t say with any conviction whether he killed Kelly or not. I simply don’t believe there is anything in the nature of Kelly’s death, and certainly nothing in any perceived series, which allows us to dismiss Barnett as an eminently possible suspect for the Miller’s-court murder.
Best wishes
alex |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 13 September 2000 - 10:50 pm | | G'day,
Annie chapman was a long time user of various Dorset Street doss houses and according to 'The People'11 November, she was a friend of Mary Kelly.
According to 'Lloyds Newspaper' Catharine Eddowes 'slept in a shed off Dorset Street'.
'In the three years preceding her death, Elizabeth stride had been living on and off with Michael Kidney at 38 or 33 Dorset Street'. (according to 'The Times').
PETER: Bruce Paley searched the London census reports kept at the Public Record Office, London.
Two of Barnetts known addresses, found in the census were:
1861 - 2 Cartwright Street, Whitechapel and
1871 - 24 1/2 Great Pearl Street Whitechapel.
15 other addresses were found in Birth & Death certificates, Billingsgate licences, press reports, inquest statements and electoral rolls.
So great was migration in the East End at the time, that it became overcrowded so there were far more workers than jobs. Once Joseph scored his job, I don't think he would have voluntarily left. He could have been suspended a few times, until he lost his licence in 1888.
Leanne |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 04:16 am | | Hello Everybody,
Stephen S, in my earlier post I was implying that Hutchinson could have been providing an alibi for Barnett. Other than knowing Mary Kelly is there some more tangible link between the two men?
Also if Barnett did kill Mary Kelly he may not have been attempting to butcher in the manner of The Ripper. The horrific attack may have been caused by excess alcohol and a domestic dispute. I can think of one case where a father, who was a butcher to trade, killed his son. The coroner could only estimate the number of knife wounds because of the number of incisions. The father, incidentally, still has no recollection of the attack even though the prosecution had over 50 witnesses ( mainly neighbours) who saw the whole horifying spectacle.
If Mary Kelly had told Barnett, and this is speculation, that she was pregnant to another man would it be enough to unhinge the unemployed porter? My other points are too gruesome for this time of the morning.
Is there a case for Barnett?
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: LeatherApron
Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 11:30 am | | Steve S., You said "but I agree that any attempt to tie him in to the other murders requires assumptions we don't have the knowledge to make". In my mind one assumption can be made based on a statement by Major Henry Smith relating to the night of the double event. He states "The assassin had evidently wiped his hands on the piece of apron. In Dorset Street, he washed in a sink up a close not more than 6 yards from the street. I arrived there in time to see the bloodstained water." - From Constable to Commissioner, 1910
Paley identified a sink behind MJK's apartment. It is not a tremendous leap of the imagination to assume Barnett could have washed his hands there. Before anyone says that we can't trust Major Henry Smith, I would argue a couple of reasons in his defense... his statement about being 5 minutes behind the killer is inaccurate and displays the fact that he has a flare for the dramatic, but that doesn't mean the event he described never happened. His other mistakes made in memoirs 22 years after the case are again insignificant. The fact that people recall details incorrectly is well known BUT dismissing everything the man remembered is equivalent to saying that if we found 1 counterfeit 20 dollar bill (or 20 pound note) on him, then ALL of his money must be counterfeit.
Good points, Alex. Barnett can't be dismissed.
Jon, no one is saying that there's any proof for Barnett, but in my mind, you haven't disproved him either. The only good cases to dismiss him would be those used for other suspects (like MJD) and which are still used today. Things such as; proof of being out of town, being in jail, etc. Paley followed the Barnett path (I believe) not because he was a spouse, but because of the missing key and obvious contradictions in his testimony.
Simon, on the question of motivation, I have often said that *I* would have done the same thing that Paley is alleging Barnett had done for the sake of one emotion -- jealousy. Anyone who has ever felt this emotion, knows it is overwhelming in power and can cause abnormal behavior. As an aside, a program on the Son of Sam has an interview with a psychiatrist on the case who later helped develop profiling (which he admitted was essentially useless) and he had some interesting points. No one can say what drives a SK because it is very specific to that individual who is fighting his/her own demons. The only general statement that can be made about SKs is that they do not have what we consider normal problem solving abilities. Their killings are how they went about solving their personal problems.
Leanne (g'day) and Jim, excellent information and interesting question about Hutchinson. Never thought about it.
Enjoying the discussion, Jack.
