|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 20 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through 20 April 2002
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 04:43 am |        | G'DAY CHRIS and JULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JULES: I took your advise and moved this discussion here!
CHRIS: You're not causing any trouble mate!
1. When did Barnett say that Mary "stayed in"? By saying: "Marie never went on the streets when she lived with me.", Barnett meant that she never prostituted herself. Haven't you ever heard the saying: "walking the streets"?
Mary Kelly liked her alcohol, which Joseph Barnett paid for to keep her from prostitution. Julia Venturney said: "I have frequently seen her [Kelly] the worse for drink but when she was cross Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone." I wonder where he went.
Maybe it was Barnetts fear of Mary turning him in for the reward that made him decide that she had to die. He was losing her anyway.
I don't understand who you mean when you say that she was staying home for Annies death. Who was Annie? There is no evidence to say that Mary Kelly knew Annie Crook.
After he lost his job at Billingsgate, Barnett found odd jobs as a: "labourer and fruit porter." His working hours would have been irregular and he was all over the place.
4: I don't know why Jack took away organs, but I have read that it has been quite common for serial killers to take 'souvineers' and to make their crimes more ghastly in the press. There were plently of chances for the killer to clean-up afterwards.Barnett could have hidden his souvineers anywhere that his daily work took him.
5: According to 'Lloyd's Newspaper' 7th of October, Catharine Eddowes: 'slept in a shed off Dorset Street, which is a nightly refuge for some ten to twenty homeless creatures who are without the means of paying for their beds.'
On the night she died, Catharine was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. What brought her killer to Mitre Square may have been the presence of the nearby orange market, where he could blend in with those searching for work. Barnett occasionally sold oranges.
7: Perhaps he mutilated Catharines face out of frustration of being interrupted before he could mutilate Elizabeth Stride. The murders increased in ferocity from the first to the last.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 04:55 am | | G'day Jules,
Did you read my post regarding the witness descriptions matching Joseph Barnett?
Leanne. |
Author: Nick B
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 07:14 am | | G'day Leanne.
In regards to point 4.
Your right, serial killers often took 'souvineers'.
This was to both scare the press, and also it was way of making the murder last longer in the mind of the killer.
Many times throughout history, body parts and items on the victims (eg Necklaces, rings) were often removed and taken with the killer.
Barnett would've needed to hide the organs someplace where they wouldnt start to decomopose. This wouldnt take long to occur, unless they were preserved in something, eg Formaldahide.
This is similar to the "Lusk Kidney". (Wether or not it was from one of Jack's victims.
Nick. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 07:53 am | | Hi Leanne,
Ok, some answers to your questions as well as some of my own.
1.) I can't find my source that said Mary would stay off the streets for a short time after the murders. It may have been in the newspaper articles.(Which are usually unreliable.) But I'm still searching for them. What I meant by Annie, was the 2nd of the Cannonical Five victims, Annie Chapman. I was just merely stating a problem with Joe Barnett coming back home shortly after leaving, bloodied, without a pence in his pocket.(However, I think I figured out how he might have did it. Which I'll explain later.)
4.) Barnett doesn't seem like the Media hound type. After all, his being placed further into the limelight, could help in his getting caught. The mutilations would help get him coverage, but walking around with the organs in his pockets could end up with his getting hanged.(And even the press of the time agreed that he did seem rather nervous on the stand, it's hard to believe that Jack being so cool in his killings, would suddenly rattle and shake on stand. But still possible) I'm just curious where you might think he would take his 'Souvineers'. And by, he might take them whereever his work took him, do you think maybe he may have sold them off?
5.) The shed had been used for people to sleep in, however, the shed had been boarded up a few months before the murders started.(Eventhough Barnett and MJK were living there at the time, so they may have seen people sleeping there.) I was just asking where Paley got his proof that Eddowes was one of those that used the shed as refuge.
7.) I'll agree with you on this one. Because most writers/profilers on the subject believe that Facial Mutilations are only done because the murderer feels recognized, or knows the victim. However, most people forget that it could just be frustration that the killer is feeling so he takes it out on his victim.(Which could be anything from, Jack got interrupted, Catherine fought him, or maybe his fantasy wasn't being realized with her?)
Ok, as promised, I'll give my reasons on how Jack was able to walk about the streets without causing suspicion. Mainly everyone says that he would have to have at least some blood on his hands. This of course is due to the fact of him placing his hands into the abdomen removing the organs. However, I think maybe Jack didn't have blood on his hands because he had wiped it off at the crimescene. Here's how:
Polly, well she can be counted out, cause it appears that Jack didn't even get the chance to slide his hands into her, not to mention that no organ was taken from her.
Annie, this is how I came up with the theory. For the longest time I kept wondering why the handkerchief was tied around her neck. There was no frays are cuts in it. So it couldn't have been on her neck during Jack's cuts. So it would have to be placed on her afterwards.(Hence why many of the papers said that it appeared that the murderer was trying to use the handkerchief to hold her head on.) However, in the yard of 29 Hanbury there is a watertap. Now no blood was found in the pan of water beneath the tap. However, Jack could have merely taken a handkerchief, dipped it partially in the water, then wiped his hands off. Instead of putting the soaked handkerchief in a pocket, he lifted Annie's head off the ground, slid the handkerchief under her, then tied it loosely about her neck. The Police would be looking for someone with blood on their hands, and Jack wouldn't have any.
Liz, well if Liz is a Ripper victim,(I believe she is, but the topic is HIGHLY debatable), Jack never did cut into her abdomen, so he probably had NO blood on his hands from the crime in the first place.
