Archive through 08 July 2002

** 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 08 July 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Joe Barnett / A Theory and a Story to Amuse You: Archive through 08 July 2002

Author: Brenda L. Conklin Friday, 28 June 2002 - 03:02 pm
Hello to all.... I have stumbled onto something I find rather compelling, compelling enough to chill me through and through. I skimmed the archives as best I can to see if anyone else has gone down this thought path before and could find no evidence. So here goes.... I was at work and just thinking about Joe Barnett as a suspect while working away. I startd thinking about his "speech impediment", echolalia. "That's an unusual impediment" I was thinking, "yet I have heard of it before" Who had it before? Thinking....thinking....then it hits me....Hattie Dorsett, "Sybil's" dreaded mother! (Sybil is the famous multiple personality case) Sybil's mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Hmmm....wait a minute! Maybe echolalia is not a "speech impediment" at all....maybe its a PSYCHOLOGICAL impediment! I immediately went over to the Merck Manual and typed in "echolalia" ---- and here's the only thing to come up.... "childhood psychological disorders" .....so I head on over and there it is...."Kanner's Syndome" otherwise known as plain old-fashioned "autism".... "A syndrome of early childhood characterized by ABNORMAL SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS; language disorder with impaired understanding, ECHOLALIA, and pronominal reversal (particularly using "you" instead of "I" or "me" when referring to one's self); RITUALS and COMPULSIVE PHENOMENA (an insistence on the preservation of sameness); and uneven intellectual development with mental retardation in most cases." My blood ran cold, you guys. Do you realize how much this could explain? My God, the possibilities are endless..... One thing I do know about autism is that there is differing degrees of affectation. Some autistic people, well its obvious something is amiss. Others may only show learning disabilities or language problems. "A touch of autism", if you will. Now lets apply it here. Poor Joe has a touch of autism as evidenced by the echolalia. But he gets along okay other than everyone noticing his repetition of speech. He's smart enough to work and no one has ever suggested he was anything but a "simple everyday guy". Mary meets Joe and falls for him instantly...she and he decide to live together after only one day! However, after being with him for awhile, Mary starts to realize that old Joe is maybe not quite all there...he might be a little touched, as a matter of fact. This goes a long way in quenching her desire for him....in fact it gets to the point she can't bear him....so she arranges a way to get him out. Now Joe has another little problem too...at some point he committed a murder. It may have been an accident or maybe he was with a group of friends who committed a violent act towards a woman. He feels bad about it, but there's this little autism thing that has driven him to commit this act again and again. He tries to control it and can be successful for long periods of time but it always comes back. Even cutting up the fish at work can get him started thinking about it but usually only if he gets stressed out does anything like that happen. But then this thing with Mary....he really loves her and he doesn't understand her rejection. He's tried being really nice and giving her money and stuff, but nothing is working and he's getting pretty pissed off about it. The night of the double event, he has gone out to satisfy his urge for a ritual killing. He manages to get Liz Stride in the Yard and begins his ritual...but dammit! Here comes someone! Gotta run and hide! After this Joe is all torn up....he killed a woman, but he didn't get to complete his ritual...it WASN'T THE SAME as all the others....this is causing him high anxiety. He wanders a bit and tries to calm himself, but he cannot be calmed because the ritual wasn't not the SAME, it wasn't completed....so....oh. look, there's another woman! Maybe he can just kill another one and complete the ritual, maybe even go a little further since he failed before. He'll make it the same and even better! Kate happens upon this man and recognizes him as the man who lived in that room next to the shed she used to sneak in to sleep at. "Hello sir" she calls out to him. He comes over to her and she can see he's anxious, he's sweating and shaking, and mumbling, repeating things back that she says to him...something is obviously wrong. It looks like he's been bleeding too! "Now sir", she says, laying a calming hand on his chest, "don't get too excited, you'll make yourself sick! Why don't you come over here and have a seat and tell me what in the world happened...." After that things start falling apart for Joe. He realizes how close he came to getting caught and it scares him. He doesn't understand this need to kill and that scares him too, he can't control it! And things with Mary just get worse, she's never going to take him back. Things are getting