|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 03 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through 03 January 2002
Author: Jon
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 10:07 am |        | Correct Rick 
You sussed me out, yes, in a round about way I am saying that regardless of whether Joe Barnett really was the Ripper the only way we can reasonably judge him is to find out more about him. We can only judge him on what we know, and what we know is not enough to accuse him of these crimes. Which is why I defend him so vigorously, give us the meat & we'll 'hang 'im high', but if you can't come up with the goods quit accusing him.
This is far from saying he could not have been JtR, he could, as could hundreds of others, but based on what has been presented....he cannot.
Regards, Jon
Devils Advocate |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 06:44 am | | G'day,
Yes it is extremely dificult trying to accuse a man we know so little about. Barnett wasn't specific about his new places of work, after Billingsgate.
I am reading through that book that contains actual police files and feel that the only safe place for the killer to have fled unnoticed after the murders, was his place of work:
AROUND BUCKS ROW THERE WAS:
Mrs. Greens wharf at Sneider's Factory,
The Great Eastern Wharf,
The Slaughterhouse in Winthorp Street,
or Essex Wharf.
There are alot of police reports in this book about various suspects that were dobbed in by friends and neighbours for suspicious behaviour. One may have been Jack, (the police dismissed them quickly), while most were innocent........"SLANDER!"
I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a long hard look at Barnett as a possible Jack!
Leanne |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 06:30 am | | Trouble is Leanne, we've had a tediously "long hard look" and found nothing to implicate Barnett beyond coincidence, rumour, gossip and 'what-ifs' based on assuming the worst case scenario for all his actions. That's despite two full-length books and over 520 postes (almost double the number of any other suspect) here on the boards, where Barnettians such as yourself regularly keep his name to the fore. We go over the same old points, but nothing new emerges from the discussion. What's really needed here is some new evidence, as Jon hinted in his 12th August, 10:27 a.m. communication. Is there any new research taking place into Barnett, I wonder? What else could be looked into - anyone got any ideas?
Regards, V. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 05:57 pm | | G'day Viper,
I wish we knew more about Barnett's labouring jobs and his life after Mary Kelly's inquest! Paley reasearched the guy heaps, and when he came across 'blanks', he filled them with his assumptions, people recognized them as assumptions and because of this they think that the guy's totally innocent!
I am reading at the moment from the book containing actual police files, getting a great 'feel' of the confusion and atmosphere at the time and considering each contemporary suspect. The police were very quick to eliminate suspects and I feel sometimes they were too quick. I'll read through what I've read so far, and give you some examples later!
About Barnett, let me say this: He looks like just another one of these suspicious people who was dismissed too soon, but his close association with one of the victims, gives him more of a head-start I feel!
Leanne! |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 09:31 am | | Barnett, to me, always seemed an intriguing suspect. While I don't think he was JTR, he makes a LOT more sense than, say, Kosminski or The Royals.
1.) He knew the area intimately
2.) His background seems the type that lends itself to dysfunction.
3.) He was well known, and therefore, blended into the area without a second glance.
My problem with him seems to be his lack of medical training. I know this has been hotly debated elsewhere (and I don't want to start another one ... yet!) but I cannot shake the gut feeling ol' Jacky, while perhaps not a surgeon, was definitely a cut above (sorry) your average Whitechapel laborer.
Many people have explained Barnett's skills as a fish porter to explain the wounds on the victims. All I can add to that is, I have fished for many years, and gutting fish is not rocket science. I have gutted many a fish, and it all is really rather simple. However, I couldn't take the same filet knife and extract a human kidney from the front, in low light, without damaging other organs. In fact, I wouldn't know where to look. And neither would the majority of working Joes in that area.
Does anyone have any evidence of Mr. Barnett perhaps attaining a better education, or some evidence of higher intelligence?
While I certainly would not eliminate him as a suspect, I just don't feel he is JTR. Of course, this is all intuitive on my part, and just my opinion.
Michael |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 10:02 am | | But very level headed intuition Michael.
Not to mention there is no reason to suppose a fish porter would fillet fish, he carried box's and moved them around on a cart. This suggestion that he MAY have filleted fish is another blatent attempt (not on your part) to bring him closer to the murders.
Your points 1,2,3, above can also apply to a large portion of the local male population between 16 & 60.
Regards, Jon
(I would not argue that the real Jack would not have been someone much different to Barnett, a little different but not much, but as Barnett has been singled out by name I think it is required that they come up with the goods or accept he is only marginal, with thousands of others.) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 06:35 pm | | G'day,
Barnett certainly knew the East End intimately. He was born there and Paley found that by 1888, he had lived near all of the murder sites.
