Archive through September 25, 2000

** 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 25, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Barnett, Joseph: Archive through September 25, 2000

Author: Jon Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 07:27 pm
Leanne I'm trying to picture your thoughts here, having a difficult time..... (you say) But the latch was not visible by looking through the window Why do you say this?, most door handles are mounted about 36" from the floor (+/- 1" approx), and any latch would be either built into the installed lock, or mounted on the door above the handle, within easy reach from the window. Latches are typically installed about chest height, so somewhere between 36-50" would be the location of a separate latch. The table and it's grizly contents were arranged by reaching through the window, so as to block the view of the latch. Those old beds are not much different than the cheap ones made today, as far as height goes. Approx. 20" from the floor, and the side table is barely a couple of inches higher (in the picture) so the table could hardly obscure a latch mounted on the door, no-one would install a latch below 20".....unless, as Jill points out.......the 7 dwarfs. The distance between the window and the handle of the door was not much more than 12-18" measured diagonally. (note, only one and a half bricks from the corner to the door frame) No-one could reach through the window to the table at the far side of the door frame, but the latch of the door would be within easy reach & sight, when looking through the window. Have I misunderstood your point, or do you see it differently? Regards, Jon Mary & Joseph (where have I heard of them before?) broke the window in order to facilitate reaching the latch, once the key went missing.....thats what I think, anyway.
Author: Scott Nelson Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 12:40 am
Lock aside, Barnett's motive, if he killed Kelly, could have been emotional rage at her inferred bi-sexual (or lesbian) relationships, the women's house in Knightsbridge (brothel?), her inviting fellow prostitutes to stay with her at Miller's Court: Julia (Ventury?), (Maria) Mrs. Harvey or Lizzie Albrook. This would not have set very well with a Victorian-era "common-man" like Barnett, likely brought up with very traditional Christian views.......
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 03:17 am
Hi Jim, I'm taking notes. I feel like a little kid with his hardboard booklet with pictures of a horse, a farmer, a chicken, and learns the words. But my book has mental pictures of locks :-) If the killer left her in your second scenario, there is no need to presume he locked it deliberately. It well could have been his own habit. The ripped through sheets : Scenario one: Kelly was asleep - Killer let himself in - approached the bed - covered her face with the sheets - started to strangle her - severed the throat - cut through sheets - and began to mutilate her further. Scenario two: Kelly picked up the killer as customer - She lead him in - She undressed herself and laid herself on the bed - he covered her face with the sheets as play - started to strangle her - .... Since the sheets give no indication whatsoever which scenario was most likely, they can't indicate for sure that Mary was asleep already. But they can suggest that her killer knew her more close than the others. OR since the face mutilations were already present with Eddowes it suggests that JtR needed depersonalisation acts still more and more. (I think it's time again for me to make the other flow-charts) Hi Jon, The 7 dwarfs are an indication of the beauty asleep. And Mary & Joseph were my grandparents. I think that's where you heard of them before. Greetings, Jill
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 08:23 am
Some mystery enthusiasts seem to believe that Mary Kelly was killed by someone other than JtR. Barnet,( to some) is as pure as the driven snow, so, it must be someone else. Whoever it was certainly put JtR's deeds to shame, he beat him at his own game and showed there was something worse than the Ripper creeping round Whitechapel! Changing the subject, there is another type of door latch that no one has mentioned and would have been quite common in those days. This was a thumb latch. Used mostly on outhouse doors, but heavier types were used on front doors too. It consisted of a plate about 10in x 2in with a half round handle standing out from it, above the handle was a thumb plate. You took hold of the handle pressed the small plate with your thumb, this lifted a latch inside the door and released it. This type of latch could also be secured on the inside by inserting a wooden peg to prevent the inside latch lifting. It still doesn't explain the door having to be forced, but I thought I would mention it,--just for jolly J
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 22 September 2000 - 06:31 am
G'day JON, Sorry that I'm giving you such a difficult time, mate! I say that the latch, (alternative mode of entry), wasn't visible through the window because the landlord had to hack his door down with an axe to open it!!!! Everyone was staring through the window at Kelly's corpse before the door was axed. Even Dr. Phillips and Joseph Barnett identified her by peering throught the window. ('The Star' - 10th November 1888). I suggested that the table and the flesh piled on top, was arranged to block the view of the latch/catch from outside, that Mary had installed once the key went missing. JILL: See Jim Leens post where he says: "cuts to the face through the sheets.." This may suggest that she was sleeping and the single clenched hand suggests she was in the process of waking up, but didn't have time to sit upright! LEANNE!