really bad and he doesn't know how much longer he will be in control. Then that November night arrives. I'm not even going to pretend to know what happened. My theory is that when Joe came to visit Mary that evening, something was said that made Joe know that things were never going to go his way. He left, but he left his pipe behind so he'd have an excuse to come back one more time if he decides to. He goes out and does whatever, trying to be normal, but he feels anything but normal. That rage is building up in him, and he is so angry with Mary he could just....rip her heart out! (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) It builds and builds until he just has to go over there and one way or another he will make her see that she needs to be with him! He gets there and knocks on the door. Mary's been scoring a few customers and drinking quite a bit. Dawn isn't too far away and she's trying to catch a few winks. KNOCK KNOCK! "It's Joe" he says...and her irritation knows no bounds. What is he doing here...what is he, an idiot or something? "I forgot my pipe" Joe says, and she just goes over the edge being mean. "I can't believe you come here at _____ (insert your favorite time here) and wake me up for your damned stupid pipe, you bloody imbecile!" God she is being so mean and reminds him of his mean old mother and how she would get angry and call him an idiot and imbecile...that's it dammit. He's going to show this bitch once and for all......and he does. He manages to get home and get cleaned up. He did it again and this time it was Mary! Well, she shouldn't have said the things she said...she brought it on herself! The best thing to do is forget it...just put it out of his mind like it never happened and never, ever think of it again. Except now the police have found Mary and he's being questioned. He's nervous but didn't he already put it out of his mind? That means it didn't happen! So why worry that he did something when he already knows it didn't happen! The police have no evidence but Joe knows they have big suspicions. They are looking at him funny. He's really worried but they don't have any proof, if they did they would have arrested him. That night Joe sits alone on his bed and thinks. He knows what he has done but no one must ever find out. That means he is going to have to get this urge to kill under control. The police are going to be watching him; he knows this. They acted like they didn't believe him but they had no other choice. He would go away if he could but he doesn't have any money and anyway, maybe they would think he did it if he left. He's scared but he realizes that if he can get a grip on the urge and behave, he will get through this and things will be different from now on. And he WAS good, for a long, long time. Then he got drunk one night and kind of lost it and killed Alice McKenzie. And then that Frances woman...but that was only two slips and he hardly even did ANYTHING to them....nothing like what he did to Mary or Kate. And once again he got lucky and didn't get caught...but he might get caught if he doesn't continue to keep a hold on himself... Anyway, it seems like the older he gets the less urgent the need is anyway....and another thing too is that it seems like he has a little more control over his speech problem....he only repeats things a lot now when he gets anxious. Maybe he's kind of "outgrown" his condition. He's done a lot of bad things but he didn't really mean them and anyway Mary shouldn't have said all those things and maybe things wouldnt have turned out like they did. She's the one to blame for it all. .......
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 07:05 am
Dear Brenda, Damn it girl! There's that word "autism"...AGAIN. Joseph, in a recent post, alluded to just such a possibility. Or, was it David Radka? Rosey :-)
Author: Peter Wood Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 09:11 am
And whilst we're at it, maybe we can pin the Kennedy murder on Barnett too? Your post started off as an interesting insight into "echolalia" and degenerated into the kind of wishful thinking that has been responsible for Barnett surviving this long as a ripper suspect. Barnett wasn't the ripper - for a hundred and one reasons. And as for echolalia - it was something I had as a child. I still do it today. I repeat the ends of other people's sentences because it's something that I cannot help doing! I'm not autistic, we're not schizophrenic, and you haven't murdered anyone yet, have you Peter? Oh, and as for the reason why I repeat the ends of other peoples sentences ... it mainly happens when I think they are talking bllcks. Cheers Peter and Peter.
Author: Garry Wroe Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 01:51 pm
Hello All. As someone who has studied psychology at undergraduate level, might I point out that most speech impediments are psychologically mediated and commonly stem from a feeling of low self-esteem. Many stammerers are males who have an older, more dominant brother, for example. But this renders them neither autistic nor sadosexual serial killers. Regards, Garry Wroe.
