|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 13 August 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through 13 August 2001
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 03:47 pm |        | Simon,
you couldn't possibly believe there was anything of an A<B<C< thing about the JtR murders. If he was trying to make it look as if there was a madman on the loose, murdering older women,--- well there was,-- himself!!!. And if you try to say Kelly was his ultimate target,after killing 3 or 4 innocent women,---well, you are saying Bruce Paley's theory could hold a lot of water after all!!, and I thought only myself and a very few others held that belief, I didn't think you were among them Simon.
Regards Rick, |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 05:51 pm | | | Barnett is my third choice after the Conspiracy and then Druitt , Rick ! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 08:28 pm | | Excuse me for jumping to conclusions Simon without really trying to find out. I'm sorry,
Regards Rick. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 01:42 pm | | No need to apologise !!!  |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 08:25 am | | G'day John, everyone,
JOHN, over here mate!!!!!!!!!
At Mary Kelly's inquest, Joseph Barnett claimed that he and her lived together comfortably, but Mary's good friend, Julia Venturney, claimed: "I have frequently seen her the worse for drink but when she was cross Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone". ('Standard')
I wonder where he went and on which nights? This makes true his statement: "When she was with me, I found her of sober habits".
Kelly's former lover was hanging around her too, which must have tormented Joe. Joseph Flemming continued to visit Mary Jane Kelly, giving her gifts of money. Julia Venturney told the inquest jury: "She said she was fond of another man, also named Joe".
Then there was Barnett's battle to keep Mary from walking the streets, which he was obviously losing! Kelly was happy to keep taking his gifts of money and meat, yet he wasn't asked to move back with her once her prostitute friend moved elsewhere!
Now, hands up those naive people who still think they lived comfortably together!
Leanne |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 05:52 pm | | Leanne,
You asked (On the profiling board), "Do you and Douglas think that Joe and Mary had a normal relationship? Mary kept leading Joe on, taking his money, refusing to have him back while she was fond of another bloke, Joseph flemming. Barnett kept buying Mary's attention, while she was charging other men to sleep with her."
I have no idea what Douglas thinks of Joe and Mary's relationship, why on earth would I?
I don't completely subscribe to your interpretation of their relationship, but even were I to accept it as plain truth I don't think it really adds much support to the idea that he's JtR. In any case, he had other relationships other than that with Mary. He was on the 1919 election rolls w/"wife" Lousia(sp?) Barnett.
The reality is however that we simply do not have enough evidence to draw any sound conclusions as to the quality of their relationship. You can take a few sentences of testimony and write a tale between the lines, but that doesn't make it so. For what it's worth I think their relationship was probably broken, as many are. It still doesn't make him a killer.
It's certainly doesn't appear to be that unusual of a relationship for the the time and place. Look at the relationships between most of the victims and those closest to them, they're a pretty dysfunctional lot. I know several couples with a lot weirder relationships than Joe's and Mary's appeared to have been.
Again, from the profiling board, you asked. "What 'hard evidence' is everyone looking for, 112 years on? A written confession? No wonder someone wrote 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper'."
I agree that there is not likely to be any hard evidence. We'll probably never know who Jack was. That's no reason to slander the innocent on the basis of a few unremarkable coincidences.
I DO believe that a decent circumstantial case could possibly be built against someone, however circumstantial evidence is convincing only where there is a great deal of it. In this case, there are very few items that support Barnett as Jack. There are also a number of points that tend to point to his innocence. The murders stopped and Joe Barnett lived on and free, the police verified and accepted his alibi for MJKs killing, he has no known history of violence, etc.
I have no idea what the above post is supposed to convey. So let's take a stab at it:
Mary gets drunk, tries to pick fights, and instead of fighting with her, Joe goes out to take a walk... I'm sorry, but that's hardly damning testimony. Their relationship was not perfect, so what? Few are. It seems to me to be a singularly rational response. There is no point arguing with a drunk.
