Archive through March 30, 1999

** 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 March 30, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Barnett, Joseph: Archive through March 30, 1999

Author: Jeff D Thursday, 21 January 1999 - 03:54 pm
Hello Guys ! Foe what it's worth, and seeing that there hasn't been any real discussion on suspects for a while, I thought I'd bring our old friend Joseph Barnett back into the frame...... "Just for the hell of it eh?" The more I try and keep an open mind regarding so many other viable suspects, the more I keep coming back to Joe. Other threads have discussed various aspects of the killer, his MO, his motives, and whatever, and this guy just has to be right up there, worthy of further suspicion. OK, we don't have any factual evidence. We don't have any factual evidence on any suspect. As a matter of fact, I think the only clue ever left after any of the murders, was Eddowes piece of apron. Even this evidence could be used to point to Barnett. The Apron, would have been directly on the way home from Mitre Sq., to Millers Crt., and so much other circumstancial evidence can actually be applied to Joseph Barnett to create enough suspicion to warrant asking at least a few questions about this guy. The murder sites radiate out from Millers Court, and as I said I believe we can be totally confident that our man was a local. There is good reason to believe that Barnett would have been experienced with knives, if we can consider that he cleaned and gutted fish, as part of his job as a fish porter. Someone gutting fish could easily be applied to the way the victims were disembowled. Jack the Ripper reached in and pulled out the intestines of his victims, just as someone would remove the viscera of a fish, and I think this is an extremely significant point. The MO is there for all to see ! The Ripper put his hands inside his victims, and this was certainly something he had done before. The lull in the murders in October, easily coincides with Barnett's breakup from Kelly. All of a sudden, he doesn't have a private place that he can retire to after a murder. Or he even felt that he could have been tracked too easily, when the bloodhounds were supposedly on the scene. The main thing against Barnett is his peaceful existence, then, until 19-tickety-six, and this has always been one of my major reservations. I know he's not a favourite suspect of many of the contributors to these boards, but I would like to see a little further discussion on Joseph Barnett, if anyone is interested ? He can fit, better than anyone, the FBI psychological profile. Was interviewed by the police, and the final Kelly murder could account for the total cessation of murders, (maybe until Coles). He could very well fit the witness description, and as I said earlier in this post, so much circumstancial evidence could be applied to this guy, that he cannot be ruled out of the investigation. I'm not buying the motive that he was trying to scare Kelly off the streets, I think he could have been a ticking timebomb, and his disgust for whores is there for all to see. These are my thoughts, for what they are worth. I have kept reading the posts here, as much as I could, and I haven't contributed for a while so I didn't want to be forgotten (he he!). "Was I ever remembered I ask ?" Anyway, I just think Joe is worth talking about. I do always intend to keep an open mind, and I very much consider a few other candidates as worthy of investigation. I welcome our new Australian contributor, "HiYa Jules!" and invite your, and of course everyone elses contribution or even condemnation of this theory. Cheers Guys, I'd like to say hello to all the regular contributors to these boards by names, but I know I'd forget at least 1-person, and I wouldn't want them to feel left out (as I was, sob sob, in a post recently.... just joking). You all know who you are, and hopefully, you know how much I value your ideas. Jeff D
Author: Bob_c Friday, 22 January 1999 - 05:22 am
Hi Jeff, What hound dared to forget your name? He shall be condemned to burn in hell fires for all eternity, sneaked upon at the OIR or something like that. Poor Joe. Not only getting s..t on by Kelly, he also has to answer the charge of being Jack. I don't think he was because he lived for a long time with Kelly together, knowing that she was and had been a whore. He did try to stop her whoring, but what man would not do that for a woman he loved? More important, he was interviewed by experienced officers who had full knowledge of the facts and the possibility of questioning first hand witnesses. They exonerated him after a four hour examination and he was not again held as suspect. The pressure to find Jack was so high, I feel that the slightest doubt of Joe's innocence then would have resulted in his being much more in the limelight of proceedings. I have developed a real heart for Joe Barnett with time, but I am working on a contribution about MJK so will leave that subject until I am ready. Regards Bob
