|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 02, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through May 02, 2001
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 02:21 pm |        | Hello Peter,
I refer you to "...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."
You'll be telling me to remove Sherlock Holmes from my suspects list next!
Thanking you and trusting that my little whimsy, (not Lord Peter though), may be overlooked.
Jim Leen |
Author: LeatherApron
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 04:33 pm | | Jon,
Please don't get me going with the "how do you know?" business. I can say "how do you know that it wasn't so?" just as well, but it's pointless. Having no eyewitnesses and no evidence or forensic proof means no one can "know" anything.
Caz,
Great points!
Jill,
You're a sweetie.
Peter,
"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."
You see, right there, that's exactly what I'm talking about! Peter, I know that you could have comprehended what I meant in my previous post, but for whatever reason, you did not. You're assuming that I've never read any other posts on this site and so you continue to be pedantic and tell me (and all of us) "what you really need to do...". Yes, I must be too sensitive.
"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."
No, we are not giving his opinions the weight of fact thereby equating them to real evidence. We have heard his theories and think they are possible. I've stated in the past that I don't agree with all of his conclusions and conjectures regardless, but that doesn't mean they don't have any merit. If attributing merit requires evidence then maybe we should all go home now and take up another hobby.
Jim,
;-D
Peace,
Jack (the dogmatic) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 05:39 pm | | G'day Peter,
When I quoted Bruce Paley as writing: 'There are no known official records of Barnett until 1906...', I thought that the discussion was about his life AFTER 1888!!!
'1878' and '1881' don't count!
I'm still trying to understand your criticism of my 'market bylaws' paragraph!
I never even suggested that the actual bylaws stated that.
I was merely quoting what was written in Paleys book: 'The Simple Truth'!
Do you believe that Paley was just using his opinion when he told readers what the market bylaws said? He includes references to the porters licences on file at the 'Guildhall, London EC2.'
LEANNE! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 06:38 pm | | | Jack, hear, hear. Rick |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 07:51 pm | | I see Leanne is still propagating the myth of Barnett being dismissed.
And yet she knows very well that all anybody can determine is the 'obvious'.....that he did not renew his licence.
Any thoughts as to why is pure speculation. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 04:26 am | | Thanks Matt,
It was in the heat of the hunt after him, I ended up here. But a while afterwards I couldn't trace it back on the netnews.
Glad to hear, he's incarcerated.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 05:20 am | | Hi Leanne,
I knew you were referring to the records after 1888. I also knew you were quoting Paley, rather than actually stating the wording in those bylaws. Perhaps Peter knew all this too, but thought others might get the wrong impression. (Trying to be kind to Peter here - I'm sure he wasn't deliberately insulting our collective intelligences - again. ;-))
But I do agree with Jon, that the reasons for dismissal are only of possible relevance if we know for sure that Joe got dismissed.
Have a great weekend all.
Jack,
Thanks for the compliment - you must be peeking... ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 12:52 pm | | Leanne:
I was very careful to quote you exactly. Although you are in turn quoting Paley it is clear that you are not putting any limit on the time frame. Therefore when you say:"he was never recorded on any census form and succeeded in leaving himself untracable until 1919" then you (and Paley) are completely wrong. To protect yourself you should have made it clear that you were speaking about events after 1888 and even then you'd be wrong because he would be included in the 1891 census. Also, you are using words ("never recorded...leaving himself untraceable...") that would imply a reason for his behaviour; maybe even, God help us, some sort of conspiracy!
In your second para which I also copied you plainly say: "The market bylaws state that:..." and then you go into what is presumably a quote from Paley's book rather than the bylaws themselves. Paley is probably summarising those bylaws correctly but when you say that: "I never even suggested that the actual bylaws stated that." you are completely wrong; that is exactly what you do state, through carelessness rather than anything else. When you say: " the man who studied him for over ten years, failed to find any immediate records of his whereabouts between the inquest and 1906. This was when he renewed his porters licence at
Billingsgate. So he kept an extremely low profile, but we conclude that he was 'squeaky-clean'!!!" you seem to be implying some sort of sinister motive - almost as though he was on the run but you are completely wrong: in the days when there were no drivers licenses, no passports, no universal electoral registration, none of the myriad events where we now have to enter our names and addresses, the only occasions on which a man might be entered into records would be on a census (1891-1901-etc.) and on occasions such as marriage and births of children. Barnett should be viewed in common with millions of other people of the time and you really can't say that all those millions were keeping extremely low profiles. If Paley did a reasonable job of research, he would probably have come across some note of criminal action by Barnett if it was there to find. As he didn't do we presume that Barnett probably lived an ordinary sort of life or that he was a criminal mastermind who never got caught. I can probably assume what your answer would be.