Author: Diana Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 01:11 am
I am a special education teacher who worked in an autistic unit for a year and I have read @ 15 books on the subject. I raised this possibility months ago (although I wasn't pointing a finger specifically at Barnett at the time.) If Barnett was autistic then he had a rare form known as Asperger's syndrome. Four out of five autistics are mentally retarded. In that fifth one the intelligence is spared and that is your Asperger's individual. Autistics are born lacking the ability to read body language, facial expression or tone of voice. As a consequence their feedback system is impaired. They can't learn from their social gaffes as most children do because they don't realize unless someone directly explains to them that they have displeased anyone. If nobody tells me not to pick my nose in public and I can't interpret the disgusted looks I'm getting when I do it then I never learn not to do it and I go on doing it. Poor grooming and hygiene are not uncommon as the individual does not realize the effect this is having on others. A higher proportion of Aspergers victims have motor problems both fine and gross than do other autistics. I know a young man who is quite intelligent, but is very clumsy and has atrocious handwriting. Poor organizational skills are common. Much of this rings true but I don't think you would see the escalation in mutilation if JTR was autistic. Instead he would be compulsively trying to do exactly the same things to Mary that he did to Kate and Liz and Annie and Polly, no more, no less and all exactly the same way. It could account for his compulsion to always kill in front of a gate or door. I have observed an autistic child who wore a parka jacket in the winter with the hood up when out of doors. When spring came and the weather became warm it took weeks to convince him to abandon that jacket. It would be 85 degrees Fahrenheit outside and he would get off the school bus with the jacket on and the hood covering his head. Reason did not work. He must have been very hot but it did not matter. He was going to go on wearing that hooded jacket forever because it had become a compulsion. Autistics sometimes exhibit savant phenomena. That is they have unusual capabilities that "normal" people do not. Many of these involve fantastic feats of visual memory. There is a man who works for the Metropolitan Transit Authority in Chicago. His job is to answer the phone when someone calls and asks how to get from point A to point B. Though he has computers and maps at his disposal he hardly ever uses them because he has memorized the entire metropolis including (I assume ) suburbs and every little side street. Many autistics excel at jigsaw puzzles. If JTR was autistic and he saw only one autopsy he could possibly remember the exact location of every organ but his fine motor skills would not be great when it came to taking them out. I know an otherwise very bright Asperger's child in whom language was delayed, but visual memory was exceptional and he actually learned to read before he learned to speak. My experience is confined to working with children so as to violent tendencies I can only tell you that the children are more tantrum prone than most children. Whether they outgrow this as adults or if it continues I do not know. If they are going to get upset and violent it is usually because their routine is disrupted. They hate change and novelty.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 05:48 am
Dear Diana, Fascinating! What about the possibility that such a savant was instructed to carry out a series of complex actions according to a predetermined plan? :-)
Author: Diana Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 08:55 am
Because of their lack of social skills these people are frequently manipulated and taken advantage of. But JTR if he was autistic could also have done it all on his own. He would have had to be an Asperger type. I fail to see how someone who was mentally retarded could have gotten away with it. It would very neatly explain the strange and contradictory evidence regarding anatomical knowledge. It would also explain his escapes as one with exceptional visual memory would be very good in the mazelike alleys and back corners of Whitechapel. However the escalation in mutilation, in my opinion, does not fit. If an Aspergers individual did this it probably was because there was a compulsion to continue to carry out an often repeated act. If Jack had worked on a farm killing and dressing out hogs in front of a gate and this employment ended and he was sent to Whitechapel then he would be very frustrated because the gate was gone and there were no more hogs to kill. His compulsion would be to continue to do what he had always done. He would not be experiencing sexual lust or internalized rage, only the urge to go on and on doing what he had done before or as close an approximation as possible. These people tend to get into routines and when the routine has outlived its usefulness they continue anyway.