If he was at first a customer of Kelly's, then he probably had used prostitutes before and may have been known to them.
Hey I don't think Jack was a surgeon, who cut into living people. I believe he was more likely a mortuary assistant at some stage, because all of his victims were dead before he sliced them. Maybe his motives involved a bit of work frustration.
After Barnett's father died, his eldest brother became the family bread-winner and ensured that all the other kids finished their schooling. He was more intelligent than many of his peers.
Leanne |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 06:26 am | | Hello Leanne,
since I have some time....,
a curiosity, but I am really interested in that, where do Mary Jane and Joseph put all their clothes in this tiny room ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 07:47 am | | Hello Leanne,
and the shoes, the dishes, the soaps, the sheets, the food, the drinks and all the other personal affairs that you always have, even if you are very poor, because you need them in your basic everyday s life ?
Such a tiny room and such a poor furniture.
Every idea is wellcome.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 08:56 am | | Graziano
Allow me to clarify.
Some of the itmes you list would be regarded as a luxury to many.
The only shoes they owned were what they had on their feet, dishes are an item that would have been porned immediately, I don't see Kelly having any dishes. Soap was available at common lodging-houses but was a barganing item so was precious. Anyone with soap but no money would have traded it for food (or drink).
They had no food in their rooms, they lived literally from hand to mouth......the clothes they owned are what was on their person.
There are some pretty good books and articles on the social life-style of the poorest Eastenders, you should look up some of these articles, it will be an eyeopener.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 10:44 am | | "After Barnett's father died, his eldest brother became the
family bread-winner and ensured that all the other kids
finished their schooling. He was more intelligent than many
of his peers."
How do we know this? |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 01:00 pm | | Hello Jon,
thank you for the advice.
I will.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 18 August 2001 - 10:09 am | | G'day,
In March 1869 the eldest Barnett brother Denis, married Mary Ann Garrett and moved to Bermondsey. (marriage certificate). The second eldest boy was Daniel who started work at Billingsgate Market, while his two younger brothers Joseph and John finished their schooling. (Guildhall London).
In 1870 the 'Education Act' made it compulsory for all children in Britain between the ages of 5 and 13 to attend school. Joseph was 12, John was 8 and Catherine Barnett was 17.
Mary's possessions according to the 'Pall Mall Gazette': 'were a couple of engravings including "The Fisherman's Widow", and a few bits of pottery, some ginger beer bottles and a bit of bread on a plate'. The furniture which consisted of a bed, 2 chairs, a table and a disused washstand, all belonged to landlord McCarthy.
Let me quote from this new book 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion', which contains an early press report of the Kelly murder: 'Dorset-street is made up principally of common lodging-houses, which provide not less than 600 registered beds. In one of these establishments Annie Chapman, the Hanbury-street victim, lived. Curiously enough, the warehouse at No. 26, now closed by large doors, was until a few weeks ago the nightly resort of poor homeless creatures who went there for shelter. One of these women was Catherine Eddowes, the woman who was murdered in Mitre-square. This book is a must-have!
Leanne! |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 18 August 2001 - 10:41 am | | Leanne
Not that this matters a whole lot but could you clarify a remark you made back on the 16th (above).
"Hey I don't think Jack was a surgeon, who cut into living people. I believe he was more likely a mortuary assistant at some stage, because all of his victims were dead before he sliced them."
How does this fit in with your support of Barnett as Jack?
Thanks, Jon
(could it be you have a little doubt?) |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 18 August 2001 - 01:37 pm | | For interest's sake, here's the family of Dennis Barnett from the 1881 census. He has children. I wonder if his descendents were ever located and informed that their great-grand-uncle was JtR? There's also an Irish aunt.
Dwelling: 5 Goulston's Bdgs
Census Place: Bermondsey, Surrey, England
Source: FHL Film 1341127 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0560 Folio 109 Page 35
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Dennis BARNETT M 33 M Gravesend, Kent, England
Rel: Head
Occ: Fish Porter
Mary A. BARNETT M 32 F Bethnel Gr, Middlesex, England
Rel: Wife
Dennis BARNETT 9 M Bethnel Gr, Middlesex, England
Rel: Son
Occ: Scholar
John BARNETT 6 M Berdsy, Surrey, England
Rel: Son
Occ: Scholar
Mrs. HAYES W 75 F Ireland
Rel: Aunt |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 18 August 2001 - 08:49 pm | | G'day John,
Of course I will always have doubts mate, (everyone should). The book I am reading at the moment, contains actual reports and gives the full factual history of the crimes, as told in the 'Home Office Files' (The ones that were returned anonimously).
