|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 26 March 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Why did Jack the Ripper stop?:
Archive through 26 March 2002
Author: Jeff York
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 10:55 pm |        | To my mind, the real question that would lead to the identity of Jack the Ripper would be this one "Why did the murders stop?" Here are three possible reasons:
1.) They caught the guy.
But if the police did catch the Ripper, why didn't they make a big deal out of it? The police were so maligned throughout London, wouldn't they want to exhort their arrest?
Of course, they may not have known they had gotten the guy. A local crazy perhaps, arrested or put away for something else? (Like a David Cohen)
Or maybe the Ripper was someone famous. I could see the police suppressing that kind of story. But I think ultimately, that is unlikely. The police needed to put the public's fears to rest. And salvage their embattled reputation. If they had their man, at some point, even years later, we would've found out.
Plus, even if a David Cohen-type was locked up in the looney bin, why wouldn't the cops examined who they had in custody more closely once the murders stopped. Just because the murders stopped, the investigation would not be over. Quite the opposite. If the murders HAD stopped, the police would've been all the more intense about examining who they had in custody knowing that he could be the Ripper! And they would've wanted the public to know that AND get themselves off the hook.
2.) The Ripper escaped to another country.
This would explain why the murders suddenly stopped in Whitechapel. But wouldn't the police from other country's be on the lookout for similar murders to that of the Ripper? After all, the press coverage trascended countries. And wouldn't Scotland Yard have been checking on leads that would suggest the pattern of killings were starting somewhere else? Of course they would.
After all, this is how the authorities nabbed serial killers Ted Bundy and The Hillside Strangler in the USA. They moved from state to state--and the similar MO's helped the cops identify the killer. In other words, serial killers generally cannot help themselves no matter where they go. And if you know their MO, then you can nab them. I do not believe that the 'calling card' of the Ripper would've been missed no matter what country he ended up in. So this idea isn't all that strong either.
3.) The Ripper stopped killing because he killed the people he needed to kill.
Here's where it gets really interesting. And I think you have your answer. The killer stopped because he killed who he needed to kill. One who achieved all he needed to. This murderer would've been calculating. Not a drooling fanatic. One who had some respectability, control and savvy to be able to lure prostitutes into his confidence. Someone who was motivated to not just kill, but kill in a very public way. A fantastic way. A way that itself speaks to motive.
I believe your best suspect is Joseph Barnett. Here's why:
1.) He had experience as a butcher and could do the job. He would know his way around basic anatomy and know where and how to cut.
2.) He lived in the Whitechapel area. Therefore he knew his way around. And would know the prostitutes and be comfortable talking to them and they with him. The killer had to be able to gain their confidence. No drooling David Cohen psycho would've made any prostitute comfortable!
3.) He wanted to keep Mary Kelly to himself and off the streets. This would certainly explain why he did the killings so publicly and gruesomely. He had to get them noticed and thus scare the bejesus out of Kelly.
4.) His murders were actually swift and calculated. All the awful ripping took place after their deaths. This is NOT the work of a drooling mad man. It is the work of a man who has a reason to make the murders LOOK gruesome. In actuality ,the murders were not gory. It was the aftermath that was.
5.) The murders stopped with the death of Mary Kelly. His plan didn't work. She went back to prostitution and rejected him. This would also explain the 'over-kill.' He either was filled with rage or needed to de-humanize her as so many killers do when murdering people they know (Lizzie Borden, OJ).
6.) Finally, and I think this is most significant--the last murder took place indoors. Why? If Mary Kelly was just another victim, why not kill her on the streets like all the rest? But no, Mary Kelly is butchered indoors. The ripping takes hours. And the door is locked by someone who has a key. This one stands out? And because it does, Kelly must be the true key to it all. This points to the jealous ex.
Joe Barnett. He had the motive, the means, the skills and the apartment key!
He had a reason for doing the killings that stopped when his plan failed. And his final act was to butcher the woman who made it all fall apart. As Agatha Christie once said, "Every murderer is probably somebody's old friend." Or as in most cases of the murder of women, it's an old boyfriend or husband whodunnit! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 09:24 am | | Jeff, what can I say? You have written down the theory I've had for the past number of years.I could'nt alter a thing, nice to know I have a double in thought in the good old U.S.A. Look up some of my past posts, if you are interested!
