Archive through April 26, 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 April 26, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Barnett, Joseph: Archive through April 26, 1999

Author: Bob_c Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 03:30 pm
Hi Cut-throat! I have never claimed that poor Joe was Jack, in company with many others. Of course I would be interested in whom you mean, but the problem is that there have been so many claims.. 'I know who Jack was, but the rest of you are so dumb, you will have to guess whom I mean.. etc. etc. etc. Dear Mr/Mrs/Miss Cut-throat. No. you don't know who Jack was, and you can not prove anything about it. If you really could, you would not have wasted your time claiming such a thing on our humble board, but would have gone thundering through Fleet Street cashing in on the sensation of the yearhundred. I would do the same if I could prove who he was. I'd invite all of you to the party afterwards, but first the loot. Basta. Regards, Bob
Author: Jeff D Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 04:25 pm
Hello All ! There are a few issues here, that I would like to address, if I may. First of all though, to casebook, and Stephen R in particular, my sincere apologies. I have been working on a special project, and through my company wished to donate a significant amount of secure Web-space for future casebook projects. For one reason or another, and circumstances totally beyond my control I have had delay after delay. If Casebook is still interested in my offer, I do still intend to do all that I can, I wanted to make this apology in public to at least show my sincerity. I have now had to be offline for a considerable amount of time, and it looks like I've missed out on a great deal of conversation, with contributions from quite a few new names, which does look quite exciting. To Cut-Throat, Quite some time ago, I posted a statement along the lines that we may have significantly more success in looking for the Ripper, in details of build-up crimes and such, prior to 1888, rather than during or after. The murderer was obviously very clever at covering his tracks after the Whitechapel horrors, yet he most certainly would have not began his murderous career, in the bold, outrageous fashion as the murder and mutilations of the canonical five as we know of them. There must be records of his arrest on lesser crimes. No way could he have lived a squeaky clean life, then have a mad 5-months, then stop again, so I am in total agreement with you statements. That you have discovered his identity however, please excuse me if I do remain a little sceptical, though I most sincerely wish you the best with your research, you are along the right lines, at the very least. To Glenda, I have considered Mr. Barnett for some time now, and a number of his personality traits do make him a viable suspect. His literacy though, should not be a question. There are statements that he kept abreast of the Whitechapel murders and read newspaper accounts aloud to Mary Kelly during the bloody reign of the Ripper. He was also (and I think rightly so) considered much more intelligent, than the menial profession in which he worked indicated. He dressed in a manner above his station, and besides his minor reported speech impediment, does appear to have been a resonably intelligent man, who most certainly was not illiterate. Will be back on boards very soon, but it is nice to see some very thoughful discussion happening, obviously loads to catch up on ! Cheers All ! Jeff D
Author: CUT-THROAT Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 05:03 pm
CUT-THROAT here, Just a few extra comments. I do believe in my own mind that I have found the identity of Jack, but no doubt not everyone will agree with me. What I stated previously however, is 100% true in regards my research upon this person. 1) There is a strong connection to one of the victims. 2) He was arrested on three previous occasions. 3) He resided in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. 4)He is of the right age group 22- 30 (27 in 1888) well thats enough for now. But just to recap, all this info is in the public domain. It's just that I have bothered to look for it, because I have felt all along that JACK started is criminal career at least four years before 1888. Also I did not find the suspect first and then fit the facts to him, but used to facts to find the suspect. Finally, what I can not understand, is why no-one else as seriously considered this option of locating Jack prior to 1888, because even if my suspect can be found to be not Jack, which I think will be very hard, then someone else must carry this line of rearch on, and who knows maybe someday Jacks past will come to the front and haunt him.
Author: D. Radka Wednesday, 31 March 1999 - 08:36 pm
CUT-THROAT, You and I have something in common. Each of us believes he's solved the case. One thing, thinking in terms of the murderer knowing one of the victims may constitute looking at the case from the outside in. The women apparently seem to have been targets of opportunity only, no? David
Author: Bob_c Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 02:47 am
Hi all, The belief of knowing who Jack was is not at all bad, and doing research before 1888 is also sound, being long carried out by a number of us. What is not sound is to propogate this belief as if it be fact. We do not KNOW who Jack was. If we did, and could PROVE it (only then is Jack found) then the whole ripper story would be at it's interesting but sad end and somebody would become rich. So please, please try to refrain from claiming you KNOW who Jack is before you can PROVE it. I do not have a clue who he was, like many of us, I claim. I have a couple of suspects, whereby Joe Barnett was never seriously included. IMHO, the 4 points Cut-throat refers to above: i) Could apply to many persons at the time. ii) Is not sufficient to even allow real suspicion iii) Is sufficient to certainly make research into this person worth while. iv) Is a reasonable start to finding another Suspect, assuming he hasn't been already added to the list. Best regards Bob
Author: Tricia Barrett Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 06:49 am
I am currently reading 'The Simple Truth' by Bruce Paley for the second time. I like the way he tries to give an insight into the lives and personalities of those involved, especially Mary Kelly and Joseph Barnett. While reading the book a few thoughts popped into my head and I would like to know what other JTR readers think. 1. Nichols/Chapman/Eddowes were all killed by the same person but not by J.Barnett as is suggested in the book to frighten Kelly off the streets. 2. Stride I'm uncertain as to whether she was murdered by the same person who killed the other three or whether in fact she was a JTR victim at all. 3.The book suggests that Barnett loved Kelly but she was sick and tired of him, especially as he could not now provide for her as he had when he was employed at Billingsgate.After he left her he tried to get his brother Daniel to persuade her to take him back but she refused. Could it be possible that he went to Millers Court in the early hours to try and persuade her himself. Could he have let himself in with the missing key. Barnett tells the [police that Kelly had been terrified of becoming a victim of JTR and that she made him read every newspaper article about the murders to her. If in the early hours Kelly,who was still drunk, told Barnett exactly what she thought of him causing him to lose control and murder her what better way of getting his revenge than to do to her the kind of things that had so terrified her. Parts of Kelly's body had had the skin and flesh cut away. Is this something that a person who had done the same sort of work for 10 years in a fish market might consider doing ? I don't know anything about Barnett after the murder except that he died in 1926. What was he like ? If he only commited one murder and was not a serial killer then surely he could have lived on without the need to keep on killing. I'm not convinced that he killed anyone but if he killed only Kelly then we are looking for another killer or possibly two for the murders of the first four victims. As I was reading in bed, after all these thoughts, I went to sleep. Tricia.
