|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 October 06, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through October 06, 2000
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 05:53 pm |        | G'day Everyone,
"Smashed", "Pried Open", "Forced"! Does it really matter?
FEEBLES: When you had to force-open your door, did you not even consider easier ways of doing it first?
If the door opened enough to allow the blade or handle of an axe through, wouldn't that tell McCarthy that something other than the lock that he installed (like a latch/catch) was preventing them from opening the door?
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 06:03 pm | | G'day JON,
I was just talking about "Looking" mate. Not 'Contaminating the crime scene'.
Dr. Phillips was one of the first to arrive at the scene at 11:00am. He said: "As the door was locked, I looked through the lower of the broken window panes..." So they knew straight away that the door was locked and the closest window was broken!
I think Dr. Phillips would have wanted to get closer for a propper examination, so he would have at least looked, before being told to wait for the bloodhounds.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 06:14 pm | | G'day JON,
About your post on Sunday at 12:01am regarding Barnetts 'looking for a job':
I am not being paid to defend Paley's theory mate, but I re-read the part that you are refering to, and I have no problems with it!
I think he is saying that as Strides killer knew the streets would soon be swarming with police, he headed in the direction of the nearby orange market, where people were gearing up to start work. If he had to explain his presence in the streets at that time, he could have claimed that he was looking for work. It is known that Joseph Barnett occasionally sold oranges, after he lost his job, so he probably would have been there anyway!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 25 September 2000 - 04:49 am | | Hi Leanne,
"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? " -
In my post of Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 07:17 am I've written "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. "
Thus to answer your question, yes the cut sheets MAY indicate that the killer knew MJK. To what extent then is the question. Notice that it doesn't necesseraly mean Kelly knew him. I've experienced many times myself how men tell me they meet me any place they go or when I'm presented to a friend of friend the first says "I know you". At the same time I've never even noticed them before they ever approached me or were presented to me, although they,as they say, have the feeling that they know me. At the same time I 'know' a lot of people who wouldn't know me when I would say something to them.
Althoug I admit that MJK's killer may have known her, it also may not be the case. As most of you agree with me that JtR needed his victims to be dead before mutilating them, you'd also agree with the fact that this is an obvious indication of his need to depersonalise his victims. With Eddowes his depersonalisation goes further: he deforms her face to one of a 'clown' or 'puppet'. Not even killing them first is enough. With MJK he needs to blot away the face as with Eddowes, but can't even do that anymore without covering the face first.
"The fact that she was wearing a chemise, suggests that she had retired for the night, as well as the folded clothes. " -
Repetition of my post of Friday, September 22, 2000 - 12:09 pm:
"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... "
"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 THERE HAVE BEEN MORE 'DEFENCE WOUNDS'?" -
Again I repeat that I can't say anything more than that it INDICATES strangulation and/or a fraction of pain. I don't have the proffessional knowledge to confirm or presume anything else. So I don't know if it means that she was waking or defending herself. If you have any knowledge or sources on which these conclusions of the one clenched hand are based, I'd like it very much if you could share it with me. I've got a professional book on my wishing list, since it's one of the topics of interest for me, but anything you know already on this precise subject excites me.
Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes were all fully conscious standing straight up when they were attacked (regardless if they were a victim of JtR). Stride even had cried out for help. With every attack, the doctors' conclusions were that there weren't any signs of struggle. Why then should MJK?
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 30 September 2000 - 06:53 pm | | | If the women were being killed for certain internal body organs, to order and for money, surely the murders and mutilation of the bodies would have a terrible lasting affect on the killers mind?. Would he have been able to stop?.He would have had to be mad to coldly consider such an enterprise for money. This is one of the reasons why Barnet is a supposedly doubtful suspect, and if Kelly treated him as I imagine she did, he had a lot more reason to kill, which was forced on him, he didn't volunteer for money! |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 30 September 2000 - 08:09 pm | | Hello Warwick
The kind of person with the kind of mind you find so incredulous to contemplate was the very type of person previously named, Resurrectionist.