And as for the fair Caz, she is possessed of the talent to damn with extremely faint praise and I'm sure that all of us here love her for it. However I'm not worried about others here getting the "wrong impression," experience teaches that there are some here in Casebook land who will get the wrong impression whatever anyone says. I'm not insulting anyone's collective intelligence. I'm talking directly to you. If I want to talk to Caz, I just need to ask her what happened to the Great Weedon Grossmith Theory. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 12:53 pm | | Leanne:
I was very careful to quote you exactly. Although you are in turn quoting Paley it is clear that you are not putting any limit on the time frame. Therefore when you say:"he was never recorded on any census form and succeeded in leaving himself untracable until 1919" then you (and Paley) are completely wrong. To protect yourself you should have made it clear that you were speaking about events after 1888 and even then you'd be wrong because he would be included in the 1891 census. Also, you are using words ("never recorded...leaving himself untraceable...") that would imply a reason for his behaviour; maybe even, God help us, some sort of conspiracy!
In your second para which I also copied you plainly say: "The market bylaws state that:..." and then you go into what is presumably a quote from Paley's book rather than the bylaws themselves. Paley is probably summarising those bylaws correctly but when you say that: "I never even suggested that the actual bylaws stated that." you are completely wrong; that is exactly what you do state, through carelessness rather than anything else. When you say: " the man who studied him for over ten years, failed to find any immediate records of his whereabouts between the inquest and 1906. This was when he renewed his porters licence at
Billingsgate. So he kept an extremely low profile, but we conclude that he was 'squeaky-clean'!!!" you seem to be implying some sort of sinister motive - almost as though he was on the run but you are completely wrong: in the days when there were no drivers licenses, no passports, no universal electoral registration, none of the myriad events where we now have to enter our names and addresses, the only occasions on which a man might be entered into records would be on a census (1891-1901-etc.) and on occasions such as marriage and births of children. Barnett should be viewed in common with millions of other people of the time and you really can't say that all those millions were keeping extremely low profiles. If Paley did a reasonable job of research, he would probably have come across some note of criminal action by Barnett if it was there to find. As he didn't do we presume that Barnett probably lived an ordinary sort of life or that he was a criminal mastermind who never got caught. I can probably assume what your answer would be.
And as for the fair Caz, she is possessed of the talent to damn with extremely faint praise and I'm sure that all of us here love her for it. However I'm not worried about others here getting the "wrong impression," experience teaches that there are some here in Casebook land who will get the wrong impression whatever anyone says. I'm not insulting anyone's collective intelligence. I'm talking directly to you. If I want to talk to Caz, I just need to ask her what happened to the Great Weedon Grossmith Theory. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 01:55 pm | | These double events seem to be catching!
Peter, perhaps you should refer to me as the slightly unfair Caz from now on. :-)
Initially I just intended to add my diplomatic bit to the discussion between you and Leanne, but mischief got the better of me as usual. Sorry about that. I'm glad you've put the record straight that you were just putting Leanne straight in exactly the same manner that you would if your posts had not been written for our collective consumption.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 05:13 am | | G'day Jon,
Are you sugesting that Barnett may have felt that fish porting work was 'beneath' him? or that he just decided to try something else?
As someone else mentioned on Casebook once, he was earning as much as a clerk.
He was also eager to shower Kelly with gifts such as: "meat and other things" to patch up their frequent quarrels.
At Billingsgate he was making 2 to 3 pounds a week. The couples weekly rent was 4s 6d.
Charles Booth calculated that the average casual dock labourer earned about 6s 3d per week. Nor could much more have been made jobbing around the fruit markets.
His loss of such a wage, meant that Kelly was likely to return to prostitution, to buy anything but the bare necessities.