But whatever. I'm not really interested in arguing about their relationship. For the sake of discussion, I'll accept that there's some deep underlying anger. It would give him a possible motive for killing MJK. Nothing more. I'm sure each of the victims had SOMEONE with a grudge against 'em. It doesn't 'em Jack.
John Hacker
"I saw her last about five minutes to seven last night Thursday in her own room, when Barnett called. I then left they seemed to be on the best of terms." - Maria Harvey |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 06:35 pm | | Leanne
John has presented similar arguments to what I hold and I'm still reading nothing substantial to support Barnett as Jack.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 06:39 pm | | Dear John,
Harvey,Maria.Hmmm....say it soft and it sounds almost like music.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 07:02 pm | | John and Jon,
Leanne feels strongly about who JtR was, she says what she thinks, thats not slandering is it?. If anyone asks me who I think JtR was, I say, "Joseph Barnett", if thats slandering, I'll slander my head off, same as a lot of JtR authors do. It's a bloody funny hobby we have here if we can't name our suspect without being accused of slandering. We don't all find ourselves in that comfortable situation of having no suspect.
Rick |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 09:08 pm | | Hello Rick.
I thought you'd be waiting in the wings 
Admittedly, I would not have used the word 'slander' but I have used a similar phrase.
I was refering to John's recent few poste's on the subject not just that one particulary word.
Many exchanges on this suspect confuse two, in my opinion, quite seperate issues; was Barnett Jack the Ripper?, or was he only Kelly's murderer?.
Paley & Harrison have presented a case only for Barnett being JtR, resolutely defended by Leanne over the years and not, to my knowledge, put forward a case for Barnett only being Kelly's killer.
Leanne is well aware of how I have defended poor old Joe against a conspiracy of if's, but's & maybe's. Paley did some very interesting background research but came up empty handed in his search for something to implicate Joe.
Where Paley found social traces of Barnett through records & newspaper reports an image is presented of a average 'Joe', just a regular no-body making the best of his small corner of the world. A far cry from a marauding Ripper-type character, so where gaps were found in Barnett's life-story Paley proposed, suggested and contrived a dark scenario to sell the reader on this ordinary person being a (sexual?) serial killer.
Paley proposed 10 points in his case to convince the world that Joe Barnett was Jack, I answered all his 10 points and they all boil down to smoke & mirrors.
A similar attempt was made to conjure up a contemporary name and try to make (force?) a case for him being placed on the Ripper Suspect list. This was against McCarthy, her landlord. Which only goes to show you can play this pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey game with practically any contemporary male between 16 & 60 who was right there at the time.
What do we need?, lets randomly pick a name from the census rolls, some male between 20-35?, look through the tax records & marriage records, prison records? maybe with a bit of perseverance we can come up with a slender life story for this character. But what about the blanks?...well. we can find some dark theory, his address places him right in the murderous quarter mile...was he Jack?.
Maybe we will find some sanitarium records which suggest he fell victim to some sexual disease.....vengence?
He had served time for assulting a woman in a bar....he must have hated prostitutes, as they are the predominant females in low-life bars....he could have been Jack!!
We can find no record of him being employed during the murders......and his father was a bootmaker (access to knives), .....maybe he WAS Jack!!!
His prison record gives a physical description that is not unlike that presented by witnesses after one of the murders.......thats it, there's no denying it now.....we have found Jack the Ripper.
This is how easy it is to build a case of smoke & mirrors against someone plucked out of a hat at random....and it could be done, just as Bruce Paley has done with Barnett.
Now,.....if we did that to some ancestor of your's, why wouldn't the word 'slander' come to mind?
Regards, Jon
As I said once before, Joe Flemming has more motive and probable 'nasty character' about him to be placed on the suspect list, much more than Barnett. |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 09:13 pm | | Rick and Leanne,
I'd like to apologize for my poor choice of words. I was feeling a tad cranky when I originally composed it, so I was less diplomatic than usual in expressing myself. I had thought I had edited that bit out when I cleaned up the rest of the post.
I respect everyones right to speculate to their hearts content.
