|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 16, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through September 16, 2000
Author: alex chisholm
Thursday, 14 September 2000 - 09:20 pm |        | Hi Jon
I never for a moment thought that you hadn’t considered any scenario I might postulate. Good grief, I think every last possibility has, over the past 112 years, been considered, dissected, and reconstituted almost ad nauseam. But I don’t accept that we need to view Barnett as simply either a Serial Killer or a spurned lover.
By all accounts Joe left Mary, and, although I’m reluctant to embark on such speculation, the instant Barnett killed Kelly, if such were the case, then his options would have become severely limited. As a former lover he would have been the obvious suspect in an ordinary murder. His only real option for survival - and remember it would literally be his survival that was at stake - would be to deflect suspicion onto the ever-so convenient Jack. Indeed, as Stewart Evans recently pointed out to me, had ‘John Brown’ had the foresight, or cunning, to dump his wife, murdered by cutting her ‘head nearly off,’ in an alleyway, and not felt the compunction to give himself up, we would all be discussing the extraordinary coincidences in a ‘triple event’ committed within a couple of miles of each other on the night of 29/30 Sept.
None of us, I trust, can even imagine what lengths a murderer might go to cover his tracks. But, given the immanence of a popularly well-known scapegoat, I don’t think it is too outlandish to imagine that such an opportunity might well be grasped.
On Viper’s points I have to agree, and although it has been discussed on other boards before, it evidently needs restating, that the press went overboard in trying to establish connection between individual crimes in order to enforce the notion of a series. Had any acquaintance existed between the victims then, I think, it would have been well reported by all the popular press.
Although I do not at present possess the People report, and so cannot really comment on its content, I suspect it may originate from a Telegraph report of 10 Nov. in which it is reported that Annie Chapman resided in Dorset-street. Although purely fictitious, it is not inconceivable that the fanciful leap between being resident in the same street and actually knowing each other was made.
Given the surfeit of common lodging-houses in Dorset-street, and the transient occupancy of such dwellings, literally hundreds must have passed through these places. To speculate that all, or even any one in particular, must have been known to Kelly is, I think, rather nonsensical.
As for the Lloyds report of Eddowes living next-door to Kelly, I think this may originate with a Telegraph report of 3 Oct., which has witnesses reporting Eddowes spending some nights in a shed at the first-floor front of 26 Dorset-street. However, as the Telegraph relates, these witnesses “did not know her by name. She does not seem to have borne a nickname. They were ignorant of her family connections or her antecedents, and did not know whether she had lived with any man,” it is extremely doubtful that these witnesses accurately identified the body, or even knew Eddowes at all.
The repetition of such connections in the Telegraph of 10 Nov., or Lloyds Weekly News of 11 Nov., may well be nothing more than a further example of Press attempts to forge links between the crimes, regardless of the accuracy of such connections.
Thanks for the intrigue and supportive comments, R. J. and Leather.
Best wishes
alex |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 06:17 am | | These murders were committed in a relatively small area of London The persons concerned on the whole had no fixed abode, living in lodging houses. There were several lodging houses in and around Dorset street. I fail to see what point (if any) you are making here.
I'm glad to see that Paley found the Barnett family in the 1861 and 1871 census. You don't mention the 1881 census. Is it possible that Paley missed that one? How about 1891?
I also don't see the point of the last para. It's clear that as of April 1881 Barnett was working as a labourer rather than a fish porter. Maybe he got tired of fish. Maybe his brother John visited in order to pull him back into the International Order of Fish Porters. Does it matter?
Incidentally, here is the census entry for Daniel Barnett.
Dwelling: 9 Aldred St
Census Place: Bermondsey, Surrey, England
Source: FHL Film 1341127 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0560 Folio 76 Page 16
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
James MURPHY M 51 M Bermondsey
Rel: Head
Occ: Cab Driver
Ann MURPHY M 59 F Whitchapel
Rel: Wife
Occ: Cab Driver Wife
James DAWES U 43 M Bermondsey, Surrey, England
Rel: Lodger
Occ: General Labourer
Daniel BARNETT U 28 M Middlesex, England
Rel: Lodger
Occ: Fish Porter |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 10:11 am | | G'day,
Simon: As you have pointed out, the question of Barnetts motive for killing the other women seems to be a sticking point. For those who are stuck, let me remind you that a serial killer kills with no apparent motive. JtR hated prostitutes!
