Archive through 12 August 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 12 August 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Joe Barnett / A Theory and a Story to Amuse You: Archive through 12 August 2002

Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 08 July 2002 - 08:03 am
David--Hi. Unfortunately, most all of the information we have about the Kelly/Barnett relationship comes from Barnett himself. It's only an opinion, but having viewed a few crumbling romances over the years, I tend to doubt that Kelly was overly pleased with Barnett popping in from time to time. It's hard to say, though. I wonder if any of the British press reports mentioned Barnett being very drunk at the Inquest? One foreign correspondent [that claims to have spoken to Barnett personally] wrote that Barnett was drunk off his backside that day...and that he also had a new girlfriend, a sort of Whitechapel-groupie that was impressed by Joe's relationship with Mary Kelly. [Now I'm thinking of Barnett as a sort of Kato Kaitlin]. Cheers.
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 08 July 2002 - 09:10 am
Well Grazziano, I don't know, with a mind like his--not 100% correct, perhaps he reached for the chance to prolong the insult and revenge he had started at 4oclock on that morning. Rick
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 08 July 2002 - 09:15 am
Robeer, I haven't forgotten Rick
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 08 July 2002 - 10:54 am
Jon Eva-- Many, many thanks! Dave
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 08 July 2002 - 11:06 am
Hi, Leanne Because clay pipes were inexpensive and readily available. Someone on another thread (Bob Hinton, I think) pointed out that they were sometimes given away for free. If we were talking about a briar or a meerschaum, those would be pipes worth coming back for. To get an idea of the cheapness of a clay, check out the link to a commercial pipe page kindly posted by Jon Eva. Today a clay is around 2.75 Sterling--$4 (estimating US currency). For a decent briar or meerschaum, you're likely to pay at least $40 (more like $60). Cheers, Dave
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 08 July 2002 - 11:28 am
Hi, RJ I take your point about crumbling relationships. But Maria Harvey was also present at the end, and doesn't contradict anything Barnett says. Maria describes herself as a friend of Mary's, who goes away when Barnett arrives. It's impossible to know why, but my experience with women tells me the friend sticks around when the visitor is unwelcome. But that's a matter of perception and and experience, I guess--all of which vary from reader to reader. But if Mary was afraid of Joe, or leery of him, don't you think Maria would have spilled the beans? She had to have been in the know and I can't imagine she was too fond of Joe. Interesting about Joe's being drunk at the inquest and the new girl--I didn't know, so thanks for posting. But liquor and women are sometimes used for solace, aren't they? At least, that's what someone told me Best, Dave
Author: Scott Nelson Monday, 08 July 2002 - 02:42 pm
RE: the clay pipe clue. Anderson could have confused the pipe found next to McKenzie with the one found in Kelly's room at Miller's Court. But he makes specific referece to a "doctor" who smashed it in a "fireplace". This could only refer to Kelly's room, where doctors were conducting the examination of her body. If Anderson in 1908 thought that McKenzie could have been a potential Ripper victim, he apparently reversed this view in 1910, as was pointed out by Viper in his post above. However, we might also suspect that there actually was a pipe that was broken in Kelly's room, and that this is what Anderson was referring to. But so as not to portray Anderson as absolutely reliable when it came to published reminiscences, in the same 1908 Daily Chronicle piece, he said that upon his return from the Continent, "I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes for the reasons, among others, that I have given you." Harcourt was Home Secretary from 1880 to 1886, whereupon Henry Matthews was appointed to that position. Anderson, therefore, could not have told this to Harcourt in 1888.
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 08 July 2002 - 05:34 pm
Scott, I'm afraid that I cannot agree with you on the point that you make about the clay pipe referred to by Anderson. The pipe found in Miller's Court was referred to by Abberline who merely said, "...a pipe was there & used by him [Barnett]." It was not lost nor broken. However, in relation to the pipe found on McKenzie, Dr. Bagster Phillips said:- "Discovery of & subst. loss of short clay pipe. While searching the clothing one of the attendants [at the mortuary] found a short pipe, well used, which he thoughtlessly threw onto the ground & broke it. I had the pieces put on one side meaning to preserve them but up to the time of writing this report [22 July 1889] they have not been recovered by me." This would seem to be the source of Anderson's confusion. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Monday, 08 July 2002 - 05:35 pm
Leanne - I think "Clay Pipe Alice" is a wonderful nickname! R.J. Palmer - Joe Barnette as Kato Kaelin? LOL! I bet ol' Kato would jump at the chance to play Joe Barnette in a move...or jump at the chance to play ANY character in ANY movie, as a matter of fact. Warwick Parminter - I hate sounding so misinformed, but PLEASE tell me more about this tale of Barnette spitting on Mary's coffin? I have never heard of this happening and I am dying to know the details. (I am also on a hunt for your book "The East End: Four Centuries of London Life". ;-) Scott Nelson - when I read the Anderson quote I was positive he must have meant the one in Mary Jane's room, as there was a pipe found there also. This is just one of the billion little things about this case that drives me mad. One little provable clue could blow this whole case wide open. When I get to heaven the first things I am going to ask are: Who the heck was Jack? Who shot JFK? And what was the deal with Stonehenge? etc etc. I hope there's a library in heaven. And I am going to be really pissed if there's no heaven! To all: I'm not much of a conspiracy believer, but I am starting to think some sort of cover up took place with JTR information. Obviously theres a whole boatload of information missing/destroyed. I know some was lost in WWII.