Again, my apologies.
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 09:39 pm | | Jon,
Thanks for the support. I just looked up your post on Paley's ten points. It's an excellent analysis of Paley's case.
John Hacker |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 10:23 pm | | Thanks John.
I hope Rick will agree that we dispense with 'slander', it has such modern legalistic connotations somewhat out of character with our discussions.
Also, as Regards Bruce Paley, I might add I have communicated with Bruce several times in the past and found him a perfect gent. and I actually applaud his research into the background of Whitechapel, he gives such a aura of presence that brings you right into the grimy world of 112 yrs ago. Having the highest respect for our Ripper authors still does not mean their theories cannot go unchallenged.
I want to make it clear we are "playing the ball, not the man".
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 10:57 pm | | Ok Fellas,
I sure hope that no one ever identifies a suspect that wasn't previously considered as Jack the Ripper, because they would be accused of slandering the innocent!
Has anyone read the book: 'Jack the Ripper, A psychic Investigation' by Pamela Ball?
Her conclusions are slanderous!
Leanne |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 06:26 am | | Jon,
As I've said before, I agree with you regarding regarding Paley's research. He did an excellent job researching his book, and wrote a very vivid, compelling narrative. It's one of the first "modern" JtR books I picked up. I've read it several times and it's a very good read. It's only his conclusions that I question.
Leanne,
You won't hear the "S" word from me again on these forums. But I will continue to point out flaws in what I believe to be weak cases.
I have not read Pamela Ball's book of yet, but I just ordered a copy a few days ago and it's enroute now. For some reason I suspect she probably hasn't done Paley's excellent research, and that she's identified yet another person who isn't Jack. I'll just have to read it and see what she has to say.
John Hacker |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 07:50 am | | G'day John,
No I wont spoil the conclusion for you but she 'contacts' the spirits, tries to 'feel' things from their side, then tries to 'feel' things from the killers side.
I don't think I believe her abilities, and would be interested to know what you think!
I don't understand how you can describe Paley's work as 'smoke and mirrors'. He give's references for every piece of information he presents. I have heaps of Ripper books, and his is the only one that does so!
Leanne! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 07:45 pm | | Hello John H,
There's no offence taken here John, it was all said with a smile,everybody chooses a wrong word now and again--me tomorrow. I can't agree with your smoke and mirrors thoughts of Bruce Paley Jon, he seems a very nice bloke to me, judging from the way he writes, I'd like to meet him. Jon, I drew two books out of the library yesterday, one was Sugdens,which I've read before, the other was a book called, "An Illustrated Guide To Jack The Ripper, by Peter Fisher, foreword by Robin Odell. Good photographs, mostly then and now, quite a number I hadn't seen before. At the end of the book was a list of subscribers, one I noticed particularly, Moffat J.C. Ontario Canada, could that be you by any chance?
Regards to you both, Rick |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 09:32 pm | | Rick
Bruce Paley is a nice bloke, which is why I ended my previous poste by trying to clarify 'we are playing the ball, not the man'.
No, I am not J.C. Moffat
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 05:35 am | | Sorry Jon, I was a bit slaphappy in my post to you. I wrote as if you had explained nothing about Paley. And you could have thought I was being nosey, my apols.
Rick |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 06:14 am | | G'day Warwick,
Two years ago, when I first posted here, I was throwing "Barnett did this...", "but Bruce Paley says that...." all over the place.
A few times Bruce Paley himself would throw in a comment, here on Casebook. Then he emailed me personally to thank me for backing his theory! I was flabbergasted!!!!! I didn't think I was having that much of an effect!
He only emailed me once, but it has made me feel Joseph Barnett should not disappear as a possible suspect! Yes police cleared him all those years ago, but I've been studying the history of police-work and before the Metropolitan Police started, there were just about 68 men who chased criminals around the streets of London.