Best Regards, Rick. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 09:55 am | | Hi Jeff:
You stated that Joe Barnett "had experience as a butcher." But you don't know that. Joe worked as a porter at the Billingsgate fish market. This means basically that he lugged crates of fish around. Did he gut fish? Well, he may have, but we don't know that he did. Besides a porter or even a fish gutter is not the same as a butcher or a slaughterer who would be adept at ripping open and cutting up animal carcases on a constant basis. Perhaps Mr. Ivor Edwards can give you a few tips on that since he himself worked in a slaughter house.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Vila
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 11:54 am | | Wouldn't someone who planned a string of murders to conceal his one personal victim have sense enough to place his target in the middle of the string rather than at the end?
While I agree that Barnett *seems* to be the best suspect for MJK's murder, it doesn't *necessarily* follow that he ever killed anyone else.
I question the Barnett-as-JTR theory for this reason, and others I suppose, but that one is the clearest to my mind.
Dan |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 01:42 pm | | But Chris, what makes any suspect look promising?
How can any of them be classed as "good with a knife". Tumblety was a fraud, good at fooling people, but he wasn't a real doctor, how do we know if he would have known where to cut, or J.K.Steven, Druit, Sickert, Clarence, Churchill, Cohen or any of them. I personally believe only a working class type of man could have committed those murders,-- but a clever one!!, too clever for his "betters" to give him credit for them .
Best Regards Rick. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 02:48 pm | | Hi, Rick:
I agree about Tumblety. He was a pills and potions man and his title of "Doctor" as far as I can see does not indicate he did any cutting. The abortion he was accused of carrying out in Montreal was through the use of drugs, abortifacients. And the matrices or uteruses he was said to have had in his office were window dressing, which he probably purchased rather than cut out himself. I still think though that Tumblety is a very interesting suspect which is why I am working on his U.S. movements following on Stewart Evans's suggestion that the future for Tumblety research may be in the United States. Now just you see if SPE sends me a broadside telling me Dr. T was nifty with a knife. 
Back to Barnett, though: My point is that too many people seem to think it self-evident that he was handy with a knife because he is thought to have gutted fish, but the people who say that don't know for a certainty that he ever gutted a fish in his life. I just think that Joe makes for a very convenient "fall guy" for MJK's murder just as Michael Kidney makes a fall guy for Liz Stride's murder. We know next to nothing about either of these men, although somewhat more about Barnett than Kidney. Nevertheless, there is no evidence whatsoever that either man was a killer.
Best regards
Chris George
PS. Rick, while I have you on the line, I needed to let you know that I have been remiss in not yet cashing the cheque you kindly wrote for the copy of the CD of "Jack--The Musical" that you bought in Bournemouth. I intend to send the cheque to my bank in Liverpool soon though, so I wanted you to be aware of that when you reconcile your chequebook. Thanks for your understanding--things have been rather hectic!!!! |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 02:59 pm | | How did Barnett get away with it ?
Surely he would be under immense scrutiny. One of the last men that was definitely with Mary on the night before her death. The one who would have a good reason for having a key. The one who was suspected at the beginning of the investigation into Kellys murder.
I cannot imagine, looking at situation at that time, the police would let someone like Joe walk away without a thorough investigation of whereabouts on that night.
So if it was Barnett, why can we see it and not the police of 1888 ?
Monty
 |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 03:08 pm | | Hi, Monty:
While I don't think Joe Barnett was the Whitechapel murderer, I can see why he could have been overlooked if he was MJK's killer.... because of the partly media-driven (if not Jack-driven) atmosphere that almost said the killer had to be Jack the Ripper and that there could be no other person responsible for her death. Today in the cold light of the 21st century we can say that there could have been another killer but in the white hot atmosphere of November 1888 it was a different story.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Michael Conlon
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 03:19 pm | | Hi Jeff,
As to point #2, there WERE similar killings in other countries. Contemporary newspapers reported Ripper-like murders in Jamaica and Nicaragua in (I believe) 1889, and the very Ripper-like killing of Carrie Brown in New York in 1891. Speculation was rife that the Ripper was behind these killings and may have been a sailor. I have discovered a potential suspect in a cattle boat slaughterman named Arbie La Bruckman. If you are interested, You can read about him in the Dissertations section of the Casebook in my article "The Ripper in America".
Best regards,
Mike |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 03:24 pm | | Chris,
I can see that too, but I find it hard to believe that the police would have done the same.
I mean they were very close to being bitten over the Pizer affair and an extensive look into Joes business that night, considering that
A) he knew Kelly
B) A motive is there for all to see and
c) The key connection
would, for me, be essential. He would be high on my list from the word go. And I have no reason to believe the police did not do that.
Was he not questioned in connection with her murder ?