Catherine, Jack was in haste with this one. Probably heard Watkins pulling up through Mitre Street. So he cut part of her Apron off, and ran off with it. There were 2 exits he could have taken. One would have been Church Passage the other would have been St. James Place. I think maybe he went through St. James, dipping the apron in a urinal that was there, just to wet it. Then he wiped his hands as he made his way away from the scene. YES, it's disgusting he would use a Urinal Trough, but it's much better than walking around with blood on his hands.(Also the Fecal matter on the apron could be from the trough, or more than likely from Catherine's body.) Later on, he dumps the apron at Goulston Street.(Whether it be before Halse and Long walk through, or after.)
Lastly Mary, Mary had a watertap outside her room. Also she may have had a small amount of water in her room.(Maybe for washing herself or clothes, or maybe just to drink.) Either way, water was accessible to Jack, as were linens for him to use to wipe his hands off.
Thusly, Jack can walk the streets, without bloody hands. Able to escape the authorities. Ok, there probably are holes in the theory. It's something I came up with last night as I lay in bed pondering why the handkerchief around Annie's neck.(Hehe, geez I have no life, most guys think about women when they are falling asleep, I think about the Ripper.  )
Adios,
Chris H. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 02:00 pm | | Hello Chris-
Hate to throw a monkey wrench into your Chapman/handkerchief hypothesis, but Timothy Donovan saw Annie wearing it tied around her neck when she left the lodging house. In addition, Dr. Phillips stated his opinion that the handkerchief had not been tied on after the throat was cut.
AAA88 |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 10:20 pm | | G'day Lea, Chris, Jesse (At last I've found out who you are Aces:-)
Lea, in answer to your description of Barnett, Mary Anne Cox describes the man she saw with Kelly as "A short, stoout man, shabbily dressed..... A blotchy face and full carroty moustache.....A dark coat and Billycock.....and also about 36yrs old". When asked if she could recognise him again she said she could.
Barnett was on the stand at the inquest and failed to recognise him as the preson she saw with Kelly.
Barnett was 30, medium build, fair complexion, moustache, blue eyes and 5'7".
I can't see the comparison. Sorry Luv.
Jules |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 02:00 am | | G'day Everyone,
CHRIS:
1: How do we know that the killer went straight home after he murdered Chapman? Her murder site was only a five-minute walk from Dorset Street, but even closer to Great Pearl Street, where Barnett lived as a boy.
2: The Lodging House watchman would have been more concerned with people trying to sneak in. If Barnett did leave at 3:00am to plead with Kelly to take him back, who's to say he went back there afterwards. His name would have been on the records, and he probably would have needed to walk around to clear his head.
4: If Barnett read newspapers to Kelly about the murders, he'd want them to sound as gruesome as poss. No matter who Jack was, walking around with organs would have been a risk. Barnett could have used his speech impediment to make constables and coroners believe he was stupid. I don't think the organs would have been sold off. That was too risky.
5: 'Lloyd's Newspaper' reported that Catharine Eddowes slept in a shed off Dorset Street. The 'Daily Telegraph' later reported that this was at 26 Dorset Street. 'Lloyd's Newspaper' also said 'Miller's Court is really the back parlour of 26 Dorset Street the front shop being partitioned off and used for the storage of barrows etc. This was formerly left open and poor persons often took shelter there for a night...'
As I said before Barnett could have used his speech impediment to his advantage. How well
do you remember and can proove what you were doing on a certain night three and two months ago, beyond a shadow of doubt?
There were so many slaughter houses in the area that the killer wouldn't have caused too much alarm with bloody hands.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 02:37 am | | G'day Jules,
As the descriptions differed, someone had to be describing an innocent man.
At Kelly's inquest Mary Ann Cox said he was shabbily dressed and carried a pot of ale. She told her niece that he was a fine looking man carrying a Gladstone bag. (see 'COX, MARY ANN' in the 'A to Z')
Do you believe that the man she claimed she saw with Kelly at a quarter to twelve was the same man she heard go down the court at a quarter past six?
LEANNE |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 11:37 pm | | Dunno luv,
But the description she gave was one totally different to that of Barnett.
I'll wait for you to get back from holidays and will take up this discussion again.
Jules |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 05:52 am | | G'day,
CHRIS: Porters at Billingsgate fish Markets were paid by the piece at varying rates. The most privileged porters carried fish from the ships to the market and were paid by the tail number.
The next privileged carried dried fish and were paid 1 and a half d per box.
Below them were the underprivileged porters who did the odd jobs.
Joseph Barnett told the 'Daily Telegraph' on the 12th: "I was in DECENT work at Billingsgate Market when I first encountered her and we lived comfortably together." This, plus the fact that he spoiled Kelly with gifts "such as meat and other things, as my hard earnings would allow," suggests that he was a privileged porter.
According to Julia Venturney, Barnett often gave Kelly money as well.
I hope this helps to determine how much money Barnett was probably making.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 06:20 am | | G'day,
CHRIS: Let's get one thing staight! Author Bruce Paley does not claim it's a fact that Joseph Barnett was dismissed for stealing! He merely says that 'Chances are.." that Barnett was caught smuggling fish out for Mary.
He starts his next paragraph with: 'Whatever the cause of Barnett's dismissal...'
I think it's possible that Joseph Flemming could prove to be a better suspect than Barnett. Who can research him? I do remember someone saying that a Joseph Flemming died in an asylum!
LEANNE! |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 03:03 pm | | Hi Peter Wood,
As I promised Alegria, I moved this post from the 'Why Did Jack Stop' thread.