Bruce didn't spend too much time on Casebook, because I believe Jack the Ripper is not one of his main interests, but it sure was nice of him! I haven't kept his email address because we were once wiped out by a viris, had to take everything off and start again!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 06:22 am | | G'day Wozza,
To see that I aint lyin', click on the 'Keyword Search' in the left hand panel, search for Bruce Paley / All Topics / Names of authors.
It was way back in June 1999.
Leanne! |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 06:27 am | | Leanne,
I'll have to quick here, I'm in the middle of a minor family crisis that's eating my time at the moment. Things should calm down in a day or two and I can respond in more detail.
I'd like to draw a distinction between the quality of Paley's reasearch and the quality of his conclusion. You are correct in saying that he does cite sources much to his credit. Most books contain source information but his is one of the few that contains references within the text. (Phillip Sudgen's The Complete History of JtR and Richard Wallace's JtR : Lighthearted Friend are the only other two I can think offhand to do so.) There are facts in the book, but they're used to
In opinion Paley took a few known facts about Barnett and then 'filled in the blanks' to make him appear to be Jack. (I assume that he believes his own case.) It's not that hard to do if you consider all the facts in the worst possible light. If you have a copy of the Massive Book of JtR, look at MJ Trow's essay and you'll see an excellent example of what I'm talking about.
I will try to dig up some specific quotes from Paley's book over the weekend and then post the sources facts used to get to that conclusion. There are a whole lot of assumptions going on in there.
It also struck me as rather curious that Paley never included the Maria Harvey quote from my above post in his book. Personally I would think that testitomy regarding the interaction of the suspect and the victim soon before the murder would be important. It's one of the few pieces of testimony regarding the relationship between Joe and Mary, unfortunately it is left by the wayside in favor of Julia's more damaging testimony.
Sorry, I gotta stop here for the moment, but I'll try to put up more later.
John Hacker |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 12:03 am | | Rick
I thought nothing of the sort, honest.
As for 'smoke & mirrors', John explained it clearly by also pointing out about the blanks in Barnetts life that were filled in by negative suggestions.
By 'smoke & mirrors' I mean that certain aspects of Barnetts life are presented in a way to look like something they are not in order to present him with a dark character.
Regards, Jon
P.S.
There's something here that might need clarification. I believe it is incumbent on an author to provide reasonable evidence in support of his suspect. Reasonable enough to lift the suspect above others of his class. It is not sufficient to pick an ordinary man with an incomplete life history and make dark suggestions about those missing periods in order to incriminate him. Arguments containing 'could-have-been' & 'might-have-been' is not enough. Suggesting Barnett was a criminal by accusing him of theft as a reason for loosing his job is a fine example of this smoke & mirrors.
Barnett was not known to have renewed his porters licence in the appropriate month (July?), and THAT is ALL that can be said for sure. No reason to suggest he was fired, no reason to suggest he was a thief, there's even no reason to suggest he was handy with a knife.
If anyone took the time & trouble to list in a column all the actual FACTS we know about Barnett, not heresay but FACTS, then how on earth could you put this man on a suspect list.
Because he was the live-in-lover or common-law spouse we must include him as obvious suspect #1 in Kelly's death, that is acceptable logic.
The police cleared him of that suspicion, whether they were right or wrong is immaterial, we have no report records to judge for ourselves so we must accept they were satisfied at his alibi.
But Paley does not present Barnett as only Kelly's killer, he goes way out on a limb and presents him as Jack, which he has totally no reason to do and totally no supportable, even circumstantial evidence to support such a suggestion. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 07:19 am | | G'day John,
What Bruce Paley are you guys talking about? I'm talking about the one that found Joseph Barnett's birth and death certificates, checked all the Billingsgate Porters licences on file in the Guildhall London, read all the contemporary newspapers as well as the inquest notes of the 'coroner's files', electoral rolls and the census reports kept at the Public Record Office London.
Even the dumbest Ripperoligist could point out Joseph Barnett's opening sentence at Kelly's inquest: "I WAS a fish-porter and I work as a labourer and fruit-porter."He went from a job paying 2 or 3 pounds to a job that paid 6s3d.