PS Could someone please answer my previous question... will we ever have the old chat room back? Thanks. |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 02:51 pm | | In response to Leanne’s last poste, I would point out that we’ve had this whole debate about connections between the victims before. There used to be a board at the Casebook called a “A Circle of Friends?” or similar. The general consensus was this (from memory):-
a). There is no real evidence that the victims knew one another.
b). Consequently we should conclude that the victims didn’t know each another, though since they lived in the same streets it’s possible that some might have recognised one or more of the others by sight only.
c). Had they been friends then the police or press hounds would have learned of it and started investigating possible connections between the murders.
Personally I feel that if any of them were well acquainted, chances are it would be Chapman and Kelly, since they not only lived close by but they both seem to have used The Britannia as their main watering hole.
Liz Stride’s address is one of those little mysteries of the case. We touched on this once before as well, but with no satisfactory conclusion. Without doubt she and Michael Kidney had lived in Devonshire Street, Commercial Road for a good while. Following an interview with Kidney, the Central News reported that he and Liz resided “at 35 Devonshire Street down to five months ago, when they moved to no. 36 in the same street”, (see Sudgen p195). Liz certainly gave her address as Devonshire St. to the Swedish Church in May 1886. However, when reporting the inquest, several newspapers gave Kidney’s address as either 33 or 38 Dorset Street. For example, the Daily Telegraph, “I live at No. 38, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, and am a waterside labourer.” In addition, the same paper quoted the Coroner in his summary as follows:- “For the last two years the deceased had been living at a common lodging-house in Dorset-street, Spitalfields…” This conflicts directly with the five months of the Central News report.
Sudgen explains this discrepancy by claiming that the Dorset Street address was misreported. In contrast, James Tully hedges his bets with “It is perhaps an indication of the nature of their relationship that once Liz was dead Kidney found it necessary to move to one of the cheapest lodging-houses in Spitalfields”, i.e. from Devonshire to Dorset St. Other commentators plump uncritically for one address or tother.
We could muddy the water still further by pointing to inquest claims by Elizabeth Tanner and Catherine Lane that Stride had told them she’d also lived in Fashion Street. So after 112 years we don’t even know the victim’s address for certain – surely something to ponder before we start making too much capital from it!
Hundreds of full and part-time prostitutes lived in a small number of streets in the 'Wicked Quarter Mile' off Commercial Street. Taking that hard core of roads to be White’s Row plus Dorset; Fashion; Flower & Dean; George and Thrawl Streets we find links – in some cases multiple – to the Canonical Five; Millwood; Smith; Tabram; McKenzie and Coles. That demonstrates amply just how vulnerable the destitute prostitutes of this locality were to attacks in general. In no way were these all victims of the same man. Chances are therefore that the murderer, whoever he was, selected a subset of the above names as his victims because they represented an easy, available class and not because he, or anyone connected to him, knew them.
I can’t see why any of this has any bearing on Joe Barnett’s candidature for the Whitechapel Murderer. If MJK had recognised a pattern in the murders, the likelihood is that she’s have got the hell out of Miller’s Court and as far away as possible! After all, assuming she harboured no suspicions about him, Kelly was breaking up with Joe anyway and she owned nothing except a pile of debts and a few ginger beer bottles: there was nothing to keep her in Dorset Street. Even had she stayed for some perverse reason, surely she would have mentioned her specific fears to somebody; if not to the police then at least to McCarthy, or to one of her fellow drabs whose utterances to the newspapers Bruce Paley is always keen to quote in support of his case. Any theory that Barnett was slowly eliminating Kelly's friends and acquaintances as some kind of warning to her is quite unsustainable. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 04:01 pm | | Hello.
Alex--that's certainly one of the more intriguing speculations in a good long while.
My thinking is this. If it is a commonplace to say the murders "suddenly ended" after Mary Kelly, isn't it just as reasonable --or more so-- to say they "suddenly ended" after Eddowes? Nothing happened for six weeks. Isn't this is a long time to wait for a fellow who was willing to take the wild risks that Jack took (ie., Annie Chapman)? Is Kelly's murder really very similar to that of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes? In my opinion, we need to look for another murder that took place in late September, early October. Or an incarceration.
For the sake of argument, if Kelly's murder is attributed to someone else, say Barnett or Hutchinson, does this eliminate anyone from being the Ripper? Well, for starters, Stephenson (doesn't fit Cremer's story). The Royal Conspirators. Edward Buchan. Probably Druitt.
Probabilities, profiling, reason: these are pretty flimsy tarpaulins to set up against human rage and depravity. Maybe Ostrog did it. |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 05:21 pm | | Jim,must have had a bad day when reading your earlier posting...didn't get the Barnett implication,DOH!!!. Jon, just to nail my colours to the mast,I don't think he was the Ripper,but may have killed MJK (with the emphasis on the may)
Steve S. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 07:21 pm | | Hi Alex
I had considered adding a portion to my previous poste considering it was just possible that Joe had performed a little overkill due to his inadequate knowledge of the crimes.