I think it's 'pure speculation' to assume that he simply chose not to renew his licence!!!!!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 05:17 am | | G'day Peter,
I'm sorry mate! Next time I'll try to remember the 'protection'!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 05:20 am | |  |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:56 am | | G'day Leanne
The facts are quite clear, if Paley did his research thoroughly, that Barnett never renewed his licence. Speculation has nothing to do with it.
Speculation only comes into being when you ask WHY, and its you who are providing that (with Paley).
I honestly think you do not understand the difference between speculation and fact.
Also, no-one knows what Barnett was earning, we have had general statements as to what was typically paid. But where does your Ghuru (Paley) say exactly what Barnett earned?
In fact no-one knows much about Barnett at all, most of what we read is general info of what Paley & Harrison assume him to be like.
Smoke & Mirrors, Leanne
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 08:45 am | | G'day Jon,
Studying the files of Billingsgate porters, Paley (BP) found that wages varied, but a steady, dilligent worker could earn as much as 3 pound per week. Barnett had been working there for at least 10 years and was: "in decent work", as he told the 'Central News Agency'.
All four Barnett boys, followed the same career 'path' as their father and got their licences in 1878, when bylaws suddenly made it mandatory for all porters to be licenced. He was renewing this licence for ten years, until 1888 - why stop?
I'm glad 'the facts are quite clear' to you!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 09:22 am | | Thankyou Leanne
You once again repeated the general statement:
Studying the files of Billingsgate porters, Paley (BP) found that wages varied, but a steady, dilligent worker could earn as much as 3 pound per week. Barnett had been working there for at least 10 years and was: "in decent work"
Where's the specifics, Leanne?
WHAT DID BARNETT ACTUALLY EARN ???
Never mind this 'could earn as much as'......that statement IS NOT TELLING US WHAT BARNETT EARNED.
(I'm not sure it even matters though)
As the notice is printed at the top of the licence, "you must present your badge & renew your licence 1 month prior to its expiry".....THIS HE DID NOT DO.
And thats ALL we know...
Paley, Harison & yourself can provide the speculation as to why.......and it matters little what your reasoning is, or how much sense it makes to you. The fact remains that it is ONLY speculation.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 06:34 pm | | In the Appendix the Bruce Paley's book, he summarizes his case against Joe Barnett with 10 points:
(Paley)
1 - Jack the Ripper knew the East End well.
Joe Barnett was born in the East End, and at some time had lived near all the murder sites.
(Jon)
The murders were committed in a very small area of the East End. Any recent visitor can make himself very familiar with the whole area in a matter of a week or two. This is hardly a strong reason against Barnett.
2 - Jack the Ripper was probably known to his victims.
Joe Barnett was a lifelong East Ender who may have known all the victims.
This is not necessarily true. Prostitutes approach clients who are both known & unknown. Anyone who looks a good 'trick' is a reasonable client and whether they knew the client or not has no bearing on Barnetts contention as Jack.
3 - Jack the Ripper was strong, proficient with a knife and had basic anatomical knowledge.
Joe's job required considerable strength, while years of cleaning fish made him handy with a knife and provided him with a rudimentary knowledge of anatomy.
Jack did not require any superior strength, to be the equal of his victim was sufficient. Joe is not known to have even handled a knife in his role as a porter. Even though SOME porters MAY have helped clean fish, this is no reason to PRESUME Joe had knife skills.
Any cleaning of fish is not going to help with human anatomy, this suggestion is even BEYOND the preposterous.
4 - Eyewitness reports describe Jack as being about 30 yrs old, 5ft 7-8ins tall, medium build, fair complexion & moustache.
Joe fits this description in every detail
Only one witness described the potential killer as given above. Though we cannot even be certain that the man & woman at the Duke St. end of Church Passage were the killer & victim. Only Eddowes clothes were said to be like the clothes worn by the woman, and as many of those women wore dark similar clothing, the best that can be said is that the clothing was 'similar'. If the report given by the workmen in Orange Market has any credence then that alone may cast doubt on Lawende's sighting.
5 - Joe acted nervous at Kelly's inquest, and contradicted himself, stuttered & is reported to have repeated the last words of questions given to him.