VIPER: No one has said that Barnett was "slowly eliminating Kelly's friends". The victims didn't have to know each other intimately!
Mary couldn't have just: 'got the hell out of Millers Court'. She had no money! She told her friend Lizzie Albrook, that she "Was heartily sick of the life she was leading and wished she had the money enough to go back to Ireland, where her people lived". ('Lloyds Newspaper', 11 Nov)
Another friend told the Press Association: "She told me she had no money and intended to make away with herself".
JON: Yes you're right there mate. Paley reports in his book that Kelly's friend Julia Venturney, observed: "I have frequently seen her (Kelly) the worse for drink but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone". ('Standard Newspaper'). I wonder what nights he went out and where he went!
Why is the 'Barnett we know' an 'ordinary person' who was so 'in love with her'? Aren't your assumptions just like my assumptions?
PETER: I can't find a reference to the 1881 census in 'The Simple Truth'. Of the 1891 census he says that there is no name idex of entries and a known address would be necessary to locate him.
He also says that according to market bylaws at Billingsgate, the prime causes of dismissal were theft, drunkeness and abusive behaviour. Lesser infractions were dealt with by fines or suspension. Maybe Barnett was suspended in 1881.
He also says that Denis Barnett married and moved to Bermondsey. Daniel took over as head of the family and worked at Billingsgate as a porter.
Leanne! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 11:15 am | | | Jon, I have to disagree with you on this, certain types of people will kill at the drop of a hat. It's being shown to us day after day on t/v and in the newspapers. But that wasn't the case with Barnet, Kelly had been putting him through the hoop quite a bit before her death. By some accounts Barnet was besotted by her, he spoilt her and tried to give her anything she wanted. But the old saying, "much wants more" could be applied here. If she couldn't have what she wanted, she may have descended into a fit of sulking. If it's true that Barnet was sacked from his job for stealing from the market, he was stealing to give her more and bring their relationship back to normal. When his petty stealing was discovered and he was sacked, unlike Bruce Paley I think he would blame her. But what could he do? It was a terrible thing to happen to him after ten years in safe employment, he couldn't take it out on her, he loved her! so it was a frustration he would have to live with. Then you have Joseph Fleming visiting her, giving her money and maybe trying to coax her back to him--that would have been a big put down for Barnet. Kelly then took in a prostitute friend to live with them, knowing how much Barnet disliked them. Besides his dislike it would certainly have disrupted their relationship. At Kelly's inquest Barnet said" Mary took her friend in out of kindness of heart". Kelly took her friend in to force Barnet out! he had no money, she had no feelings for him--and she wanted him gone. In a relationship like this other nasty things would have been said between them that we will never know, but they would have been taken in, remembered and brooded over!. When Barnet saw Kelly on the evening of the 8th Nov, found her alone and put it to her that he should come back, she realized she wasn't going to get rid of him that easily. So she really put him wise as to what their partnership had been about. At that point-- as they say these days--Barnet fell to pieces, I can imagine him getting up and walking out without a word, back to his lodgings and God knows what would be going through his mind. He didn't kill at the drop of a hat, it took him seven hours to decide what in his mind he'd got to do. I've explained why he cut her up so badly. My Regards Rick |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 11:26 am | | Leanne
"Yes you're right there mate. Paley reports in his book that Kelly's friend Julia Venturney, observed: "I have frequently seen her (Kelly) the worse for drink but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone". ('Standard Newspaper'). I wonder what nights he went out and where he went!"
My point was, that if this be any indication of the type of person Barnett was. Then we might think of him as not the confrontational type.......no killer instinct?
After all, are we not informed that Kelly was the one to get violent when drunk, not Barnett?
If that be the case then maybe it was Joe who should have been found on the bed, not Mary.
Why is the 'Barnett we know' an 'ordinary person' who was so 'in love with her'? Aren't your assumptions just like my assumptions?
