Joe Barnett / A Theory and a Story to Amuse You

** 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 **

Joe Barnett / A Theory and a Story to Amuse You

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Joe Barnett / A Theory and a Story to Amuse You

SUBTOPIC	MSGS	Last Updated
Archive through 08 July 2002	40	07/08/2002 05:39pm
Archive through 12 August 2002	40	08/15/2002 12:27am

Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 02:04 am
G'day Brenda, The author who studied Barnett's life for many years, Bruce Paley, says: 'There are no immediate records of Joseph Barnett's where-abouts following his appearance at the inquest into Mary Kelly's death - but why should there be? No one records the deeds of a man that was seemingly insignificant. He lived at six different adresses in the East End of London, since 1888. There are no records of any marriages or children of his. Following Kelly's inquest, he lived with his sister for eight years, then got his porters licence back in 1906, the year he moved in with his brother at Shadwell for one year. He found work at 'Shadwell Fish Market' and died when he was 68 of a lung disease. His life appears to have 'slowed down' for 8 years after Mary's death. He remained single, and without a steady job. (I wonder if he received any psychiatric help under another name?) Then in 1906 he got his licence back and straight away moved to Shadwell, where there was a rival fish market to Billingsgate. LEANNE
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 06:31 am
Hi Ally, To be honest I have 46 pages left in my book but the author is of the assumption (That "ass" word again) that a prior triple murder was committed by Rolling because of the MO and the fact he was acquainted by that family at the time (It was a lady, her little son, and the grandfather). In the book he decides he will have 8 victims "one for every miserable year in prison" (previously) and that "he already had three"....so he made a conscious decision to murder 5. This is "ass"uming the author knows what she's talking about! Leanne - thanks for the Barnett info. I am going after more info on him....I don't have the Bruce Paley book. Hmmm...I wonder what the big deal was that Barnett couldn't get a fish porter's license till almost 20 years later?????? Maybe he just didn't want to or maybe he couldn't? I wonder what kinds of jobs he did to pick up extra money during those years?
Author: Timsta Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 11:37 am
Leanne: I think it unlikely that Joe Barnett received psychiatric help in the years following the events of 1888, basically since the only form of 'psychiatric help' available back then was committal to an asylum (I leave you to judge how 'helpful' this may have been) and in which case we'd quite possibly have tracked down the records by now. I do however suspect that he was extremely traumatized by Kelly's murder. I found seeing the 'sepia' version of the crime scene photo for the first time most disturbing - can you imagine what it must have been like for Joe, seeing his (ex) lover like that, in the flesh, so to speak? I think this may explain his supposed 'echolalia' at the inquest. I think the Coroner's statement of 'you have given your evidence very well' perhaps indicates Barnett's visible distress at the inquest; it sounds to me very much like a statement of compassion. Without doubt, to some extent this must have affected Barnett's mental state and behavior for some years afterward. I suspect that were those events to take place today, we would have no hesitation diagnosing Barnett with some form of post-traumatic stress disorder. This may explain his 'shiftless' life in the following years. Regards Timsta
Author: Michael Raney Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 05:19 pm
Timsta, I totally agree. I think Joe was warped for the rest of his life because of what he saw. I don't think that he was the murderer, but I have always believed he knew more than he stated at the inquest.