We know them as bodysnatchers, they originally would rob the graves of the recently interred and sell them for money. Bodysnatching was much more widespread than people think. Burke & Hare are two who turned to murdering their victims rather than wait to dig them up.
King Henry VIII ruled that every year the bodies of 4 executed criminals be turned over to the surgeons. As the decades past the idea of resurrecting bodies for profit grew more popular in an undeground market.
All of the British Isles, some countries in Europe & North America all fell under the dark cloud of the resurrectionist. The practice was encouraged by individual surgeons who needed literally hundreds of bodies (each) every year in order to fill their anatomist classes.
Surgeons even paid for specific limbs or organs to be retrieved, rather than pay for a whole body. These were the ones who studied a specific disease or a certain anatomical anomally.
The main problem with equating the Whitechapel murders with the above is that all this bodysnatching was supposed to have come to an end 50 years before Jack came on the scene.
But, the annoying fact remains,...Jack removed organs, and left the bodies looking like a maniac had been at work. This must peak the interest of anyone who has researched the Resurrectionist phenomena.
Books on the subject:
- Burke & Hare, Hugh Douglas.
- Bodysnatchers, Martin Fido.
- The Bodysnatchers, Frederick Drimmer.
- The Diary of a Resurrectionist, Joseph Naples.
....to name a few. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 05:46 am | | It seems to me that, whoever JtR was, we have to find some reason for the murders to stop after November 9th. We therefore have to find a good reason why the particular suspect that we choose gives up ripping. Druitt drowns, Tumblety runs away, "Kosminski" gets binned (although we do have to resort to assuming that the Kosminski identity may actually apply to one David Cohen.) One of the reasons that attracted the forgers of the Diary to the unfortunate James Maybrick was his timely despatch.
However Barnett doesn't remove himself from the scene. He sticks around in the same general area of London doing more or less what he's always done.
Some would say that Barnett was the Whitechapel Murderer and his motive has been given as wanting to scare Mary Kelly into giving up prostitution. This theory is obvious nonsense and shows that the author of it has no conception of the sort of murders that these were. The theory has more in common with Agatha Christie or GK Chesterton than any true understanding of sexual serial murder.
Playing "Hunt the Ripper" is an intriguing and worth-while game. With a little squeezing, almost anyone living in late-Victorian Britain can be fitted up to be Jack. It's even better if he (or she) can be shown to have had some connection to the cast of characters or the locale and you get a bonus if the person chosen turns out to be a celebrity of sorts. However, let us look with sceptism on all theories and not assume that just because an author has manged to get into print, that everything that they write is the absolute truth.
Peter |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 07:24 am | | Hello Peter,
If we are to accepth the words of certain distinguished men of the time it may be possible to conclude that Mary Kelly was not killed by JTR. So, an alternative way to look at the situation would be to ask why the murders stopped in October? (This wooden spoon's getting heavy!)
I also don't accept the theory that Barnett was killing women in order to scare his beloved Mary of the street. In saying that, paradoxically, I think he had an involvement in Kelly's death. And no, Viper, my theory doesn't rely upon the existence of a d*m*ed key. (Only kidding, in fact that's the second joke of my post. A prize to the person who spots the first one. And that's the third joke.)
No, my money for the real Ripper lies with a man famed for his military exploits but who actually hid a guilty secret. His acclaim was bogus, his heroism a sham. He was a known drinker and rake who frequented several London fleshpots and was forced to visit America around the period. Step forward Sir Harry Flashman VC.
Finally, GK Chesterton wouldn't use a plot device as flimsy as street cleaner Barnett!
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 12:24 pm | | Jim:
Even the most basic research shows that there is no record of a VC being awarded to such a man as "Sir" Harry Flashman. This man, sir is a fictional character. A much more likely solution is that the killer was one Benjamin (Long Ben) Every late of HM Navy, marine cellarman and colleague of Calico Jack Rackham and Black Sheba. Some would express doubt based on the undeniable fact that Long Ben was at the time of the murders 230 years old but let me point out that all reliable sources state that Every "vanished" around 1695. There is no record of his death which ought to be good enough for any Ripper historian to finger him as the killer.