Actually, I make no assumptions along those lines, I was taking Paley at his word, Paley wants us to believe he was in love with her doesnt he, or are you saying Paley is jumping to assumptions?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 11:48 am | | Rick
Are you thinking of 21st century man who will kill at the drop of a hat? :-)
The contemporary reports at the time (1888) indicate rather strongly that the East end was the preverbial rough house. Fights breaking out over the silliest & simplest issues. But according to published figures, murder was not committed 'at the drop of a hat', so to speak.
We have gone over the frequency of murders several times on this board, and it was just not that regular.
And as for stealing, I have wondered why Bruce implies that Barnett may/must have been on the high end of the pay scale (£3/wk?) or something close. And yet at the same time Paley suggests Barnett was stealing.
Assuming Barnett had kept regular employment (re Paley) at the market, then he would be very familiar with what happens to those who steal. We might even argue that he 'would have known better' because of his long employment record, assuming this to be true.
This is not to suggest that long term employees may never steal, of course they may. But Paley cant simply jump to that conclusion, based on the fact that Barnett was no longer employed.
Since its been a long time since I read Paley's book, I forget if there is a document to the effect that Barnett was terminated?......or was he just layed off?...Leanne will know that one.
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 04:23 pm | | Ok, looking through the archives (which are all over the place) I was looking for answers to my last question, above.
Back in January I asked a series of questions about Barnett, and Wolf replied:
"Barnett was dismissed from his job"
Leanne replied:
"Bruce believes Barnett lost his job for serious reasons"
Neither reply actually answers the question.
Surely there must be some actual document or statement by Barnett that he was terminated.
Or is this all assumtion?
I know Barnett said at the inquest that he WAS a porter, but NOW is working at the docks.
Is this all that is behind this idea that he was dismissed for 'serious reasons'?
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 04:56 pm | | | Jo-ooon! It was you who said we haven't changed much, if at all, since Dickens time J Jack the Ripper was a one off killer in 1888, we today have more of that type because our population has grown so drasticaly. But whatever, he didn't kill at the drop of a hat, he took seven hours to come to that decision. The other killings also, he must have weighed up in his mind before actually striking, otherwise he wouldn't have got away with it. Regards Rick |
Author: LeatherApron
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 05:08 pm | | Hi Jon,
You wrote "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."
I agree with you and I've told people the same thing a hundred times myelf BUT that only applies to when you have a case. Obviously, you wouldn't have a case to take to court if the suspect already had an alibi (e.g. a grand jury would not indict them).
A summary of Barnett's case is a) all the evidence is circumstantial, b) there's no hard proof, c) he can not be eliminated as a suspect (like so many others) because he has no alibi, d) anything else is simply conjecture as to motives, anatomical knowledge, etc. and can not disprove or prove his guilt or innocence.
I don't believe he is without doubt the Ripper, but he's a very strong suspect as far as circumstantial evidence goes.
Regarding Dr.T, even though I had bought and read Stewart Evan's book about Tumblety it did not make much of an impression on me until I recently saw the Travel Channel's Secret History program about it. Very convincing. Most suspects I can dismiss out of hand (MJD, Prince Albert, Gull, etc.) because they are so obviously incredulous, and I had done the same with Tumblety until the aforementioned program. One problem I saw was his homosexuality until I heard the reasons behind it. There even is the possibility that there was proof of Tumblety's guilt though it was not and probably could never have been substantiated.
Did anyone else see the show? If so, what did you think? There are several questions that I have that I'd liked to know the answers to concerning his investigation. I will be rereading PC Evans' book again shortly.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: LeatherApron
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 05:10 pm | | Hi Jon,
You wrote "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."
I agree with you and I've told people the same thing a hundred times myelf BUT that only applies to when you have a case. Obviously, you wouldn't have a case to take to court if the suspect already had an alibi (e.g. a grand jury would not indict them).
A summary of Barnett's case is a) all the evidence is circumstantial, b) there's no hard proof, c) he can not be eliminated as a suspect (like so many others) because he has no alibi, d) anything else is simply conjecture as to motives, anatomical knowledge, etc. and can not disprove or prove his guilt or innocence.
I don't believe he is without doubt the Ripper, but he's a very strong suspect as far as circumstantial evidence goes.