Being nervous at the inquest on the sudden & violent death of the lady in your life is hardly questionable conduct.
6 - Eddowes was killed near an orange market, where Barnett may have worked.
Any connection between Barnett & the orange market in St. James Place, is purely in the mind of Bruce Paley.
7 - Somehow Jack may have had the key to Mary's room, he apparently locked the door behind him when he left.
The key to the room disappeared on the night Barnett moved out. It was never found.
The date the key was lost has never been established, the date the window was broken was never also established. The two are likely connected, but even so, no-one is sure to this day whether the door was actually locked or just on a latch. So, whether the key was a factor or not is still speculation.
8 - All of the victims (except Eddowes?) were known prostitutes. And Jack singled out prostitutes in his first letter
Joe was known to strongly dislike prostitutes and blamed them for Mary's downfall
Joe strongly opposed Mary taking to prostitution, but would only move out if she did not change her ways. Mary was a prostitute when they met, so Joe had no STRONG dislike for women of that class, he simply did not want HIS woman continuing down that road. Joe was not apparently unduly insulting or aggressive to Mary's friends, no report of that nature.
9 - The author of the initial, genuine Jack the Ripper had been to school as evidenced by the letter's neat and relatively grammatically correct hand and the fact it was written in the copperplate style taught in the schools of the day. Ginger beer bottles were mentioned in the letter.
Joe had been to school and could read and write. Ginger beer bottles were found in the room at Millers Court.
The writer of the 'Dear Boss' letter was no stranger with the pen, and possibly displayed evidence of daily use. Very neat and correct, very good styling, actually supports the known rumour of possibly coming from a journalist, rather than a fish porter.
Simply attending some class of school is not necessarily all that is required to make Joe a good candidate to write such a well prepared letter. This person also had good education, possibly something higher than an East End school would provide.
10 - Joe had compelling & powerful motives for killing Mary: sexual jealousy and rejection.
There is no known reason for sexual jealousy, unless we are refering to Joe Flemming. The suggestion that Mary may have been having a lesbian affair with her new live-in companion is another bit of speculation. Mary was said to have a soft heart for her lady friends who were not as fortunate as herself. No indication of preferred love there. If any motive of jealousy is to be considered then we should perhapse be looking for Flemming as a potential killer, as he was at least reported to have been violent with Mary. Not so Joe Barnett, he was a non-confrontational type, would sooner walk away than be aggressive.
Also, how many rooms in Dorset St. had ginger beer bottles ?..hardly a suspicious item.
Nothing strong here at all, the 10 commendments for Joe Barnett are extremely weak if even correct, when viewed up close.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Feebles
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 06:39 pm | | | From what I recall there was an economic recession in the mid-1880's. Did a contraction in the market cause the number of employees to drop? A man would not renew a license for a job that didn't exist anymore. Are there records that would show how many employees were at Billingsgate year by year? The volume of fish going through the market would also be an indication if that is available. This would provide a perfectly innocent rationale for why Barnett was not working after a certain time. Anything we assume is speculation (dirty word!) unless we have an actual piece of paper with Joseph Barnett's dismissal notice. But there has to be some foundation for speculation. And even if he was dismissed for stealing it has no relevance to the question of whether or not he became a murderer except through the dubious FBI profile. Why not pick on poor old Pizer, who was not only in trouble with the law but spent one night looking at the London dock fire (the FBI tells us serial killers are fascinated by fire)-and don't forget the fire in Kelly's room, clearly in the killer's mind a recreation of the dock fire from the night of the first murder. (I hope I haven't started something here!) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 05:51 am | | G'day Jon,
These are my views on four of the summary points in Paley's Joseph Barnett theory, that you mention above:
Point 1) 'Jack the Ripper knew the East End streets well, as demonstrated by his ability to avoid detection.'
This topic is still being debated today and I guess we wont know for sure about Jack's knowlege, until he is identified.
17 East End addresses for Barnett have been identified: 12 prior to Kelly's murder, ending with 'Bullers Lodging House'; 5 after the inquest. Most came from porters licences, birth & death certificates, inquest testimonies. Two came from census reports. One came from an electoral roll.
Point 2) 'Jack the Ripper was probably known to his victims.'