As for the reason Paley offers as to why Barnett stopped working at Billingsgate,( after being there for ten years), he quotes from an actual licence on file at the Guildhall: 'If any porter shall be guilty of dishonesty (theft), drunkeness , or shall use obscene language......it shall be lawful for the Committee forthwith to revoke his licence'. Do you think he willingly gave up his steady, well-paying job to become a casual dock labourer?
Leanne! |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 07:45 am | | A good, succinct summary, Jon, and one I certainly agree with.
In actual fact, Bruce Paley, with his heavy emphasis on the breakdown of Kelly and Barnett's relationship manages to make a reasonable case for Joe Barnett being Mary's killer. Had he claimed only to have done that I think his work would have won many more converts. Unfortunately Paley goes on to claim that Barnett was JTR. For this he offers no worthwhile evidence at all.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 10:18 am | | Leanne
Please correct me if I am wrong here, I dont have Bruce's book in front of me.
I thought the reference to '2 or 3 pounds' was "what a porter could earn", we actually have no idea what Barnett WAS earning, do we?
Are you suggesting, on the one hand he was earning a bountyfull wage, yet on the other hand had reason to steal?.....I hope you see the illogical reasoning of that hypothesis.
Secondly, many company rules state similar clauses as reasons for dismissal, but does that mean the only way anyone can become unemployed is by being caught stealing?.....why could he not simply have been laid off?
I'm sorry Leanne, you are cast from the same mould as Bruce Paley.....you are all too ready to jump to your own conclusions rather than pursue the reasonable alternatives.
Regards, Jon |
Author: John Hacker
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 11:37 am | | Leanne,
That's EXACTLY the Bruce Paley I'm referring to. The one who does excellent research regarding the historical records, and then makes unfounded assumptions as to what these records mean.
As Jon pointed out, all we know is that Barnett was not known to have renewed his porters license. To leap the the conclusion that he was fired due to theft is simply not justified.
There is nothing in the historical record whatsoever to imply that he was a thief. Yet of all the myriad possibilities from that is the one that he settles on. That's an excellent example of Paley's filling in the blank spaces between actual facts with unfounded negative assumptions.
John Hacker |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 07:14 am | | G'day Jo(h)n,
Joseph Barnett's father found fish porting work at Billingsgate as soon as the family fled the poverty and famine of Ireland.
Joseph's father died in 1864 and his mother diserted her children around 1871.
Your 'dissertations' article Viper, points out that the Barnett brothers were issued their first porters licences in 1871, but fails to point out that the new bylaws had suddenly made it mandatory for all porters to be licenced. I'd say it is safe to assume that Joseph had been working there since he left school.
Porters were paid by the piece and an experienced worker could earn 3 pounds a week.
Joe met Mary when he was almost 29 years old and he began spoiling her with gifts: "such as meat and other things as my hard earnings would allow." ('Standard').
If Joe had been dismissed for an offence other than the gravest, (considering the time he'd been there), I'd say he would have been fined or had his license suspended. (Paley's book shows a photograph of an actual licence, on which these rules can actually be read.) I think it is reasonable to assume that he stole meat for Mary.
Leanne |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 07:41 am | | Leanne,
If only in the interests of accuracy I would point you to the seventh paragraph of that dissertation.
What I find disturbing about this topic is that we have the same old debate being replicated now as we had 10-11 months ago, being discussed largely by the same old names. Is it not possible to reach any conclusions here? Your position, in particular, looks entrenched, with little willingness to consider any scenarios other than those put forward by Paley.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 10:27 am | | Some months ago I came across a book about the social developments in late 19th century London. One chapter mentioned the downturn in the economy in the 1800's and many mass employment centres were laying people off by the hundreds, what specifically caught my eye was included in the list of factories, dock labourers and such like was the mention of markets.
I did not make specific note of this book or author because the subject was commerce and was not specific as to the actual markets by name or the actual year (1888?). So it cannot be used in support of any argument, but I am sure if Billingsgate market was downsizing due to an economic slump it will be noted in the papers somewhere, this may be the only hint we'll get at why Barnett did not renew his licence.