Author: Bob Hinton Friday, 22 January 1999 - 06:00 am
Dear Jeff D Just read your interesting posting about Barnett, and I'd like to make a couple of points. Number one, the cessation of murders in October did not tie in with his row with MJK, that was right at the end of October. Secondly your point about the evisceration of the victims tying in with his skill as a fish filleter doesn't work. Someone as skilled with a knife as a fish gutter undoubtadly is would not have made the wounds seen on Catharine Eddowes for instance. The sketch of the wounds made by Frederick Foster shows a wandering, jagged, incision with many spikes and angles denoting hesitation and difficulty. I would expect a fish filleter to make a clean vertical or horizontal cut, after all in that area of the abdomen there is little resistance to a knife. Lastly I cannot accept that Barnett hated prostitutes. He frequented places where prostitutes gathered, and after only one meeting with MJK he agreed to set up home with her. Of course he wanted her to leave the streets, that is a natural desire, but that does not translate into a hatred. Men who usually take up with prostitutes usually do so in the certain knowledge of what their partners are, but then try and reform them. Another example is Phyllis Dimmock. Of course there are those men who look upon prostitiutes as a money making concern and these are usually violent agressive types. People like Barnett however, are often men who have trouble forming normal relationships with women and seem to chose prostitutes because they (in their eyes) have no right to be choosy. They seem to be quiet and resigned to the fact. Barnett certainly comes over as a quiet sort of chap, unlike Michael Kidney for instance. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Jeff D Saturday, 23 January 1999 - 09:30 am
HeYa Bob ! ... and thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts. I myself, am not totally convinced that Joseph Barnett is our man, but the main thing that keeps bringing me back to Joe is that I believe he is the type of man we are looking for. We have a character here, that could have been abused by his mother. He had no father figure at all, and even then, his mother left him at a very early age. Was she a prostitute, I don't know, could she have abused her son sexually, or taunted him, or brought strange men home and had sex in front of him ? These are questions that would undoubtedly be asked of Jack The Ripper, and do they pertain to Joseph directly, of course I don't know. We do know that he had a slight speach impediment. Or maybe he was just extremely nervous, after his 4-hour interrogation, and then having to testify at his girl-friends inquest. He did give conflicting stories of his breakup with Mary Kelly though, although there could be innocent reasons for this. I understand that Joseph dressed quite well for a man of his means. He was about the right height, and had similar attributes to more than one of the witness descriptions. I believe too, that he was of above average intelligence, and would have worked at a job, well-below his capacity. Another attibute that I believe we could apply to the murderer. You're right about the facial mutilations on Eddowes, maybe someone who did fillet fish, would have sliced the face more precicely. Although he was filletting face, not plaice, I don't know really, how to interpret the mutilations such as those inflicted on Eddowes. It does look like the murderer was experimenting somewhat, and we also have to consider that he was attempting to remove her identity. I do always try and consider the individuals character before raising any slander in their direction, and I've had enough good rebuttal arguments from some of the intelligent people here, in the past, to virtually lay the ghost of Joseph Barnett well and truly to rest. The only reason, as I stated, for resurecting this argument, is because I believe Joseph represents, better than most suspects, the kind of man we are looking for. Jack The Ripper must have been able to lull his victims into a false sense of security, to allow them to lead him to the secluded spot, which would be their plaice of slaughter. Someone like Joe, could have been been known to them, enough at least to disarm them, at a time when fear of the killer was rife. This brings me back to my own certaintly that Jack was a local inhabitant. I like the discussion on the MO and Surgical skill boards, and I think that by trying to look, at what was left behind at the murder scenes, we can find a lot out about the character who did these horrible things. Good stuff though, and along the lines of thought of me raising Barnett back from the dead, I do know that if we are going to concentrate on any suspect for discussion, people like Geo. Hutchinson, and Timothy Donavon should be considered. Cheers All ! Jeff D
Author: Bob Hinton Friday, 05 February 1999 - 04:58 am
