Archive through April 10, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through April 10, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Barnett, Joseph: Archive through April 10, 2000

Author: Wolf. Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 02:28 am
Jon, Barnett was dissmissed from his market porters job and was only able to receive a new licence several years later (I don't recall the exact time span but it might have been close to 20 years later.) Wolf.
Author: Leanne Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 08:31 am
G'day Jon, I've been considering the questions you asked, regarding Barnetts job loss. I agree that Bruce didn't provide some answers and I disagree with one of his conclusions. He tells how Barnett had been working at Billingsgate for over ten years and believes that he had to be dismissed for serious reasons. Market bylaws give the prime causes of dismissal as theft, drunkeness and abusive language and behavior. Lesser infractions were dealt with by fines and suspension. Paley says 'it would seem out of character for Barnett to have got drunk at work' and concludes that it was most likely for theft. He believes that Barnett had been regularly smuggling fish out of the market, until he got caught. But wait: He'd been there so long, so why did it take so long for them to catch him? He met Mary Kelly in August of 1887, and if he'd only been pinching fish for 12 months, that's still a long time to get away with it. I remember another poster asking once: 'Why would Barnett risk losing his job, when he was priviledged to earn such a good wage? Kelly often went out drinking with her friends, without Barnett, who had to get up for work at 4am, to support her habit. Paley points out that Julia Venturney, observed "but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone". I wonder where he went? and on what nights exactly did he go out? Paley gives the source for this inquest statement as the 'Standard' and unfortunately I've only seen that of the 'Daily Telegraph', which only has 8 lines of her statement. Writers and editors chose to omit what they considered to be unimportant. Barnett was given a new porters licence at Billingsgate in 1906. He never married but is listed as having a common law wife, in the 1919 electrol rolls. There are no records of any children. Leanne!
Author: Robert Brogan Monday, 06 March 2000 - 03:55 pm
I agree that it is not likely that Joe was JTR, but that he is a very good bet for killing Mary Kelly. Could Joe have gone to her lodgings that night for one final try at reconciliation, perhaps bringing her a gift of some articles of clothing? Things do not go as he plans and an arguement ensues, one in which she reveals she is pregnant with another mans child. Joe in a fit of rage, kills Mary Kelly, then quickly realises that he is going to be the number one suspect. Joe then decides to make the killing LOOK like a Ripper murder, and proceeds to mutilate the body. Only Joe, does not know what the Ripper victims looked like when found, only what he has seen in press accounts and heard through popular gossip, and over mutilates the body according to what he envisions a Ripper killing to look like. He then burns the clothes he had brought for her, and in a final moment of rage at her having carried another mans child, sticks her hand in her stomach. He then leaves and locks the door behind him, hoping that the police will pin this one on Jack, which of course they did. I am sure this theory is not original, but I am new to this, and apoligise in advance if this is wasting your time.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Monday, 06 March 2000 - 10:55 pm
Robert, welcome to the boards. I have to say that you would only be wasting anybodies time if you were bent on trying to prove bogus, long disproved Masonic conspiracy theories (either that or the "Diary"). Having said that, there is no substantial evidence that anyone other than the Ripper killed Mary Kelly. The clothes that were burnt in the grate were more than likely those left in the room by Maria Harvey who stated at the inquest: "I left some clothes in the room. Two mens shirts. One boys shirt. An overcoat, a black one, a mans. A black crape bonnet with black strings... One little child's white petticoat." This, therefor is the explanation for where the burnt clothes came from, not from Joe Barnett. There is no evidence that Mary Kelly was pregnant at the time of her death. Dr. Bond's detailed autopsy notes make no mention of the fact and her uterus was examined, (it was found under her head and was not taken by the Ripper although her heart was. What would Barnett do with her heart once he got back to the common lodging house where he was living?) The newspapers were filled with descriptions of the mutilations of the Ripper's victims and all Barnett would have to do in order to fake a Ripper murder would be to cut her throat, that's how whoever murdered Elizabeth Stride got away with it. One has only to look at the picture of Mary Kelly to realize that this was the work of a seriously deranged psychopath and not some sort of copy cat killer or the victim of a Masonic conspiracy. A couple of stabs to the throat and a few gashes to the stomach were all that were needed to lead Dr. Bond to the belief that Alice McKenzie was a Ripper victim and the overkill exhibited with Kelly goes far beyond obfuscation (her throat was cut viciously, "...right down to the vertebrae, the 5th and 6th being deeply notched.") Finally, The Ripper did not stick Mary Kelly's hand in her stomach although there was a witness report in one of the newspapers stating that he had. A quick look at either of the two existing photographs shows her hand merely resting on her stomach, a fact given in Dr. Bond's report: "The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle & lying across the abdomen." Wolf.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 05:44 am
Robert , you might like to read a book by a fellow poster on these boards called Bob Hinton , the book is called " From Hell..." and names George Hutchinson as the suspect. Your theory would also fit George quite well I think.