I believe that he was at least known by sight, to be able to approach them with ease during the 'Autumn of Terror' and to get them into a place and position where they could least defend themselves.
Point 3) 'JTR was physically strong and proficient with a knife.'
Fish Porters carried trunks weighing 6 and a half stone, each balanced on their heads. I agree that Jack didn't NEED to have any superior strength though. As to whether Barnetts job extended to cleaning and packing fish, we can only guess, but a porters work began at 5am and was over 4 hours later. Some stayed on and worked for the stores. unfortunately, it was only necessary for your licence to state that you were a porter!
Point 4) 'Eyewitness reports that police themselves believed to be accurate, describe Jack as being 30 yo, 5ft 7-8, medium build, fair complexion, fair moustache.'
Lawende was able to confirm his description after viewing Catharine Eddowes's clothing. Eddowes was distinctively clad that night, with her green and black bonnet, fur trimmed jacket and floral dress.
A minute or 2 later, 2 men in the orange market saw a 30yo with fair complexion & moustache with this woman. Catharine was killed minutes later and a few dozen yards away.
Why do you say: "If the report given by the workmen in the orange market has any credence, then that alone may cast doubts on Lawende's sighting"?
There are some points in the case against Joseph Barnett that I disagree with, believe it or not:
I don't think the ginger beer bottles in Kellys room have any significance.
I'm not sure that the killer wrote any of the letters, so the fact that Joe had been to school to learn the copperplate style is irrelevant.
I'm not sure that Joe Barnett had sufficient anatomical knowledge or even whether the killer needed it.
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 10:00 am | | Leanne
The reason I mention the Orange Market sighting is because for someone to see the killer in St James Place means we have even more problems with timing.
Consider, Lawende saw the couple at the Duke St. end of Church Passage about 1.32am. PC Watkins found Eddowes body about 1.44am.
In the suggested space of 12 minutes Jack had to casually walk down the 85ft Church Passage and across a 75ft? wide square. Engage Catherine in some illicite business and make his attack.
Possibly strangling, lay her out, make 'pretty' incissions, rip her up, locate & remove a kidney, locate & remove her uterus, then make his escape.
We have no time for the couple to journey into St James Place, where the Orange Market was.
Either something is seriously wrong with the stated times or the Orange Market sighting is of no relation to the murder.
(I'm assuming you have a map of the location)
Regards, Jon
However, I have to wonder if the Orange Market incident, was not as a RESULT of the murder, as the question was "did you see a man and a woman pass through here?" |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 04:28 pm | | In an attempt to draw some conclusions from the apparently never ending debate about Joseph Barnett and his Billingsgate connections, I have written a new dissertation on the subject. It is now available at the main Casebook site.
Stephen, had hoped you were going to plug this and spare me the embarrassment. :-) |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 10:20 pm | | Caz,
"Thanks for the compliment - you must be peeking..."
Now you've got me fantasizing. ;-D
Feebles,
"Why not pick on poor old Pizer, who was not only in trouble with the law but spent one night looking at the London dock fire (the FBI tells us serial killers are fascinated by fire)-and don't forget the fire in Kelly's room, clearly in the killer's mind a recreation of the dock fire from the night of the first murder."
You are beginning to smell a rat. Foxes hunt geese but don't always catch'em.
Jon,
I came up with a list of pros and cons for every suspect that I considered worthy, but can't seem to find it. The end result was Barnett had more pro items than all the others. The greater of 10 evils, so to speak. It was not the same as Paley's list. I should probably find them or create another set then post it or maybe write a dissertation for posting. Either that or give a rebuttal to the Viper, that snake. (just kidding)
What does it all mean? That Barnett was JtR? No, just a stronger suspect than anyone else has put forth. Except Tumblety, possibly.
Leanne,
Ay, g'day! Glad you're still sparring with Jon because it means you're doing OK. How's my mate, Jules?
Yours Truly,
Jack (Esq.) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 06:18 pm | | G'day Jack (Esq.),
Jules and his new girl, (Samantha), were extremely happy, last time I visited them!
LEANNE! |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 08:08 pm | | VIPER: Just read & printed up your Fishy Dissertation on Barnett. ;-) I had no suspicions you were a fellow Hendrix fan! I'm listening to Crosstown Traffic as I post.
