|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 20, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through September 20, 2000
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 18 September 2000 - 06:39 am |        | Hi Jim,
It's been recently pointed out to me by a professional during a discussion on Martha that clenched hands are a sign of strangulation. That person mentioned also MJK as having the same signs. First a bit doubtful about MJK on this point, I searched the post-mortem again. And yes, one of her hands was clenched. Thus indeed there is a sign of strangulation.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 18 September 2000 - 07:38 pm | | G'day,
JILL: Barnett told the inquest that after he and Kelly met in Commercial Street: " we then had a drink together, and I made arrangements to see her on the following day - a Saturday. On that day, both of us agreed that we should remain together". Kelly was 'walking the streets' down Commercial Street, looking for a customer, but there's no definate indication here that Joe was looking to employ a pro.
I know I 'pointed out to you' before that Barnett employed a pro that night, because that's what Paley thought, but now I don't know!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 05:21 am | | G'day,
JIM: The only existing contemporary reference to Barnett's alibi for Mary's murder, appeared in 'The Daily Telegraph' on November 10th: 'At Buller's Lodging House playing whist there until half past twelve when he went to bed'. Pretty weak, but that was just his alibi for Mary's death. All he had to give the police, was one good, verified alibi for one of the murders. I wish we had a record of that 4 hour interrigation.
As JILL says, only "one of her (Kelly's) hands was clenched". This indicates to me that she was relaxed, sleeping or dozing when her killer stuck!
Unless he jumped through the small hole in the window, he left via the door, locked it with the key, moved around to the broken window to reached through and move the table to cover the latch. (Who else knew of this method?)
LEANNE! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 06:05 am | | Leanne,
I remember there was a discussion once about the lock, where it was suggested that it could have been one that locked itself when closed, or could be left open when 'it was left on the latch'(?). What was the conclusion of this discussion, if there was any? I don't remember anymore. A lot of people here are stating that the only way to lock the door was with a key, and I'm not so sure with this discussion in mind, if we are entitled to state this.
Greetings,
Jill :-) |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 07:42 am | | Hello Everybody,
Leanne, G'day, have the Olympics caused any inconvenience to you? They've severely inconvenienced me because I can now be found, glued to the box until five am, watching the action unfold. When the track events start I'll probably end up on night shift.
Anyway, I fully agree with you that Barnett would only have to give one good alibi to be cleared of suspicion as JTR. However, I still contend that Mary Kelly was not actually a victim of the Ripper and in that sense Barnett seems the best suspect.
A previous correspondent, RJ Palmer I believe, pointed out another little inconsequentiality which I hadn't considered before. If you remember he questioned the time scale between the penultimate killing and the death of Mary Kelly. A whole six weeks in fact! So we are supposed to believe that a maniac, who required such vile satiation that he killed two women in one night, could wait such a length of time before resuming his ghastly spree. It seems odd somehow doesn't it?
I think it is more likely that the police, possibly upon the guidance of Dr. Phillips, were looking for men with a medical background. A poorly educated dock labourer would not be considered alikely candidate to extract kidneys etc with "one sweep of the knife." It could be that this factor was all the alibi that Joe Barnett needed.
Finally, Jill, I also recall the discussion about the door keeper. I don't think it was ever resolved. My own opinion was that the door was held by a simple bolt. I believe this because Yale type locks were, at that time, relatively modern and expensive. Simple economic theory would preclude such a device being fitted into a hovel. However, that's my assumption, and like everything else I write there is a chance that I could be wrong.