Its a thought, nothing more.
Regards, Jon
(Once again, the answer may be in the newspapers) |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 01:56 pm | | Jon,
when I first became interested in the JtR story, after reading Farsons book a number of times, I couldn't accept Druit as the Ripper. Other books gave me the same impression with their suspects, but I was hooked and I wanted a feasable suspect. Then Paley's book came into my hands,--"another load of twaddle, I thought,-- but the more I read the book the more sense it made,(to me). I don't agree with all of it, for instance,-- I don't think Stride was a Ripper victim,-- I don't think they, Kelly and Barnett, rowed (audibly) on the evening of the 8th, Remember Jon, what the books say, and what Leanne reminds us about,--- Barnett would go out and leave her to row with herself. He took everything she had to say that evening in silence, then walked out back to his lodgings in a daze, his mind in a whirl. The next time he appeared in that room,--at around 3:45 or 4:00am Mary was asleep, and the first she knew that he was there was when he made some noise approaching the bed, in the dark, and she managed to scream out "Oh
murder". So to my way of looking at things, there was no argument or shouting when he returned, on the morning of the 9th. Jon, I can understand you having no suspect, you are looking for hard cold
facts where I don't think any will ever be found. Who could be the most likely candidate for killer of Kelly?--BARNETT,- why? - because she had been fed up with his presence for some time. She had two men almost asking her how high they should jump to please her. She had been treating Barnett like rubbish and taking him for everything he had. She was taking also from Fleming. If there was more than one Ripper,I'd say it was the two Joe's,---I'mjoking. What is the likelihood of Barnett being handy with a knife?. I'd say most Eastenders were handy with a knife,--or a cosh,-or something, taking into consideration the area they lived and worked in. Barnett's criminal back ground,-- I'm sure he had his share of misdemeanors, I'd say most if not all, female as well as male, had criminal records, if the police could only have known. But the police weren't good enough to know, the force was only 60yrs old, thats no time! and what happened in W/chapel and such eastend places didn't matter. Look at the crimes unsolved that had happened within a few months,--Pinchin St, Ada Wilson,Emma Smith, Tabram,the Ripper victims, Alice Mckenzie ,Frances Coles,--NONE SOLVED, I think the police of the E/end were useless or held back by Authority. No, I don't think Barnett was necessarily sacked for stealing, it could have been for fighting. I don't think he would have left the job voluntarily and why lay-off a worker with 10yrs experience?. It may seem a lot of maybe's and perhapses,-- but there are so many. And Jon, I think thats all you are going to get, you will never get cold hard facts on who JtR was.
I think Barnett is a much better bet than Bertie, Druit, Cohen/Kosminsky, Gull or any of those, but as Graziano says, my opinion.
Regards Rick.
P.S. Jon if, as you say, some are prepared to accept Barnett as the killer of Kelly, taking into account what was done to Kelly's body, don't you think if Barnett did what was done to Kelly, he must have done what was done to the previous victims?. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 02:42 pm | | Rick
you ask...
"why lay-off a worker with 10yrs experience?"
Well, speaking from experience, the longest serving workers usually are the highest paid, therefore when the economy takes a downturn they are let go. Afterall, what experience do you need to carry box's of fish?.
Yes, I agree, the case for Barnett killing only Kelly can be proposed more logically than it can for him being Jack. I've agreed with that before, but others have also pointed out that he simply may have inadvertently killed her, by accident, then realizing his predicament commenced to slicing her up in Ripper fashion, overdoing it in consequence. Knowing the crime would be attributed to Jack.
It's been suggested, but not taken up seriously.
Regards, Jon
P.S., I know my expectations are high as regards evidence, its a fault of mine, but I take it seriously enough to keep my focus on track, trying to view the evidence as the police might do. Not as an author might in trying to sell a book to make a buck ($$$). |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 07:07 pm | | G'day,
I'm sorry Viper, you did mention the 'new system' of licensing for porters. Paley adds that this was a 1878 bylaw, introduced by the 'Corporation of the City of London'.