Author: The Viper Monday, 08 July 2002 - 05:39 pm
Scott, I�m afraid I cannot agree with the assessment in your first paragraph. Whilst it is true that the detail about the fireplace doesn�t match the description of the incident as recounted in the newspapers, a doctor (Phillips) was present and he was overseeing the operation. But the major detail, surely, is the broken pipe, which Anderson specifically mentioned as a clue. That only matches with the Alice McKenzie post-mortem. There is no reference to any pipe of Barnett�s being broken and simply to suspect that there was one without documentary evidence is, in my view, an act of faith which is excess to our needs here. Regards, V.
Author: Scott Nelson Monday, 08 July 2002 - 08:02 pm
Thank you Stewart,Viper and Brenda. The quote, "...a pipe was there and used by him" I always took to mean the drain pipe on the outside wall next to the broken window, but I could be wrong. The fact that Anderson said there was a clay pipe in the room that was smashed by a doctor in the fire-place "before we could get to the scene of the murder" seems a bit specific to Miller's Court, so I'm not so sure we should dismiss it as an act of faith. But I'll concede the point to both of you. Brenda: I like the way you think. Looking forward to your new book, Stewart.
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 08 July 2002 - 09:08 pm
Hello BRENDA, Nice to talk to you, first things first, I have never written a book, I'm sorry to say, you have me mixed up with another gent. The spitting on the coffin, you will find that little episode written about by Bruce Paley in his book "JACK the RIPPER" The Simple Truth, it's quite a good read. I hope you are enjoying the postings BRENDA,-- looks like you are All the Best Rick
Author: Jack Traisson Monday, 08 July 2002 - 10:09 pm
"East End: Four Centuries of London Life" by Alan Palmer. Easily obtainable. Cheers, John
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 01:25 am
G'day Rick, I have Bruce Paley's book open right in front of me. and I can't find the page about Barnett spitting on Mary Kelly's grave! It says: 'The coffin was incensed, lowered and then sprinkled with holy water' LEANNE
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 01:36 am
G'day Stewart, If the clay pipe referred to by Anderson wasn't Joes because it was not lost or broken, can you say what happened to it? At what point was it given back to Barnett in one piece? LEANNE
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 05:29 am
G'day Brenda, ...and those who never read the post about a man seen spitting on Kelly's grave. Go to the board below titled: 'FUNERAL OF MARY KELLY' and read message from 'Richard Nunweek, Sunday 07 July, 2002' Rick is right about Bruce Paleys book 'Jack the Ripper, The Simple Truth' being a good read (even to those who don't believe that Joe was a killer.) At the back of this book is a complete reference source for information, including quotes from various newspapers and Coroner's files. I have found these references excellent for checking upon things discussed on these boards. LEANNE
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 05:46 am
G'day Stewart, I just found this information in 'Odd Omissions, Scott Morro's Plea for Barnett's Innocence'. Frederick Walker writes: 'His pipe, found at the scene of the crime, was clumsily destroyed during collection and could not be shown to a jury' LEANNE
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 06:35 am
EEK! I have confused Warwick Parminter with Alan Warwick Palmer! Hey maybe you SHOULD write a book Rick! Its all in the "Warwick"..... I know I can get the book easily via internet but not before I've combed my town in search of it first....its a shopping mania, sorry. Leanne: You have presented the corroboration needed to ascertain it was Joe's pipe that was broken at the scene of MJK's house!!!!!! Good work! We now have two statements......does anyone else need convincing?
Author: graziano Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 08:15 am
Leanne has presented nothing at all. She has just noticed that Doctor Frederick Walter made the same confusion as a lot of boarders mixing up the Abberline's statement about Joe Barnett's pipe and the Anderson's one about one pipe being a clue. The pipe which was destroyed and could not be shown to the jury was the one which fell from the bosom of the skirt of Alice McKenzie in the autopsy room. Anderson could have nevertheless also thought about the first pipe, found under the body of Alice McKenzie at the murder site as the body was put on the ambulance. Following Inspector Reid at the inquest, this pipe also was broken (The Times, july 18th, 1889) and of course it was lying under the body at the murder site. Whatever was the "Alice McKenzie's" pipe Anderson referred to, the reasoning does not change: one corpse, two pipes around the body, there was a chance something was wrong. That's a (potential) clue at the murderer. A pipe belonging to Joseph Barnett in a room which he frequented. That's not a clue. That's just an object lying in its normal place. Then, the pipe found by Doctor Phillips could have been thrown in the fire grate by a worker (but this is my speculation). I do not understand all the fuss and mistery about what happened to Joseph Barnett's pipe: it was given back to him since it wasn't of any use. This is not speculation, this is using the primarily functions of the brain. Good Bye. Graziano.