Monty
|
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 04:08 pm | | Hi, Monty:
Of course, I don't deny that Joe Barnett underwent questioning, maybe even grilling, in regard to MJK's death, and of course the police would have been pretty stupid not to regard him as a potential suspect. But I do think that the extensive mutilations, following on the mutilations of the other women including the facial mutilations that were a hallmark of the Eddowes murder, along with the persuasive view that the killer's mind might have finally snapped, were ultimately persuasive that this was the same man once again. Remember that Mary Jane Kelly was the fifth of the five canonical victims.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 05:21 pm | | Hello again Chris, No problem with the cheque, thank you for mentioning it. Chris, you and certain others, I have respect for your views, please don't mind me saying,-- your last sentence,-- Never the less, there is no evidence whatsoever that either man, (Barnett and Kidney) was a killer. That could be due to the cleverness of Barnett, and the luck of Kidney,-- I don't think Kidney was a particularly clever man,--a bullying drunkard, yes. But I've always believed that serial killers became serial killers because they didn't appear to be what they were.
In this Jack the Ripper case, where factual evidence is pretty well impossible to come by, you have to use your own personal judgment, the man who satisfies your reasoning in your mind, for me thats Barnett, excuse me saying it please, "he was so good, nobody thinks he did it"
I await Chris
Rick |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 02:30 am | | To me the essential problem with Barnett's candidature as the Ripper is a simple one. He was grilled by detectives for four hours; and it does not take a genius to suppose that their first question was, "Where were you last night?" Had Barnett been unable to answer this question satisfactorily, he would undoubtedly have rocketed to the position of #1 suspect in the eyes of not only the police but the press and public as well. One needs only to remember the elevation of Pizer, and later Isenschmid, to the position of chief suspect, on the basis of almost no evidence at all, to imagine how closely Barnett's story would have been examined. It seems to me that if no one was able to corroborate Barnett's account of his actions on the night of November 8-9, then no amount of clever dissimulation would have been sufficient to keep the CID, desperately eager to make an arrest in the case, from crucifying him with the same circumstantial evidence that is used to blacken his name today.
AAA88 |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 02:51 am | | Hi, Jesse:
You make a good argument for why Joe was not regarded as the killer by the police. To go along with my point about the frenzied atmosphere at the time, you are right that if there was a sniff that Joe was the murderer and if he had no verifiable alibi, the police and the press would have been on to him. Your examples of Pizer and Isenschmidt are well taken in this regard.
Hi Rick:
Thanks for your understanding about the check. I guess in regard to Joe Barnett, we will have to agree to differ. I do think that Jesse makes an excellent point. Yes, Joe may have been too good to be true but the police must have had good reasons for eliminating him from their enquiries.
All the best
Chris
|
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 07:24 am | | Hi Chris, Jesse, Rick, All,
And not only must the police have had good reason for eliminating Joe from their enquiries at the time. They must also have had no good reason to ever again consider the possibilty of his connection with any of the Whitechapel murders, nor for remembering and including him as a favourite suspect in any personal memoirs years later.
I agree with Rick that serial killers don't tend to advertise the fact to those who would stop their little games. For example, Peter Sutcliffe didn't arouse any suspicions when he was just one among hundreds being routinely interviewed by the police. But the circumstances were very different with Joe. Had Sutcliffe killed his wife and been questioned for four hours almost immediately afterwards, I'm not so sure he could have passed with such flying colours, and almost certainly not on a permanent basis like Joe - if he was MJK's killer - evidently did. Some ambitious copper somewhere would surely have started looking into the man's background and watched him from that day forward, waiting and hoping for a clue - unless of course everyone was satisfied that Joe was entirely innocent of any involvement. Is there evidence that Joe was kept under any sort of investigation following his formal elimination?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 08:35 am | | Jesse,
BINGO,
You put forward my point far better than I ever could.
Monty |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 05:39 pm | | G'day,
Why does everyone scratch Barnett from their suspect list because 'he was grilled by detectives for four hours'? He was interviewed by one Inspector Abberline. Newspapers said that Barnett himself claimed that this was for "about four hours".
Barnett told Abberline that he: "was at the lodging house in New Street and was playing whist there until half past twelve when I went to bed".
This statement/alibi was given before Kelly's estimated time-of-death was even determined at her inquest.
After Kelly's body was found, the police took Barnett to the station and: "examined my clothes for bloodstains, (the ones he had on), and finally finding the account of myself to be correct, (see paragraph above for this account), let me go free".