Thanking you for your consideration
Jim Leen |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 11:00 am | | | Like Jim, I looked up the history of locks, the Yale lock or night latch was invented by Linus Yale, an American, in 1861, and improved by him in 1865. It was improved again in 1872 by a man named James Sargent. It's quite likely it was still a novelty and expensive in 1888, so in my opinion it wouldn't have been fitted to the door of a little room in Dorset St, one of the worst slums in the Eastend.There are three ways they could have secured the door from the inside,(that I can think of), a bolt, a hasp and staple, or a piece of wood screwed or nailed to the door frame that would turn across the leading edge of the door, rabbit hutch style. If the lock was a mortise, the key must have gone missing while the door was unlocked, otherwise they couldn't have carried on using the door, and it surely must have been a mortise lock if the door needed to be broken open. You can't open a door locked with a mortise lock from inside or out without the key, something has to go, the frame or the door, probably both. But there is another thing to consider, how old were the buildings at the time of the murders. Rick |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 11:16 am | | Sorry Jim, Warwick,
All these specific English lock names (bolt, hasp, staple, mortise) are mumble jumble to me (as I said Jim, not native speaker). A Yale lock I know, if you are talking about the one that you now can find on almost every door, and it's workings (had construction-theory on it). If any of you can redirect me to information, especially with pictures, I'd be grateful.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: LeatherApron
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 03:25 pm | | Jon,
STOP POSTING SO MANY TIMES!!! (just kidding)
No, I did not forget his alibi which wasn't an alibi at all if you consider that MJK was murdered AFTER midnight. Tag. You're it! I love reading your arguments against Barnett (or anyone/anything, like the Juwes message)regardless.
Leanne and Jim, great information and opinions, thanks and please keep it up.
Anyone, I'm starting to think ol' Danny Barnett could have been involved too. This might support the "Jack was 2 killers" theory. Has anyone ever read any dissertations or books on it?
I can guess what poor Jon is thinking... "Oh, God. Now they've found 2 witches to burn at the stake!"
Yours Truly,
Jack |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 03:42 pm | | | Hello Jill, the term is mumbo jumbo J. I'll try to explain about the door fastenings, you'll know what I'm describing I'm sure, a bolt is a bar that slides back and forth inside it's own frame, its screwed to the door, so that the bar slides across the leading edge of the door into the door frame securing the door. For a hasp and staple, think of a fastening on a pirates treasure chest, a piece of metal about 1/4in thick, 2in wide, and 6in long, hinged at half it's length. one half is screwed to the door so that the other half hinges across the leading edge of the door onto the frame.This half has a slot cut out of it that goes over a half ring screwed to the door frame. A padlock or a peg through the half ring secures the door. A mortise lock is a lock fitted into a slot chopped into the leading edge of the door. When fitted it's not visible,except at the edge of the door, when the door is closed the lock is not visible at all.Just as a matter of interest,( and only to those who may not know) a mortise lock is much more burglar proof than a Yale,-- and you can't lock your self out with a mortise. Hope this pleases you Jill, Rick. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 03:50 pm | | | Jack, likewise, thanks for the smile, Jon it made me smile with you not at you! RICK. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 07:14 pm | | The missing key, or more to the point, the lock on the door to number 13, is a subject that seems to have a life of it's own. I had thought that it had already been debated to death right here on these boards but again I am proved wrong. Questions about the type of lock, whether it was economically feasible that said lock would or would not have been used etc. etc, have already been raised and, depending on your bias, answered.
The fact that simple and cheap, spring-loaded locks were easy to come by in late Victorian London seems to be ignored in favour of the untenable theory that the murderer must have had a key which he used to lock the door behind him. On what is this theory based? On the fact that McCarthy was asked to pry open the door of number 13 with a pickaxe rather than have someone stick their hand through the broken window pane and pulling back the spring lock, if indeed it existed.
We do know from the Times of the 10th of November that their reporter entered the murder room and wrote that,
Quote:"The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer apparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found."
Somehow this clear indication of the type of lock on the door fails to convince everyone. (As an aside, Daniel Farson tells of interviewing the niece of Mary Ann Cox who claimed that Kelly had "a string on the door so anybody visiting had no need to knock." One would, presumably, pull the string in order to pull back the spring lock but considering the glaring errors in her other reminiscences this should be taken with a mountain of salt.)
Apparently those who believe that the killer had a key and used it must also, ipso facto, believe that either the question of the key and the type of lock never entered the police's minds or that if it did, that they were either too stupid or too incompetent to try and figure it out. We can clearly see from the Times report that it was known that the key was missing and in fact Inspector Abberline answered the question of the missing key at the inquest. While the official inquest papers merely state,
Quote:"I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & that they opened the door by reaching through the window..."