Regarding Dr.T, even though I had bought and read Stewart Evan's book about Tumblety it did not make much of an impression on me until I recently saw the Travel Channel's Secret History program about it. Very convincing. Most suspects I can dismiss out of hand (MJD, Prince Albert, Gull, etc.) because they are so obviously incredulous, and I had done the same with Tumblety until the aforementioned program. One problem I saw was his homosexuality until I heard the reasons behind it. There even is the possibility that there was proof of Tumblety's guilt though it was not and probably could never have been substantiated.
Did anyone else see the show? If so, what did you think? There are several questions that I'd like to know the answers to concerning his investigation. I will be rereading PC Evans' book again shortly.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: LeatherApron
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 05:13 pm | | Oops. Sorry about the "double post". I'm a moron.
;-) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 06:33 pm | | G'day,
JON: I look at it like this - If Kelly was the one to get violent not Barnett, then how did he release his anger and frustration?
I don't think Paley wants us to believe anything. The man is interested in music, I believe! As he has worked as a private investigator, he noticed that Kelly's murder differed from the others.
I heard or read somewhere else, that investigating a murder should be done in 'circles', starting at the inner most 'circle', consisting of close friends/relatives/lovers. Once that 'circle' is cleared, we should move onto the next 'circle' consisting of casual acquaintences, friends of friends etc. The outer most 'circle' consists of serial killers, with no conection whatsoever. In Kelly's case, the tightest 'circle' hasn't been cleared! I think Paley wants us to believe that he 'loved her to death'!
Paley studied the Billingsgate licences held at the 'Guildhall London EC2' and the bylaws stating the reasons for dismissal/suspension. He believes that considering Barnetts apparent longevity as a licenced porter, (his father then brothers worked there, then himself as soon as he left school), to have his licence disappear, he must have been caught at the gravest offence. As a source for Barnetts dismissal, he says: 'In a statement made to I.F. Abberline on 9 Nov, Barnett said that he had been out of work for 3 or 4 months'. The next record of a porters licence was dated 1906.
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 06:43 pm | | G'day,
After 112 years of trying to find 'hard' evidence to be able to say "This man was definately Jack the Ripper", we're still trying to find him!
Leanne! |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 09:17 pm | | Leanne
You ask "how did Barnett release his anger & frustration....?"
Listen, if I can go through life without kicking the crap out of someone, then I'm sure he can too....in other words,..."what anger & frustration?"
Where did you dig that up from?
This is what I see as typical of both Paul Harrison & Bruce Paley....they make fictional statements (negative assumptions) and blend them into a story, then ask the public to accept this as circumstantial evidence.
For instance, "Barnett was known at the Billingsgate fish market as 'Jack'" (Harrison)...where did that come from?
And, Mary Kelly was worried "to such an extent that she considered leaving London" (Harrison).
I've gone over some of Bruce's equally fictional statements before.
When are the Barnettites going to realize that what is being presented as 'a workable theory' is little more than a soap opera, based on a few hints and a pile of negative assumptions.
This is not 'looking for a killer'...this is blatently framing the poor guy.
The circles you refer to is the same tactic that police use, and they did....they started with Kelly's lover, Barnett, Always on top of the suspect list.
As far as the licensing goes, all I have asked is why is it that Paley & Harrison take the negative view about his loss of work?
Did either of them check out the papers to see if others were let go (downsizing) around that same time?
Companies quite often let their higher paid, unskilled (porter) worker go when times get lean.
If he was simply let go then he would hardly pay for another licence when the current one ran out, would he?
But then I dont know if these licences were purchased privately or not, maybe I'm wrong.
But I'm looking for another possible reason for him being out of work & not renewing his licence.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 10:08 pm | | | As far as Barnett spending 7 hours deciding to kill Mary, we must not forget that she had at least 2 customers that night (the guy with the pail of beer and the one in the fancy coat). Barnett (if he was Jack) could have made the decision early on, but not been free to carry it out until she got rid of her last customer. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 September 2000 - 10:12 pm | | Jack (L.A.)
You talk about the case against Barnett, and raise points a, b, c, d.
Points b, c, d, apply to everyone in the area. That is, 'no hard proof', 'cannot be eliminated as a suspect', & 'conjectoral motive'.