LEANNE! |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 09:53 am | | Hi Leanne,
Quick question for you. How many changes of clothes did Barnett have? I mean most people of the area were TOO poor for any extra set of clothing than those they had on their back. And our friend Mr. Barnett was out of a job for 4 months.(Asides from what few odd jobs he could find. Plus let's remember that the rent for Barnett's and Mary's room hadn't been paid for nearly six weeks.) And it was common practice in Whitechapel for people to sell off any spare pieces of clothing they may have for enough money for a doss or some food.(Catherine Eddowes sold her man Kelly's boots for enough money for tea, food, and a doss.) So did Barnett even have another set of clothing that he could have changed into?(Eventhough this may not even matter, since it is quite possible that Jack didn't get blood on his clothing, even with the massacre of Mary Kelly.)
Me just stirring the pot as usual. 
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 10:30 am | | Leanne,
I do not scratch him from my list. I just cannot see why Abberline and Co would let him toddle off unless they had a bloody good reason too.
Your points about how long Barnett was interviewed, what time he went to bed and the search for bloodstains are lost on me, (Im a very slow Pom) but they seem decent reasons, though not major reasons, for scratching him off the list.
Surely the police would have checked out every word. Do you have any reason to think otherwise ?
Monty
|
Author: jennifer pegg
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 12:48 pm | | could the reason he was let off be that he had an alibi for the other murders though (not saying he did it), but the reason for the police not suspecting him could be this could it not?
jp |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 01:07 pm | | Jennifer,
Good thinking. There was obviously something for them to give up on such a very obvious suspect for Kelly.
Obviously obvious Monty,
|
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 06:16 pm | | G'day,
Barnett told 'Lloyds Newspaper', 11 Nov that the police interviewed him for: "about four hours". Speaking to the 'Star' he said the police had kept him for two and a half hours.
The 'Daily Telegraph' gave Barnetts alibi of playing whist etc.
Barnett's name would just have to have been on the records at Bullers. If he had an alibi for the other murders, what would you consider a watertight alibi? If he was staying at Millers Court who could verify this for him....Mary Kelly?
MONTY: Before this case arose in 1888, most murders were solved because of some direct relationship between the victim and the killer, with an obvious motive. Jack the Ripper was the first, (or one of the first), apparently motiveless killers. The police had no experience at trying to solve 'serial killer' cases. They would have known much less about killers in general - about little alibi tricks etc. The police today would be much wiser than they were back then!
LEANNE! |
Author: jennifer pegg
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 06:07 am | | | none of this really means that joe barnett was or wasnt the ripper thoiugh does it ? because he could have an alibi none of us know about or it could have been him. or it could have been someone else! |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 10:20 am | | Leanne,
Police today are no wiser than their predecessors, its just that they have the better technology and developed better deducing techinques. You do the 1888 Rosser an injustice.
Also before 1888 most cases were solved because of a direct link between murderer and victim, yep, I'd go along with that. No different from the present really. After all, thats how most murder cases are solved, establishing such links.
The crux is your statement about there being an obvious link. Who would the police feel had that "obivous" link with Mary ? And do you think that they would let such a ideal suspect go unless they had a very good reason to ?
I cannot believe that they would abandon such thinking post the Whitechapel murderer especially when, on his own admission, the victims partner had a very good alibi.
Monty
|
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 02:08 pm | | Dear folks,
Although I actually enjoy the way Mr. Barnett
has been pushed into a primary suspect position
(Rick and Jeff York have brought out some good
points)I think that there is a single problem
that explains why Mary Kelly's murder may have
been the last in the series.
It is simple to imagine committing a murder. If
somebody is asked how to do it, most people would
probably mention poison, knife, strangulation,
guns, etc. The actual details of the process would get vaguer as the person being asked considers it, because most people would get very
squeamish considering it. Now the killer here
is being credited with being considerate - killing
first, and then mutilating. There is no proof of
this. In fact, the killer, by slicing the throat
of the victim first, did more than cut the windpipe. He also cut the vocal chords - litte
screaming resulting. My guess is, horrible as it
is to consider, the victims did feel the horrendous pain of Jack's knife wounds for awhile
before they died. The worst one to imagine in this would be Ms Kelly.
For the sake of my thoughts I am sticking to the
"canonical five" as the victims. As such, I am
of the opinion that the mutilations are becoming
increasingly gruesome with each killing, culminating in the dissection in Miller's Court.
We have all seen those horrible photos of all
the victims, culminating in the pair for poor
Mary Kelly. And here's the question: You have
just reduced a prostitute of 25 or so years to
an unrecognizeable piece of slaughtered meat - how
are you going to top that murder?