As usual, your research is superb and your style makes for a fine read. You really should consider writing a book.
Many thanks for this excellent addition to the ongoing research. I might have a few questions later.
Ashling |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 09:04 pm | | Viper (re: Dissertation)
You present an excellent case for the defence, :-)
A very interesting read, well done you slippery sleuth.
Paley has no case for Barnetts dismissal.
Regards, Jon |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 12:25 am | | Viper,
Just read most of your dissertation and can't say that I disagreed with anything I read. So much for a rebuttal. I will say that I had already dismissed assuming JtR had to have any great skill with a knife so fish gutter or not, that's what we scientists call a "don't care". The only importance of Barnett's occupation is that he was earning enough to make a decent living. It doesn't take a tremendous leap to believe that once he lost his income MJK decided to give him the boot. He probably didn't make it easy on her when they were still together and she was compelled to resort to prostitution in order to pay for rent that was in her name and becoming more and more in arrears.
Everyone,
But again, these are speculations and anyone's speculations should not be taken as gospel. Every theory can be met with counter-theories when there are no facts to back it up. Proving that there's no evidence to back a theory is a waste of time. If there were evidence then Paley or whichever theorist you want to name would certainly have cited it already. Since there is no such evidence, and there probably never will be, some of us will decide that a theory is credible and put "faith" in it and the theorist, which admittedly, is not scientific. On the other hand, some of us hold to the belief that the Ripper theorists must prove there suspect is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and must therefore restrict themselves to the facts of the case. This difference in perspective has resulted in many heated and futile debates.
As long as we all agree they are just theories no matter how specious they might sound, what's the harm? Discussions of certain aspects of the case (e.g. the letters, the Juwes message, etc.) or elucidating on them (like Viper has done) will hopefully add value by setting the facts straight and ultimately helping someone along with another theory. After all, aren't these theories trying to provide us with the answers we're looking for? The who and the why? Yes, better theories and plausible ones (not conspiracy and royal theories, please) like those put forward by Paley, Evans, Gainey, and Harris would make for more interesting reading IMO.
Peace,
Jack |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 04:25 pm | | G'day Viper,
I am still trying to understand what you wrote!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 10:47 pm | | G'day Viper,
Here's the first thing that has me confused:
"The four Barnett brothers did not all get their licences at the same time, as Paley stated..."
Denis, Joe and John didn't get their licences on 1st/July/1878. - That was the first listed 'Renewal Date', so they had their licences, probably 12 months prior to that date!
Paley explains in his book: 'In 1878, new bylaws came into effect at Billingsgate Market whereby it became mandatory for all porters to be licenced.' I'd say that is why the first date mentioned on 3 licences was 1878.
LEANNE! |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 07:28 am | | Leanne,
Another correspondent raised by e-mail a similar point about the issue date and first renewal date on those licenses, so it’s worth explaining a little more about them.
To begin, if you read on from the quote you give (page 11) you will see that Paley continues, "All four Barnett brothers received their licenses on 1 July that year [1878], though like Daniel, they probably had already been working there for some time previously." Firstly, that’s why I said that Paley was incorrect – the Issue Date field on Daniel's license is 31/12/77. Secondly, you’ll see from the sentence above that Paley has in fact interpreted the records in the same way as me, i.e. in the absence of an issue date we both took the first Renewal Date entry to be the issue date. This is an assumption, of course, but it is one I mused over for some time.
The clerk’s leaving out of the issue date is typical of the haphazard and slapdash manner in which the license ledgers were maintained in the early years. Issue date was a small field tucked into the left margin whereas renewal date was a wider, deeper column which was much easier to scrawl in when a lot of new entries were being added at once. And indeed there were a lot of new entries recorded similarly on 1st July, not just the Barnett brothers. It seems that that date had some significance, (it has been noted on this board already that licenses ran from 1st July).
As far as I could see (being no handwriting expert), for those entries which had no issue date, the handwriting pertaining to their first renewal date did appear to match that of their other details like the name and address. I don't know how many clerks were employed at Billingsgate or how frequently they changed, but the matching handwriting suggested that the first renewal date entry was made at the same time as the other details were recorded, rather than being added at a later date. I took that to be another pointer towards renewal date equalling issue date.