Author: Caroline Morris Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 08:52 am
Hi Graz, Pipe-dreams? Like the fuss and mystery about what happened to the key, and whether Barnett was telling lies about his access to No.13? I never understood that either. Why would a man with something to hide volunteer information, or lie, about how he managed to get into a room where a horrible murder had just occurred? Anderson, however, seems to be a little mixed up over how a clay pipe associated with Alice could have been a good clue to the identity of the ripper if he didn't believe she was one of his victims - but someone will no doubt explain to me how the timings of such statements and beliefs can make sense out of them. Love, Caz
Author: graziano Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 09:54 am
Caroline, Alice McKenzie murder was a red-herring. Someone had to be protected, someone who fell under police suspicion (and was probably under surveillance). To make it seems it was the same hand than the previous ones another murder had to be committed while he was under surveillance, a woman known as "Kelly" was found. Fantastic. She was assaulted, killed and butchered in the same way than the others. At least, at the best of what they could imitate. When Anderson said he assumed it was another hand, he was right. But it was always "Jack". And the arrest of Alice McKenzie murderer could have helped a lot. When Anderson said that before they could get to the murder scene the Doctor had already taken up (and away) the pipe and then destroyed it, remember that the (second) pipe came out at the autopsy room from the bosom of the dress. The body (with the pipe in the fold of the dress) was in fact taken away in the ambulance (by the doctor) and then the pipe was destroyed in the autopsy room falling on the ground. The pieces were put by Phillips aside and then apparently disappeared. Phillips could have forgotten them on a corner and the pieces of the pipe could have been thrown away by a worker in the fire of the grate of the autopsy room soon after, what did he know or care (the worker) about their importance after all. Anderson was right. The same thing happened the night of the double event. The police were not so stupid and they already had an important clue. Another guy had to be called from outside. He came some days before. He had been known as Kaminsky (i), but that was not his name. The night of the 30th of September he was at 40 Berner Street. He did not speak english (at this time). Was it necessary with Elisabeth Stride ? He could not cut Eddowes as well as his colleague cut Chapman but he had a lot of experience (and the necessary instruments) for making small precise cuts in hard surfaces. That was very useful to write on Eddowes face. Take what you want. Discard the rest. Good Bye. Graziano.
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 02:56 pm
To Leanne and Brenda, Leanne, you're right, not in Paley's book. But I know I've read of it in a book I have,--- I eventually found it in Tom Cullen's "Autumn of Terror", thanks for saying. Brenda, sorry to give out with wrong information. In the "Autumn of Terror" this little episode goes,-- The sight of the coffin affected the crowd greatly, according to the "Advertiser". Round the open car in which it was placed men and women struggled desperately to get to touch the coffin. Women with faces streaming with tears cried out, "God forgive her", and every man's head was bared in token of sympathy. The hearse was followed to St Patrick's Cemetery at Leytonstone by two mourners coaches, one containing Joseph Barnett, the Billingsgate fishmonger, looking dignified in unaccustomed blue serge. In the other coach were the Widow Cox, Maria Harvey and three other women all of whom had been fortifying themselves for the journey at a public house close to the church-gate The Kelly murder gave rise to apocryphal stories, a number of which were gathered by Daniel Farson, popular T.V.compere and televised in Nov 1959. One of these legends concerns the funeral itself and was told by a cockney type. "My mother, he said, was at the cemetery that afternoon visiting another grave. When all the mourners had left, she and her friend noticed one man who had stayed behind. After some time, believing himself to be alone, he parted the boards above the grave and spat down on it. Another of Mr Farson's guests was a Mrs Little, who claimed that her mother had moved into No 13 Millers Court after the murder. "There was a picture of the Crucifixion on the wall, she related, and behind it was a BLOODY IMPRINT of a HAND!. No matter how many times it was painted over it always showed through!!. Many smartly dressed gentlemen used to visit the house to see it. Hope that was of interest to you Brenda, All the Best, Rick.