Rick: It was the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' that first caused me to be intrested in Jack. When I was convinced this was trash, I thought of the next book that deserved a closer look - enter Bruce Paley! Like you, I found it made more sense, the more I read it! I agree that it is reasonable to assume that he returned to her/his old room early the next morning.
You're right in saying that police were not good enough to keep accurate criminal records at the time. I've studied the early history of policing for 'Ripperoo', and in the early part of the nieteenth century there were half a dozen men with public spirit running around London.
JON: you say that it is more logical to believe that Barnett killed Mary 'by accident', then sliced her up to make it look like Jacks work. If he did kill her, don't you see that he could have had a 'dark-side' that no one knew about? If he really, really loved her, how hard would it be to make mince-meat out of his mistake?
Leanne |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 07:14 pm | | G'day,
Right now I am looking closely at the Mary Ann Nichols murder, and notice that it happened on the same night as the fires at London Docks. Shadwell Dry Docks was there wasn't it? This was Billingsgate's rival fish market! With the amount of excitement and the crowds that were attracted, I'd say there was a good chance Nichols was attracted to the scene, as she was confident of getting her doss money for the night!
Leanne |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 09:06 pm | | Pardon Leanne?, steady on, did I say what?
I said that it was more logical to believe Barnett responsible for killing Kelly, only Kelly........thats all I said.
I followed that by pointing out that SOME have suggested that it could have been by accident.....
As for the dock fire, yes, Shadwell went up the same night as Nichols murder, did you not read about John Pizer's alibi, he claimed to have been at the docks that night watching the fire.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 09:11 pm | | Hello Leanne,
thanks for the supportive post. With you and Harry I do well for backing from your part of the world. That was nice of Bruce Paley to get in touch with you Leanne, I bet that gave your ego quite a boost. You should have printed out his Email.He can send me an Email any time and boost my ego, I wish him well, whatever he's writing about. As you say Leanne, I think Barnett should be a top of the list suspect, but thats yours and my opinion,
-- Jon and his fellow viewpointers aren't going to change, I think neither are we, I think we shall just have to agree to differ.
Best wishes, Rick |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 09:39 pm | | Rick / Leanne
I wondered, for what its worth, if any of you have read 'The Stranger beside me', by Ann Rule.
Basically it is about the nice pleasant young man who worked beside her in a Seattle crisis clinic in 1971. Ann Rule was later a policewoman tracking down a brutal murderer, little did she know that the 'Ted' she was hunting was the same handsome, magnetic personality with a double life that she knew so well from her past.
"Who would think that nice young man......"
With our pleasant mild mannered Joe Barnett in mind, I will leave your thoughts to digest
|
Author: Steve Hellerstedt
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 10:44 pm | | Is the argument here "Joseph Barnett was Jack the Ripper and killed Mary Kelly?" If Barnett killed her I don't believe it was a Ripper murder.
Is it totally unreasonable to suspect that another woman was killed, by Barnett, for whatever reason? Barnett may have made it look like a ripper murder to disguise the identity of both the victim and the perpetrator. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 12:41 am | | G'day Steve,
Yes it is totally unreasonable to suspect another woman was killed. We argued and argued about that, years ago and those who believed it was really Mary Jane won the argument.
The body was not only identified by Joe, but also her landlord!
Leanne |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 05:09 am | | Mornin Jon,
if I've got your gist correctly you are playing "devil's advocate" again,. You are saying what Barnett could have been like! if he had been the Ripper, I'd say thank you,-- thats very fair of you. I haven't read the book, anything I happen to know on serial killers, (apart from the Ripper), is what I've seen on T/V.
Regards Rick,
P.S. I think you would agree Jon, that a killer doesn't need an earth shaking reason to turn that way, a lot of times a small stupid thing is suffice. |
|
|
|
|