With no license entries before December 1877 (not that I saw anyway), if Joe and others had badges prior to July '78, as you suggest, then any records listing them have disappeared and we can't prove anything about them. It is possible that while the new licensed porter system was getting up and running, some form of temporary licensing was in place. This being a substantial change to working practice, licensing may have been introduced gradually. If it was we can only speculate as to how.
To get a license the porter did have to fill in an application form. Among the few details of those licenses I didn't record were the paper application numbers. At the time it looked like information overload to note them. Writing from memory, Daniel, Denis and John all had application numbers in a very tight range, within about twenty(?) of one another. It was as though they had all turned up together and filled out their papers together, whilst Joe's had a completely different application number. Yet, (by my initial assumption), Daniel got his license seven months before Denis and John whilst Joe's license was granted the same day as theirs. This does suggest that there was some form of staggered or prioritised issuing process.
The fact that two of you are even querying this relatively small detail is an important point. The more information is widely known, the more Ripper students can examine it and make their own judgements, rather than being reliant on the word of authors.
Regards, V. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 13 October 2000 - 07:37 am | | G'day Viper,
Here's what I reckon happened:
The issue date on Daniels porters license is 31/12/77. Maybe the Barnett brothers could only afford to have one boy licensed. The other Barnetts could have worked there unlicensed. Then in 1878, when the new bylaws came into effect, they all had to be licensed.
Maybe the clerk, who had to fill multiple licenses at once, just wrote that days date in the 'first renewal' date column. As these boys were already working there unlicensed, he would have had no choice but to leave that column blank!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 07:21 am | | G'day Viper,
I agree with your conclusion that Joseph Barnett didn't work continuosly at Billingsgate for the ten years, but how can you conclude that he was working there between April 1887 and July 1888?
Are your assumptions based solely on the guys 'implied statements'?
LEANNE! |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 09:47 am | | Leanne,
The reasons for this are explained in the essay with the strands pulled together in the paragraph immediately prior to the section labelled Conclusions – Set C. The press reports mentioned can all be read in more detail at the Casebook with the exception of Barnett's Central News Agency interview which can be supplied if you need it.
Regards, V. |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 09:50 am | | | (double event - timeout error) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 06:40 pm | | G'day Viper,
Yes I read that paragraph mate, but it doesn't prove a thing! The fact that he told landlord John McCarthy prior to taking lodgings in his 'shed', doesn't prove that he was a licensed porter at Billingsgate!
He and Kelly were evicted from their room in Paternoster Row for 'going on a drunk', instead of paying their rent. (Lloyd's Newspaper, 11 Nov. 1888), So he wasn't as honest and 'holey' as we think!
LEANNE! |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 06:48 am | | Leanne,
As you are aware, it is difficult to prove anything about ‘normal’ people who lived over a century ago and who were not in the public eye. Official records do exist, such as births, marriages & deaths; parish registers; census returns; criminal records and in this case the inquest testimony and skeleton employment records. References in newspapers may then be used to fill in some of the gaps.
By and large, all the researcher can do here is to look for pointers to verify details about people like this. By adding John McCarthy’s belief about Barnett’s occupation to the C.N.A. interview and to comments made at the inquest, I believe we have a pattern emerging about Joe’s employment history 1887-88. The fact that an external source (McCarthy) thought that he was a Billingsgate fish porter is a better verification than another of Barnett’s own statements, especially since that party had a vested interest in finding out about his tenant’s circumstances. You are free to disagree with this reasoning.
I fail to see the relevance of your second paragraph. Thousands of people struggling with their rent were apt to go on a bender from time to time then, and much the same is true today. In those days when rent was often collected daily and with little or no protective legislation for tenants, the consequences were likely to be more serious than they are now. Failure to pay the rent for just a couple of days often resulted in eviction. This has nothing at all to do with people’s fundamental honesty.
Regards, V. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 08:26 am | | G'day,
I've just been reading the latest book: 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion' which contains material from the Royal Archives.
Chapter 21 deals with the Kelly inquest and includes witness statements that were written in Inspector Abberlines handwriting.