I have tried to think of what piece of hideous,
physical cruelty could pop up next from such a
mind as "Jack's". Maybe murdering three women
in a room? Or going after male prostitutes for
a change? Neither done. In both cases the tables
might turn very easily, and in the second (if
Jack was a homosexual) it might go against his
grain. Also, the killing would have to be more
spectacular and horrible than Miller's Court. And
it is hard to imagine one worse.
At one point, I considered Jack might have considered a total reversal of what had been done
before: kill someone in the West End, in broad
daylight, among crowds of people - say an upper
class type like Lily Langtry, who had many socially prominent lovers - while she was riding
in an open carriage. He would have quickly shelved the idea as too dangerous for his safety.
Jack had beaten his twisted mind at Miller's Court. He had topped such crimes in terms of
visual horror, and he knew it. He might, in the
future, still commit similar crimes in England
or abroad, but he could never top November 8/9,
1888. So the murders seem to cease at that point
at time.
Jeff |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 04:42 pm | | G'day Jennifer:
I really don't know who Jack the Ripper was. I haven't got a time-machine. I just don't understand how people can cross his name off their list of suspects because:
* "He loved Mary Kelly and the pair lived comfortably together."
* "Several detectives grilled him for four hours".
* "He had a perfect water-tight alibi".
All of the above reasons came from his own mouth.
In one newspaper police interviewed him for two and a half hours.
LEANNE! |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 05:58 pm | | Hi Leanne,
What does it matter how long Barnett was interviewed? This doesn't give any proof of his guilt or innocence.
I mean let's look at Michael Kidney. He had a previous charge brought against him by Elizabeth Stride. The charge was dropped, when she failed to appear in court against him. However, the charge still remained in the records. So here we have a man KNOWN to have assaulted one of the victims. And we have no evidence that he was EVER interrogated as being a suspect in the crime.(Only asked to give information at the inquest.)
Then on the other hand we have Barnett. Always showering Mary Kelly with presents. She may have treated him like dirt, however no one can corroborate this story. Yet here we have Barnett showering Kelly with gifts, while Kidney is showering Stride with brutal treatment. So if we go by this information then it's even more likely that Kidney killed them than Mary Kelly's man Barnett.
Everyone who has ever brought up why Barnett chose the women he killed either stated, that Mary and the girls had known each other, or since they lived in close proximity to one another then Jack may have known them, or maybe just cause they lived near one another Jack happened to select them from the area.
And the reasons why Barnett supposedly killed these women was because it was his way of keeping Mary Kelly at his side. Well Stride had left Kidney on several occasions, while Mary Kelly hadn't left Barnett since the time they had been together. So an even more likely case against Kidney can be brought up using him with this theory than one could with Barnett's case.
So essentially all the evidence that could be used to point to Barnett in this case could also point towards Kidney being a suspect. This mixed with Kidney's KNOWN assault on Elizabeth Stride, along with Long Liz's leaving him often, as well as the fact that there isn't any evidence that Kidney even had to provide an alibi(much less was interogated as a suspect in the first place) makes him a much more likely suspect. However, I don't see anyone so adamant that Kidney did it. I wonder why that is?
Not saying Kidney did it, nor am I stating that Barnett couldn't have been Jack the Ripper, just saying there's a better case against Kidney than Barnett. 
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 06:41 pm | | Jeff, as a comment on your observation that Jacks knife may have done for the victims and they were not strangled or stifled to death, I agree with you that that could be possible with a couple of them, ( perhaps Annie and Kate?). But an attempt had been made to stifle, strangle, or silence them in some way, the finger mark bruises on their faces proves that. Maybe that was due to some kind of humane feeling on his part, or maybe it was wanting to keep as clear from blood as possible. I think the killings were done for a purely selfish --no feelings reason. With Mary
Kelly I don't think he had any thought of humanism
toward her at all,--he wanted her to feel the knife!. I believe she was asleep when he entered, he woke her accidentally, and she only had time to scream "Oh murder" once and duck under the bedclothes, the situation in the room for Mary must have been terrifying.
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 07:15 pm | | Chris, I believe theres a very good chance that Barnett was the Ripper, and if that means as some think that it's blackening an innocent mans character, then so be it, what about Druit?.As far as comparing Barnett and Kidney and their motives, well, no two men are alike, even killers.
Some men can stand more provocation than others before they strike,-- the sane sensible man walks away.
Rick
I do believe Kidney killed Stride, --There was a Ripper scare on! They were looking for the Ripper,
an odd looking, ghoulish being, -- not two common law husbands |
Author: Michael Leonard Tate
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 01:48 am | | Hi,
Maybe by killing Mary Kelly he completed his goal.