Actually your wrong about the locked door at Miller's Court. Barnett never was at the scene. Only one paper ever reported that fact, and it was in Error(This being the same paper that reported that Mary Kelly had a 7 year old child living with her), because Barnett wasn't found till after the door had been broken into. That is when he was taken to the Police Station.
This is why there never was any statement about Barnett's being there at the inquest or in ANY of the written statements taken by Inspector Abberline. In fact, McCarthy stated later in the press that he was UNAWARE that the key had been missing. So if Barnett was there, McCarthy would have heard the story on the scene.
And as to your question about McCarthy's key...Mr. McCarthy wasn't the actual Landlord. His Mother was. Mr. McCarthy ran the rooms(probably as a maintenance man). So it is quite possible she had the spare key(if there was one), and Mr. McCarthy could not reach her.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 02:59 am | | G'day Chris and everyone,
The 'Star' reported on the 10th November that Barnett had looked through the open window to identify Kelly's body. Where's your proof that this fact was in error? Where's your proof that Barnett wasn't there until after 2?
At 1:30 p.m. Inspector Arnold arrived and said that the bloodhounds weren't coming, so the door would have been broken down at about 1:45ish.
Chris you say, as if it's a proven fact that: "Barnett wasn't found till after the door had been broken. This is when he was taken to the Police Station." You make it sound as if the police went searching for him. Joseph Barnett turned up at Miller's Court all by himself (He had to make it look innocent): "I heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court, and on my way there I met my sister's brother-in-law and he told me it was Marie." Then he identified Kelly through the window and was taken to the station. He may not have been there long enough to tell McCarthy about the missing key! He may not have thought, (or may not have wanted to), tell police how to get in the room.
McCarthy may not have had a spare key to what was once part of his shed!
LEANNE |
Author: graziano
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 03:31 am | | That the killer fled with the key in his pocket having closed the door behind him is the only logical explanation as for the reason as why the door was broken with a pickaxe in the presence of McCarthy and Barnett.
The question is why did he take the key with him ?
May I suggest that once again the first logical explanation would be simply: to delay the time of the discovery of the body ?
Next question: why to delay the time of the discovery ?
Certainly one could just answer, lacking imagination: to give him the time to go as far away as possible.
Or, for a more acute investigator: to wait for the people around Miller's Court to wake up and meet, see and speak with the woman they thought to be Mary Jane Kelly and then say she was still alive around 9.00/10.00 a.m.
But this is certainly all the result of the sick and fool imagination of a joke like me.
In any case the delaying of the hour of the body's discovery helped a lot Mr Astrakhan not to be considered a very serious suspect.
In fact, he was the first beneficiary of the door been closed.
Another point is that the closing of the door shows that the murderer was aware of a possible visit of someone else in the room at any time during the night.
Certainly he was aware that that could also happen during the butchery.
It sounds logic to think thus that to perform it he would have taken all necessary measures not to be seen by someone peering through the window.
As for example:
-not making noise;
-not lighting a fire;
-not to perform the butchery on the bed (right in front of the windows and not being able, in such a position, to see if someone was looking through the same window);
-having someone to keep an eye for him in the Court.
We know nevertheless that there was a big fire in the room and that the body was found on the bed.
So, how did they come to happen ?
Well, once again searching for the more likely explanation in a world where the movements of matter are governed by the law of gravity, the laws of electromagnetism and the interactions between the nuclei of the athoms (I am sorry for the vocabulary but this is only from far recollections and translated on the spot in my mind from italian), this should clearly put us on the only possible track, it is to say.....well, what's the point of all that if people here only like to chew as a certain Mrs Diana from Texas underlined in another thread.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Ruminants chew, human being reason. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 07:58 am | | Hi Leanne,
My evidence is from the Daily Telegraph from November 10th. As well as the Police Files.(Although I was wrong, Barnett did go to see the Police, and not vice-versa.) The Daily Telegraph states, 'He was indoors yesterday morning when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset-street, but he did not know at first who the victim was. He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct.' No where in the article, nor in the Police Files does it state that Barnett was at the scene of the crime. They state that McCarthy had been there all day, but nothing about Barnett. There is even a report stating every person that stood in the courtyard waiting for the final word to break the door in, however, again no word of Barnett. Nor is there any word of Barnett's being at the scene at the inquiry. So how does one explain this? Please, don't give me that foolhardy answer as, 'Oh he wasn't asked about it.' They asked everyone else that was anywhere near the scene what they were doing there, so why wouldn't they ask Barnett? And why is it Barnett didn't just state it himself, since he was willing to state that he was one of the people last seen with the victim?
Also there is ANOTHER MAJOR problem with the report you give. It states that Barnett looked through the window to give his ID of Mary. However, according to all the reports that I've read, because of the visciousness of the mutilations Barnett recognized Mary only by her ears and eyes. How could Barnett make this ID if he's staring at her from a window, and by the pictures we have of the crime scene, her hair is covering her ears, and there is flesh covering her eyes? I know you're going to say 'HE LIED', yet the police WOULD NOT be STUPID enough to let this GLARING fact go unnoticed and not suspecting Barnett outright. After all, why would he lie about something like that?
I can not find this November 10th article of the Star. Perhaps you mean the 'Evening Star'? But as I said earlier, the article that I read placing Barnett at the scene, also stated that Mary Kelly had a 7 year old child. So if it's accurate that Barnett was there, then I guess Mary had a child who lived with her too?