The last sentence of Joseph Barnett's testimony was actually: "She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders. she seemed afraid of someone. She did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly".
The Telegraph reports this statement as: "I bought newspapers and I read to her everything about the murders, which she asked me about."
"Did she express fear of any particular individual?"
"No Sir, Our own quarrels were very soon over."
Exact statements can get twisted as different people take notes but I tend to believe the inspectors before the reporters.
If Abberlines notes are true, Barnett mentions his and her rows in the same sentence as her fear of the Whitechapel Murderer.
Kelly's close friend Julia Venturney said: "Deceased said she was fond of another man named Joe [Joseph Flemming] who used to come and see her and give her money."
About a week before her murder, Barnett and Kelly rowed until Barnett moved out, so Kelly was free! But Barnett kept visiting her to bring her money. Was Kelly blackmailing Barnett?
Leanne! |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 03:19 pm | | Hello Leanne,
I think Kelly was unfortunately one of life's victims. I take the point, "She did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly" which may illustrate that Barnett was heavy handed with her.
Her other paramour also treated her roughly apparently. It really was quite a short and tragic life the girl had.
However, I don't think Barnett was being blackmailed. I think he just wanted back into her life.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 12:26 am | | Hello Jim & Everyone-- I've wondered about that statement of Barnett's as well. But I also sometimes wonder if perhaps we don't overestimate the animosity between Barnett& MJK. Take Maria Harvey's police statement. Here is a woman that might have been a contributing factor in the rift between Mary & Joe, and who some writers have suggested had very little love lost for Barnett. (She left soon after Barnett showed up in Kelly's room that fateful Thursday night, leaving her bonnet behind). And yet, when being interviewed by the police (Abberline?) Harvey had every chance to put Barnett in a bad light--but did not. She went as far as saying that Barnett & Kelly "seemed to be on the best of terms". Perhaps they were?
This said, I dont think Barnett is a horrible suspect in Kelly's death. The two went out for a year and a half, they split up, a week or so later MJK is dead. Circumstantial, of course. But I don't think Joe B. is the Ripper--the psychology seems wrong. That the victims are strangers seems to be part of the psychology of these serial killers; the murderer of a domestic partner seems to be almost at the other end of the psychological spectrum. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I've never thought of Klosowski as a compelling suspect.
Anyway, it does seem to me that an unemployed Joe Barnett would have had little else to do but to obsess over breaking up with his long-time girlfriend and wonder if she had indeed resorted to streetwalking. Since I have little inclination to believe Hutchinson's story these days, I speculate whether or not the urge to "check-up" on Kelly that night might have proved irresistable to Joe, placing him across the street from Miller's Court sometime before the murder. But ho-hum, we've been here before. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 05:30 am | | G'day R.J.
Mary Kelly visited Maria Harvey in Harvey's room at New Court on Thursday. Harvey says at Kelly's inquest that the two spent all afternoon together, and she says that she was in the (Kelly's?) room when Joe called in at 7:30. I'd say that the two girls left Harvey's room together, to take 1 boy's shirt, an overcoat, a black bonnet, a pawn ticket and 1 child's petticoat to Mary Kelly's room. She probably left her bonnet there, confusing it with the one she intended to leave.
You wonder if we 'overestimate the animosity' between Barnett and Kelly! I don't think so: Why did Kelly feel it necessary to have a friend stay in their tiny room, against Joe's wishes? First Mary allowed Julia to stay there, and as soon as she left, Mrs Harvey moved in.
Your 'phsychological spectrum' agrees that the victims were strangers to their killer. The first four victims were strangers to Barnett. Mary Kelly, the last, was considerably younger than the rest, plus she was murdered in her room. Jack appeared to have stopped after her death. Don't you think that hers may have been perhaps a little closer to the killer's motive?
Leanne! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 04:46 pm | | Regardless of what Maria Harvey had stated both to the police and under sworn testimony, it is apparent that she was not the woman who was with Mary Kelly when Joe Barnett stopped for a visit on the night of the 8th. The woman who was with Kelly that night was Lizzie Albrook. Maria Harvey's ever changing story, like other witnesses at the inquest, remains unexplained and un questioned.
Wolf. |
|
|
|
|