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 06:59 pm
G'day, Graziano: Alice McKenzie's nickname was "Clay pipe Alice". She was known as a heavy smoker and was often seen with a clay pipe. She probably kept a spare one hidden in her clothing for her companion, if not for her own use. I just can't see how they could possibly have been such an important clue to her killers identity. The big clue to which pipe Anderson meant, is the fact that a doctor smashed it in a fireplace. By saying that Anderson obviously got confused, (now Dr. Frederick Walker too), is making him/them seem like an idiot. If the police had have been able to test Barnett's pipe, (which was left on the mantlepiece), surely they could have been able to tell how long since it was last smoked, to see if he was being truthful in his statements. I wont be able to respond to any posts tomorrow, but will as soon as I get home. Don't think that I've given up on this debate! LEANNE
Author: graziano Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 10:57 pm
Once again, Anderson got not confused at all about the pipe. In Criminals and Crime he said: 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 into the fire place and smashed it beyond recognition. When the body of Alice McKenzie was found and removed a pipe was found under her body. At this stage nobody knew about the second pipe. Then in the autopsy room another one was found coming out from the folds of the dress. As Doctor Phillips stated at the inquest: "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 mean it was broken. I had the broken pieces placed upon a ledge at the end of the post-mortem table; but it 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." (The Times, Thursday, July 18, 1889). So, you may see Anderson was right in all aspects. A clay pipe was taken away, inadvertently, from Alice McKenzie murder site. It was taken away, indirectly, by the Doctor (Phillips), when he asked to put the corpse on the ambulance to take it from the murder site to the autopsy room. The pipe was smashed by one of the attendants of the Doctor. After that it disappeared. The pieces could have been easily thrown away in the fireplace of the autopsy room by the Doctor attendants. As you see Anderson was correct in every aspect. You may argue that the last sentence (the pipe thrown in the fireplace) is not corroborated by Doctor Phillips. I admit that this is speculation but if Anderson refers to that probably after the inquest one of the attendants aknowledged he did it. This is in any case a minor point and certainly nobody corroborates the fact that Joe Barnett's pipe was thrown in the fire of the grate at 13 Miller's Court. In fact in the case of Alice's second pipe,throwing the pieces of a broken pipe in the fire is a logical thing to do, in the second, throwing away a usable pipe knowing its owner and found in the house of the same owner, is not a logical thing to do. Nobody, never tells Joseph Barnett's pipe had been broken. Doctor Frederick Walker has a lot of imagination, he even says that Joseph Barnett's pipe was on the mantelpiece. Doctor Frederick Walker was not present in the room in 1888, he lives today. After that if you still want to believe that Anderson referred to Joseph Barnett's pipe because it is clear that this is so by what Doctor Frederick Walker has written and because Joe killed Mary because Bruce Paley has demonstrated that beyond doubt and because Joe was a yelling mad and because he spat on Mary's coffin. No problem for me. If you even want to add that to prove my argument I assume that Anderson got confused when I say the exact opposite and this only to prove your argument. No problem for me. Rosemary tried to prove I am anti-semitic. So, you are way behind. But before repeating the same argument for the next eighteen posts please be a bit positive and explain (only if you want) why a pipe found at 13 Miller's Court the morning of the murder and whose ownership is ascertained by Joseph Barnett having recognized it and having himself been in the room the evening before, should prompt Anderson to say: ...might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin. What other kind of information coming from a clay pipe could have been so useful for the discovery of the murderer if not the identity of the owner ? Good bye. Graziano.
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 12:20 am
Now, if one were talking about a luxury suite, Barnett's property being at Miller's Court wouldn't be an issue. But we are talking about a tiny room decorated with a tattered coat as a curtain, a candle stuck in a dish, and a couple of empty ginger beer bottles. If Barnett moved out, one would think he would have taken his one or two possessions with him. It would be hard to miss the pipe on the way out the door. But of course you're right. It doesn't really implicate him. Still, what is interesting is that the fact that leaving a personal item at the scene of a crime is an extremely common blunder. So common that Dr. Freud would probably have something to say about it. [Ask the kid from Chicago that read Nietzche and wanted to committ the 'perfect crime'--only he left his eyeglasses at the crime scene]. The thing about Barnett is that there is no evidence whatsoever against him. The suspicions are entirely dependent on interpretation & opinion & the statistic that tells us the lover is often the guilty party. I'm thinking of that very controversial case about the marine doctor that was convicted of killing his wife & children. The story he told was of acid-headed hippies chanting and attacking his family in the living room. The crime scene looked like a Manson killing and words were written on the walls. But the blood evidence pointed to the doctor himself, and the police found a copy of an article about the Manson murders in the house. The murders took place a year after Manson was arrested. The police speculated that the doctor lost his temper, ended up killing his wife, and then created the crime scene to disguise a domestic assault.