The problem with going on evidence soley given in the press reports is that many of them were faulty. Trying to rush the papers to the press, many of the stories had errors. One could try and only go with those facts agreed upon by several papers, however, sometimes even these facts are at odds with the actual truth. Also, there are many papers that tended to 'sensationalize' their stories(mixing fact and fiction), just to keep the readers wanting more.(The Star is one paper INFAMOUS for it.) I go more with papers such as the 'Daily Telegraph', because there are few errors to their stories, and sensationlism was not something they attempted often. Also the Daily Telegraph is one paper that reported the Inquests as well as Police Reports so well, that many of the researchers agree to publish these stories along with Official Documentation, because it is a reliable source.
Hi Graz,
The reason Jack closed the door while killing Mary Kelly, was because the only way to enter and leave the court would bring people passing right in front of the murder scene. And why would Jack suspect people would push back the curtain and peer into her room? I mean how often have you or anyone on these boards done something similar to a neighbor? Or better yet, I'd like to see someone attempt this at a prostitutes lodgings in a seedy part of town. That's a GOOD way to get yourself hurt.
Also if Jack is 'caught in the act', he only has one way to make his escape. So if someone is entering the court and spots him, then he's trapped. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. This is why Jack closed the door.
Problem is with the multiple killer theory in Miller's Court is this. We have people entering and leaving the court throughout the night. So if there was a lookout, where did he disappear to, as people went by? He/she certainly couldn't have given a whistle or yelp to warn the murderer without attention being drawn to him/her. There is only one entrance and one exit. However you have a courtyard, that someone could be in that the Lookout may not see from the street. But if the lookout is in the courtyard, as someone enters of leaves the court, he/she would be spotted. So where could this Lookout be? And of what use would he/she be?
The only way that Jack could have had a lookout would be if George Hutchinson was his accomplice. It's already been stated that he was spotted looking into the court.(More proof that if there was a lookout he/she would have easily been spotted in this situation.) So perhaps you think Hutchinson is the accomplice?
I'm not completely against the killer having an accomplice, however, in Miller's Court this would be much more of a hinderance, than a help.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 08:23 am | | No, Chris, not Hutchinson but the couple near him spotted by Sarah Lewis.
Remember ? We had also a couple at the corner of Fairclough street during the Stride's murder.
Hutchinson could well have spoiled the first attempt of murdering Mary Kelly by standing where he stood so long.
For the direct accomplice of the "butcher" I do not see any problem for him being inside the room.
Looking out from the window (the couple watching the street).
I think it would have been impossible to make such a thing on a body on a soft surface as a mattress (speaking about the head of the left thigh femur) and from the right of the body.
Hope some forensics expert could look at that and give opinion.
It would have been more secure after having cut the throat on the bed to move the body in the room under the farthest fenster.
But then, to put back the body in such conditions on the bed (and with the resulting position) it would have taken two persons.
It could also explain why there was blood all over the floor.
I know this last information is not from official papers or inquest testimonies, but we have several statements of that.
One from a policemen but I can't be more precise now.
I'll check.
I think Leanne is right about Barnett being on the scene.
I think he identified the body by the ear and the eyes on the spot.
But this also I have to check.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 10:32 am | | Chris,
Didn't a female witness claim to have seen a male lurking outside Mary Kelly's room at the approximate time of the murders? This might answer your question about who saw the "two man" theory in evidence that evening.
However, such a sighting is explicable if the man waiting was Hutchinson.
Rich |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 10:53 am | | Hi Graz,
But if Jack's accomplice is in the room, checking the window, then both of them can be caught in a VERY COMPROMISING Position. And the accomplice would only be able to see people in the courtyard, and not in the passageway outside the door.(The only windows were those facing into the courtyard, and not anywhere else.) So again, how does this help Jack? Since anybody coming into the room during the murder, wouldn't be seen until it was too late? As well as the fact that the accomplice could easily be spotted looking out the window by anyone leaving the court.
I do recognize the couple outside the Britannia during the time that Hutchinson is spotted. And it would be a GREAT help for Jack's accomplice to be female. Yet, the problem with the accomplice theory is the physical layout of Miller's Court and Dorset Street. This does not mean that Jack couldn't have had an accomplice, just that it would have been more harm than help in this certain case.
Hi Rich,
The man seen looking into the court was Hutchinson. For he was standing in the same spot at the time that Hutchinson stated he was standing when he spoke with Police about his 'Suspect'.
However, the murder could easily have taken place after Hutchinson left. After all, when Mary Ann Cox walked past at three she had not noticed anyone in the street.(Not Huthcinson or even the two people Graz was speaking of). And there was no light or noise coming from Mary's room. So Mary probably was killed later in the morning. Possibly around 3:45 a.m. or 4 a.m. when the cry of 'Murder' was heard by a couple of the residents of Miller's Court.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Raphael Aglietti
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 12:34 pm | | I hate to "hijack" the topic but I find the reference to the name "Marie" very interesting. Judging from the bold quotes I'm assuming that Barnett actually used that name. Marie as I'm sure most know is a French version of Mary. Marie can also be slang for a female spouse in French.
This brings us back to the Goulston street graffito and specifically the Juwes (I do think the actual word was Juives). While marie is acceptable to describe a female spouse it isn't regarded as proper. Could it be possible that word juives was also written by Barnett as a result of his poor command of the French language?
After all we're dealing with someone who was obsessed with females.
I know it's out there, but nonetheless we're all grasping at various straws. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 05:33 am | | G'day,
The key, the key, the key! We have debated so much about that key on Casebook, and here is how I see it:
The key was lost sometime before the murder. "....for some time." is all that Barnett said. My guess is that it went missing at the time of the couples fight on the 30th of October. Otherwise how on earth did they get in the room with no broken window?
I say "they" because that's what Barnett said and Barnett would visit Mary frequently. If Joseph turned up for a visit while Mary was inside waiting, why couldn't he just knock? Did Mary rely on Joes visits to get inside her room, because she couldn't reach? Experiments have shown that it wouldn't have been easy for someone of Mary's height.