Previously he had tried to perform whatever perverse experiments he had in his head on street walkers in dingy alleys and yards. Having got fed up of poor working conditions and interuptions, he finally concentrated on finding a victim who he could work on in peace and complete his "operation". Maybe he himself was a little nervous about operating outdoors and couldn't resist the tendency to fly at the slightest possibility of being spotted.
We have witness reports close on either side of the murders. We either have to assume that Jack was a master of timing and surgical skill and managed to perform and conclude his gruesome experiment within the (unknown by him) time window offered or we can assume that he was startled away before completing it. If we assume Stride is a victim of Jack, then we know that he mistimed badly there although he might feel unlucky that the passing cart decided to turn into his theatre.
Anyway, by finally plucking up the courage to move indoors he had the time and space to finish the job. I believe the key to the crimes is in deconstructing the brutal attack on Kelly and trying to establish exactly WHAT he was trying to do. If it was just "to find out what people look like inside" then we'll never get close to discovering his identity but if there was more logic behind his knife strokes, we may be able to narrow the field a little.
Mike |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 04:16 am | | G'day Chris,
Boy are you wrong there mate! Paul Harrison and ex-Private Detective Bruce Paley have both written excellent books on Joseph Barnett as a suspect!
After tracing and studying Barnett's life for about 10 years, Bruce Paley found that Barnett lived in the East End his entire life and by 1888, had lived near all the Ripper murder sites.
He lost his well-paying job at Billingsgate fish markets about 2 weeks before Tabrams murder, started finding various jobs around the East End of London and at the same time started losing Mary Kelly's affections to her past lover Joseph Flemming. Mary actually told her best friend Julia Venturney that she was "very fond" of Flemming, but he "often abused Kelly because she cohabitated with Barnett." Flemming continued to visit Mary, giving her money when he could.
Joe Barnett fits some eyewitness reports of the Ripper, being 30 years old at the time and 5ft 7 or 8ins tall with a fair complexion and moustache.
He was known to strongly dislike prostitutes and blamed them for Mary Kelly's 'downfall'. He told her that he: "would not live with her while she led that course of life".
LEANNE! |
Author: Monty
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 08:26 am | | Rick, Leanne,
Druitt topped himself. Murders ceased. Evidence is far more substantial than the supposition that is promoting Barnett as Jack.
Its all based on newspaper reports, words from the man himself or others that are being twisted to fit a motive.
The fact that he lived all his life around Whitechapel is irrelevent. I was there for a month and know every turn. So the point is ?
Eyewitness descriptions can fit 5 or so different suspects. Maybrick, Druitt, Sickert, Prince Eddy, Randolph Churchill, I could carry on.
So you can blacken the poor mans name, you may accept all this newspaper talk and the fact that he was a fish porter (??) as evidence that Barnett was Jack but I think I shall wait for something a bit more concrete.
I may wait forever yes, but I'd sooner do that than condemn an innocent.
Regards Monty
|
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 09:06 am | | Monty, That's a pretty poor reason to suspect a person of being Jack the Ripper, isn't it?. So, the poor bloke got the sack, he committed suicide, and the Jack the Ripper murders stopped?, --except for "Clay Pipe Alice, and "Carrotty Nell, quite a few people seem to think they were part of the plan, (we all have our different beliefs). If Montague Druit had been shacked up with Mary Kelly, and been kicked out by her for losing "HIS" job, then I may have agreed with you.
Best Regards Rick |
Author: jennifer pegg
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 01:26 pm | | i think that i believe that Jack was more than one person, and if this were the case then does this not explain why he "stopped" if you will.
i/f this were true then there is nop reason (even a four hour grilling) why barnett could not have killed kelly. as i said earlier he may have an alibi for all the pther four murders , therefore able to get away with murder, if he didnt kill her then anyone else could have key/no key as i thought they (kelly and barnett) got in by putting there hands thru the window and kelly could have taken anyone back with her.
so thats full circle!
jennifer |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 04:39 pm | | G'day Monty,
If Druitt is innocent aren't you blackening that poor man's name?
LEANNE |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 08:12 am | | Hi Leanne,
First let me give out a BIG GRRRRRR to the vile pop up ad that made me accidently refresh the page before I was able to hit Post Message, for my last post.
Ok, on to Barnett...
I've read Paley's most intriguing book on Barnett, unfortunately haven't had the priviledge of reading Harrison's yet. So I know the research was done on the suspect. What I'm saying is that research hasn't been done on Kidney, nor Flemming(Who you helped remind me of.)