Author: graziano Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 12:42 am
RJ, yes, it is very likely that Barnett took all his possessions when he moved a fortnight before the murder. But with all probability the pipe was forgotten by him the evening of the 8th. Even if on his way back to his new lodgings around 8.00 p.m. he got aware of his having forgotten it in what now was Mary's room, this does not imply he necessarily would have come back to fetch it. He could have had another one or he could have bought a new one for a very few pences (at that time very few even for a poor out of work) or even he just did not have the intention to smoke again that night. Or, very likely and as you pointed above already, to have an excuse to go back the day after to meet with Mary. Or even, he could have left it there for Mary to use it someway, those pipes being also known at the time as "nose-warmer", maybe very useful for the ladies of the night in those cold nights of November. No way that this pipe could have been a clue at the murderer. If he had murdered Mary and forgotten the pipe there, why should he have volounteered to aknowledge it was his ? And after his aknowledging, why the police, knowing who was the owner of it, should believe the pipe could still deliver a clue at the identity of the murderer ? Non sense in believing the pipe Anderson referred to was the Miller's Court room one. Good Bye. Graziano.
Author: Caroline Morris Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 05:03 am
Hi Graz, Very well-argued. I don't think anyone can now claim that Anderson meant Barnett's pipe. As you say, it makes no sense. So, to sum up, we have Anderson describing the Whitechapel murders as 'that terrible series'; describing how, in the case of Alice McKenzie (not definitely ascertained as a ripper victim), a 'distinct clue' was destroyed; and describing the killer, whose identity 'might very easily' have been proved had this clue survived, as the 'assassin' - which in my dictionary is defined as 'one who, usually for a reward, or for political reasons, kills by surprise or secretly', and whose target is 'especially a prominent person'. Little wonder conspiracy theories sprout up, trying to make sense of it all! Love, Caz
Author: graziano Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 07:01 am
Very nice of you Caroline. The statements of Anderson are not as contradictory as they seem but I should find the right way to explain them (at least in this case). Hope in the near future I'll be able to do it. Leanne, I feel bad with you because in my statement above when I ask you to be a bit positive in giving arguments I am hinting that you are not. Well, that is of course not true and your argument that Anderson could have referred to Barnett's pipe because the same pipe could have demonstrated how truthful or not the same Barnett was in analyzing since how long it hadn't been smoked is in fact a well thought argument. But it misses the point. If Anderson referred to Barnett's pipe when he said (In the Daily Chronicle, not as I said before in Criminals and Crime): "Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fire-place and smashed it beyond recognition.", how could Abberline states at the inquest (The Times, 13th of November 1888): "I am informed by the witness Barnett that...a pipe was there and used by him.", showing with all likelyhood that the pipe was shown by Abberline or another policeman to Barnett and that he did recognized it. Even if you assume that they only presented him the pieces (because the doctor had already smashed it) and that he was the killer and that he knew some other witness had seen him smoking that pipe (and that he could recognize it even if Anderson tells us it was not recognizable), why should he take the risk to aknowledge the pipe was his, seing it in such a state that no witness could have tied the pieces of the pipe to the one he had been seen smoking ? Are we to believe to the possibility that Barnett came to the room just after the Doctor and before the Police ? Good Bye. Graziano.
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 11 July 2002 - 08:29 am
G'day Graziano, Anderson wrote: 'Before WE could get to the scene of the murder...', yet as I mentioned earlier he was 'absent from London when it occured', (ie the murder of Alice McKenzie.) How on earth could McKenzies pipe have easily 'secured for us proof of the identity of the assasin', when clay pipes were so common? It could only have narrowed the suspects down to those who smoked one! However Barnett claimed ownership of the pipe found on Mary's mantlepiece! During his 4 hour interrigation by Abberline, The Inspector may have told Barnett that a pipe was found, and Barnett could have merely said that it was 'used by me'. Do you believe that Joe would part from Millers Court, after a 'violent row' with his woman, take a bed in Buller's Lodging House and forget his pipe with no intentions of returning to retrieve it? LEANNE!
Author: graziano Thursday, 11 July 2002 - 01:18 pm
Hello Leanne, By we Anderson was referring to members of the CID at Scotland Yard/Scotland Yard Central Office Detective Inspectors, to differentiate these men specialized in enquiries from the beat Police Constables/Sergeants. None came before the body was taken away in the case of Alice McKenzie. Aside from the various beat Constables/Sergeants I think that night only the Local Detective Inspector Reid came on the site. Useless to say that in the case of Miller's Court members of the SYCO ( Abberline one for all) were already there two or three hours before entering the room. And they entered it with Doctor Phillips, not some time after. "McKenzie's pipe" could have secured proof of the identity of the assasin if the owner of the pipe could have been retraced and if the same pipe did not belong to Alice McKenzie. It would have been an object left (inadvertently lost) at the murder site by the murderer. That it could have secured the identity of the assasin was an opinion of Anderson. Nothing else. Even if a very reasonable one, if the pipe did not belong to Alice McKenzie. Leanne, that the pipe was on the mantelpiece this is only coming from the imagination of Doctor Frederick Walker. I do not know why do you stand by that and in what this could help your cause. Better (for the ones who thinks Barnett the murderer) would be to say it was on the ground, testifying that it could have been lost in a fight. The violent row you speak about comes only out of Bruce Paley's imagination. In fact all the evidence we have points to the contrary. Leanne, all what Bruce Paley says about the relation between Mary and Joseph is very intelligent but only based on his interpretation of some suggested inconsistencies in Barnett statements in the Press and at the inquest. "The Inspector (Abberline) may have told Barnett that a pipe was found and Barnett could have merely said that it was "used by me". How could he be sure that Abberline was speaking about his pipe if Abberline did not show it to him ? Even if he got aware that the pipe was missing from his pocket after he went away from the butchery and reached his lodgings, how could he be sure to have lost it in the room ? Why should he admit it without seeing it since he knew that Mary received clients in her room ? Couldn't it have been another pipe Anderson's was speaking of, a pipe left by a customer of that night ? I am afraid Leanne there is nothing in the case in favour of Barnett's pipe in Anderson's statement. Because there was nothing wrong with that pipe. But you are a free woman. Good Bye. Graziano.