If Jack the Ripper didn't steal/find Mary's key and let himself in, Mary let him / brought him in or he knew about the sectret window trick. The door could have locked automatically after he left, but how did he arrange the table and it's contents so that the door knocked against it when it opened?
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 05:46 am | | G'day Chris,
Do you think that Barnett wouldn't have rushed to Millers Court as soon as he heard of a murder? Paley says that Barnett said: "...I went to the Court and there saw the police inspector and told him who I was....." Authorities would have been there four or five hours after the discovery and why would they leave an inspector? They would have needed a positive identification anyway.
I was just quoting from Paleys sources when I said "Star". Why do you believe that if a newspaper makes one proven mistake that the whole story must be made up? The reporter probably heard someone in the crowd say "I thought...."
LEANNE! |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 07:29 am | | Hi Leanne,
I don't state that just because a paper makes one mistake the whole article is false. I just state that when only ONE paper states something, without any confirmation from any other source, the information is skeptical at best. This added with rather erroneous information given by the paper on more than one occasion makes the paper less reliable.
Also, let's look at the information from that article(which I still haven't found yet.) Barnett supposedly made his identification of Mary through the window. All the official reports state that he made his identification by her ears and eyes. Yet there is NO WAY he could have made that ID standing outside the window. He would have had to enter the room, however this article states that he made his ID from the window. I'm not sure if this is the same article that states that the police had to remove the window for the photographer to take his picture of the murder scene, which of course didn't happen. I'll have to search through the press articles and see if I can find where Paley's source came from when I get a chance.
I'm curious about your question about, 'How did he arrange the table and it's contents so that the door knocked against it when it opened?' If I'm reading this right, are you stating that Jack moved furniture about in the room? I think the table was always there, just the force of breaking the door in caused it to swing back and knock against the table. I mean how many times do you think one would be forcibly entering the room? So it's probable that the table was next to the bed the whole time.
Regards,
Chris H.
P.S. It wouldn't have been hard at all for Mary to stick her arm through the window to unlock the door. Looking at the pictures of the scene, we have about a brick (to a brick and a half) length from where the door is to the corner, and the same distance between the window and the corner.
Taking the longer distances(the brick and a half) you're looking at about 11 inches or 26.84 cm(if my metric conversion is right) from the window to the corner, as well as from the door to the corner. Using Pythagoreum's theorum(Mary's arm would be the hypoteneuse for this triangle). She would only need 15.5 inches or 37.82 cm(I wish the States would just move over to metric already!  ). Mary was 5'7" so just her lower arm would have been long enough to sufficiently turn the knob and pull the door forward. The only way it would have been really difficult would be if she was drunk. But even then she still would have been able to open the door, just not as quickly. And then again, she could have left the door slightly ajar at times when she went out, so she wouldn't have to use the window trick. She may not have wanted to do it in that neighborhood, but it's still a possibilty. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 06:19 pm | | G'day Chris,
Just quickly before I have to catch the bus.....On Paley's 'Acknowledgements' page it states that much of his research was done at: 'The British Library; the British Library Newspaper Library; The Greater London Record Office....'
Also to read about experiments done to determine how easy it was to reach Kelly's lock, go to 'Keyword Search' on the left and search the word: 'experiment' in the 'Victims' part.
Open 19. THE LOCK ON MARY KELLYS DOOR. and read 'Bob Hinton, Sunday 24 June 2001 - 7:52 p.m. Catch you later!
LEANNE |
Author: cue
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 07:52 pm | | Hi,
Why would chief inspector Moore tell a New York reporter that Jack locked himself in Mary Kellys room and had to escape out of the window, the larger of the two according to Moore???????
Thanks cue |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 18 April 2002 - 10:11 pm | | It's been a long time since I've posted. Sorry for the length of this.
But graziano, the key is not important, and the key is not a mystery. A long time ago we had a lot of discussion about the "importance of the missing key". What we have as evidence is that Barnette claims the key was lost “some time ago”, and that to unlock the door, you could reach in through the broken window. Abberline states during the inquest “I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & that they opened the door by reaching through the window, …” (Evans & Skinner, 2000; The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion: An Illustrated Encyclopedia). I believe there is another quote of Abberline, possibly from the press, with the additional statement “It is quite easy”. Sudgen paraphases this (The Complete History of Jack the Ripper pg 313) when describing why breaking the door down was unnecessary as being done by “… reaching through the broken window.” Sudgen also states (pg. 313) that “The door had a spring lock that fastened automatically when it (the door) was pulled to…’. So, no key is needed to lock the door. So, the fact the door was locked after the Ripper left is not a mystery.
What about the Ripper getting into the room? Kelly clearly came and went freely, so she could enter without problems. It appears that in all the other cases, the victim led the Ripper to their place of death, so it is likely that the Ripper entered with Kelly as a customer. It also makes the fact that Kelly was murdered indoors a complete red herring as the murder location is “selected” in exactly the same way in all cases. The fact that Kelly had a room is what’s different, but there’s no evidence to suggest the Ripper knew this apriori and it also meas that how the Ripper “got the victim to the murder location” is not different for the Kelly murder. But I digress.
Anyway, if Kelly can come and go as she pleases, then either she had a key at the time of her death, or access to the room was possible without a key. The former would have been shown to be false when the police investigated Barnett’s story (they would have found someone who knew Kelly had a key: such as the woman who stayed with her, or who was visiting on the evening of her death, etc). Either we assume the police didn’t investigate Barnett’s claims, or they did and, as reported, his story checked out. Getting into the room without a key is a trivial matter if the door can be left unlocked, so let’s start with the most difficult position; the door cannot be left unlocked when you leave the room.