,
The Daily Telegraph of November 13th gives much more detail to Abberline's testimony,
Quote:"An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy."
Apparently not quite easy enough for some.
Wolf. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 08:37 pm | | (another few lines......with Jack's permission)
:-)
Let's hope that settles it (re:Wolf, lock, latch, key, catch business) for another few months.
What about the axe, man?
Not that we have much reason to question it, but taking a pick-axe to a little door in a confined space like that seems a bit overdoing it, dont you think?
A pick-axe is no small object, handle about 3 feet long, a head better than 2 feet wide. It crossed my mind where they would come up with a huge thing like that.
I wondered if this was a case of the press over stating things again. Where they may have used a hand axe, or something smaller and more practical. The press want to make it sound bigger and badder by calling it a pick-axe.
Maybe, maybe not.
I think it was Nick Warren who deduced from the picture that Kelly's right leg? appears to have a cracked thighbone. He pointed out a news article about a hand axe being found in #13.
I know we have discussed this supposed crack in the bone, but we have also criticized others for seeing things that could be a result of a trick of light.
If McCarthy burst open the door with an axe and an axe was seen inside #13 by the press, then I would think its simply a case of putting 2 + 2 together.
Regards, Jon
(sorry Jack it was more than a few)
:-)
And DONT tell me Billingsgate fish porters carried axe's !!!! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 03:36 am | | Thanks Rick - I've stored the explenations away so that next time when all the terms are a jumble again (looked this one up for once :-) ), I don't have to search the whole casebook again.
Wolf - Thanks for the information. I did not want to discuss the lock again, but since a lot of people were stating that the killer must have been using a key to lock the door, I was not so sure again that this was the conclusion of the lock-discussion. What does a cheap spring lock with a catch looks like precisely? The last question is for vocabulary information.
Jon- No that were the 7 little dwarfs
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 07:53 am | | G'day Jill,
Boy do I remember the discussion about the door/lock! Let's see if I got it right: The majority decided that it was a mortise lock that locked automatically when shut. Mary Kelly and Joe could open it by reaching through the broken window pane and moving the latch. Barnett described this method to inspector Abberline, who confirmed that it was "quite easy".
But the latch was not visible by looking through the window, which is why the door had to be axed in. The table and it's grizly contents were arranged by reaching through the window, so as to block the view of the latch.
So Mary's killer must have been fully aware of Kelly's alternative mode of entry!
G'day Jim,
No mate, no inconveniences. Public transport is quite crowded and every two minutes there's a train to: "Olympic Park, Homebush". But it's actually quite exciting - it won't happen again, in my life time!
The 'Double Event' of the 30th of September, stunned the East End like nothing before it. The public 'saw' the Ripper everywhere, prostitutes weren't walking the streets as late and police would have increased in number. The police at the time didn't consider the 6 week gap to indicate that another butcher killed the last victim, so why should we?
I agree about that Barnett only needed to convince the police that he had no medical skill. He was a poorly educated dock labourer...who stammered and: 'repeated the last word of every question asked'!!!! How could he possibly be guilty????????
LEANNE! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 08:24 am | | Hi Leanne,
What are the arguments that Mary was asleep, and thus JtR entered himself? The clothes? JtR could have folded them neatly too; remember the neat arrangement of objects at Chapman's feet.