Dear Jeff D I agree with a lot of what you say about Barnett being the type of person we should be looking for. A local man, a grey man an unoticed man a man who would not raise any suspicion in his intended victims. Certainly we are going to find the killer here amongst this type of person rather than a flamboyant ' Look at me' type of person. who is a complete stranger to the area. I would caution you against placing too much reliance upon the precise boundaries of Offender Profiling, killer was abused by mother, absence of father figure etc. Don't forget these factors relate to those killers who have been caught. We have no idea if they hold true for those killers who are still at large. For instance in another twenty years after catching a few hundred more killers we may very well find that they were all born under a certain star sign, or took a certain size shoe. For many years we here in Britain have smugly assured ourselves that the serial killer is an American invention - it couldn't possibly happen here. But the discovery of the Wests, who had been killing for over twenty years have led us to reassess our ideas. Since then we have uncovered even more. Common sense tells us that JTR was a local man, or a man who knew the area, who would attract no attention and instill no fear in his intended victims. He dressed appropiately for the area and in all liklihood was stopped and questioned several times by police patrols. However if you are a young bobby who is looking for a blood drenched, knife wielding maniac, you would not give Bill Smith who lives round the corner a second glance. This is human nature. Don't forget one thing that is common to the vast majority of killers is how normal they appear. By the way, when I was talking about the knife wound on Eddowes I was referring to the wounds on her torso not her face. I would be very interested to read your comments. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Dee Monday, 08 March 1999 - 07:07 pm
You guys are all so informed on this subject but at the risk of sounding stupid I thought I would respond to the question of Barnett's motive. Number one, why does he have to have one? If you accept that he was indeed a serial killer, he didn't need a motive at all. Why did Dahmer kill? What was Bundy's motive? Number two, people keep saying his motive of scaring Mary Kelly out of prostitution makes no sense. Oh really? Any motive anyone would have had would make no sense to normal people. If he was a class A sick-o, it probably made sense to him. I think he's the guy!
Author: Christopher T. George Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 02:23 pm
Hi, Dee: Here is something for you to think about. A serial killer commits murders for the enjoyment of the act of killing, serving a depraved need. They do not normally commit these murders to "scare" anyone. So the idea that Joe Barnett was a serial killer who had the motive of wanting to scare Mary Jane Kelly off the streets does not make sense. He would not have been killing for that reason. Nor would he, as Bruce Paley believes, have lived until 1926, 38 years after the death of Mary Jane Kelly, and never killed again. Chris George
Author: Dee Thursday, 11 March 1999 - 12:03 am
Hi Chris, O.K., you are entirely correct on all points. On thinking further, I guess my feeling is that he wasn't what we would call a serial killer. He didn't kill for the enjoyment of killing, he killed for hate, love, revenge,...whatever. I think he had a purpose and his need to kill died with Mary Kelly. The reason he never killed again is because he didn't need to. In my mind I can't give him up as the main suspect because the Kelly murder was so much more savage that the others. (And they were gruesome even by todays standards) Dee
Author: Anonymous Thursday, 11 March 1999 - 08:59 pm
see George Chapman
Author: Julian Thursday, 11 March 1999 - 10:10 pm
G'day everyone, One of the things which discounts Barnett as a suspect is (I think) that some of the victims were seen talking to men minutes before their deaths. The witnesses were able to give a clear dialogue of the conversations and not once was it mentioned that the men had a speach impediment. Barnett had a speach impediment that would have made him distinguishable. Jules
Author: adam Friday, 12 March 1999 - 11:30 am
Hi Jules I understand your comment about Barnett's echolalia, but I don't believe there was enough conversation heard by any witness to claim a speech impediment would have been picked up. Tabram and Nichols were not noticed in the company of men immediately preceding their deaths (discounting the soldier with Martha); Annie Chapman was supposedly seen talking with a man outside 29 Hanbury St by Elizabeth Darrell (dialogue: "Will You?" "Yes"). Lawende, Levy and Harris all saw Eddowes with a man by Church Passage, but none heard a word spoken. Although Liz Stride was seen by several witnesses with a man on the night of her murder, no-one reported any actual dialogue, even Best and Gardener when confronted by the couple outside The Bricklayer's Arms. Any conversation between Mary Kelly and a possible killer was not reported on apart from by George Hutchinson, and in any case witnesses to her death would have recognised Barnett without the need for picking up on the speech impediment. Adam