Oh, and most of Chesterton's plots in his "Father Brown" series are so thin that the books have to be printed on tissue paper. That is not to say that "The Man who was Thursday" hasn't been crying out for a decent TV production.
Peter |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 12:27 pm | | Peter,
"It seems to me that, whoever JtR was, we have to find some reason for the murders to stop after November 9th. ... However Barnett doesn't remove himself from the scene. He sticks around in the same general area of London doing more or less what he's always done."
There are other reasons than death or incarceration, I'll give you 2; almost being caught, and deciding to stop. For the first reason (almost being caught) I'll give you an example from personal experience. 2 men had almost been caught (of course, this wasn't known until later when one of them had been captured and admitted to it) and one of the 2 then decided not to continue his criminal behavior. The man who continued his criminal ways, as I mentioned, eventually got caught. This is not made up. This actually happened. It had nothing to do with leaving the vicinity where the crimes took place. The other example is deciding to stop and this could conceivably include the first example as well. The Zodiac Killer had written his last letter and said that he was ending his senseless killings, but (if memory serves) he would begin anew later on. Years after the killings had ceased, the police did have a few suspects, one whom they tormented quite often, but since they had no proof, he remains free. If he was the Zodiac, first, he had decided to stop, and second, he was too frightened to continue because of his near capture.
"However, let us look with sceptism on all theories and not assume that just because an author has manged to get into print, that everything that they write is the absolute truth."
This comment quite frankly is insulting to our intelligences. If we were the easily led lemmings that you think us to be, we'd believe every book we've read accusing a suspect of being Jack. This is not the case.
Your presumption of our ignorance is not nearly as bad as our acceptance of the possibility that Barnett was JtR. Not definitely JtR, but possibly. You can think him an unlikely suspect, and state your objections, but if you insult us you're crossing the line IMO.
Good day to you sir,
Jack |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 07:40 pm | | Jack (L.A.)
Do we actually have a known case of a serial killer stopping and resuming a normal life ?
You mention Zodiac, but even though certain investigators would have you believe that Zodiac is someone still alive,...how do you know?.
I dont think its a good parallel to introduce an example of Zodiac when you cant say for sure that he is/was even still alive.
There are several unsolved serial killings, especially in the US. But how can anyone claim these as examples of SK's going straight, when you cannot say for sure if they are even still alive. |
Author: Jeffrey
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 05:11 am | | Hello All !!!
I, personally believe Mr. Barnett to be a viable and very reasonable suspect, although the fact that he carried on to lead a perfectly normal existence up to 1926 has got to go a long way to prove his non-involvement in the crimes.
When we have identified a possible suspect, I would have thought it possible then, to rule that person out of the investigation by checking alibis and so forth. As Joseph Barnett has been suspected for a number of years now, would it not be possible to check whether he had any kind of criminal or mental record? I believe there are better chances of identifying the Ripper by looking at events before 1888 as the Ripper was very clever at covering is tracks afterward. Before the WHitechapel murders I would think it a reasonable assumption that the killer had crossed the path of the local constabulary at some time or other, possibly for robbery, assault or some crime of violence.
Has anyone done any further research into Joseph Barnett along these lines ? Could it not be determined whether he had any kind of criminal history or record of mental illness. If Joe Barnett had simply lived a very peaceful existence, with no confrontations or record of some kind of criminal activity, I would consider him a very unlikely Ripper. On the other hand, if this suspect had been found to have records for assault, rape, burglary, or whatever, it would give one cause to take a much closer look at this man.
I appreciate I am stating the obvious, but does anyone know if this kind of research has been undertaken by anyone in respect to Mr. Barnett ?
Jeff D |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 05:24 am | | Hi All,
I have always had a sneaking suspicion that most, if not all serial killers could stop if they had good enough reason. I believe Dahmer managed a break of several years between murders. Had he died at the end of his murder-free period, we would have a case of a serial killer who stopped and appeared to resume a normal life.