Author: Jim Leen Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 12:09 pm
Hello Robert, I also have a sneaking suspicion that Joe Barnett, in a rage of passion or drunkenness, killed Mary Kelly. As to the brutality of the killing, I know of a situation where a father savagely killed his own son almost decapitating the body. Now, it may be interesting to note that the father was a butcher. That the prosecution had forty witnesses at the trial. And significantly, the father had no recollection whatsoever of the incident. I think if some connection between Hutchinson and Barnett could be found, were they friends or relatives for instance, a lot of ground could be swiftly cleared. Thanking you etc. Rabbi Leen
Author: lee donovan Friday, 31 March 2000 - 07:53 am
Rabbi If Joe Barnett was drunken when he supposedley killed Mary Kelly then surely he would not have had the strength due to his body being supple due to the drink. If he was drunk, then surely he would not have been able to stand up straight let alone mutilate poor Mary. Lee
Author: Neal Glass Friday, 31 March 2000 - 02:27 pm
Uh, hello people. Neal Glass here. I have glanced at the board and see that it has, well, quite a lot of personality to it. Maybe so much so that a serious question maybe isn't in the spirit of the thing. Incidentally, Lee--not that it is my main interest--but if you have ever been in a brawl with a drunk you would find that his strength is not exactly sapped because he is liquored up. Hardly. Anyone who has taken on a real drunk knows it is often the opposite. It just depends on how inebriated the person is and how angry and worked up. Drunks who are easy to deck are just all mouth and not knowing what they are saying and don't see the boot headed directly for their face as they go down to the count--not that I ever made a career of getting into those kinds of friendly conversations one way or another, least of all these days in my gracious maturity. And please re-consider the rabbi's point in the light of the fact of the rampant alcoholism of that time and place and the incredible tolerance levels for alcoholic consumption. A person could be very drunk and equally very dangerous in that neighborhood. The Martha Tabram murder was assumed to have involved strong drink simply because it had been so brutal a killing. But if I could get to my own issue: I am trying to get to the bottom of something mentioned in Rumbelow's old book. Barnett is supposed to have told the police that Mary Kelly was pregnant? This is not in the newer books these days, so what became of it? Was Rumbelow found to simply be in error in his sources? Or is it the questionable logic of so butchered a body showing no sign of having been pregnant? The Mary Kelly murder stands out. I'm just really conscientiously trying to get to the bottom of it and refuse to offer a nude photo to be counted in. Sorry. Not on the first date . . . Neal
Author: Neal Glass Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 11:48 pm
This board seems to have died. I have long since been adequately aprized of the pregnancy issue. And bid you farewell. And I was just kidding about the nude thing, right? I mean I like girls like most of you. I mean I like girls like I think most of you do, and even if you don't I'm from California, so it's okay. Go back to talking about whatever it was. Your suspect holds no great interest, and I'll never tell about what goes on on this board. Your secret is safe with me. So long, Neal
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 07:12 am
G'day Fellas, What makes you all think that Barnett had to be drunk to kill Kelly? He disliked women in general, because of his mother and was probably impotent, so no baby could've been his. (He never did have any chidren). Kelly could have lied about being pregnant, to get rid of him, hense he mentioned this once to police. Then her autopsy proved that she wasn't. WOLF: What would Barnett do with her heart? What did the Ripper do with his other trophies and where did he hide his knife? Joseph Barnett didn't just copy the Ripper, he was the Ripper! Leanne