It is my opinion I thought I'd add, that the killer they sought was no one of great medical know-how. A doctor's life is spent mending people, while a mortuary assistant works with body parts of a person who is already dead! Even someone who simply sweeps the floor or carries out the trash would have access to or see dead body parts!
I don't care if this adds or subtracts to the 'Barnett was Jack' argument!
Leanne! |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 06:49 am | | Hello to Jon, Peter, Leanne, and Graziano!
I've read on other boards (here and elsewhere) the suggestion that the Ripper could have used a disguise to:
a)conceal his identity
b)inveigle the victims to trust him
c)confuse any witnesses
It came to me recently that while the image of Jack skulking about as some wanna-be master of disguise does not ring true, it is nevertheless just conceivable. For the sake of argument, let's suppose he did in fact use a disguise, i.e., clergy, doctor, woman, or even a simple change of clothes. It follows that if he can adopt a disguise in so cavalier a fashion (since the garment would reasonably be ruined by his efforts) and discard/destroy them, then it also follows that he is a man with some means. I'm not suggesting wealthy or affluent, but certainly a cut above (sorry!) the typical Whitechapel resident. Clothing, and even the basic necessities of life seemed hard to come by to these poor people, and I think they would find it hard to part with them. Of course, he could have stolen the garments, but that enters the realm of pre-meditation and denounces JTR's tenuous status as a primarily disorganized killer. Simply, if he could do all this, he probably wasn't poor. The subsequent implications are obvious. The man Hutchinson described seemed well able to afford any clothes he desired.
I got started on this while reading the above posts re: the possessions of these people.
If I've made no sense, forgive me. It is late and I am for my bed. Feel free to butcher my post as you will!
:-)
Michael |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 09:42 am | | Hi Michael,
Perhaps our man had access to a theatrical wardrobe.
As has been said many times before, we have to be careful if we are going to use Hutchinson's description as evidence of anything at all. My own feeling is that if Hutchinson was hanging around Miller's Court that night, he would have been doing an awful lot of careful thinking when he heard the news about Mary. What if he had seen Jack and Jack had seen him looking? If he immediately went to the police with an accurate description of a man who was indeed the killer, he could be in mortal danger. If he didn't go to the police at all, he could still be in danger - the killer wouldn't know if he had and it was being kept quiet, or if he might go in the future. He could track him down to get revenge or ensure his silence. The best way out of all possible trouble would be to go and give a detailed - but wrong - description - a clear message to the killer that he hadn't grassed and wasn't going to. Criminal yes, but self-preservation would come first.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 08:50 pm | | Caz - It is a nice theory, but given the nature of
the murders, and that final one of Mary's, Barnett
would have been a total fool to lie to the police,
and hope the killer would be willing to accept
his lying as proof that the killer's actual
appearance was safe with him. The killer might
have just as easily concluded (after reading or
hearing Barnett's misdirected description) that
Barnett would still be a potential blackmailer,
or might try to track down the name that went with
the face for some retribution. Barnett's best
bet was to tell the truth to the police, and hope
the description would lead to the stopping of the
killings (and maybe it did - possibly people who
knew the Ripper recognized him from Barnett's
description, and had him locked up, or even put
out of the way).
Jeff |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 05:50 am | | Michael,
I think the murders were the result of a very organised individual,as well as the work of a pre-determined killer.That is not to say that great planning was neccessary before venturing out,but certain essential conditions would have to be considered.Perhaps the first murder was an unplanned and thoughtless affair,but from Nicholls on,there is the suspicion of a crafty and confident person.
Consider from the killers point of view,the essential elements of the crimes.
(1)the type of victim.
(2)Where and when to find them.
(3)The approach and close contact.
(4)The choice of location of where to kill.
(5)The means of killing.
(6)The method of mutilation.
(7)The departure from the crime scene.
(8)The risk of recognition at or near the murder site.
(9)The security of his residence.
There was much to consider,and the fact that he was successful at least five times,shows I think,
much carefull thought and organisation.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 05:51 am | | G'day Caz & Jeff,
I reckon Jack 'dressed-up' his image and had everyone in the neighbourhood think that he was too much of a gentleman! I don't think he needed to have a theatrical wardrobe, but he may have been lucky to possess two sets of clothes with more than one hat. Probably even a set he didn't keep at home!