Author: Jeff Hamm Thursday, 11 July 2002 - 10:57 pm
Hi, I was working on an analysis of the "pipe" statement by Anderson, but I see Graziano has made all the relavant points already. Basically, there are two murders (that we know of), that were thought to be connected (JtR possible victims) and where pipes were found. Mary Kelly, and Alice MacKenzie. Anderson's statement also includes reference to the pipe being broken by the doctor, when he threw it into the fireplace before "we" got there. Also, Anderson talks about this pipe as being one of two clues that was lost that could have led to the identity of the Ripper. (The other being the graffito). The "Kelly pipe" doesn't fit. It wasn't "lost", there is no reference to it ever being broken, the police, or more importantly, someone in "charge", was at the scene before the doctor could enter the room. And most importantly, the owner of the pipe was identified, so it's use as a clue had already been fulfilled. The Mackenzie pipe, however, was broken by a doctor's assistant while in the doctor's care. The pieces are reported as being "lost". Alice was known to borrow pipes from other lodgers. If the owner of the pipe could be located, which would require having the pipe, then that individual could be investigated as a suspect. And, if she had in fact borrowed the pipe from the same person who killed her, then this pipe would have been the clue that led to the investigation of the killer. Reports from the doctors varied on opinion about whether or not Alice was killed by "JtR", but Anderson was personally sent a report from one of them who was of the opinion she was a JtR victim. The only weird bit about his statement is the fireplace. Graziano has suggested that the broken bits were disposed of in an incinerator/fireplace by one of the doctor's assisstance. That's one possibility for sure. Dr. Phillips records it as being broken when thrown on the floor, and Anderson says "fireplace". Since Anderson wasn't there, and is making his statement years after the fact, it's just as likely he's made a mistake (just like it wasn't the doctor himself who broke the pipe, rather the doctors's assisstant). Anderson's account is very accurate, with the normal sort of errors that occur after years have passed. Anyway, Graziano has presented all this already, and I'm just presenting a summary of what I had also concluded - which is virtually the same thing on every point apart from where the fireplace comes from. I went for memory error, Graziano suggests it may indicate the pieces were destroyed. Either explanation is possible, and choosing one over the other doesn't change a thing. - Jeff
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 12 July 2002 - 09:38 am
G'day Fellas, OK the pipe referred to was McKenzies and would have been such a vital clue, now let me tell you Graziano, why I believe that the Barnett/Kelly relationship wasn't as rosey as he led everyone to believe. Landlord McCarthy told the 'Star' newspaper 10th of November that Mary's "habits were irregular and she OFTEN came home the worse for drink." Barnett told Kelly's inquest that"as long as she was with me and had my hard earned wages, she was sober." Does this indicate that she often went out drinking without Barnett, who would have had to be awake and sober enough to start work at Billingsgate markets by 5am? At Kelly's inquest her friend, Julia Venturney said: 'she frequently got drunk, Joe Barnett would not let her go on the streets.....Deceased said she was fond of another man named Joe who used to come and see her and give her money." (The Ulitimate Jack the Ripper companion'.) LEANNE
Author: Scott Nelson Friday, 12 July 2002 - 11:08 pm
Someone then please explain why Anderson, if he was referring to the pipe found in the clothing of McKenzie in the 1908 Daily Chronicle interview, and stating that it was a strong clue to the identity of the Ripper, would, two years later, state in no uncertain terms that MJK was the final Ripper victim?