Both of these men lived within the area, just as Barnett had. But that doesn't exactly matter, because by looking at the maps, one really wouldn't have to know the area that well, since all the murders took place not far from the main roads, so it wouldn't be hard for the killer to get there, and get away afterwards.(Thanks to Ivor for helping point that out.)
You stated yourself that Flemming had abused Mary Kelly. That's why she would not return to him, however he still payed her money from time to time. That gives him the same motive as Paley, and yourself give to Barnett. He wanted her back, he couldn't have her. So he killed her. It also can be a reason why Flemming killed th other women. Mary left him because she was a prostitute, which may have been something he may not have been able to handle.(Could have been the reason why he was abusive to her.)
This same mold can suit Kidney as well. He loved Stride, she was going off with prostitutes. He tried to LOCK her up.(Evidence is his statements as well as the padlock key that Stride had on her person.) She left him again, maybe for the last time. Then he goes nuts and kills her, after trying to kill a bunch of other prostitutes to keep her by his side in fear of becoming a victim. Of course this doesn't suit why Kidney would kill Mary Kelly(Eddowes may possibly be explained cause he was so enraged that he just finished off another to quell the anger that he wasn't able to do with Stride?) in such an abhorrid fashion, but then again, maybe he just wanted to be sure that the Police wouldn't wonder why Jack the Ripper stopped after Stride, but killed two other women, who had no link to him?
By what little is known about Flemming and Kidney, they also fit the witness mold. Flemming and Kidney were both 35 or 36,(although Flemming may have been younger, not sure on this one). They were both Barnett's height. However there isn't any evidence of complexion or facial hair.
However, the witness testimony is rather weak as well. We have only three witnesses that were near the scenes of the crime a few minutes before the crime may have happened.
First we have Long(Darrel) who stated she didn't even see the killer's face, only his back. So of course her description is sketchy at best.
Secondly we have Schwartz, who saw two different men. We don't even know which one of them could have been the killer, but either one could match not only Barnett, but Kidney and Flemming as well.
Thirdly, we have Lawende. Now Lawende wasn't even completely sure it was Eddowes he saw in the alleyway of church passage. He couldn't recognize her face(that was probably due to the horrendous mutilations to the face.) And the only way he could describe her clothes was dark, but since the closest light to the couple spotted by Lawende was more than 15 to 16 feet, as well as being OVER his head, it would have made it that much more difficult for him to get a good look at them.
I'm not saying that Barnett couldn't have killed these women. I'm just saying that Flemming and Kidney both fit the criteria that you and Paley say the killer needed to fit. Also, neither Flemming NOR Kidney ever gave an alibi.(At least not in any of the documents that still exist.) While Barnett was interviewed as a suspect. This added to both Flemming and Kidney were KNOWN to be abusive to at least one of the victims, puts the ball further into their court.
I'm saying MORE research should be done on these two gentleman. We can't just discount them, because we want the suspect to be this certain person. Especially if all of the criteria one uses to support this suspect theory fits in place with both of these gentleman.
There are many facets of the case that need to be researched more. I know I myself would GLADLY do the research, but unfortunately I'm a Yank, and too poor to afford a trip to Jolly Ole' England to due the research. 
Now let me go on about Martha Tabram. I'm still on the fence whether or not Martha is a Ripper Victim. The major problem I have with her is not the lack of mutilations that were so similar in the other cases, but rather the murder weapons. The killer used two weapons with Miss Tabram. And both of these weapons were different than the one Jack used on his other victims. Jack seemed to stick with his one weapon, cause apparently he liked the way it worked. But if Jack killed Martha, then why did he switch weapons? Where did the other weapons disappear to? He never even tried to cut her open with these weapons, so how would he know that they wouldn't work as well as he wanted with the other victims? If it's Barnett, and he killed Tabram, then where is his weapon closet, that he's hiding these 3 different weapons.(A pin knife, and maybe even the blade Jack used could be easily explained, but what about the Dagger or Bayonet, that was used on Tabram?)
Just doesn't fit with me. Maybe someone can explain it.
Hiya Rick,
I'm not worrying about blackening Barnett's name. As you can see, I'm basically tarnishing two other people's name in search of the killer. After all, if we were worried about hurting someone's reputation, then NO serial killer would ever be found, because we'd have to damage his or her reputation just to look into their dealings.