The only one clenched hand (indicating suffocation)? I do not have the expertise to personally conclude this proves she was asleep. I'm not even sure it proves MJK was strangled even partly. It's what a professional on these subjects gave me as information, and he thought MJK was strangled. He mentioned nothing about a sleeping Mary.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 08:28 am | | Let's try and nail this once and for all:
A mortice lock does not lock itself when the door is closed. It requires a key. A "spring" lock, or a Yale-type lock (the two are not the same) does lock itself without a key.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 11:36 am | | | A little game my wife and I have begun to play!Pop music that Mary and Joe may have found appealing. For Joe,--KATHY's CLOWN, Everley Bros. DON'T YOU WANT ME? Human League, especially the phrase,--so you think you'll change your mind?, you had better change it back or we will both be sorry. I'LL BE WATCHING YOU,by Sting. A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, Beatles. And an oldtimer, THERE I'VE SAID IT AGAIN! singer unknown. For Mary, HIT THE ROAD JACK! by Ray Charles, especially the phrase, you've got no money and you're just no good, hit the road Jack!. CARRIE by Cliff Richard. and for both of them, a little T/V jingle from some years ago,(dare I say it), LETS GET BIZZY WITH THE FIZZY. I apologise if it's in bad taste. J Rick |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 11:41 am | | Hello Everybody,
The question of the door lock seems to go on and on. A bit like Status Quo, or this post, really.
From a British point of view, As Guy Hatton rightly points out, a spring lock and Yale lock are completely different things. What they both share though is a self locking mechanism. It may seem pedantic to mention that point since the effect is basically the same.
However, we're overlooking a fundamental discrepancy here. That the door was locked is a point of fact. But what about effecting an entry? For sure we have Abberline's description regarding Barnett's demonstration. But what about Mary Kelly's mode of entrance?
If you remember the testimony of Mary Ann Cox, which describes Kelly's paramour in some details ( c/f "blotches on his face") she makes no mention of an obviously drunk Kelly gaining entry by putting her arm through a broken window pane. The only conclusion that I can draw is that the lock, whether mortice or Yale, was in actual fact left open. Another supporting factor for this scenario is that Kelly, who had gone out specifically to solicit, would be unlikely to show her clients how to gain access to her dwelling. Therefore, quod erat demonstradum, the door was not locked.
Now, here's where it gets contentious, apart from Hutchinson did anyone else see or hear Kelly back out on the streets after Cox?
Well, let's discard Hutchinson's statement for the moment though I will address it later. Let's say Mary Kelly and blotchy face/carroty whiskers parted company. If she then decided to retire for the night she would undoubtedly, through force of habit, lock the door. Otherwise, and bear this in mind, the lock would be left on the latch. (Apologies to Jill for the vernacular. Basically it means that the door could be opened from the outside by turning the doorknob.) If the former, i.e. she had locked the door, then the killer knew how to get in. Also, when he left the scene of the crime the door would automatically lock at his back. In this case the murderer would have known either Kelly herself, or her habits. Incidentally, cuts to the face through the sheets, suggest that Mary Kelly was asleep when the attack began.
Now let's assume Hutchinson's statement to be factual. In this case the same scenario as above would be enacted. Kelly and her client, the possible killer, would simply open the door and walk into the room. But this now means that the killer deliberately, and with great presence of mind, locked the door on his way out.
Finally, when I use the term "locked the door", or variations of it, I don't mean that the person physically turned a key in the keyhole. I just mean that the self locking mechanism was fixed. This is generally just a matter of moving a snib (like a small switch Jill, think Yale here) up or down. Anyway, my point is that the mystery of the locked door is well worth discussing again.
Thanking you for getting this far and trusting that it all makes some sense.
Jim Leen |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 06:58 pm | | Jon,
How do we know Billingsgate fish porters didn't carry axes? Just kidding. I was LMAO after reading that comment, thanks. ;-)
That reminded me of a time when a newbie in the chat room asked if the Ripper had moved his victims from the original murder site. The response "Can you imagine someone backpacking a dead body around Whitechapel?" nearly split my sides.
Even though we never get anywhere in this mystery we still have fun.
Rick,
Yeah, we're all probably a little morbid around here, so the game your wife and you played is understandable. At least you can be sure you've found your soul mate. ;-)
We played a game in the chat room that was "If Jack was alive today, what would his license plate be?"
The most macabre answer? DIEHORS
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 07:23 pm | | | Careful Jack, you'll be giving some of our American enthusiasts ideas, they'll all want that plate. As you say, only kidding! Rick. |
|
|
|
|