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 10:11 am
G'day, Author Bruce paley tells the story of Joseph Barnett's childhood in his book 'The Simple Truth'. Joseph's father died when he was 6, then his mother mysteriously disappeared by 1871, as she was no longer listed as a Barnett in the census of that year. Paley notes that her actions mayhave been influenced by heavy drinking. It then fell to his eldest brother, Denis to be family breadwinner and boss. When Denis married, older brother Daniel took over as head of the family. The other children remained at school. Joseph developed a speech impediment common to AUTISTICS, which also may be a symptom of SCHIZOPHRENIA. Daniel followed his father's fading footsteps to Billingsgate Fish Market, where Joseph was working when he met Mary Jane Kelly, unloading and transporting fish. Given his education, Joseph was probably capable of finding a better job, but found himself held-back by the needs of his family. BRENDA: you, like alot of people, conclude that Joseph Barnett led a squeaky clean life after Mary Kelly's inquest. How can we be sure? There are no immediate records of this seemingly ordinary man's actions until 1906, when he got a new Billingsgate licence. He was living with his brother Daniel in Shadwell at this time. LEANNE
Author: Garry Wroe Monday, 01 July 2002 - 07:55 pm
Diana. Although my knowledge of the autistic syndrome is decidedly limited, I seem to recall that, because they lack a 'theory of mind', autistics are incapable of deception. In other words, if the Ripper was autistic and someone in the local pub began talking about the latest crime, he (the killer) would have cheerfuly admitted to being its perpetrator and would have been equally as frank with the police come his inevitable arrest. The Ripper also exercised tremendous control over his victims and crime scenes. Despite three of the four murders having been committed close to occupied rooms and the fourth within fairly close proximity of a normally vigilant night-watchman, never once did anyone hear or see anything that might have aroused suspicion. Could an autistic sufferer really have attained such consistent and sustained control? Regards, Garry Wroe.
Author: Diana Monday, 01 July 2002 - 08:53 pm
I'm not sure the control would be a problem but you are absolutely correct about their inability to conceive of an alternate reality. This means that they make bad liars, they also lack imagination, and tact is not their forte. Symbolism is lost on them and they do not understand sarcasm or irony taking everything literally.
Author: Garry Wroe Monday, 01 July 2002 - 09:43 pm
Enough said.
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 02 July 2002 - 03:16 am
G'day, 'Echolalia' is also common to people suffering schizophrenia or Tourettes syndrome. Schizophrenia is characterized by a breakdown of thinking, a breakdown of emotions and a loss of contact with reality. Only 10% of sufferers commit suicide. Schizophrenia is NOT a split-personality and aggression may occur during an untreated episode. No one is saying that all sufferers of schizophrenia or all autistic people are potential Jack the Rippers. It could be just as insulting to me if someone argued that there was nothing at all wrong with Jack's brain! LEANNE!
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 02 July 2002 - 03:58 am
G'day, 'Paraniod Schizophrenia' is characterized by delusions and hallucinations centering on feelings of Jealousy and grandiosity. Other possible symptoms include argumentativeness, anger and violence. 'Disorganized schizophrenia' begins early in a persons life, while 'Paranoid schizophrenia' starts usually after the ages of 25 or 30. LEANNE!
