|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 18, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through September 18, 2000
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 07:42 am |        | G'day,
JON: Ok, Paley and Harrison took the 'negative view' and believed that Barnett lost his job over the gravest offence - theft!
If we assume the other reasons for his dismissal, Barnett was either abusive, (not 'well-behaved' Joey!) or he turned up to work drunk or hungover once too often. If he was drunk, he couldn't have got drunk with Kelly, because he left her alone when she was drunk and wanted to argue!
Given the knowledge that he had a well-paying job in appauling conditions of unemployment, is it your assumption that he voluntarily quit?
In 'The Daily Telegraph' inquest report, Julia Venturney is reported to have said that Kelly was "fond" of Joseph Flemming, who: "often abused Kelly because she cohabitated with Barnett". Isn't that enough, plus the job loss thing to cause stress?
I found Harrison's written statements that Barnett was known as "Jack" at Billingsgate in 'The Mammoth Book of...', but can't find this stated anywhere in Paley's writings. Paley gives references for every one of his 'assumptions'.
About Kelly being so worried that she considered leaving London. I reckon it came from the same source Paley observed: that Lizzie Albrook said that Kelly wished "She had money enough to go back to Ireland..."
About the 'circle method' being used: The 'Metropolitan Police' was founded in 1829. It has always been vulenerable to political pressure. By 1888 it was unpopular with the press because of its brutality on 'Bloody Sunday'. After the panic caused by Kelly's murder, everyone was in a hurry to arrest a suspect. I don't think they would have employed this lengthy 'circle' thing!....I think I may have read about that here!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 08:18 am | | G'day Raw-Wick,
Too much money has been made with this mystery, mate! If someone ever comes up with a perfect theory that answers everyone's questions, someone else will write and publish the book that 'kills' it!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 08:22 am | | G'day Raw-Wick,
Too much money has been and is being made with this mystery, mate! If someone ever came up with a theory that satisfied everyone, someone else would write and publish the book that 'kills' it!
Leanne |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 08:28 am | | Hi, all:
I really think that if, as Viper indicates, Mary Jane Kelly had wanted to get away from the neighborhood, she would have. Allegedly she was frightened by the newspaper reports of the Ripper murders that Joe Barnett read to her, but I don't think she could have been that frightened, because she was still living in Miller's Court and made no attempt to flee. Is it possible that what she got out of the newspaper accounts was the vicarious thrill of learning about the crimes? That may sound harsh, because she was a potential victim and became of course the most horrendously mutilated victim of them all. However, many people at the time were thrilled by the crimes, just as people are today by reports of modern-day crime. Such high profile crimes generate entertainment as well as fear.
Chris George |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 09:00 am | | G'day Chris and Viper,
Mary Jane Kelly wouldn't have been aware that she'd be one of Jacks victims - obviously!
She may have just wanted to go back to Ireland because she wasn't living 'comfortably'.
Barnett could have read the newspapers to Kelly to make her feel that she needed him for protection.
If all frightened females got away from the East End because they were able to, there would be no Ripper murders for us to solve!
Leanne! |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 12:46 pm | | Leanne
Let me refer to some details reported in "The Simple Truth":
Following page 48 there is a photocopy of a sample Billingsgate Porter's Licence. On this licence it states
This licence shall continue in force until the first day of July....(applicable year)
So, these were annual licences, and subsequently had to be renewed every 12 months.
Now, in a statement to Abberline, Barnett say's he has been out of work for 3 or 4 months (page 185) and as a result appears to indicate that Barnett's licence was not renewed by him from it's expiry date. Actually this is 4 months, 1 week, so was his licence revoked, or was it simply a case of him not renewing it, ie, being laid off.
But to propose a dismissal based on this, and not only that, but to make his dismissal a little sinister (theft) is purposfully painting a dark picture of a guy for not other reason than to promote a book.
Now, far be it from me to propose that he was laid off, but so long as the survivng documentation does not contradict the idea, then you must scrap the 'dismissal' theory.
(one dark cloud lifted)
Now,...some have said that Barnett hated prostitutes....rubbish.
No known statement supports that proposal, in fact the opposite view is strongly indicated, taking up with Kelly after "meeting up with her for the first time in Commercial St." is a strong enough indication that Barnett had no negative opinions about prostitutes at all.
Barnett became disallusioned with Kelly after he had tried to keep her off the streets, and she kept a friendship with other women of this sort. This is an issue that slowly developed while they lived together, or only following him being unemployed.