First, Abberline’s quote at the inquest does not say they had to reach through the “hole in the glass” to reach the door, just “through the window” (not “through the hole in the window”). Even Sudgen’s statement can be read as merely qualifing which window, and does not specifically say one had to “reach through the hole in the window”, just “through the broken window” or to re-phrase “through the window that was broken”. Why is it assumed that the window cannot be opened from the outside? If it could be, that means that the key could have been lost well before the window got broken. It also means that a smallish person could reach it because she could just open the window and lean in. However, other posts here have calculated the distance as being short enough for someone of Kelly’s height to do so with out much trouble even without opening the window itself (although others have concluded the opposite, these are contemporary guesses. If it was obvious she couldn’t do it, then again, Barnett’s lie would have been easily spotted, with the appropriate ramifications). In other words, Kelly could come and go as she pleased without a key, and as long as the Ripper entered the room with her, the door would lock when he left regardless of his “intentions” and he doesn’t have to know about the “secret way in”, since Kelly opens the door.
Now, if we go with the reasonable assumption that the door can be shut without the lock engaging, meaning you can shut the door with the lock “off”, then there is no need to postulate any sort of mystery. Kelly leaves the door unlocked when she’s going out looking for customers, and, when she takes them home, she engages the lock so as not to have someone walk in. Once again, if the Ripper entered with her as a client, and she then engages the lock, it would lock the door behind him when he left. How they got in at the time the key was lost is not hard to explain as they may have left the door unlocked (were lucky) or if they could open one of the windows.
Now, Abberline’s quote with the “It is quite easy” addition must either be interpreted as the explanation was actually checked out and found to be true, or it must be dismissed as “journalistic flair”. Since I can’t find this quote right now, and it doesn’t appear to be part of his inquest statement, I’m going to assume it was from the press. If it’s from a more reliable source, then these arguments only become stronger. The crux of my argument is that if Barnett’s explanation was impossible, then the police would have caught him out. They report that his story was checked out and found to be true. However, since “the missing key” must have been considered part of Barnett’s alibi, to assume that the police didn’t check this part of his story is unreasonable, unless of course they found definate proof that he stayed at his lodging house all night after playing whist.
In fact, if we assume that Barnett’s explanation of reaching through the window is false, meaning at least Kelly couldn’t actually do it, then we are assuming the following as well:
1) Kelly must have had the key (Barenett hadn’t taken it when he left her), and that the door could not be left unlocked. The door must be assumed to be one that always locks or Barnett would have said “the key was lost, we left the door unlocked afterwards” rather than make up a story about reaching through a window.
2) The police didn’t check up on his way of unlocking the door and just took it for granted that it was possible because he said so.
3) That he ditched the key after taking it or, if we want to claim he kept it, that the police didn’t check his new residence, or at least if they did, they didn’t find it/realize what that it was “the key” (The last part is unlikely because if they found keys amongst his things, given the “missing key as a clue”, they would have checked out any keys he had if they found any).
4) They didn’t bother to ask any of her neighbors or people who visited her about if they ever “saw her use a key or did she, in fact, reach through the window”
5) The police never thought of the missing key was important. Abberline’s inquest statement, where he specifically mentions how the locked room could be entered, suggests otherwise.
In other words, we have to assume that the police statements that “his story checked out”, was a lie because we would have to assume they didn’t actually check it out but just took Barnett’s word for it. We have to dismiss official police documents and inquest testimony, in order to start asserting hypothetical events for which there is no evidence. There are enough ways for the police to have figured out that Barnett was lying about the key if he actually was lying about the key for him to have been lying about the key. Assumptions that have to made if the statement is “true” are 1) Kelly could reach the door through the window, either through the hole in the glass or by opening the window from the outside so she could reach in. This is much less of a stretch, especially if she could leave the door unlocked if she was not going far or for long, than assuming the police just took Barnett’s word that “it could be done”.
It should be noted that even if the missing key is a “non-mystery”, it doesn’t rule Barnett out as the Ripper. However, because Barnett’s statement that the key was missing doesn’t lead to any impossible situations (Kelly can get into the room, and the Ripper can leave and lock the door without it, etc), then the fact that the key was missing cannot be used as evidence towards his guilt. Whether or not one wishes to argue that he was the Ripper, the fact that he claimed, “the key was missing for some time” is not evidence for or against him and should not be considered as such. As I’ve argued, if anything, it is more reasonable to conclude that this statement was true, that they key was missing, otherwise when the police checked up on his “window” explanation, he would have been caught in a lie. But again, just because this statement can be considered true, doesn’t mean he wasn’t the Ripper, and it doesn’t mean he was.
So, basically what I'm saying is that
The actions taken follow if Barnett's statements about the key are true.
and
Actions that would have been taken if Barnett's statement is false are noticable by their absense.
This leaves us with the choice between ccepting that Barnett's statements are true or ignoring the documented evidence by claiming "what they said wasn't done".
- Jeff |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 12:42 am | | Oops, where I've written "these are contemporary guesses", it should read "these are modern guesses!"
- Jeff |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 07:33 am | | Hi Jeff,
Bravo! I couldn't have said things better myself.