Author: graziano Friday, 12 July 2002 - 11:47 pm
Very good summary Jeff, as usual your way of writing is very interesting and the things you say pertinent. I, of course agree with everything. Just one point nevertheless. Your suggestion about the fact that Anderson claim: "(The pipe) could have secured for us proof of the identity of the assasin." could have originated from the borrowing of the pipe from a fellow lodger who could have then been considered a viable suspect seems to me a bit weaker in respect to the possibility that the murderer inadvertently lost his pipe on the murder site. This latter possibility makes, as far as I am concerned, a stronger case for Anderson belief here above. Overall that clay (or wooden) pipes at the time were not so common in their features and quite differentiated from one another. I think they were used for purposes of marketing/publicity by many little entrepreneurs or even bigger companies and many pipes wore very distinctive signs (see somewhere on the boards what have been posted on the subject by Bob Hinton). In any case this is a minor point on the question we were debating. Leanne, that the relation between Joseph and Mary wasn't rosey, I totally agree with. How could a relation between a man and a woman be rosey in the conditions they were living and with their living/drinking habits. The point is that Bruce Paley has chosen to present Joseph as a good guy with a weak character. And he does it in a logical and well thought way. But with no real conclusive corroboration of facts/testimonies. I doubt this could have been so. I think Barnett was a harsh guy who used Mary for his purposes. And Mary his victim (I mean, in life, not because he was the Ripper or her murderer). In fact I have an idea of Joseph and Mary quite opposite to the one described by Paley. Built on the same information he used. Interpreted in a completely different way. Much more realistic. This last sentence being, of course, only my opinion. But no real factual corroboration either, so for the moment I stop here. I agree that something was wrong with Barnett's statements/description of past events but I think more is to be related with his likely unwillingness of describing the true nature of his relation with Mary than anything else. McCarthy/Bowyer, Julia Ventournay shared the same unwillingness. Miller's Court was a "prostitution site", nothing else. With the benediction of the Mets. Good Bye. Graziano. Much more should be known about Joseph Barnett and his brothers.
Author: graziano Sunday, 14 July 2002 - 01:39 pm
Scott Nelson, Anderson never stated, as you say, that Alice McKenzie's pipe could have been a clue at the "Ripper" (the "one Jack") identity. He just said : "...that might have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin." The "Ripper crimes" or the "Whitechapel murders" was a file. A material one, a box containing documents. A conceptual one, all events relating to eleven precise and definite murders of eleven different women in the period going from April 1888 to February 1891. "The crimes of "Jack the Ripper" are so inextricably intervowen with the Whitechapel Murders that often one is mistaken for the other." The Ultimate Sourcebook, first sentence. It might seem (but as far as I am concerned is not the case) that Anderson had a certain flexibility in using the concept "The Ripper Crimes", but I do not see at all the contradiction in his statements at which you hint in your post above. In the passage of The Lighter Side of My Official Life he speaks precisely about the "hand" of what he belived to be a "sexual virulent maniac." Two years previously in the Daily Chronicle he speaks and explains to a journalist what could be the difficulties police could encounter in an investigation, not about "Jack the sexual maniac". You can't try to match two completely different things moreover in comparing them in two completely different context. His idea about Alice McKenzie's murderer, right or wrong, ascertained (at least for him) or just assumed, was taken clear. No contradictions. And in no way puts in discussion his reference to the pipe. Good Bye. Graziano.
Author: Jeff Hamm Monday, 15 July 2002 - 08:29 pm
Hi, Graziano. Thanks. I mention the possibility that the pipe could have been a fellow lodger because it was stated she was known to borrow pipes from just such people (Evans & Stewart; can't give the page as I'm at work). Since they never found out who the pipe actually belonged to, there are a few possibilities, such as the following 3. 1) it was just one she had borrowed, and was not related to her murder 2) it was one she borrowed from a fellow lodger, who was also her killer 3) she hadn't borrowed it, it was her killers, and it say, fell out of his pocket while he was murdering her and he didn't know he lost it It's a clue that "might" have lead to the identity, but that means it "might not" too. Just like the grafito "might" have been by the killer, it "might not". Because the evidence was lost in this case, and couldn't be followed up, Anderson would be left with a "what if this was the one thing we really needed". Which would increase it's importance to him. I don't dispute it could be from the killer, I'm just not comfortable concluding it was more likely to have come from her killer than be unrelated to her murder altogether. That's why I think Anderson used the indefinate "could have", and was not definately saying it "would have"; he probably realised it could have been unrelated but without being able to investigate and follow up, they would never know for sure. That's all. As you say, though, this is a minor point. Scott, That's one of the strange things about Anderson's quotes. However, he mentions the pipe and the grafito in the same quote as being two clues that were lost and could have led to the identity of the killer. The pipe is clear Alice's, and the grafito was associated with Eddowes. In reference to the "lost clues", Anderson links these two murders as by the same killer. But, at another time, he dismisses Alice's murder as a "common murder" (Sudgen). This paradox in Anderson's belief (he can't both beleive Alice was and was not a Ripper victim) needs resolution. To try and be short, there are a few ways to resolve this. 1) Anderson simply changed his mind about Alice's murder between the two statements. Originally, he was advised by one doctorsthat she was a victim of the Ripper in a report sent to him personally. Later, they may have decided this was not the case. Unlikely, as by 1908, years after the murders, he's probably already made up his mind about things. 