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 06:57 pm
G'day, OK, we all agree that the sight that Barnett saw on that morning would have been too much for a lover to bear. Wouldn't you hesitate a lot, before you identified her body by the hair,ears/eyes. Especially when Kelly was known to invite other women to board in her room? LEANNE
Author: Caroline Morris Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 06:16 am
Hi Leanne, It's a very personal thing, of course, but my feeling is that you'd know more or less at once that the body lying there was the person you'd lived with and loved, even as badly mutilated as Kelly was. Once Barnett said "Yes, that's Mary", they would need to record details of how he was able to recognise her. A vague "I just know" would not do - hence he would have been expected to name specific features, such as eyes, hair/ears (I'm not sure it really matters which), in order to make the identification formal. Your argument is presumably that an innocent Barnett would have hesitated more, desperately hoping that the body was not Kelly's, but that of a friend. But equally, wouldn't a guilty Barnett, who had done his utmost to render his ex unrecognisable, have capitalised on this by hesitating, or failing to positively identify her? Any doubt he could put in their minds would have helped his case - after all, how could they find him guilty of murdering his wayward lover if they couldn't even be sure it was her body in that room? Love, Caz
Author: Timsta Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 12:14 pm
Caz: I agree with you about there being an intangible 'something' that would enable you to recognise a loved one, family member etc. and in fact you beat me to posting about that point As a former psych major I can assure you that the human brain uses many different 'cues' (most of which are poorly understood) in the process of 'discrimination' (i.e. deciding whether someone is Person X or not). A lot of these date back to early periods in animal/mammalian development and many operate on a wholly subsconscious level. It's interesting that Barnett mentions the eyes, in this context. He's probably not referring to the eyeballs themselves, but relying on cues such as spacing between the eyes, shape of the orbit and the bony arch over the eyes (can't remember the name right now), placement of the eyes in respect to the overall shape of the face, etc. There's a ton of this stuff on the web if you're interested. For the record, I think he said 'hair' rather than 'ear', btw. The two words are very hard to distinguish when spoken with a London Irish accent, I would assert. Regards Timsta
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 01:25 pm
Hi all, One of the most serious errors that can be made in investigating suspects in a crime is to base suspicion upon the reaction of the subject to a loss or an accusation. Every investigator, attorney, and psychologist I have read consistently states that humans react quite differently to given situations. Therefore, whether Barnett could or could not identify the body, whether he was stoic or emotional, really has no relation to his guilt or innocence. Regards, Rich
Author: Jeff Hamm Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 11:08 pm
Hi, Where does it indicate that Barnette didn't hesitate in identifying Kelly? By the time the inquest had come around, he would have already made the identification so there's no reason to expect any hesitation then. He's already made the ID after all so he's just repeating information he already would have given. As far as I know, there's no record of his reaction at the time of the initial identification. I'm not even sure we know for sure if he identified her at Miller's Court or at the morgue? - Jeff
Author: Garry Wroe Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 12:27 am
Hello All. I have noticed that posters have on a number of occasions referred to Joe Barnett's 'London-Irish' accent. My understanding is that, although of Irish lineage, Barnett was London born. If so, I would assume that he spoke with a London/East End accent rather than in a London-Irish idiom. Please don't think that I'm being pedantic here. It is simply that the confusion over 'hair' or 'ear' appears to hinge on Barnett's accent. Does anyone have definitive information in this context? Bye, Garry Wroe.
Author: Caroline Morris Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 04:44 am
Hi All, I agree with Rich that any initial reaction observed in Barnett (and, naturally, allowing that anyone here knows what that reaction was!) couldn't be safely used as an indication of guilt or innocence. The police these days do, however, have experts in to observe body language and reactions of family and friends of murder victims when, for example, they attend media conferences. They have often been able to detect what look like 'crocodile tears' and when followed up, and evidence sought, successful convictions have sometimes been the end result. Reactions and emotions apart, I was pointing out to Leanne that, if Barnett had killed Kelly, he knew it was her body he was being asked to identify, but he also knew he had just hacked it almost beyond recognition. He would have had three clear options - to positively identify her as Kelly, deny it was Kelly, or say he couldn't be certain either way. He took the first option, which put him in the most dangerous position - it effectively made him prime suspect in the murder of his ex-lover. Was that a smart move for a calculating serial killer who had just added someone so close to home to his list of victims? Or for a copycat desperate to shift the blame onto a man preying on perfect strangers? Hi Timsta, Apart from that intangible something, I was thinking how I would be instantly recognisable to my own beloved - bunions, and a whole bunch of assorted moles, freckles and birthmarks sprang uncomfortably to mind. I'm positive he'd have no trouble at all knowing it was me. Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 04:30 pm
Hi, Garry: I agree with you that Joe Barnett's accent was probably straight London Cockney and not London Irish. Since he had been working as a Billingsgate fish porter, his Cockney accent moreoever was probably reinforced by his daily interaction with his coworkers. I believe this has been mentioned before here, but perhaps not in the presence of some of the new visitors, that "Barnett" is a Jewish name. Of course, you would not have to have been Jewish to have been a Barnett, but nevertheless there were a number of Jewish Barnetts in the nineteenth century with specific London and East End connections. I am not sure that there is any evidence to show that Joe Barnett was Jewish but a useful source which I have, The Jewish Victorian Genealogical Information from the Jewish Newspapers 1871-1880 edited by Doreen Berger, a large size paperback about the size of The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook [aka] Companion, has eight pages with small (7 to 8 pt. Times Roman) entries giving various genealogical and other information on the lives of various Barnetts (pp. 33-40). Although there are mentions of a Joseph Barnett, he appears to have been an older man who died in the 1870s and I have seen nothing so far to connect the Jewish Barnetts listed in Ms. Berger's book with "our" Joe Barnett. Best regards Chris George
Author: Garry Wroe Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 07:20 pm
Hi Chris. Thank you for that information. I certainly had no idea that Barnett was a Jewish name. I had assumed it to have been derived from the English place name. My ignorance of such matters notwithstanding, however, I remain puzzled as to why Joe Barnett is presumed to have spoken with a London-Irish dialect when he appears to have spent the majority of his life in London. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Diana Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 09:07 pm
My husband and I moved from the northern United States to Texas when our children were quite small. In spite of being raised in the American South both my girls speak like northerners. All four of us have adopted expressions like "Y'all" and "fixin" but they are spoken without a southern drawl or accent. JB could have spent his entire life in Whitechapel and still spoken like an Irishman if his parents were Irish.