A serial killer doesn't spring into action the moment the urge gets too strong. He is in control of his actions, he plans, he decides when it's safest to strike. Therefore he must also be capable of holding back whenever conditions are unfavourable. If he can do this for two hours, two days, two months or, in Dahmer's case, several years, why not indefinitely? He must become aware at some point that, if he carries on killing to satisfy his obsession, he will be compromising his self-preservation. He is most likely intelligent enough to realise when he has become careless, or is taking too many risks, or is maybe just getting older, with the resultant loss of physical strengh and slower reactions. Would his intelligence and need for self-preservation never take over from the psychological obsession, as in other types of addict? Couldn't there be degrees of addiction with serial killers, just as there are with drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers or compulsive eaters? Many people with the most serious addictions can and do give up when confronted with the certainty of losing everything if they don't.
Can anyone state with absolute certainty that it is impossible for a serial killer to find a greater influence in his life than the one which makes him kill at intervals which suit his purpose? And what are we saying if we believe the killer can't choose to quit even if it means certain capture? I can't imagine Peter Birchwood, for instance, condoning the idea that because he thinks serial killers can't give up by themselves, they must all be insane and therefore not responsible for their actions.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 07:49 am | | Hi Caz,
"A serial killer doesn't spring into action the moment the urge gets too strong. He is in control of his actions, he plans, he decides when it's safest to strike. Therefore he must also be capable of holding back whenever conditions are unfavourable."
As far as I know this depends on the general character of the SK. We like to envisage the controlling cunning SK, and forget often enough the other one, almost the opposite, that just roams when the urge is becoming to much and goes after the first thing that strikes him as OK. The cunning type and the oaf. Both are dangerous.
'Insane':
There are actually different states of insanity from the viewpoint of health-care. Seen from this point of view I would defintely agree that SK's don't have a healthy mind, and thus insane.
The legal system knows only one insantity: the one where the person is seen as incapable to decide, and thus be responsible for his actions, because he doesn't know the difference between good & evil.
A SK does know the legal & social difference of good & bad, and thus is not legally insane, but at the same time is medically insane.
Still I think your argument and question is an interesting one: if we regard a SK as not possible to stop, and thus isn't able to choose for the good instead of the urge, is he then capable to make a distinction between the two? I think he does. To be able to 'perceive' the difference, doens't necessarily make you capable to choose for the right one. If we legally equalise 'actively choosing' to 'perceivement', then we can start calling any recidistic criminal, like a burglar, legally insane.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 08:53 am | | G'day everyone,
Bruce paley studied Joseph Barnett for over ten years and at the end of his book writes: 'There are no known official records of Barnett until 1906, when he was given a new porters licence at Billingsgate.' Why do we take that as meaning that he lived a squeaky-clean existence? It just tells us that he was never recorded on any census form and succeeded in leaving himself untracable until 1919, when he took advantage of new laws that gave the vote to any male who met a 6 month residential requirement.
Early in Paleys book it tells of Barnett's dismissal from his fish porters job. The market bylaws state that: 'the main causes of dismissal were theft, drunkeness and abusive language or behaviour. Lesser infractions of the rules were delt with by fines or suspensions.'
LEANNE! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 10:29 am | | Hi Jill,
"We like to envisage the controlling cunning SK, and forget often enough the other one, almost the opposite, that just roams when the urge is becoming to much and goes after the first thing that strikes him as OK."
I agree with you there absolutely. But generally even the most oafish serial killer (in order to earn the definition) has to weigh up whether the first thing striking him as OK is likely to leave him free to kill again.