It is with point 'a' that I raise the flag. What you describe as circumstantial evidence is what I see as made up primarily of negative assumptions embroiled around a few news reports & a couple of statements by Barnett himself.
In making a case against Barnett I see what looks to me like a parlour game, pinning the tail on the donkey, or blind mans buff.
If anyone takes the case seriously then they must apply certain rigid rules, not make up their own.
Rules that are recognized by everyone make for fair play. Picking out a few isolated comments, then weaving them together with a complex thread of supposition and presenting it all as circumstantial evidence does not make for fair play.
Its my contention that you play by the established rules, not make up your own.
Barnettites are not looking for the 'real Jack'...they are trying to make Barnett fit the mould, even going as far as making up negative assumptions to sway the reader.
But, as in the days of the witch trials....once the accusers mind is made up.......no amount of logic will remove the blinkers.
Regards, Jon |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 03:20 am | | Leanne,
First, my apologies if you were not suggesting that the victims were known to Mary Jane Kelly as a "circle of friends", as I thought you were implying. However, since you state that the victims didn't have to know each other intimately I then fail to see the point of your listing their alleged connections to Dorset Street in your poste of 14th September, 02:50 a.m. What point were you trying to make? It is well known that the murders were confined to a small area and the victims drawn from an even smaller one.
"Mary couldn't have just: 'got the hell out of Millers Court'"? Of course she could have done if she had feared for her life, regardless of whether she had money or not (and yes, we've all read the quotes before!). Mary's first instinct would have been self preservation. It would have been easy for her to melt away into a London population approaching five million. Indeed that's exactly what she and some of the other victims had done previously, (look at Polly Nichols for example). There were common lodging houses in other parts of town and we know she had the capability to earn money if necessary, whether on the streets or elsewhere. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 05:22 am | | Viper, you make a very good point about Mary's options. In fact, I often wonder, if she hadn't been killed that night, how near she was to being evicted for non-payment of rent. Whether or not McCarthy was exaggerating how much he had let her fall behind, there is no dispute that he was making an effort to claw some back on the morning of 9th Nov. How much longer could she expect him to wait? It seems that, far from getting the hell out before Jack got to her, she was clinging desperately to the, to all intents and purposes, rent-free hovel she called home, praying that McCarthy wouldn't finally lose all patience and throw her out. It also seems that every time she earned a bit of money which would have placated McCarthy or given her the chance of lodgings outside Jack's killing fields, she blew it all on booze without a second thought.
I apologise for my next question, which has probably been considered many times before: did Mary go out again after her last 'legitimate' client had left that night, spending all her earnings on booze, or did Jack rob her of whatever she had left? I'm assuming that no money was found at No.13.
I'm just wondering whether Mary would have been able to pay Bowyer anything that morning had she lived.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 05:40 am | | So the whole idea behind Barnett's dismissal from hauling fish due to theft or some other grave offence is that Paley believes"that considering Barnetts apparent longevity as a licenced porter, (his father then brothers worked there, then himself as soon as he left school), to have his licence disappear, he must have been caught at the gravest offence." Is it just me or do others see this as no evidence whatsoever? Maybe Barnett worked at different things over the years: he was certainly labouring rather than fish portering in 1881. Perhaps his work had come to an end in 1888 for completely different reasons. Certainly he must have been doing something else between 1888 and 1906. Or is there some note on the Billingsgate files to see that the licence was pulled for some good reason? If Paley's only source for Barnett's dismissal is that in his statement he said that he had been out of work for some months, then that really is pitifull research which has obviously convinced enough people on these boards for the discussion to go on for years. I suspect this is another case of picking on someone close to the case and "proving" their guilt without any thought to actual evidence.
Peter. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 07:25 am | | | Leanne, I agree with you, 112 years pondering on this mystery and no nearer the identity of JtR. I think it's a safe bet to say he never will be identified with absolute certainty.Forget Barnet, who seems to be a positive thorn in the side of some Ripper seekers,--and I say this next with apprehention,--do you like me, have a sneaking feeling that if Jack the Ripper could come back from the dead and say with hands spread,"it was me, I killed them all!" he wouldn't be believed?J no offense to anyone Regards Rick |
|
|
|
|