This would conceal his hidden character and cause the victims to trust him, probably as a regular!
Leanne! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 06:24 am | | Hutchinson, I think you mean, Jeff, not Barnett.
I guess my thoughts were a bit daft - I ran them past hubby after posting them and he thought so too. I assume Hutchinson wasn't tracked down by Jack, as a result of the description he gave, nor Jack ever identified by it. But I do wonder what the killer thought, if and when he read Hutchinson's story. If it was an accurate description, of both Jack and his encounter with Mary, he would either have to change his appearance or lie very low, and hope to God no one would recognise him and come forward - which, as far as we know, no one did. (Although, if he had disguised his appearance for each murder, none of the witness descriptions would have worried him anyway.) But if the description and the story Jack was reading about didn't appear to relate to his own encounter with Mary, would he not have simply sighed with relief, as with previous witness accounts which had failed to hit the spot?
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 06:29 am | | Leanne, don't forget the footwear, probably working boots for daywear, light leather, or possibly rubber soled?, for evenings out and about
Rick |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 06:49 am | | G'day Warwick,
Yeah, he probably had working boots for wearing around the warves and fish markets and at least one other pair to wear out of an evening or at home! 
Leanne! |
Author: graziano
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 07:25 am | | Hello Michael,
I have unfortunately not a lot of time these days to follow through these boards, but as every addicted I do it as soon as I have two seconds.
No time to develop either but, as far as I am concerned, you make one of the best point of all the case: JtR could have disguised to confuse any witness ( I personally add...and the researchers in the posterity ).
This is what I mean:
let us assume that Jack was one.
The night of the double event he had to go from Berner street to Mitre square (quite incredible).
He was seen first by Israel Schwartz (of course some detractors will say that Stride was not a Ripper victim, but that is another story in which I do not believe, it would have been in fact an incredible coincidence, aside from all the other elements, that the same night three women were killed by three different murderers) and then by Lawende.
Schwartz: Aged 30.
Lawende: Aged 30.
Schwartz: 5'7".
Lawende: 5'5". (similar enough)
Schwartz: fair complexion.
Lawende: fair complexion.
Schwartz: brown moustache.
Lawende: small brown moustache.
Schwartz: grey peaked sailor cap.
Lawende: black cap with peak. (It was night and dark so I presume that grey and black make not a big difference).
Lawende: red neckerchief.
Where is this last one coming from ?
Could it be that with all the efforts to be quite similar, there has been a little mistake.
I think Ed should have an idea there.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 07:31 am | | Hello Michael,
of course I entirely agree with all the points made by Harry on his message above.
That's exactly what I think and that's exactly why I think all this work could not have been done by a lonely killer.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 07:53 pm | | | Caz-You are right, I meant Hutchinson. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 06:22 am | | Graziano,
A singular very versatile individual was the killer,able to plan and act as the circumstances dictated.Of course there was the luck element,Bucks Row being deserted,Mitre Square ditto,Hanbury St and Berner St with the vacant yards,and Kelly alone in her small room.Yet it was these advantages that he so ably put to use,and only in the last situation might it reasonably be thought that he could have had prior knowledge of the conditions prevailing.
He was as much at home in the district as the victims he sought,and a Barnet or Hutchinson type is my idea of the killer.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 07:15 am | | Hello Harry,
once again I must agree with you when you say " he was as much at home in the district as the victims he sought".
I would be interested in knowing what you think about the red neckerchief I mentioned in a message above (seen by Lawende 45 minutes later but not by Schwartz on a very similar suspect).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 09:08 am | | G'day,
In his book Bruce Paley tells that the 'Daily Telegraph' on the 13th of November, mentions that a man and woman were seen by two persons in the adjoining Orange Market about ten minutes before the discovery of Catharine Eddowes's body in Mitre Square. Their description was of a man of about 30, with a fair complexion and fair moustache. He also points out how this description fits Joseph Barnett!
Leanne! |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 12:26 pm | | Hello Leanne,
OK. Let us say that the man seen by Schwartz and then by Lawende was Joseph Barnett.
Why did he put on a red neckerchief in going from Dutfield's yard to Mitre square ?
The wetter was getting colder ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 26 August 2001 - 06:15 am | | G'day,
What about the man George Hutchinson saw with Mary Jane Kelly? The man looked at him stern, as if to say "Don't come too close!"
He was described as Jewish looking, Aged 34 or 35, dark hair, pale complexion, 5ft 6ins. He gave Mary his RED HANDKERCHIEF!