Author: Julian Rosenthal Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 10:46 pm
G'day Lea, Neal, Rabbi, Lee, everyone. Sorry Lea but if Joe disliked women so much why did he enter into a relationship with Mary just a few days after meeting her and then spending the next 18 months or so in a loving and caring relationship with her (apart from the occasional pissed punch up). We don't have any proof that he disliked his mother or that he was impotent. Back to you mate. Jules
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 05:09 am
Nice one Jules ! Remember how Joe and Mary met , it is probable he engaged her services as a prostitute on the Good Friday. Meeting again the next day they decided to live together, this suggests the relationship fulfilled Joe's needs as well as Mary's. If Joe had been impotent then I don't think Mary would have stayed with him as long as she did , or he with her. Joe's father had died when he was about six and his mother abandoned the kids to look after themselves. Thus Joe had a reason to dislike his mother , but there is no proof that he did. It seems stupid to assume that because of this he would start ripping up whores at age 30. Joe definitely didn't dislike women anyway , he loved Mary and he kept giving her money after they had split up. Killing Polly Nichols et al wasn't going to get her back or get her off the game : Mary had been a prostitute for years before Joe met her and he was smart enough to know that he wasn't going to change her. In any case , how did Joe stop killing , serial killers can't just stop like that. As a sensitive man how did he handle the guilt ? How did he deal with what he had done ?
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 05:24 am
Forget the Diary , the case against Joe Barnett appears to be little more than pure speculation : what is the hard evidence against Joe himself ? He ' fits ' the Profile ( hmmm ) - so would many others in Victorian England. He knew the East End - so did many others. He cut up fish - so did his brothers. He had a speech impediment - oh horror ! Psychics believe he did it - well Mrs Ball is a nice lady but purrlease ! Come on Barnettians , give us some hard facts about your suspect. Prove he could have been a mass murderer.
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 07 April 2000 - 05:20 am
G'day Jules and Simon, OK OK 'impotent' was a bad word to use! I recently read it in the book you lent me Jules, the 'Pscycho' one. I don't think we should eliminate Barnett yet as a suspect. Kelly was quickly tiring of him. She only 'got' with Barnett, because he used to spoil her with gifts. She confessed this to her friend: Julia Venturney, when she said that she was miserable, could not bear him and apparently had another lover. (see Venturneys inquest statement). She also said that Barnett "would not live with her, while she led that course of life" (prostitution). He lost his well-paying job and his ability to shower her with gifts. Kelly's concern and terror with the earlier unsolved murder cases and attacks, was the only thing that kept her clinging to him for 'security'. Leanne!
Author: The Viper Friday, 07 April 2000 - 05:52 am
Leanne, Twice in your your last poste, and in some previous ones, you talk of Barnett showering MJK with gifts. The landlord would have owned the furniture, so what are we left with? A set of clothes; a few pots and plates; some ginger beer bottles and a candle in a broken glass seem to have constituted Mary Jane's entire earthly possessions. There are no reports of any pawn tickets to suggest that other goods had been 'popped'. So what gifts were these? Given the miserable, barren state of 13 Miller's Court when Kelly's body was found, where is the evidence that these gifts ever existed? Regards, V.