Author: Billy Markland Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 09:57 pm
My apologies if I am stating the obvious (I did a search but did not find anything on this topic). Reading about the murders, one thing has struck me about the Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, & Kelly mutilations. From what I gather reading the inquest documents is that the mutilation which occurred to the bodies of each one involved relatively "clean" cuts, i.e. the killer cut what he wanted to cut without wasted effort. The second thing crossing my mind was what type of knife could have done this. I keep reading penknife, knifes 10 inches or 6 inches, bayonet, straight, pointed, and wickedly sharp, etc. At first I had no idea of which type could do that type of detailed cutting until I read Barnett's employment history which made me go to the cutlery drawer. My thought, whether Joe did it or not, is that the killer used a filleting knife. The modern knifes are from 6.5 inches up to 10. They are exceedingly sharp with a pointed end. Also, they are strong for their size. While they are not totally straight, the ones I looked at on the Web only curve up near the point (which may explain the parallel cuts on some of the victim's throats). If anyone has any knowledge of antique fillet knifes, please contribute. If slaughterers may be suspects, why not ... (what is the term for someone who cleans fish?). Now as to Joe being the Ripper, that is another story. I strongly suspect him in Mary Kelly's death simply because of a motive (however weak), opportunity & knowledge. He was being edged out romantically, knew the surroundings and how to gain access to Mary's room (if not asked in), a basic knowledge of cutting while using a knife gained from his former place of work (thank you Viper for the dissertion). I would imagine a porter could get fish at a relatively good price & would have picked up a knife such as the "professionals" used. I know I would have. This is all speculation, etc. but I look forward to any input from the group. Be nice now, I am learning!!! Best of wishes, Billy
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 16 August 2002 - 04:35 am
G'day all, If Barnett had a quarrel with Mary days before her murder because she was inviting friends to stay in their tiny room, don't you think that he should have hesitated a lot, even if he saw that 'intangible something'? If Barnett recognized a 'mole' a 'scar' or a 'birth mark' that was unique to Mary, wouldn't that have made a more conclusive identifaction, especially on paper? Look at her blood-stained hair, her eyes and her one ear, in that photo. TIMSTA: Stare at the famous photo of Mary. Look at her face. Now tell me that Barnett could have recognized the 'space between her eyes'! Bruce Paley says: 'Into the midst of this scene came Joseph Barnett, sometime in the early afternoon.' He told a newspaper: "I heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court....and on the way there I met my sisters brother-in-law and he told me it was Marie.", so the body had already been informally identified. 'Barnett then peered through the open window to view the body and confirmed that it was Kelly.' (the 'Star' newspaper told how Barnett had looked through the open window.) LEANNE!
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 16 August 2002 - 05:03 am
G'day, DIANNA: You say: 'JB could have spent his entire life in Whitechapel and still spoken like an Irishman if his parents were Irish.' He did live his entire life in the Whitechapel, but his Irish father died when he was six years old, and his mother deserted the kids shortly afterwards. Eldest brother Denis Barnett took over as family breadwinner, while all the other kids remained at school. Denis was born in Kent, while all the other Barnett children were born in Whitechapel. LEANNE!