The reason I changed my mind was because I had to consider the extent of the mutilations. It wasn't that I think you're wrong to make the suggestion, I don't....I agree with you. However, I still consider the extent to be well over what he would have done.
We have no knowledge of Joe's personality, except that he had 'violent?' exchanges with Kelly. But didnt Paley report that Barnett would leave when Kelly was violently abusive?, and the worse for drink.
Reading through the autopsy reports again and reviewing the extent of the mutilations, I think it was still too much to expect for Barnett to be capable of such actions.
This kind of mutilation would take an ordinary person quite some time to perform.
A Doctor, or someone who was intent on this kind of action from the start, might zip through this kind of work in 30 mins or so.
But we are talking about a man who was known to be in love with her. Not only would he be in dispair at having killed her, he now is faced with doing something he has never attempted before. Actually slicing her flesh off down to the bone, and mutilating her features so she is almost unrecognizable.
There's a bit of a difference when someone you have slowly grown to hate, or detest, does something that really sends you over the top.
As opposed to someone you loved, who said one thing, or did one thing to make you loose your mind in a momentary fit of rage.
I think the mutilations betray a absolute hatred on the part of the murderer. And this is not in keeping with the Barnett we know, and the same Barnett who spent the rest of his life without showing any signs, that we know of, of being mentally unstable as regards women.
So Alex, it isnt that I didnt consider it, but just that I considered it quite a bit.
And I come to the conclusion that this murderer was in a frame of mind way beyond a spurned lover.
Hi Jack (L.A.)
You raise the old argument about Barnett having to be proved innocent. I know that you also know that it is entirely up to an accuser to prove, even by circumstantial evidence, that the accused is guilty. And NOT for anyone else to clear his name....he has done nothing to be cleared of.
A hard working guy who lost the love of his life and displayed a nervous disposition at the inquest. Is this enough to label him a murderer?.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 08:13 pm | | | Jon,Thank you for your posting,--reasonable and sensible, I have a few more points and I'll try to answer in the same way, excuse me if I ramble a bit. Don't you think maybe you were talking as a 21st century man from a 21st century view point? I think you have to imagine yourself back to that time to try to rhyme and reason these killings. 1888 wasn't a nice time to be alive, unless you belonged to the priveleged class, and class distinction was at it's peak. To the well off, the people of W/chapel and S/fields were no more than rats in a rathole. There was no sympathy shown, in fact some of the better off would organise parties to go "slumming" and laugh at their misery, to take in the stink and filth of the place, then go home, sit on their chesterfields in their drawingrooms sip tea and talk about that poor starving old bat who tried to get a farthing out of them! It makes sense to me that the eastenders wouldn't have had a very high opinion of themselves and they wouldn't be sympathetic to each other, it was every man and woman for themselves. So in Barnets twisted state of mind due to the loss of his job, he could see poverty and the loss of Mary--to the streets --staring him in the face. I think it's possible he turned to murder to keep her. He certainly wouldn't have any feeling for the women who would have to die for him to achieve his goal. But she kicked him out anyway, and on the evening of the 8th Nov she told him exactly what he had meant to her since Easter 87, and that was--nothing, only his money! So he went back in the early hours and killed her. It could be termed a crime of passion I suppose, and any thing goes when it comes to that. I didn't say he was a copycat killer regarding Kelly's death, he wasn't suspected of being the Ripper, he was making sure the killing looked like a carry on of the Ripper series, not a crime of passion--which it was. He'd killed four times, it hadn't worked, with the death of Mary--the key person, that was the end of the affair,--a backstreet Eastend love affair that ended in tragedy. I think he could have climbed out of that wreckage without ever wanting to kill again!. Regards RICK |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 09:12 pm | | Thankyou Rick.
You think there's a lot of difference between 21st cent. man & 19th cent. man?
Do you think that the emotions & feelings of those people in Charles Dickens novels are so alien to our times?
Dont the characters make you laugh & cry & generally take you on a rollercoaster of emotions?
I dont think we have emotionally changed much at all. And people dont simply resort to murder at the drop of a hat.
Do you really think that his only response to being told he means nothing, was to resort to murder?
This is what I would call a '21st century solution' to everyone's problems....."if someone tick's you off...just kill 'em"
In the East end, according to many who wrote about the social conditions, if someone ticked you off, "give 'em a bloody good hiding".
A good kicking, or a good punchup, was the answer to their problems, not murder.
But, I cant say its not possible.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