But, it can hardly be used to support him going out and killing other women. And even though he disagreed with who Kelly was befriending, this is certainly far from "hating prostitutes". What he disliked was Kelly being a prostitue, but no reason to suppose he was ignorant or aggressive when in the company of other women of this nature.
(another dark cloud lifted?)
Regards, Jon
PS. medically speaking, the way the male metabolism works, it is very difficult for a man to hate prostitutes.
:-) |
Author: LeatherApron
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 04:24 pm | | Jon,
A great many people in the area had valid alibis, so you're wrong there, but I completely agree with you on the rest. If you don't consider any circumstantial evidence as such, then any discussion is over before it's even started.
The following statement you made is a little unfair if you directed it at me, "But, as in the days of the witch trials.... once the accusers mind is made up....... no amount of logic will remove the blinkers."
I am completely open minded and know that the "real Jack" has probably not been NAMED by anyone and has definitely not been PROVEN to be a suspect. Was Barnett JtR? It is possible and he's a damn better candidate than most.
Peace,
Jack |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 05:04 pm | | Not aimed at you Jack, I promise..
And yes, Barnett IS a possibility, simply because:
1) he was in the area, a local.
2) he was the 'spouse'.
But, he is NOT a 'better than most' suspect based on what has been presented.
And he is only a suspect in the death of Mary Kelly, and even that is only by a thin margin.
Purely by association, nothing more.
Jack.....did you forget Barnett's alibi ?
He was at Buller's playing whist, or something, till midnight, then retired to bed.
I'm sure thats as strong an alibi as most other single men in his age group had, ....dont you?
Jack & Leanne, dont feel you are being attacked.
I have come out in defence of Druitt & Tumblety, to the same degree.
I dont mind having a laugh (this IS light hearted) at defending these suspects when I see the case against them as trumped up or unjustified.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 05:07 pm | | | erased |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 05:10 pm | | sorry for the duplicates
sometimes cable-net isnt all its cracked up to be. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 05:12 pm | | | server trouble |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 17 September 2000 - 05:49 am | | G'day,
JON: I am looking at the copied sample of a porters license that you mentioned.
It is that of 'John Murphy' and it ran out on 'One Thousand Eight hundred and Seventy Eight', (1878). This is the year that the 4 Barnett boys first got their licences.
You ask was JBs licence revoked or whether he simply didn't renew it. Looking at the sample again, I see the text: '...to act as porter within the said market AND TO STAND AND PLY FOR HIRE therin accordingly'. This means that you needed this licence to find any work at Billingsgate, so if he did voluntarily let it expire, then he was taking a bold step.
I don't feel that Bruce Paley painted a dark picture just to promote a book. As I said before, his main interest is in music not Ripperology.
He did visit Casebook once or twice but that was ages ago.
About how Barnett felt about prostitution: How many times do I have to quote what Julia Venturney said?: "He said that he would not live with her while she led that kind of life". I don't reckon he never used them, but had a very low opinion of them and openly blamed them for Kelly's "downfall".
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 17 September 2000 - 09:55 am | | Yes Leanne
I also notice that the licence requires the presentation of your badge c/w the licence for renewal. But no mention of a fee being required. Which in itself, does not mean one was not.
Your above quote (Venturney) is all I ever see on the matter, which in my opinion tends to support the case for Barnett being 'non-confrontational' as opposed to being aggressive & dominant.
He told her he wont live with her while she follows that road in life.
As you can appreciate, these are hardly the words of a oppressive type. More like.."Give up the game or I'll slit your throat!!!" ...or,...."quit whoring or I'll kick your head in"
Barnett was not that kind of person, from what we read. He simply would not choose to live with her if she kept on whoring. Which you have to admit is pretty tame and non-threatening behaviour.
Wouldnt this be a normal view from a regular guy trying to make a decent life for himself and the woman he chooses to be with?.
"If you dont quit whoring, well go our seperate ways"...perfectly normal.
If you can find one example of Barnett displaying aggressive behaviour, I'd like to see it.
Regards, Jon |
Author: stephen borsbey
Sunday, 17 September 2000 - 11:27 am | | | hello i am new to the site and am interested in the social conditions at the time. what a great site it is. i have got some good info so far.i did not realise cond.were so bad in the east end.sorry to interupt your discussion leanne and jon.my name is steve by the way. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 17 September 2000 - 11:33 am | | Leanne writes:
In 'The Daily Telegraph' inquest report, Julia Venturney is reported to have said that
Kelly was "fond" of Joseph Flemming, who: "often abused Kelly because she
cohabitated with Barnett".