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 16 August 2002 - 05:47 am
G'day, To read what Barnett's working life would have been like, go to: 'The Victorian Web' Click on 'Social History', then open 'Billingsgate (London Fishmarket) at 5am'. LEANNE
Author: Timsta Friday, 16 August 2002 - 12:02 pm
Hi all. My apologies for repeating information derived from other posts and not checking the facts first. However. Leanne, you correctly state that Barnett was brought up by his parents until he was six years old. In my opinion, that is plenty enough time to acquire the speech patterns of his parents, even if they were subsequently modified. It's also not implausible that despite being raised in London his childhood associates would have similarly been ethnically Irish. Having said that, I don't think we will ever be able to determine exactly how Barnett spoke, and therefore it was incorrect of me to ascribe to him a 'London Irish' accent. In my defence, I believe the same assertion (that 'hair' and 'ear' could be easily misheard for one another) to be true for London (or for that matter Kentish) accents in general. As an aside, if you've ever heard John Lydon (Johnny Rotten) speak, he is the child of Irish parents, and was born and raised in the Holloway area. Leanne: I didn't intend to allege that spacing between the eyes was the specific cue that enabled Barnett to recognise Kelly. I was just quoting that as one well-known facet of the recognition process (which is complex and as yet poorly understood). I do think, however, that there is a big difference between trying to identify someone 'in the flesh', as it were, and trying to make the same identification on the basis of a poor quality, low resolution photograph. For one thing, you lose all stereoscopic cues (i.e. there is no 'depth perception'). Perhaps one of the posters with relevant knowledge could impart some information about their experience of murder victim identifications. I'm sure that would be both fascinating and helpful to us. Regards Timsta
Author: The Viper Friday, 16 August 2002 - 02:26 pm
Timsta, Chris George and Garry Wroe are all correct. People born and bred in London, whether with one or two Irish parents, invariably speak with a London accent (at least in my experience). Occasionally one comes across an Anglo-Irishman who pronounces the very occasional word in a noticeably different way to the norm, i.e. in a more Irish fashion. (These aren't words like 'hair' and 'ear'. They are often words sounding a long L). Many people don't even notice it unless the trait has been made known to them upfront. To be shoor, you can safely forget about Joe Barnett's "Oirish" accent. Regards, V.
Author: Timsta Friday, 16 August 2002 - 04:11 pm
Viper: Thanks for the input. Do you think this was as true back in the 19th century as it is today? (Here I'm working on the idea that perhaps there were Irish enclaves within which children would have been heavily exposed to Irish accents.) Or would the board schools have served as a leveller of dialect? Modern-day experience suggests you are certainly correct (trust me, I am no stranger to Brick Lane Bengali Cockney!) but of course these days we have television and the accompanying relentless spread of Estuarial English. Would you agree that the words 'ear' and 'hair' could also be easily misheard if spoken by, for example, Frank Butcher? Regards Timsta (Dorset-born, Liverpool-bred, long-time Dalston resident, now living in Texas. Go figure.)
Author: Garry Wroe Friday, 16 August 2002 - 04:43 pm
Hello All. Anyone who can introduce Johnny Rotten into a discussion on the Whitechapel Murders is alright in my view. But I do have another question. Did Bruce Paley identify the correct Joe Barnett? Regards, Garry Wroe.
Author: The Viper Friday, 16 August 2002 - 05:11 pm
Single syllable words can be misheard very easily, especially if letters are dropped, as the H often is. I'd be suprised if your theory holds correct. Though there were undoubtedly many Irish accents to be heard in the East End of the time, the main influx of Irish immigration was from an earlier period (to build the docks and canals at the beginning of the C19th, then to build the railways, then as a result of the potato famines 1845-50). Therefore, much of the so-called Irish community was second or third generation and would have adopted the London accent and speech pattern. Furthermore the Irish had started to cross-breed with the native Londoners, rural English, the Welsh, Scots, Germans, Swedes and Danes, and their various descendents. Such was the great melting pot of the East End. Martin Fido is very well acquainted with the English language and literature of the period and may be able to assist here. Regards, V.