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 22 September 2000 - 08:09 am
Hi Leanne, Cutting the face through the sheets is done after the strangling and throat cutting. Because it is later in sequence than her first state of conscious (asleep or awake) when the attack started, we therefor can't conclude what state that was. Leanne I can't confirm the supposition that one clenched hand means she was asleep and in the process of waking up. Do you have any independent knowledge to suppose this? I'm not saying that you are in the wrong, I'm just saying that I'm not an expert in this to make a decision either way. Therefor, since I'm having a lot of dificulty to get to chat on the hours when the others are there: Nick, can you ask your friend what 'only one clenched hand' can mean, besides strangling? Can it indicate anything about her being asleep or not? I get the impression that the discussion of Mary being asleep or not is the basis to prove that the killer let himself in or not. Apparently there are 2 scenario's: 1) Mary brings in a customer, he kills her while she's conscious, walks out after his business is done and deliberatley locks the door. 2) Mary is asleep; her killer lets himself in, knowing how to open the locked door, kills her in her sleep, ... thus proving it to be Barnett. Actually her sleeping or not proves nothing, because there are 2 other scenario's. 3) In pro for Leanne: Barnett could have let himself in, she woke up because of it, and while she was fully conscious he killed her. 4) Mary brought back a customer, and she let him sleep there for a while, and she dozed off. When she was asleep, the customer killed her... Greetings, Jill
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 22 September 2000 - 08:15 am
Hi Warwick, 'Whoever it was certainly put JtR's deeds to shame, he beat him at his own game and showed there was something worse than the Ripper creeping round Whitechapel!' This is precisely why I can't see Joe in the role of spurned lover, killing in a fit of jealous rage (or should that be a 'rit of felous jage'?). There is not much, if any, evidence to show he had ever been hot-tempered or violent before. In fact, what evidence there is points more to Mary being the one to throw things and break windows when drunk, while Joe may have preferred to duck, or take himself off down the pub for a game of cards, to wait for her to sober up. If Joe was not known for being physically abusive, I can accept that it's possible he bottled up all his resentment until he finally flipped. But would he then be able to take his own nise sharp knife (please, not the fish filleting knife), and carry through this plan of violent action, using guesswork from the over-gory press reports, to successfully fool everyone in authority that the ripper had indeed struck again? And how likely is it that he would be able to return immediately afterwards to his usual placid self, not only for the four-hour police interview he must have known was inevitable, but for the rest of his natural, without falling apart at the seams? Only perhaps, if he was a cold-blooded serial killer, who had no remorse and knew how to gain people's sympathy, and come across as 'pure as the driven snow'. But I don't think you can have it both ways. And there seems to be nothing whatsoever to connect Joe with any of the other murders. Question on a quiz show the other night: What were Charles Chubb and Linus Yale famous for? I think they could at least have included Tom Thumb-Latch and Mort Ise as well, don't you? Or maybe they were frightened of a deadlock? Have a great weekend all. Love, Caz
Author: Jon Friday, 22 September 2000 - 09:32 am
Hi Leanne Above you say.... I say that the latch, (alternative mode of entry), wasn't visible through the window because the landlord had to hack his door down with an axe to open it!!!! A couple of alternatives might be.. 1) That in this case the door actually WAS locked. or 2) Barnett installed the latch himself since the loss of the key, and McCarthy wasnt aware of the latch. At 11.00am in the morning it may simply have been too bright out in the yard to see anything so small as a latch at the back of the door. And who would bother to look for a latch anyway, considering what was laid on the bed across the room. If it is true that Kelly had a fear of the killer, or even possibly only a fear of intruders, then this alone is good reason for Barnett to install some cheap latch. Of course we'll never know. One minor point,...when you try a door to see if it's locked or unlocked. It is usually easy to determine from how sturdy the door is as to whether it is only on a latch or actually locked. We all know there is a difference in resistance, I think they would have known by simply pushing against it, a door on a latch is not always as sturdy when pushed. So,....maybe it actually was locked. Regards, Jon
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 22 September 2000 - 12:56 pm
Hi All, While I was meditating on Joe, the once-only killer, finally coming to the end of his tether with Mary, just when the world was wondering if Jack would ever strike again, (and at the same time singing to myself the words of Tom Jones�s Delilah, �I felt the knife in my hand and she laughed no more�), I began to wonder what might have happened if Mary�s body had been the first one to be discovered. Joe would have been suspect numero uno, before anyone knew there was a lust-crazed serial killer in their midst. Joe might even have been convicted and hanged, depending on his performance under police questioning, before more bodies were found and attributed to another killer, this time the ripper. Can you see where I�m going with this one? I�m thinking of 10 Rillington Place. Timothy Evans, vulnerable and poorly educated, confessed under police questioning to strangling his wife and baby daughter, and was convicted and hanged. It later emerged that he had been living under the same roof as a serial killer, who also strangled his victims, including his own wife � it was his landlord, Reginald Christie. Finally the authorities were forced to consider that Evans�s original confession may have been false, and that they had hanged an innocent man. But many people still believed it was possible, probable, or even most likely, that there were two stranglers operating independently, in the same house at the same time, who both killed more than once, and both killed their own wives. Some house that! So I think it will be an uphill struggle to persuade some of our casebook buddies that Joe probably didn�t come in at the final hour and upstage Jack � and that the police got it right that time. Love, Caz
Author: Diana Friday, 22 September 2000 - 09:43 pm
Leanne -- I have just started a new job this fall in which I am in daily contact with echolalic individuals. I believe I now have a "feel" for what echolalia is like. (I am teaching a class of autistic children). Does any transcription exist of exactly what Barnett said? I would like to find out if it has the same flavor as what I hear every day at my job.