Its a shame she never ellaborated on this 'abuse'.
Dont we all wish that some police record still survived of a questioning of Joseph Flemming, maybe they never did.
Mark King discovered a lunatic known by the name of Joseph Flemming aka, James Evans, who died in Claybury Mental Hosp. August 1920.
One wonders if Harrison & Paley were after the wrong 'Joe'.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 17 September 2000 - 12:26 pm | | Hello Stephen
You are not interupting at all, welcome to the site....
Did you read the sign over the door?
Abandon hope, all ye who enter here
:-)
There are several older publications that give a good overview of the conditions in the East end at the turn of the century.
If you have Paley's book "The Simple Truth", you will find he does a decent summary and lists his sources.
Regards, Jon
Just jump straight in, questions, statements, opinions....just let fly, Stephen :-) |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 18 September 2000 - 04:19 am | | Hi Leanne,
I was thinking along the same lines as Jon in his post of September 16, regarding the supposition that Barnett hated prostitutes in general. As you nicely had pointed out to me in a previous discussion about what police would have known or not about Barnett, it was Barnett who got to know Mary while she was working, and thus he didn't mind approaching a prostitute. Only when they were together he showed his dislike of Mary prostituting herself, which I do not think unlogic. This proves only so far that he 'hated Mary prostituting herself'.
To say he hated Mary's prostitute friends because they were whores, is another unprovable supposition. He did not like it that her friends stayed with her, is all we know. The why? There is a difference in not liking the friend, because it would lead Mary to more whoring, or not liking the friend because she was a whore.
The other supposition is actually the remark that 'JtR hated prostitutes'. There is no proof for this. When we want to conclude anything from the chosen victims of JtR, we cannot go further than saying they were the easiest victims and the cheapest he could get his hands on and that JtR probably disliked women in general. Many sk's have started killing prostitutes for that reason alone, before choosing victims in another social class.
Thus one supposition, Barnett hating prostitutes, and another supposition, JtR hating prostitutes, doesn't make a conclusion.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Jeffrey
Monday, 18 September 2000 - 04:35 am | | Hey Guys !!!
...what's the water like ?
Jeff D |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 18 September 2000 - 06:17 am | | G'day Stephen,
I hope this helps:
http://www.casebook-productions.org/explore/maps/poverty.htm
Leanne! |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 18 September 2000 - 06:26 am | | Hello Everybody,
It would seem that because Joe Barnett survived a four hour police interview he cannot possibly be Jack the Ripper. However, as the killing of Mary Kelly is considered part of the series, Barnett would only have to satisfy the police that he had no connection with the previous murders in order to escape suspicion for the killing of his common law wife.
But there are some unexplained factors involved in this, the last of the canonical five, which seem to lead to Barnett. Consider the following points:
Mary Kelly had ostensibly retired to bed (as her clothes were neatly folded by her bedside).
She may have been sleeping when the attack was made (assumed because of perforations on the sheet).
The killer's entrance - if Kelly was asleep he affected entrance without disturbing her.
The killer's exit - he managed to lock the door behind him!
The discrepancies in the killer's modus operandi. (No signs of strangulation, no particular evidence of anatomical knowledge etc.)
The baffling statement made by George Hutchinson - who admitted that he was friendly with Mary Kelly.
Witnesses who claimed that Mary Kelly was conducting an illicit affair, that she was merely using Joe Barnett, that she was possibly pregnant to her lover.
All of these issues must be resolved but they seem to lead to a person who was intimately aware of Mary Kelly's habits and who had a grievance with the way that she had treated him. Step forward Joe Barnett.
I don't consider the loss of his job to have any great significance in the scheme of things. For instance, as a porter, he may have injured his back which would have neccessitated a somewhat abrupt change in career. Similarly, I find it unlikely that working in a fish market would give him any anatomical insights or the evident surgical skills of Jack the Ripper. However, his unemployment may have been the initial impetus in extreme feelings of inadequacy, these feelings exacerbated over the following months.
Finally, with regard to the social conditions of the time, I recently saw a map of London contemporary with the period. The area of Whitechapel was considered, naturally, to be a slum and the people were described as "semi-criminal."
Only three years prior to the killings W Stead, the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, actually purchased a 13 year old girl for the princely sum of £5! Whether this practise of, let's be frank, slavery had been erased by 1888 is a moot point.
Thanking you for your consideration.
Jim Leen |
|
|
|
|