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 16 August 2002 - 08:42 pm
G'day, When Joseph's Irish father died and his Mother left, brother Denis was 14, Daniel 12, Catherine 10. Although Joseph was only 6, the other Barnett children would have spoken with London/Irish accents. Reading through the archives, the 'Illustrated Police News' said that Barnett stated: "I have seen the body of the deseased and I identify it by the HAIR and the eyes." The inquest report on MJK (Ref. R1095, held by the Corporation of London, Greater London record Office), says that Barnett said: "EARS and eyes" I think it's safe to assume that the newspaper reporters heard wrong. LEANNE
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 06:54 am
Hi, all: Following on my recent post that "Barnett" is a Jewish name and that there are a number of Barnetts with East End connections, while reiterating the caveat that I have no proof that Joe Barnett was Jewish, see the following information on an East End establishment that ran in ads in the Jewish Chronicle: MR. KOSHER'S XMAS TOAST. Ladies and Gentlemen,-- Please charge your glasses--BUMPERS--here's the health of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen. HIP! HIP!! HURRAH. Come in THOUSANDS and inspect the FINEST CHRISTMAS SHOW OF MEAT AND POULTY in the Kingdom. E. Barnett & Co. "The Queen's Kosher Butchers" The Largest Jewish Butchers & Poulterers in the United Kingdom 79 & 81, Middlesex Street From ads in the Jewish Chronicle, 1893
Author: Timsta Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 11:24 am
Viper: I wouldn't dignify my line of inquiry with such a grandiose term as 'theory'! Just trying to dig up information on 19th century speech patterns, is all. I also have some interest in this since 'Mishter' Lusk was almost certainly from a (Scots-?) Irish background somewhere along the line also(although we know he was born in Stepney). Leanne: I think you have a good point there. I think we are honor-bound to accept the inquest report over the press report. Regards Timsta
Author: Eduardo Zinna Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 03:37 am
Hi all, I assume some thought has already been given to the possibility that the author of the 'Mishter' Lusk letter was playing with the meaning of the word lusk - i.e., lazy, sluggard. It is not current now, but was, in that sense, in the 1880s. I think I pointed out before that Lusk was a Freemason - which would possibly exclude his being of a Roman Catholic Irish background. Hi Chris, A Kosher Christmas? I take it there was no Hanukkah yet. Cheers, Eduardo
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 06:12 am
Hi, Eduardo: I am making the assumption that E. Barnett & Co. may have laid on a Kosher meal whenever Her Majesty had Jewish guests for dinner. :-) As documented in the Ultimate in lobbying Scotland Yard for a reward for the murderer, Lusk made the point that he was vestryman of his local parish, so I should think he was Protestant. It has crossed my mind though that he might be of Jewish background, as I believe a number of the members of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee were Jewish. Eduardo, thanks for bringing up the 1880s meaning of the word, lusk - i.e., lazy, sluggard. I had not previously considered this before, but I think it is quite evident that the writer of the "From Hell" letter was playing with words and was not the illiterate they claimed to be, so it is quite possible they were playing with this meaning of the word "lusk" as if to say, "Mishter Lusk, yore not quik enuf to catch me." All the best Chris
Author: Eduardo Zinna Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 01:35 pm
Hi Chris, You are right in saying that Barnett could be a Jewish surname. It is listed as such in a Jewish Genealogy site in the Internet. In fact, some of the current queries relate to London Barnetts. Something to follow up, perhaps. Cheers, Eduardo
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Monday, 19 August 2002 - 04:48 am
Eduardo & Chris T. Barnett is a Jewish name. In the Labour Governments of Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan in the 1960's and early 70's, the minister without portfolio (a type of roving trouble shooter) was Joel Barnett MP. And I believe born and bred in London's East End. One of his briefs was liaison between all faiths. He was the Jewish spokesman. An excellent orator and a very nice man who was well thought of by all parties. Alas too few of his breed are in politics today. A&S
Author: Eduardo Zinna Monday, 19 August 2002 - 06:14 am
Hello Andy and Sue (de Mille), Hello Chris, Since we are in the subject of Jewish surnames, let me bring up another character in Mary Kelly's life who I believe might have been Jewish. I am referring to the man known as Morganstone. I understand, first, that Morganstone is not a common British surname; secondly, that 'stone' is a predominantly British Jewish surname ending, whose equivalent in America is 'stein'. Moreover, 'Morgenstern' is, I believe, a quite common Jewish surname. It means, as a matter of fact, Morning Star. It would therefore be possible that this rather elusive person came from a Jewish family that had anglicised its name, that he used an anglicised vesion of his surname though he had not changed it legally, or even that other people tended to mishear his surname. Of course all this theorizing might, at least partly, be in vain, because I remember that Stewart Evans identified Morganstone in, I think, his book on Inspector Reid. Cheers Eduardo
Author: Eduardo Zinna Monday, 19 August 2002 - 10:46 am
Hi all, Before someone else comes up with it, I'd like to confirm that Stewart Evans had indeed identified two Morgestern [sic] brothers of Dutch origin the elder of whom might have been Mary Kelly's friend. It is not clear whether they were Jewish. Cheers, Eduardo
Author: John Dow Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 05:30 am
The main problem I have with accepting Barnett as a suspect in the murder of Mary Kelly is motive. The motive simply does not meet the MO. I could believe Barnett killing Kelly in a fit of rage, jealous anger, or frustration, but to calculatingly plan her murder - to leave and "cool off" then come back much later, not to mention spending, what, at least an hour? actually doing the mutilation? That's not a crime of passion, and it's not "making it look like the ripper did it". If Barnett was going to gain from her death in some way, then possibly - but there's no way he'd have done that just because she was going "back on the game".