One last point though. Even if Jack used the key to lock the door(which would be odd, since he wanted his victims found), that doesn't mean Barnett was Jack. Anyone could have gone off with the key. Whether it be those that lived with Mary, visited her, or were her clients. Or maybe even somebody who just happened to notice her or Barnett accidently leaving the key somewhere.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 10:04 am | | G'day,
JEFF: Ther Kelly inquest papers that were included with the papers held at the Greater London Record Office, say that 'Frederick George Abberline' said: "....I am informed by the witness Barnett that it [the key] has been missing for some time [no specific time is given] and that they opened the door by reaching through the window, a pipe was there and used by him." Abberline said nothing about how easy this was so I'd say it was a media invention.
If Sugden said that the door 'fastened automatically when it was pulled to', what is his source for this piece of information? I'm not doubting his word, I just want to know where more door/lock information can be obtained.
It is assumed that the window could not be opened from the outside because the window frame had to be removed to give the police photographer an unobstructed view of the premises.
Additionally: Dr. Phillips, who was amoung the first at the scene: 'looked through the lower of the broken window panes and satisfied himself....'
ADDITIONALLY: The thought of a window that allows anyone to open it from the outside, is rediculous! Why put a lock on the door in the first place?
(1) No one is doubting that Barnetts stated method of opening the door is false!
(2) No where does it say that the police checked Barnetts new residence!
(3) If police did check Barnett's new residence, did they also check every place that Barnett found work?...All within the space of 2-4 hours?
(4) Barnett may have played whist with friends until 12:30, and this may have 'checked-out', but so what????
(5) No one is saying that 'Barnett was lying about the key'.......It was lost!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 11:20 am | | Hi Chris,
You are correct. There are many ways for the key to have gone missing! I'm not concerned on "how" the key went missing, only "if" the key was missing. Personally, I don't think it was.
- Jeff |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 12:09 pm | | Hi All,
Leanne, it's been a while, how are you?
Just to clear up the point regarding Abberline's stating "it was quite easy", this statement appears in the 13 November Daily Telegraph's coverage of the Kelly inquest. The entire cite reads:
"An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy. There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it."
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 02:50 pm | | Hi All,
I would be interested in anyone who believes that Barnett was indeed the Ripper answering a simple question.
I understand the contention that Barnett may have killed Mary Kelly but only if one considers her not a Ripper victim (ie, murdered by the same person who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes).
Can anyone cite one historical example of a serial killer's reign ending with the murder of their lover? I could accept a serial killer striking against an intimate at the beginning of a streak of homicidal mania or even during the series.
However, I am aware of no case in which a serial killer finally murders an intimate and then ends his reign.
Or is the suggestion that Barnett murdered others following Kelly?
Curious.
Rich |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 04:15 pm | | Hi Leanne,
Why would the photographer need to have the window removed? There is ABSOLUTELY NO reason why the window would need to be removed. And if they were willing to remove the window, why would they need to bust open the door?
Also there is proof that the window WAS NEVER removed. Look at the second picture of the crime scene.(The one from Mary's other side.) You notice how dark the room is. It would not be this way if the window was removed. Also you can see a small line of light towards the middle of the upper half. That light is probably the sun shining behind the curtain of the window. If this picture was taken after the window had been taken out and the window is now boarded, you would see more lines of light from the spaces inbetween the boards. Look at the original photo of Mary as well. Look at the angle the picture was taken. If it was taken from where the window had been taken out, then it would be from a DIFFERENT angle.
You speak of 'media invention' in your post to Jeff. However, your post is WAY more fiction than fact. But again, I guess your just going with whatever Paley states in his book?(Still searching for the November 10th Star report that Paley quoted about Barnett being on the scene. Anybody know if the Casebook boys and girls are working on it? Or if it even exists?)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 05:15 pm | | Leanne,
The removal of the window is not documented anywhere that I know of - however I am inclined to agree with your theory that it might have been removed.
With the state of photography at the time, and the likely filthy condition of the window based on the condition of Mary's room (dirty floors etc), I would expect more distortions in the picture if shot through the window.
I think you have made a good point - but there is no way today to confirm it.
Rich |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 06:52 pm | | G'day,
JIM: OK, if you insist on believing that Abberline actually said: "It was quite easy." because it says so in the newspapers but not in the papers held at the Greater London Record Office.....then so be it! He didn't say: "The police have tested Barnett's claims and it was quite easy."
CHRIS: You said in your post: "If they were willing to remove the window, why would they need to bust open the door?"....THANKS, That's another reason why I believe that it was impossible to open the window from the outside! And here's another....If it could, why would McCarthy have damaged his property?
CHRIS: I told you before in a post that Paley quotes his source for that newspaper as: 'The British Library Newspaper Library, Colindale.'
LEANNE |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 07:54 pm | | Dear Leanne,
I am beginning to admire your Aussie stubbornness,
or is it feminine intuition..."The key was lost long ago"?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 03:57 am | | Leanne, you're correct in that we don't have any files indicating what the police did to check out Barnett's story. However, it is recorded that his story checked out. From that, it is safe to conclude they would
1) make sure that Barnett's method of opening the door through the window was possible
and
2) that he was playing Whist until 12:30 then went to bed until morning.
The first is trivial to check out. The second would be to ask at the Lodging house etc. Since it's safe to assume that people couldn't sneak in to get a room, if he had left and returned during the night, he would have been spotted. If you want to insist that they didn't check these things, what part of Barnett's story do you believe Abberline is referring to when he says they check it out?
As for opening the window, from the photo of Kellys room (outside picture; Evans & Skinner pg565) the broken window does look like one where the lower portion could be raised. It could, of course, have been painted shut, and such windows can be locked on the inside to prevent them from being raised, but I never said it "had" to be raised, only that we can't assume it couldn't be. So, just like the door, the window could be left "unlocked". If you don't have a key to your house, the idea of locking it up tight so you can't get in seems a bit more rediculous then the idea of leaving the window unlocked so you could reach the door. Or do you believe it's better to lock yourself out of the house so no-one, including yourself, can get in? You point out in your response to me that they key was lost. In your post of Tuesday, 16 April 2002 argue that it wouldn't have been easy for her to reach the door then wonder if she "waited for Barnett" to let her in? Have you changed your mind? You've argued based upon press reports in the past, but now want to dismiss the Daily Telegraphs report that it was easy?