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Friday, 05 July 2002 - 09:39 pm
Hi its been awhile since I posted this message and I am glad to see that my post stimulated some conversation, as was the intent. I learned a whole lot about autism from Diana's post! Anyway, to those who dissed my story, please udnerstand it was for entertainment only...stretching the story to fit the theory, and in no way should be construed to be my final stand on the matter. I really don't think we can ever find out what happened, to be honest. It will always be theories IMHO. I just got finished with the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion and I was struck by Joe Barnett's articulation of the events. He definately wasn't retarded or suffering from a communication disorder. Does anyone know if those inquest statements were taken verbatim or if they were prompted? I just found the autism/schizophrenia thing interesting, especially when I remembered Hattie Dorsett suffering from echolalia. Now SHE was quite a character herself! Its been years since I read "Sybil" but I think I may go back and read it again. Hattie Dorsett also had a "thing" about knives. This theory can never be proven until we find a way to time travel, though. Also, from reading the Jack the Ripper Companion, I noticed there were several different references to a suspicious person(s) with a bad knee, or a "shuffling gait". Very interesting. Also, the comment was made (I think by Abberline) that "two key pieces of evidence were lost/destroyed"...that being the Juwes writing and the clay pipe from MJK's room...the same pipe Joe Barnett already admitted was his! Very, very interesting! This was interesting also but I think it is probably reading too much into it...that a clay pipe was found underneath either Alice McKenzie or Frances Coles. It was pretty gross to find out that after MJK's death, the room was visited by a reporter and when he went there it was already occupied by new tenants, but the new tenant cheerfully showed him the bloodstains still on the walls! Didn't these people believe in soap, water, paint? (Don't answer that, I already know....shudder!) Love, Lita
Author: Jack Traisson Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 02:06 am
Lita, Regarding Barnett's testimony: Coroner Macdonald gives us the best indication by telling him: "You have given your evidence very well indeed." Of course they believed in soap, but have you ever tried cleaning up blood? It's difficult enough with modern cleansers. McCarthy need not bother with the unnecessary expense of paint, the room would prove easy enough to rent. Kit Watkins of The Toronto Daily Mail spent several months in London (as part of a European trip) mostly writing about Charles Dickens. Kit was a huge fan of Dickens and was appalled by how quickly his London was disappearing. She wrote a weekly column entitled 'Woman's Kingdom' which was initially started in 1884 as a page devoted to women's issues. The plucky Kit would not be held down, writing about politics and crime (at that time those subjects were the exclusive domain of male reporters), and every subject that interested her. Kit visited all of the Ripper murder sites in February of 1892. At Miller's Court she met Elizabeth Prater, still living at No. 20 (where prostitute Kitty Ronan would later be murdered in 1909), who took her downstairs to No. 13 to meet "Lottie" (probably Julia Venturney), the room's current occupant, who had a busted nose courtesy of her husband's boot (Harry Owen?). Kit spoke with several prostitutes who joked morbidly about the murder. Lottie showed no repugnance about sleeping in a room with black stains on the walls. The article is too long for me to quote in full here but my favorite line comes from part of her description of Miller's Court: "Murder seems to brood over the place." Kit made many nocturnal walks through London as well. She did so in the company of a Bow Street Inspector (who I have yet to identify). She not only wanted to see how the city operated at night, but was interested in people who inhabited the darkness. Kit had immense compassion for the plight of the poor. It is one of the constants throughout her writing. Cheers, John
Author: Jack Traisson Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 02:09 am
Kit Watkins c.1890
Author: graziano Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 06:46 am
The clay pipe Anderson alluded to (not Abberline) was the one found under the body of Alice McKenzie, not the one found at 13 Miller's Court. The latter belonged to Joseph Barnett and did not offer any clue at the murderer at all (since it belonged to Barnett and that was clear). The one pipe found under the body of Alice McKenzie was much more interesting since another one was found in one of her pockets, so possibly the one under her body could have belonged to one of her assaulters or her murderer. This pipe was destroyed by the Doctor (or just disappeared) during the autopsy.
Author: David O'Flaherty Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 10:43 am
Hi, Jack The Kit Watkins story sounds fascinating. Could you tell me what edition of the Toronto Daily Mail the story appeared in? Thanks for the image as well--I always enjoy seeing what people looked like. Dave
Author: Kevin Braun Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 12:59 pm
David, Not sure what edition the story appeared in. You can read about Kathleen Blake Watkins visit to the East End in Andy Aliffe's, "Kit, Kitty, Kitten". For an excerpt go to Message Boards, Ripper Victims, Specific Victims, Mary Jane Kelly, Site of 13 Miller's Court. Scroll to adam wood, June 18, 2001, 6:17 AM. Take care, Kevin
Author: David O'Flaherty Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 01:10 pm
Kevin, thanks very much!