We agree here that this type of killer is in no doubt that he is doing something for which he can be caught and punished. My argument is that his decisions are not based on his perception of right and wrong - only on how he can continue doing what he likes doing best with the least adverse consequences to himself. I'm still not convinced that he would be totally incapable of curbing his urges for as long as the circumstances made it in his own best interests to do so. In other words, he kills when it suits him, but doesn't when it doesn't. His choice not to kill has nothing to do with choosing 'for the good instead of the urge'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 11:00 am | | Hi Caz,
So we defintely agree, they are (p)sycho's that are legally sane. :-)
Your last argument is stronger and clearer to me now. And so I (again) agree that an SK, especially the sneeky one, will kill when the suit fits, and doesn't when not. But I would add to this: for a period of time. Not until he died of old age in a pension. Also if the waiting period takes to long, and still time is not OK to kill, then the urges would be diverted in other sadistical pleasures.
An example of a very oafish SK, would be the mexican guy of 1,5 year back who travelled by train wagon and killed several people, and families, along the trail of the rail. FBI had a picture of him and there was a big hunt after this guy. But even in the beginning of the hunt he still went on killing, although his picture was to be found on the net. (confession: if I recall alright, it was through him that I found this site) By the way, does anybody know what happened to that big oaf?
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 11:18 am | | Jack:
Although your story is interesting, does it really apply to someone who has committed a series of mutilation-murders over a relatively short period of time? In every instance of this sort of crime which I can recall, the urge to slaughter far overweighs the fear of getting caught. And suddenly deciding to stop is just as unlikely. In the Zodiac case, only a very few of the great number of letters purporting to be from Zodiac could be proved to have anything to do with the killer, (the one containg the piece of shirt for example.) I'm not familiar with the one you mention, but in a case such as this where there seems to be no consensus as to how many murders could be attributed to one man it's not safe to say that he was nearly captured or frightened off .
It seems eminently sensible be sceptical about any ripper book, even those by acknowledged scholars and researchers such as Melvin Harris, Don Rumbelow or Stewart Evans. If you think that I'm insulting your intelligence by saying that, then you are unduly sensitive and your accusation that I am insulting the collective you is outrageous and insupportable. What you really need to look at are past posts on Barnett, Maybrick and The Great Masonic Conspiracy to see how often people try to prove a point by citing one authors words as though they were fact. What you and others on this particular board are doing is admiring Paley's factual contribution to this subject (and his research has, rightly, been praised by others) and then assuming that his opinions have as much weight when a look at the acknowledged facts of the case show that the only evidence against Barnett is that he was close to the last victim. And his conduct in the last 38 years of his life show no indication that he was ever a sexual serial killer.
Leanne:
"Bruce paley studied Joseph Barnett for over ten years and at the end of his book writes: 'There are no known official records of Barnett until 1906, when he was given a new porters licence at Billingsgate.' Why do we take that as meaning that he lived a squeaky-clean existence? It just tells us that he was never recorded on any census form and succeeded in leaving himself untracable until 1919, when he took advantage of new laws that gave the vote to any male who met a 6 month residential requirement."
Firstly, I thought that you had already told us of Barnett's licensing in 1878. Isn't that an official record. Isn't the 1881 census entry for Barnett which I scanned onto this site some time ago an official record? How can you get this wrong when it was so recent? Barnett was obviously traceable through normal records including Electoral records from 1918 throughout his life and any statement by you or Paley that he wasn't is sheer nonsense.
" Early in Paleys book it tells of Barnett's dismissal from his fish porters job. The market bylaws state that: 'the main causes of dismissal were theft, drunkeness and abusive language or behaviour. Lesser infractions of the rules were delt with by fines or suspensions.' "
The statement above is quite obviously not what the bylaws said as it's couched in reported speech. It's therefore Paley's opinion or slant as to what they said and it's sloppy writing for you to say it this way. |
Author: Jeffrey
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 11:52 am | | Hello all !!!
I'm enjoying this discussion and thanks very much Leanne for that information. I must wonder though do you feel that the man who was Jack the Ripper otherwise led a squeeky clean existence ? (before & after 1888)
Jeff D |
Author: Matt_G
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 12:30 pm | | Jill: The oaf you refer to is (and my spelling is horrendous) Angel Resendes, AKA the railway killer. He, unfortunately, killed a young coed in the city in which I live.
He is currently in prison in Texas and is facing death.
Matt |
|
|
|
|