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 23 September 2000 - 06:23 pm
I can't help but think that there is a faint strain of unconscious male chauvinism in Paley's theory. Mary Kelly would not have been 'chomping at the bit' to be a streetwalker, and would certainly not need the acts of a moralistic but deranged Barnett to point out the dangers of the occupation. These women turned to prostitution out of economic necessity; there was nothing like the dole or unemployment insurance. One can see plenty of examples of unemployed women turning unwillingly to prostitution in the French historian Francoise Barret-Ducrocq's Love in the Time of Victoria, a study of 'love, sex, romance, rape, flirtation, and prostitution' among working-class women in Victorian England. (The book is based largely on the detailed applications of young, unmarried, pregnant women to the London Foundling Hospital). Paley's theory presupposes that Barnett felt that Kelly chose to be a prostitute, and needed to stage elaborate murders to scare her away from wickedness. Nearly the opposite is true. Barnett & Kelly moved in together almost immediately...a rather unusual thing. No doubt he had enough moderate economic success to offer her protection from the streets, and she jumped at the opportunity. She chose him over Fleming, of whom she was 'very fond'. (In looking at Kelly's history, I tend to see a desperate 'serial monogynist' --or rather, the female equivalent--, looking for men with enough economic solvency to prevent a return to prostitution). It was only when Barnett's fortunes began to decline that she was compelled to return to the streets. So really, Paley has Barnett's psychology completely backwards. Barnett was not a echolalic psychopath that strove to keep a debauched girlfriend from whoring; he was a working-class bloke who was desperate to 'keep' Kelly--a woman he probably felt was his wife. No doubt he was frustrated and ashamed when he couldn't. Probably he was even scared and jealous that she might find someone else who could offer her the security she wanted. I don't know whether or not Barnett was guilty of her murder...the timing of her death is a little reminiscent of a Greek tragedy... but he certainly must have felt guilty. How many times must the thought must occured to him that if he had only been more successful, or if he had not moved out on her, she would not have ended up so brutally murdered?
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 23 September 2000 - 06:42 pm
G'day JILL, You say: 'Cutting the face through the sheets is done after the strangling and throat cutting'. So do you believe that the killer covered her face so that he couldn't see who he was mutilating? Doesn't that indicate that he knew Mary a bit? The fact that she was wearing a chemise, suggests that she had retired for the night, as well as the folded clothes. The wounds to her forearms, plus the one clenched hand, point to the fact that she tried to defend herself. But if she was fully awake and aware of the attack, wouldn't their have been alot more 'defence wounds'? G'day JON: It does look as though McCarthy wasn't aware that Kelly and Joe had installed a latch. But I think the doctors and police (not the curious public), would have wanted to enter the room to examine everything, as soon as possible and would have looked at every option. The weather that morning in Spitalfields was cloudy, so I don't think it would have been: 'too bright'! G'day DIANA, Unfortunately there is no surving record of Barnett's exact words. Bruce Paley just notes that several newspapers said that he 'stammered' or 'repeated the last word of every question asked'. He mentions: 'The Standard', 'The Illustrated Police News', 'The Daily Chronical' and 'The Cardiff Times & South Wales Weekly News'. I don't think so many reporters would have included it in their reports, unless it was significant. Barnett may not have been 'autistic', but isn't it common in individuals who have had a traumatic childhood? I think this plus the fact that he didn't have great anatomical skills, lead police to look elsewhere for her killer and they ended Barnetts 4 hour interrigation. LEANNE!