Could our fair haired, 30 year old man have disguised himself a little - not so much to confuse eyewitnesses, but so that Kelly wouldn't immediately reject him? Maybe he didn't mean to kill her but he just lost his cool!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 26 August 2001 - 06:44 am | | G'day Graziano,
Maybe the RED neckerchief was part of a disguise (a RED anything, stands out to an observer). That would suggest that Stride's murder wasn't planned as much as Catharine's.
I've always thought that Elizabeth Stride may have tried to blackmail Jack or something!
Leanne! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 26 August 2001 - 10:41 am | | Dear Leanne,
The early twentieth century expert on Criminology,
Hans Gross, describes the 'criminal mind'in its disguise-mode thus: invariably, the criminal performs the act of disguise prior to the criminal act and often he/she is seen to leave the scene of the crime as themselves -devoid of disguise.
I suppose the real trick of criminal disguise is to assess the need for disguise prior to the criminal act, during the act, or after the act...
the criminal with some degree of foresight would
take account of all eventualities. As such, he is able to influence the criminal investigator's perceptions of the criminal event to some degree.
One appear as many. Many appear as one.Sufficient confusion ensues!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 28 August 2001 - 03:42 am | | Red neckerchief, hanky, red-stoned seal at night, Jack's delight. Red shawl in the morning, Maxwell's warning? Or are all clues relating to the red stuff but red herrings?
Doesn't the colour red tend to look rather grey at night, by the way? I don't know what gaslight would do to it though.
How did Lawende and Hutchinson so clearly see red? Perhaps the light was too poor where Schwartz and suspect were located.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 28 August 2001 - 04:58 am | | Dear Caroline,
I always thought gas-light threw off a greenish
hue. Fanny by gas-light would have looked a ghastly green...no wonder Superman swooned!
Were these witnesses wearing special tinted spectacles...
Rosey :-) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 28 August 2001 - 06:27 am | | G'day ladies,
This book in front of me is 'The Ultimate JtR Companion' and a newspaper report contained in the Home Office Files states of Dorset Street: 'The street is fairly lighted, and, late at night especially, is pretty well frequented'.
Does this help draw a picture?
Leanne! |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 28 August 2001 - 09:44 am | | Hello Caz, Rosey, Leanne,
good point Leanne for the light in Dorset street.
Let us not forget that it was plenty of lodging houses and that at least some (if not all) very likely had a lamp over the front door.
Then, concerning Hutchinson, there was a lamp inside the court thus putting Mary and Mr Astrakhan between the source of light and the eyes of Hutchinson (eyes that could so profit from the lights coming from all around the couple).
Concerning Schwartz, the killer seems to do all what he can to allow Schwartz to see him better.
First,he pulls the victim on the street (instead of pushing her in the dark passage), then, seeing Schwartz going away, he shouts "Lipsky", thus making the same Schwartz turning back and looking at him again.
Schwartz was quite precise in his description, he would not have missed the neckerchief (red or not).
Concerning Lawende, he goes very near to the couple and the man, incredibly, leaves him all the time he needs to look at his face.
I do not see any liar here.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 04:05 pm | | G'day,
I forget exactly which message board this conversation was on, but it was getting quite interesting.
JESSE: You mentioned how the 'Star' newspaper fabricated the leather Apron scare, to sell more newspapers, but how could any paper benefit by reporting falsely that Mary Jane kelly's body was identified before it was?
Perhaps Joseph Barnett made a positive identification verbally, by peering through the window that morning, but had an official written statement taken at the mortuary. I read that when her body was viewed by the inquest at the mortuary, it was mostly covered with a sheet and all that was visible was her face.
If this is what actually happened Barnett's statement of "ear and eyes" would make more sense because thats probably all he could see.
It has been argued here that he couldn't have said "hair and eyes" because her hair in the bed scene was covered in blood. Others argued that he couldn't have said "ear and eyes" because her ears were partly removed. At the mortuary, all available body parts would have been in place.
Leanne |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 06:36 pm | | G'day,
This appears to be one of the 'missing posts' so I'll repeat it here:
Read the newspaper 'East London Advertiser - 17 November 1888'. It claims that Julia Venturney said that Kelly had told the witness: "Joe has been a good fellow to me. I shall have to leave him." So Mary was going to leave Joe, even though he kept trying to 'win' her over with gifts and money. Wouldn't that have been enough to send him round the bend?
That newspaper report also says that: 'He (Barnett) had seen the body and identified it by the ears and eyes, which were all that could be seen.'. Yes it does sound as if he made his official identification at the mortuary.
Leanne |
|
|
|
|