I'm just saying more research should be done on other facets of the case. Not passing judgement on anyone's guilt or innocence. I just want to show that you can't say if a theory is good enough for one person, then it can't be good enough for anyone else.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 08:44 am | | Leanne, Rick,
Aaaaargghh ! THATS MY POINT !. Its a shoddy reason...but is a better reason than what I have heard for Barnett.
So its ok to blacken Barnetts name on ...well, nothing, just as it is with Montague ???
No ??
Yes ??
No ??
Whats the difference ?
NONE
Perhaps Im going OTT on this. Sorry. Barnett is a suspect, but on what grounds fathoms me. Because I can only see preconceptions of his relationship with Mary and heresay as evidence.
Thats why I have a paddy over this.
Monty
|
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 11:24 am | | Chris, I would go along with you on that, for sure. Barnett, right now, is my best bet, and as Monty would say, I stick with him till someone better comes along, he fits my bill!.
Monty, I don't know what you are trying to prove.
Two glaring reasons for suspicion,--- jealousy caused by Fleming, and love turned to hate caused by Kelly's betrayal, or don't you believe those reasons existed?
Rick |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 03:54 pm | | It seems that one of the most frequent arguments advanced against Barnett is that his alibi (what we know of it, anyway) is not convincing. I agree-it doesn't convince me either. How then does one suppose that Abberline, a veteran detective with decades of experience in Whitechapel and dozens of commendations, would be taken in by so simple a story? There must have been more to Barnett's alibi. Furthermore, if he had been unable to account for his whereabouts on that night, the police would undoubtedly have wondered about his movements on the nights of the other murders. Of course, if he was the killer, he would not have been able to account for those times either- and any attempt on his part to claim that the dead Kelly was the only human being on earth who saw him on those dates would unquestionably have gone over like a stone balloon.
It is also true that in the Ripper the police were up against something entirely new, something which they had not dealt with before. However in Barnett the detectives would have had exactly what they were looking for. Even a cursory reading of the police reports concerning the murders shows that their first move was always to look into the victims' friends, relatives and acquaintances in search of any motives for murder. In Joe they would have had precisely the sort of person that their experience had taught them was always to be viewed as a prime suspect- the estranged boyfriend, the wronged lover. Therefore there would seem to be only two possible reasons for Barnett's release;
a) He had an ironclad alibi- or
b) The detectives working the case were complete and utter cretins
While the police of 1888 may have been lacking the sophisticated forensic tools and psychological profiling abilities of today's law-enforcement agencies, I think it would be a mistake to denigrate their comparative intellectual abilities. And I feel certain that they were at least competent enough to thoroughly check the alibi of an exceedingly likely suspect.
AAA88 |
Author: Jeff York
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 11:15 pm | | First, let me say that this is an amazing website.The participants in these message boards are intelligent, witty and very welcoming to newcomers like me. Warwick, thank you so much for your kind words of encouragement, in particular. I have enjoyed reading your thoughts these many months. And your thoughts regarding Barnett make me think he is a prime suspect all the more!
Second, regarding Barnett...
Some here have written that Barnett isn't much of a suspect because he was interviewed and released by the police. But doesn't that happen all the time in police investigations? I mean, really, how many murderers outside of Perry Mason's world, fess up the very first time they're interrogated? It doesn't happen. And if Barnett could've committed murder, he probably would show no hesitation in lying about it. He may have even been a good liar. A cunning killer would probably make a pretty cunning liar.
Thirdly, some here have suggested that Barnett was too poor to have done the killings because he likely would've had only one change of clothes amd would've ruined it with blood splatters. Where is the foundation for that hypothesis? Even an unemployed laborer would have more than one shirt or trousers. Or are we to believe that poor Joe Barnett wore the exact same clothes every day of the week for months on end. Seems rather silly when you think about it, doesn't it? I think he'd have a change of shirt. Plus, couldn't Joe have had on an apron when he did the killings? Blood on an apron wouldn't attract much attention. Heck, he probably wouldn't have even felt the need to clean such a garment.
So I maintain thatJoe Barnett is still a very good suspect. Maybe the best. And these additional reasons only help that theory further:
1.) He could've lied or exaggerated about his alibi. So what he told police is not necessarily gospel.
2.) Barnett could've worn an apron. And very likely had more than one change of clothes. If this is the case, and it likely is, the blood splatters could've been taken care of. Easily.
3.) The detectives may not have had enough to go on even if they doubted parts of his story. Therefore, despite suspicions, they likely didn't really have enough evidence to warrant an arrest.
I look forward to hearing more from all of you.
And I hope to see some of you at the Ripper conference in Baltimore next month. Happy travels! |
|
|
|
|