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 23 September 2000 - 07:34 pm
Caroline! How could you believe that I was criticizing you for believing Barnet was clean?. I did say, "it must have been someone else".Anyway what would you say if I said I'm no longer a "Barnet for Jack the Ripper fan"-- that I've seen the error of my ways?. It could be the little "juwish" looking gentleman Kelly met in Thrawl St, they could have immediatly clicked, he liked tall women, she liked short men. They promenaded down the street together to the love nest at Miller's Court, Mary blowing her nose into the big red handkerchief he had lent her, and following at a discreet distance, Mary's minder, Hutchinson. When they entered by pulling the string hanging from the top of the door,they both undressed, he down to his longjohns, she to a chemise.Then they got down to business.Trouble was half way through Mary dropped off to sleep, that gave our little gentleman the hump, so he went to the table and picked up a package he happened to have brought with him. He unwrapped the American cloth and took out a beautiful surgical knife,--not a fish filleting knife mark you! a surgical knife. He went back to the bed, and cut Mary's throat, first pulling the sheet over Mary's face because he couldn't stand flying blood. Going to his overcoat he took out his axe, and proceeded to chop up one of the three chairs that were in the room, ignoring the old bat in the flat above knocking on the floor, telling him to be quiet, he was going to light a fire and have a cup of tea. But he put the kettle too close to the blaze and melted the spout off, so he had to make do with a bottle of ginger beer he found in the cupboard. Then, still in his longjohns, he spent five minutes clutching his heart, and side stepping round the room staring at the ceiling, asking himself if he was man enough-- or not man enough to do what he proposed to do next. Anyway he decided eventualy, he took his axe, and his beautiful surgical knife, and he turned Mary into dressed mutton. He even broke her thigh with his axe, to stop her following him in case he hadn't quite managed to kill her When he had finished he gathered his tools together, cleaned them, got dressed, and get this Caroline, he made a bolt for the door! Out in the street, he made straight for the docks, filled his pockets with stones, and then took a long walk off a short dock. That's why nobody except Hutchinson ever saw the black villain! How does that grab you Caroline? It's no good, I still think Barnet killed them all.J
Author: Jon Saturday, 23 September 2000 - 07:45 pm
Hi Leanne But I think the doctors and police (not the curious public), would have wanted to enter the room to examine everything, as soon as possible and would have looked at every option. Actually, it was not quite that straight forward, they had to wait for the bloodhounds to arrive. So even though the authorities were anxious to get in, they were also aware that they should not contaminate the crime scene. But then this would also give them plenty of time (2hrs?) to look around the room (through the window). However, I might suggest that this was not a prime concern as they simply assumed the door was locked. If it had occured to them that it might only have been latched then of course they would have tried to see or reach the latch. But, as I said before, regardless of the door, they were told to wait for the bloodhounds to arrive. Yes, I agree it was cloudy that day, but as you see in the smaller crime scene photo, a bright beam of light across the table. It can still be very bright even though its overcast. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Saturday, 23 September 2000 - 08:01 pm
Paley gets full marks for imagination on this one..... "Jack (Barnett) kills Stride then travels a circuitous route for about a mile and a half through backstreets & passages and ends up on Duke St. In fact what brought Jack to Mitre Sq. may have been the presence of the Orange market.......although his sadistic craving was unsated as he hadn't been able to mutilate Elizabeth Strides body.....he wasn't necessarily seeking another victim,.....when he had the ingenious idea of heading towards the Orange market to try find some casual work" (Simple Truth, pg 80/81) ..went looking for a job !!! LOL Regards, Jon (Every so often Paley shows how strained he is to make a connection)
Author: Feebles Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 05:50 am
How did we get to the point where McCarthy smashed the door down with an axe? So far (the inquest and a couple of newspaper reports) I can only find reference to the door being "forced" which is quite different from smashed. I've done this myself, put a blade (like the blade of an axe) between the door and the frame and use it as a lever to snap the latch.
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 07:01 am
G'day Feebles, Here in the main Casebook under: 'Victims Mary Jane Kelly' it says: 'McCarthy smashes in the door with an axe handle, under orders from Superintendent Arnold'. LEANNE!
Author: Jon Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 11:39 am
Feebles Personally, I think the method you describe is more likely to have been the case. Newspapers were known to exagerate things. I cant see McCarthy destroying his own property. And in support of this, at least one newspaper stated that following the removal of the body the windows were boarded up and the door padlocked. So, we might assume by this that the door was intact. Regards, Jon
Author: John Hacker Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 11:52 am
Also, at the inquest, Phillips testified that the door was "broken open" and that "On the door being opened it knocked against a table which was close to the left-hand side of the bedstead, and the bedstead was close against the wooden partition." I would assume that if excessive force was used, the table would have been knocked over, presumably spreading bits of Mary Kelly all over the floor. Also the coroner asked Abberline "Was it by your orders that the door was forced?" which IMO, points more towards prying the door rather than smashing it down. Snark
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 01:39 pm
Hi Warwick, Loved all your images. "And sooo, befooore, they come to break down the doooor, forgive me Delilah, I just couldn't take any mooore.....(and I couldn't face ending up just like mother, who's always going round Spitalfields in longjohns hacking up the ladies)" J Love, Caz