If you're only going to accept the official documents, then again, what part of Barnett's story (that they key was lost, they reached through the window, that he was playing whist until 12:30 then went to bed until morning) was checked out? Clearly you don't think the key part, and clearly you don't think the "bed until morning", so do you think they only checked out the whist part? The one part that can't rule him out as the murderer of Kelly is the one part they checked and then concluded he was innocent?
- Jeff |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 04:49 am | | Dear Jeff,
It is not enough to accept the so-called "official
documents"...we must interpret them...interrogate
them. Truth is not the first casuality of war...
LANGUAGE is!
"Window". "Window pane". "Lower window pane".
"Broken". "Catch". "Latch". "Lock". "Spring lock".
That reminds me of another ode:
"If Jack was Joe,
The key must go.
If Joe were Jack,
Its the window crack!"
Rosey :-) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 05:17 am | | G'day,
JEFF: I am continually being told that we cann't always trust everything that we read in the papers. I'm just trying to get everyone to practice-what-they-preach.
There is no surviving record of Barnett's alibi, but we do have the information that he told a policeman that he was at Buller's playing whist until he went to bed. At no time did he add: "...until morning."
What is your source for your information that Abberline said: "they check it out." If the police did check out his story, they would just have to make sure that he was registered as a bed user that night.
If, as you insist, Kelly's window could be raised from the outside, why did Barnett say that he and Kelly: "...put their hands through the broken window and move back the catch?" Why risk getting cut, if they could avoid it?
Why risk reaching the distance to the door latch, when they could reach in and undo a catch on the window...if it was possible?
LEANNE |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 06:32 am | | As in my earlier post, I was saying the raising of the window was a possibility based on some inquest statements that didn't necessarily indicate they reached through the hole in the window, only that the reached through the broken window. That could be interpreted as "the window, which was broken" to indicate it wasn't the "other non-broken window".
At no point have I insisted it could be raised, only that it looks to me like one that "can" be raised. I thought I had made that clear in the original post and had clarified this in my previous. Also, in my last post, I had pointed out that other reports (addimittedly from the newspapers; which I point out) do read more like they reached through the hole. This leads me to now believe that the window probably "wouldn't" open. But it was worth considering.
As for the fact that the police checked out his story, this is reported in the Daily Telegraph , Nov 10, 1888 in the sentence "He [Barnett] volentarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct." (Evans & Skinner, pg 343).
So I shouldn't have attributed this to Abberline directly, since he's not named, but since Barnett told Abberline about the key (see Abberline's inquest statement) I interpreted this as Abberline being the fellow that interviewed Barnett and who would have been interviewed by the paper. Although this is a newspaper citation, since the police let Barnett go and did not continue to investigate him, it is supported by the actions of the police. So, we have a written report, albeit from the news which is not a great source addmittedly, but it is backed up by the behaviour of the police in respect to Barnett.
As for their checking out where he was on the night of the murder simply by asking did he have a bed booked, that's assuming a level of inability the police did not have. They are checking out a very viable suspect, and to assume they didn't ask even the most basic questions about his whereabouts is unwarrented.
- Jeff |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 11:42 am | | Hi Leanne,
I don't agree with Jeff's idea of the window being able to be opened by leaving it unlocked and pushing it up from the outside. At least by the pictures I see of the window, it doesn't seem to me like it could be opened. Also, the 'It is quite easy' statement may have been made by Barnett to Abberline, and not Abberline to the press. However, this doesn't mean that the theory couldn't have been checked out by the police.
You state that Paley quotes his source for the 'Barnett on the scene' article was from the 'The British Library Newspaper Library, Colindale.' However this is just a library of newspaper articles. I'm looking for the ACTUAL article.(I.E. Date and name of Publication.) One(at least one in England) could go to this library and find TENS OF THOUSANDS of articles. But not knowing what date and what publication they are looking for, well it would be like finding the proverbial 'needle in a haystack'.
I don't state that one can not go by ANYTHING that ANY of papers print. Nor am I saying that you can't believe one word printed by CERTAIN papers. I'm just saying you have to look at reliability of sources and corroboration.
If one paper prints something that NO OTHER paper prints then one has to take that with a grain of salt.(Even if the article is an EXCLUSIVE, the other papers would check into it, so that they can print their own stories.) If several other papers check up on the story and they get the same conclusions it can still be false, however it can be held with LESS skepticism. If a paper has REPEATEDLY spread falsities, seems not to check up their stories, or tends to SENSATIONALIZE even the SMALLEST rumor, then again said paper should be given more scrutiny when it prints things that are supposed to be fact. But as I said earlier, I don't believe that EVERY single word printed by certain papers HAS to be false, just because the paper has been rather unreliable on many facts. After all if I believed that, then I would be foolish enough to believe the murders didn't happen at all, because papers like the Star printed stories that they did happen.
Hi Richard,
A quick question or two for you. Why can't the photographer take the picture of the crime scene from INSIDE the room, rather than snapping it from the outside? The second picture of Mary was taken from the INSIDE.(Probably after they opened the nailed door behind Mary's bed.) So if there was enough room for that, then why wouldn't there be enough room for the most publicized pic of Mary to have been taken inside?
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
|
|
|
|