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 07 April 2000 - 06:36 am
G'day, Barnett spoiled Kelly with gifts: 'such as meat, and other things, as my hard earnings would allow'(inquest-'Standard'). According to Julia Vanturney, Barnett often gave Kelly money as well, (inquest-Coroner's files). He probably did this to support her drinking habit and to keep her 'off the streets'. LEANNE!
Author: The Viper Friday, 07 April 2000 - 10:15 am
Leanne, At the inquest, Julia Venturney�s testimony is recorded as �Joe Barnett would not let her go on the streets. Deceased said she was fond of another man named Joe who used to come and see her and give her money.� In her statement dated 9th November, Julia Venturney said �I knew the man who I saw down stairs (Joe Barnett). he is called Joe, he lived with her until quite recently. I have heard him say that he did not like her going out on the streets, he frequently gave her money, he was very kind to her, he said he would not live with her while she led that course of life�. The punctuation of these notes seems strange and sparse. There are few full stops. Is it therefore reasonable to read Venturney�s statement as though she is claiming that Barnett gave MJK money, or should it be read as though Barnett himself was claiming to have done so? If Venturney is giving her own view, it is slightly at odds with the inquest paper. In Barnett�s own words, he certainly claimed to give Kelly money. The last time he saw her, he left only after apologising that he had no money to give her. In their economic circumstances, Barnett had previously given Kelly money that she (and formerly they as a couple) required for day-to-day expenses. This may have been (and probably was) largely wasted by Kelly on booze. On both of these points I think we agree, Leanne. But given we accept that the money was intended to pay for necessities like food and rent, to consider that Barnett�s actions amounted to �showering Kelly with gifts� is surely an overstatement of the reality. Regards, V.
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 09 April 2000 - 09:49 am
G'day Viper, Barnett: 'One minute rowing and for days and weeks always friendly. Often I bought her things coming home and whatever it was she always liked it. She was always glad of my fetching her such articles as meat and other things, as my hard earnings would allow.' (Barnett/Inquest 'Standard') In this statement, Barnett doesn't mention "money", but the fact is he was trying to persuade her to stay with him for financial support. He had Joseph Flemming to compete with and Mary: "couldn't bear him". At her inquest he was trying to hide or 'play-down' Kelly's drinking and prostitution and even contradicted himself, a few times. Leanne!
Author: The Viper Sunday, 09 April 2000 - 11:08 am
Leanne, I haven�t seen the �Standard� and can make no comment on its contents. I have seen only a small number of the newspaper reports, but don�t recall reading anything similar in the others. There is no record in the inquest papers of 'presents' - meat or otherwise. Nor is there in Barnett�s statement. However, his statement does say "� when in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution, I resolved on leaving her, but I was friendly with her and called to see her between seven and eight p.m. Thursday (8th) and told her I was very sorry I had no work and that I could not give her any money." The transcript of the Inquest records Barnett's evidence as "� I last saw her between 7:30 and 7:45 the night of Thursday before she was found, I was with her about one hour, we were on friendly terms I told her when I left her I had no work and had nothing to give her of which I was very sorry�". (Taken From: 'Inquest of Marie Jeanette Kelly 1888', London Metropolitan Archives, ref: MJ/SPC/NE/376/1-11) Regards, V.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 10 April 2000 - 08:38 am
G'day Vipe, Writers and editors of all the various newspapers, chose to omit what they considered to be inconsequential details, at the time. Barnett told 'Lloyds Newspaper, (11th of November), that he and Kelly were evicted from their room in Paternoster Row for "going on a drunk instead of paying their rent." The 'Daily Telegraph' reports that at her inquest he answered the Coroners question: "Did you drink together?" with "No sir, she was quite sober". Julia Venturney said: "Deceased often got drunk". So either she's lying, he's lying or Barnett didn't spend a great deal of time at home, in the 'love-nest'. On the 10th of November, McCarthy told 'The Star': "[Kelly's] habits were irregular and she often came home at night the worse for drink". Leanne!