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 07:14 pm
G'day, When Barnett met Kelly, they took lodgings in George Street but didn't remain there long. Within a year they moved three more times. They moved from George St. to Paternoster Row where, according to Barnett they were evicted for 'going on a drunk', (Barnett, Central News Agency statement, Lloyds News Paper, 11 November) ,instead of paying rent. They then lived in crowded Brick Lane, before settling at 13 Millers Court. It sounds to me as though Barnetts 'fit of rage' could have been building for a long time, due to problems with Kelly's drinking habits. Three months after they had moved to Millers Court, Emma Smith was assaulted by a gang. A few months later Martha Tabram was murdered (by an unknown). Kelly continually asked Barnett to buy the papers and read to her about the Murders. Both Smith and Tabram had lived on George Street and were heavy drinkers who may have frequented the same pubs as Mary. If she never met them, she may have known them by sight. Then Barnett lost his job, two weeks before the Nichols murder. He struggled to pay for their rent as well as Mary's drinking habit. He had to stop Mary from returning to prostitution to earn extra money, plus Joseph Flemming was hanging around giving Mary gifts of money. Her concern and fear over the murders of these women was a way for Barnett to keep Mary clinging to him. LEANNE!
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Friday, 23 August 2002 - 06:30 pm
I just got my copy of "Jack the Ripper, the Simple Truth" and I am so embarressed! There it is in black and white concerning echolalia being common in autistics and schizophrenics...God almost word for word exactly what I said in the first post on this thread. You people must think I am some sort of idiot! I swear I came up with my conclusion independently, but I absolutely would not blame you if you didn't believe me.
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 23 August 2002 - 09:12 pm
There'd be no reason for you to try to present it as an original idea if you hadn't come up with it on your own. Well, I suppose someone could try, but I don't get that vibe from you at all. Not a big deal, don't sweat it.
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Saturday, 24 August 2002 - 11:26 am
Dan - thank you for the vote of confidence! Leanne - since beginning my Ripper adventure, I have read a lot about other serial killers who were caught and "studied"....I've come to believe that most of these people are unable to achieve sexual satisfaction unless it involves violent fantasy or action. So Barnett wouldn't even need the excuse of doing it to keep Mary clinging. I also believe that is why there was a sheet over Mary's head at some point during the killing, he had to "dehumanize" her in order to achieve the satisfaction. I believe that Mary belitted Barnett in a sexual context the night before her murder. I think Mary kept him around because he provided monetary comfort...when he lost that job there wasn't anything ELSE he was doing to compel her to keep him around, if you get my drift! Leanne, it seems like our (armchair) detective research has led us to very similar conclusions!
Author: Leonard James White Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 05:56 pm
hello all as a new kid on the block,(my first message)with many years studying JACK, I have my own theory with regards to Joseph Barnett & Marie Jane Kelly, their relationship was stormy to say the least,Prostitutes especially in Whitechapel were called 4d whores (4 pennys)the price of a lodging house for the night, They all knew one another or at least, of one another,let us now conjecture they all liked to have a drink in the Ten Bells Public House let us say that Marie joked about the size of his manhood in a drunken night out with the (girls)in front of Joe, they all laughed,at him would that be enough to (Do them all in, for laughing at him) saving Marie till the last, and most horrific.