2) He referrs to the "Alice McKenzie" murder as a "common murder". Since she was mutilated, this seems strange. Anderson may have confused the name "Alice McKenzie" with some other more mundane murder. I'm not real found of that, but it's possible. 3) My personal favorite explanation is that in 1908, he mentions two clues that "were lost", but he doesn't mention which crimes/victims these clues came from. Alice's murder was, at least initially, thought to be by the Ripper. So, when Anderson is remembering clues that were lost during the Ripper crimes, he remembers the grafito and the pipe. Those were salient events during the investigation, and those get recalled. What he doesn't recall is that the pipe came from Alice's murder and that Alice was originally thought to be a Ripper victim but later this was dismissed. Two years later, he's talking specifically about Alice, and because one of the salient things about Alice is that she was dismissed as a Ripper victim. The pipe is a salient memory connected to "lost clues from Ripper murders", "not a Ripper victim" is a salient memory connected to the name "Alice McKenzie". But the pipe is not strongly connected to the name "Alice McKenzie". The reason these things are likely to get confused after 20+ years is that the memory of the pipe tags as "yes" for Ripper, but the name "Alice" tags for "no". The information competes, and the memory structure is more complicated, and therefore more likely to get confused over time. Combine that with the fact that a pipe was found at MJK's murder and you've got a lot of details that can easily get blurred after 20 years. Finally, because this cofusion involves "Alice is not Ripper victim", the details of that crime become "common murder", hence his referral to a crime that was initially thought to be a Ripper crime (uncommon) to be "common". Just some thoughts. - Jeff
Author: Caroline Morris Tuesday, 16 July 2002 - 07:21 am
Hi Jeff, Your explanation number 3) to Scott works for me - at least in the case of the pipe clue versus the common murder of Alice. I can see how Anderson could have recalled this clue, as it was originally associated with the WM series, and not related it in his mind to a specific murder - one which he no longer believed to be the ripper�s work. But does it work with the graffito? In citing this as the other clue, that might easily have secured proof of the assassin's identity had it not been wiped out, could Anderson have failed to make at least a mental association between the wording of this 'distinct' clue and the man he himself believed was the assassin, and therefore also the graffito artist? If not, how would Anderson have reconciled the two? Did he think it was no more than nonsensical scribbling by his poor Jewish lunatic? Or did he see a method - or rather a message - in the madness? Love, Caz PS Apologies for going way off topic. But I think Joe Barnett's pipe has been put back on the shelf for the time being.
Author: Jeff Hamm Tuesday, 16 July 2002 - 09:14 pm
Caz, It's quite possible Anderson thought that if they had a photo of the grafito, they could match the handwriting with his suspect regardless of what the message was. I'm not sure what Anderson thought the grafito said, but all the versions boil down to meaning "the Jews will be blamed with reason". Because his suspect was a poor crazy Jew, this would have sat well with his theory. But, these are just my opinions on what Anderson might have thought! I'm not sure if he ever stated his actual views on how these clues were going to lead to the identity of the assassin, or on what the grafito meant. - Jeff
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Monday, 12 August 2002 - 05:14 pm
Though this thread is long dead I wanted to post this here....I was posting this at a George Chapman thread and still ended up talking Barnett...as I say at the end of this post, no matter which road I take I always end up back at Barnett's doorstep... I don't think it is necessarily true either that a serial killer keeps on killing. I've been reading a book about a serial killer in Gainesville Florida, and it gives a lot of information as far as his state of mind. When he finally broke and decided to go on a "killing spree", he decided on 8 victims, one for "each miserable year" he had spent in prison previously for burglary. Maybe Jack pre-selected the number of his victims in honor of some sort of life event of his. Of note is the this "Gainesville Ripper", as he was called, was pretty much impotent and could only achieve orgasm through his ultraviolent fantasies. Once he killed, he finally felt he was a "real man." He felt powerless, however, to actually kill the people he was angry with, they had to be total strangers. The Gainesville Ripper also "ripped" at least one victim from pubic area to breast bone, and there was no indication he had ever studied anything about Jack the Ripper....indeed, he didn't seem too keen on learning at all. He could not hold a job for very long at all as he was "too emotional" and subject to outbursts. At one point he had a lot of money (stolen) and enjoyed treating certain women and their friends to expensive dinners and nights out...however, when the money ran low, the women's interest waned...this was the trigger that started his killing spree...feeling he'd been used and was no good to anyone unless he had money....now who does this sound like? Here I am in a Chapman thread and once again I end up back at my favorite suspects door....you guessed it, Joe Barnett. No matter which road I take I always end up back on this suspect's doorstep. However, just because one serial killer is a certain way doesn't mean they all have to follow the same patterns.
Author: Ally Monday, 12 August 2002 - 05:20 pm
It is necessary to remember that Rolling was charged with killing only five people. We also don't know whether he killed and hid any bodies in the meantime... if he had decided on eight, where were the others?