Author: Jack Traisson Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 04:04 pm
David, The article I was refering to is from The Toronto Mail, February 27, 1892. Kit made several trips to London, and makes many references to JtR and the East End. I am in the process of tracking them all down. If you read Kit Watkins entry in the A - Z, it says she wrote four aricles: 1892, 1893, 1896, 1909. I have found no article from 1896. It is more likely 1897, when Kit visited London for Queen Victoria's Jubilee. Parts of her Woman's Kingdom column covering the event would be made into a book "To London For The Jubilee" (Toronto : G. Morang, 1897). As I have said. other than the two larger pieces in 1892, 1893, there are plenty of references. One more thing. In 1895, The Daily Mail merged with The Empire to become the Toronto Mail and Empire. Andy's article is a fine article but there are one or two mistakes in the piece. Andy, and other writer's mostly quote from the 1892 piece, as well as an article written about Kit by Robin F. Rowland (Toronto Globe and Mail, August 30, 1988). I am sorry to say this is all of the research on Kit that I am willing to give away at this point. E-mail me privately if there are any other questions. Cheers, John
Author: David O'Flaherty Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 04:27 pm
John, Thanks for the information. I don't have any other questions for now--I only wanted to do a little further reading on the subject and those dates will be helpful to me. I understand about not wanting to give away research and hope that you'll notify me publicly or privately when you've published--I'd like to follow what you come up with. Thanks for responding, David
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 10:10 pm
For some reason this didn't post before! Here it goes again and if I have made a mistake or something forgive me.... I looked this up in the "Ultimate Jack The Ripper Companion"...you are correct it is Anderson speaking but get this.....(Anderson speaking) "Something of the same kind happened in the Ripper crimes. In two cases of that terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed, wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin. "In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fireplace and smashed it beyond recognition." From that I infer he's talking about Miller's Court. Isn't that just so interesting? Its hard for me to see how anyone can fully discount Barnette as a suspect. Love, Lita
Author: David O'Flaherty Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 03:32 pm
Hi, Lita You got me to thinking about clay pipes and my desire to add one to my collection And also because I like JtR minutae (laugh). Clay pipes were a dime a dozen before briar become popular. Clays were impersonal things, cookie-cutter pipes. I have to wonder why anyone would, much less a doctor, destroy such a thing, since I can't think of a single clue a clay pipe could offer. They weren't the sort of thing you'd inscribe or personalize (except for commercial purposes) because of their easy availability and fragility. Taverns used to keep racks of them for customers' use and then just sterilize them in the fire to clean them. There's interesting debate on Dr. Anderson elsewhere on the boards, particularly the "Anderson's Fairy Tales" thread. And on clay pipes, too, under Ripper Victims/Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly archive thru July 29, 2001. A really nice picture of several clays is also included. I know many think Joe Barnett a likely suspect in MJK's death, maybe not unreasonably, but I don't understand why the prescence of his clay pipe in a place he lived only a few days before implicates him, or why it could be such a "distinct clue," in the words of Anderson. If I'm overlooking something, I'd be grateful to be corrected. I wasn't aware of the clay pipe found under Alice McKenzie--I wonder if Anderson just confused it with the Miller's Court pipe. Take care, Lita Dave PS--anyone know where clay pipes can be purchased? All my pipe shops have failed me.
Author: The Viper Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 05:54 pm
At Alice McKenzie's Inquest on 17th July 1889, her paramour, John M'Cormack, was asked about her smoking habits. Then the Deputy of her lodging house in Gun Street, Elizabeth Ryder, stated that "I have seen her smoke in the kitchen. She used to borrow pipes, which were short clay ones, like the one produced." (The source for that statement is The Times, 18th July, the emphasis being mine.) Now, if this pipe was produced as an exhibit, it can't be the same one which Dr. Phillips alluded to at the final day of the inquest on 14th August, when he was recalled to the stand. Also quoted from The Times, 15th August (see the same link above), Phillips said, "On the occasion of my making the post-mortem examination, the attendants of the mortuary, on taking off the clothing of the deceased woman removed a short clay pipe, which one of them threw upon the ground, by which means it was broken. I had the broken pieces placed upon a ledge at the end of the post-mortem table; but it has disappeared, and although inquiry has been made about it, up to the present time it has not been forthcoming. The pipe had been used. It came from the woman's clothing..." From this we must conclude that Alice owned two clay pipes. The fact is confirmed by this piece, taken from the East London Advertiser of 17th August:- Mr. Ayton elicited the useful fact that it was not the pipe alluded to at the last inquiry. So it seemed as if a clue to the assassin in the shape of his pipe had been found and lost. It's interesting that at least one juryman (Robert Ayton was a local undertaker, who being quite prominent in local affairs had been selected as Foreman), considered the missing pipe a possible clue. It need not necessarily have been though. As David O'Flaherty points out above, clay pipes were commonplace and Alice might have acquired it from anywhere for her own use. Bob Hinton once volunteered the information here on the boards that such pipes were even given away at the time. Anyway, it's clear from Anderson's comment that he was refering to McKenzie's broken pipe, and not to Joe Barnett's intact one. In which case he is suggesting that McKenzie was a Ripper victim. Incidently, further snippets on this and other aspects of the McKenzie inquest can be gained by following the links at the bottom of the link above. In particular, check out the local papers of week ending 17th August 1889 for details about the broken pipe. Regards, V.