Author: Trevor Robert Jones Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 08:43 pm
Hi Leonard, A not impossible scenario , I grant you . Whilst some people believe that Liz Stride may not be a victim of "Jack", but of her partner Michael Kidney , I have always inclined to the belief that if anyone of the five "canonical" victims was not murdered by JTR ,it was probably Mary Kelly. If so her murderer was most likely to be Joe Barnett. However,against this we need to allow for the fact that Barnett was questioned at length by the Police after her Murder and they were satisfied as to his innocence - or at least they were unable to charge him. It would seem possible that most of the prostitutes probably knew each other - if only by sight , as the vicinity of the murders is geographically small. Even today "working Girls" as they prefer to be known as tend to know one and other and share information on dodgy punters or "Ugly Mugs" as they are known within the trade. Have you read Bruce Paleys book "The Simple Truth" ? Best Wishes, Trevor.
Author: richard nunweek Friday, 10 January 2003 - 07:10 am
HI LEONARD AND TREVOR. i think we can safely assume if joseph barnett was responsible for kellys death she must have upset him somehow.for about twenty eight years i have regarded barnett as the most likely killer because of the strong feelings he expressed about kellys morals , also joseph flemming on the scene would have to say the least annoyed him. TREVOR, you speak of barnetts alibi for the night of the 8th / 9th nov he was playing cards at his lodging house before retiring to bed ,the police would have checked this and were clearly satisfied that he did not leave his lodgings during the night. however this alibi would have been useless if the police did not assume that kelly was killed during the night . if she met her death like a lot of us think sometime after nine am on the morning of the 9th barnett is still a suspect in a big way ,of at least being her killer . as i have mentioned on these boards in the last couple of days,i firmly believe that two young women saw a man spit on the grave of kelly at leytonstone cemetary on the day of her funeral ,we know from sketches made at the time that at the actual sevice at the graveside there were 6 women , and two men one being the rather tall priest and the other barnett . of course there would have been onlookers , and if the painting A PASSING FUNERAL IS A REFERENCE TO THE TWO WOMEN joseph sickert could have been one of the onlookers . i think we can safely assume that if somebody did disrespect kelly in that way he would certainly not have approved of her when she was alive.so one certain suspect barnett . and just possibly walter sickert . of course it could be anybody else but until something else shows ,i will rest my case regards richard
Author: Len White Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 07:43 am
Hi Trevor No I've not got round to reading Bruce Paley's book "The Simple Truth" is he one of the new boys (authors,) I'll see if it's in the Library Today. The only reason for Liz Stride being treated seperately I can see is, the distance between Berner St and Mitre Sq, Louis Diemschulz believed that the murderer escaped while he summoned help in the International Workingmen's Educational Club, the body was still warm, Jack had not finished what he set out to do (cut them up) what an Ideal way to escape as they come out of the club, mill in with the crowd and escape, get a Hackney Cab, "Mitre Sq Driver" and away,You know my stance with Joe Barnett, for those who believe in two people working together, if anyone could prove to me that Joe and John Netley met, or knew one another,I'd go with that,what an Ideal second choice murderer, and a Hackney Cab driver to boot. Len
Author: Trevor Robert Jones Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 01:19 pm
Hi Len, The complete title is : Jack the Ripper , The simple truth. isbn 0-7472-5218-1 Published by Headline book publishing I hope this is of assistance if you have to use the inter-library lending service , (normally an excellent service ). I would be interested in your opinions of the book when you have read it. As I've previously said I can accept Joe Barnett murdering Mary Jane Kelly , but I am not yet convinced that he was JTR. However ,he is a credible suspect in many ways,and certainly one worthy of further consideration and research. Kind regards, Trevor.
Author: Len White Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 03:23 pm
Hi Trevor Sadly it was not in my local Library, but it was in another branch, so I have ordered it in from that branch, should be a couple of days before I get to look at it. Len p.s Have you looked at JACK THE RIPPER The Mystery Solved,by Paul Harrison, He, like me is of the opinion that Joe Barnett was Jack.
Author: Len White Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 03:24 pm
Hi Trevor I have acquired the book by Bruce Paley I have never read his books, but I am warming to him already, a man after my own heart, so I'm not alone in thinking Old Joe, is the top of the suspects list. I am a slow reader so have patience. Len
Author: Trevor Robert Jones Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 04:28 pm
Hi Len, I'm glad to hear you got the book, and would value your opinion when you have completed it. I certainly found it very readable and thought provoking. I havn't read Jack the Ripper: The Mystery solved, but I will try to get hold of a copy A.S.A.P, and I look forward to reading it. Best wishes, Trevor.

Add a Message