Author: Glenda Monday, 22 March 1999 - 06:43 am
I have always thought that Joseph Barnett was Jack the Ripper. But maybe not for the same reasons as some others whose comments I have read tonight. I think that Joe's motive was the old one of jealousy. I think that Mary Kelly, like many prostitutes of today and I'm sure many of her own time was none too fond of the male gender and found solace in the arms of other women. This enraged Joseph Barnett to the point where he found it necessary to eliminate all competition and finally to punish Mary herself.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 29 March 1999 - 06:14 pm
G'Day, I have been 'magneted' to the JTR cases for about 5 years now. Whenever a new book becomes available in Australia, I rush to buy it. I have bought and read 8, so far and each points an accusing finger at a different suspect. This is what makes it so challenging and I feel most comfortable choosing Joseph Barnett.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 29 March 1999 - 06:18 pm
I agree that 'The Diary of...' was written by Barnett in the 1920s, as a final attempt to blame someone else. The slaughtering stopped after Druitt's suicide, to throw police of the right track. The four hour interrogation by police following the murder of MJK was too close for comfort.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 29 March 1999 - 06:30 pm
The chalked message on the wall in Goulston Street, could have been an attempt to throw off police by introducing the word 'JUWES'. If MJKelly was pregnant at the time and told Barnett that chances were it wasn't his,(either laying beside him in bed on that night, earlier over drinks or during their quarrel on October 30, 9 days before her murder), he could have been compelled to use his other personality to butcher her.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 29 March 1999 - 06:46 pm
JTR, obviously had 2 personalities: One very kind and gentle that everyone in the neighborhood new and trusted and the other very evil and cruel. Think: the first two victims, at least, were denied a room to sleep because they lacked doss money. They then headed towards Spitafield Markets, where I believe Barnett worked. I am convinced that all the victims knew Barnett as a quick buck.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 29 March 1999 - 06:53 pm
In Bruce Paley's book 'The Simple Truth', he points out that due to the fierce competition of the press, some printed Barnett's name as Joseph Kelly, James, John and even JACK. Maybe Barnett himself tried to turn published fact into fiction. The torn piece of envelope found near Annie Chapman's body, was the half of envelope she carried her medication in. The letters 'M' and 'S' on that envelope, were the begining letters of Barnetts address: 'M'illers Court,'S'pitafields.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 29 March 1999 - 06:56 pm
To those enthusiasts who haven't yet read Bruce Paley's 'The Simple Truth', I suggest strongly that you do!!!!!
Author: Christopher T. George Monday, 29 March 1999 - 09:19 pm
Hi, Leanne: Without sounding condescending, I really think you are letting your imagination run away with you. Perhaps you have read too many Ripper books? Certainly you should not believe everything you read in a book, or be persuaded by the hypothesizing of Ripper authors about events and circumstances that only MAY be so. "You say 'The Diary of...' was written by Barnett in the 1920s, as a final attempt to blame someone else." By this I take it you mean that the so-called Maybrick Diary was written by Joe Barnett to throw the blame on James Maybrick. Even presuming Barnett was capable of devising such a hoax, why would he need to do this? Presuming Bruce Paley is right and Joseph Barnett WAS Jack the Ripper, which is highly unlikely, by the 1920s, he would have got away scot-free, so he would have no need to cast blame on anyone to divert suspicion from himself. The candidacy of Barnett as Jack the Ripper has only been raised in recent decades, long after the death of MJK's lover, who by the way was a porter in Billingsgate Fish Market, not a worker at Spitalfields Market. Chris George
Author: Julian Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 12:20 am
G'day Leanne, Chris George. Leanne, I understand your conviction for believing a well written story to contain unshakeably evidence that is purportedly the truth. However if you start to question some of the authors 'facts' you may actually start to question the credibility of the books content. I'm not just implying this to the book you have read, but to all 'factual' books in general. If that doesn't confuse the •••• out of you nothing will. Oh, Barrett was also broke I think. He had lost his job earlier that year and was living with rellies. Great to hear from you though, and welcome. Jules