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 06:06 pm
Re: Clay pipes. I'm not sure if they still are sold there, but years ago clay pipes were sold at the gift shop of the Museum of the City of New York on Fifth Avenue and East 103rd Street. They were considered appropriate in the 1960s, because the early Dutch and colonial settlers smoked clay pipes. However, I have not been to the museum in twenty years, and I am not sure if (in this anti-smoking city of New York) they still sell such items. Jeff
Author: David O'Flaherty Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 06:56 pm
Viper, thanks for clearing the fog away and providing links for further reading. And thank you, Jeff, for the lead in my quest for the clay pipe I'll track them down on the Internet, although I don't hold out much hope for help from the government in this case. Cheers, Dave
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 10:03 pm
Hi David - I too fail to understand what kind of clue the pipe could provide, unless there was something wacky being smoked in it they wanted to check out! I haven't read any information regarding the drug scene in the East End, though I imagine opium would have been the reigning drug of choice. I also suppose that then, as now, the drug dealers were the ones that ruled the underworld. Does anyone just how big the drug trade was in the Autumn of Terror (I love that phrase)? I bet it was a pretty big deal since the docks were so near. Did the dealers have people who ran the drugs around town and sold them or did the addicts have to come to the dens or something? For some reason it keeps popping in my brain that maybe Joe Barnette was running some drugs or something...it was mighty brave of him to leave Mary Jane with no steady job. Maybe odd jobs were carrying him through? I just think its kind of weird how everyone seemed to be an alcoholic but no drugs of any kind are ever mentioned. Love, Lita
Author: David O'Flaherty Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 11:59 pm
Lita, didn't you see "From Hell?" They were all on something, even Abberline My take on Joe and MJK is that Joe was the more stable of the two--he was the one giving her money, even after he left--when he could manage it, that is. Dave
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 08 July 2002 - 12:15 am
Why does a man leave his pipe in his ex-girlfriend's room? Answer: so he has an excuse to come back later. [George Costanza pulled this once on Seinfeld]
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 08 July 2002 - 12:29 am
R.J. Now I will forever associate Joe Barnett with Jason Alexander. Thank you Seriously, though--he didn't really need an excuse, he was giving her money. And if we believe his testimony, she didn't kick him out, he left of his own free will. I assume he could've moved back in with her, if he'd wanted to. And maybe he would have, if events had turned out differently. Joe doesn't seem to have been an unwelcome sight around Miller's Court, not to the extent of having to invent excuses to come visit. Coming back for a clay pipe is like coming back for a bic lighter. Besides, I've always found leaving your underwear behind creates a much better excuse to return to a girl's house. I do it all the time, even to women I'm not dating. "But I left my underwear, baby!" Unfortunately, it has yet to work for me. Dave
Author: graziano Monday, 08 July 2002 - 12:30 am
Why should a man come back later in his ex-girlfriend room ? Because he could "hug" her again. I think we may so definitely dismiss Barnett as the killer of Mary Kelly. Destructor Viper has struck again. Yes Anderson said the clay pipe was a clue. Yes the clay pipe was one of the two found under/on Alice McKenzie body. But to prove Anderson fool Viper does not hesitate to state that there is evidence the two pipes belonged to the victim. There is no evidence at all of that. Instead, that one pipe was under the body, the other probably on the bosom of the skirt (see Dr Philips testimony at the inquest) seem to suggest that one of the two dropped from the pocket of the murderer. Good bye. Graziano.
Author: The Viper Monday, 08 July 2002 - 05:01 am
You make one fair point. Instead of "From this we must conclude that Alice owned two clay pipes", it would have been more accurate to say "From this we must conclude that two clay pipes were found by Alice's body". I don't dismiss the idea altogether that one of these pipes belonged to the murderer, but was trying to point out that it wasn't necessarily the case. Regards, V.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 08 July 2002 - 05:40 am
G'day, After Alice McKenzies, (or "Clay Pipe" Alice's), autopsy: Dr. Phillips believed that her death was not attributed to the Ripper, saying at her inquest "The injuries to her throat are not similar to those in the other cases." Dr. Bond and Munro thought otherwise. ANDERSON WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SHE WAS "MURDERED BY ANOTHER HAND". LEANNE
Author: Jon Eva Monday, 08 July 2002 - 05:43 am
Where to buy clay pipes: http://www.pipes.org/~pipes/Bewdley/
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 08 July 2002 - 06:03 am
G'day, On the second page of 'Victims- Alice McKenzie' here in the main casebook, it tells me that Anderson wrote: 'I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occured, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac.' DAVE: How can coming back to your girlfriend's room for your pipe, be like returning for a "BIC lighter", when at the time Barnett was struggling to earn a wage, and didn't have any spare money to 'buy' his girls affections? LEANNE
Author: John Dow Monday, 08 July 2002 - 06:06 am
Graziano: >Instead, that one pipe was under the body, the >other probably on the bosom of the skirt (see Dr >Philips testimony at the inquest) seem to >suggest that one of the two dropped from the >pocket of the murderer Maybe the mortuary attendant broke the pipe and took the pieces cos he recognised it ;-) I'm in a "Tumblety + one other" mood today John
Author: The Viper Monday, 08 July 2002 - 06:48 am
Yes, Leanne, that's precisely the point. The quote you give appeared in Sir Robert Anderson's The Lighter Side of my Official Life in 1910. It is at variance with his comments concerning the broken pipe 'clue' which appeared in the Daily Chronicle of 1st September 1908. Further discussion of the discrepancy probably belongs on another board, should those debating Anderson's reliability wish to develop it. Further reading can be done in chapter 41 of The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook. Regards, V.
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 08 July 2002 - 07:22 am
In the thirties a quite popular toy for a working class child was a clay pipe and a bowl of soapy water. In those days people could buy for their children, white candy cigarettes, chocolate cigars complete with gold paper bands, and liquorice pipes with kayliye. Why does a man leave "A" pipe at his estranged wife's room?, ---then he has one there in case he has broken/lost/ or forgotten his regular pipe on the way to visit her,--- or maybe he tapped it out gently on the hearth, (at around 06:15am) put it on the mantle piece, put his coat back on, and left, leaving his pipe behind!!, after all he did have other things on his mind. Did those two women actually see the man spit?, if they were that close, it would have been pointless them trying to hide, and they could have given a good description of him, of his face. Is D.N.A. indestructable? after 113yrs surely a dollop of spit and anything that goes with it would have disappeared completely,-- years and years ago?. Chris, if Barnett did spit on Kelly's coffin, (which I find quite feasible) I think he would have done it just because he was there, I don't think he would have gone back later Rick
Author: graziano Monday, 08 July 2002 - 07:57 am
But what kind of additional satisfaction could he have obtained from just spitting on the coffin if you believe he already cut her to pieces just days before ? Is cutting to pieces not such a great victory that one need also to go and spit on the coffin ? If this episode is true and if Barnett really spat on the coffin and if he really had some grievances towards Mary Kelly, his spitting should confirm that he did not have the opportunity to take vengeance before. Good bye.