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 07:36 am
Hi Tricia, Not bad. A problem with Joe killing only Kelly is that the type of mutilations that were done were the work of a madman, by definition alone. No one could do what Jack did to Kelly whilst being sane. Many simularities between Kelly's and the other killings (except Stride) tend to indicate that Jack did them all. No evidence is there that Joe went to Kelly's that night, and if he had, how could he know if she had a 'guest' or not. If Joe was so a monster as to brutally kill and mutilate her, why not as they had the fight? We know there was a witness to this so-called fight, and evidently there were no great violent scenes, otherwise we would have heard about it. Joe was always described as a good natured fellow and he supported Kelly as best he could while he could. As he lost his job through theft (maybe) she just got rid of him. Joe didn't need a key to get in, he knew he could open the door from inside through the broken window, as indeed Kelly herself did so. If the window was broken in a fight with Barnett, as some suggest, or by Kelly when drunk, is not proven. While two panes were broken, it is not so likely that the window was broken to get at the inside doorlock. We know that the window was broken some weeks before her death, probably Barnett was already gone then which then discludes the fight as source, but he visited her regularly so he would have known about the entrance method. Just a few thoughts on the way. Best regards Bob
Author: Jeff D Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 01:42 pm
Hello All ! To Cut-Throat; I wonder if you, (without asking you to divulge too much information), would care to state exactly what crimes your suspect would have committed in the 4-years prior to 1888 ? I believe the crimes would most certainly have had to be of a violent nature, but as a fledgling serial killer, (who would come to leave a very distinct signature) there would have to be an early trend, or common thread which just might indicate the suspects future ambitions. An interesting personality would be the lodging house deputy Timothy Donavon, for example. The A-Z states that there may have been confusion between 2-men of the same name, but if the Tim Donavon who resided at Crossinghams, is the same Timothy Donavon who did have a history of violence, and eventually murdered his wife, were one and the same, then I believe this would be an interesting avenue of investigation. As Ever..... Jeff D
Author: Dekker Falconetti Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 02:46 pm
Bob...I have to disagree with you (and probably everyone else on the board) on one point... People are putting a lot of time and energy into confirming one aspect of every ripper suspects personality..."could he have been a madman?" we all ask...well, I hate to say it, but that's not necessarily the case. Jack did not have to have some extraordinary mental instability to do what he did. There is no clear line between sanity and insanity...every person who beats their spouse may well be able to skin someone alive under the right circumstances. I just say this because, as our info is so fuzzy, we often discount or accept suspects merely because we personally believe they weren't or were capable of commiting some or all of the murders. We look for signs of dissociative Identity disorder or other illness...sadly, these are not requirements for murderers...personally, I feel that someone's "nature" or behavior on certain occasions really isn't relevant to their ability to kill and mutilate. We like to think of jack as a monster...separating him from the population...but there's a bit of monster in all of us...Dr.Jeykll did not create a monster separate from himself, he merely arranged for a part of himself to be able to act without being supervised by his self control...Jeykll as the superego, hyde as the id, and their separation kills the ego. um...I'll shut up now...
Author: Leanne Saturday, 10 April 1999 - 05:29 pm
'Bob C', why do you say: "POOR JOE"? and refer to him as a "good natured fellow". This was probably how everyone 'saw' him at the time. JACK was obviously a 'blend-in type' and probably well-known and trusted in the neighborhood, as a 'nice' guy. Is it wrong to believe that he had a disguise like a false moustache or something, to fool possible eyewitnesses - hense his high confidence of never being caught? I'm not saying it was definately Joe, but it's a posibility.
Author: Tina Gaspard Monday, 12 April 1999 - 11:22 am
Why shouldn't he say "Poor Joe" because he was a "good natured fellow"? His connection to Mary Kelly would have made him the first person investigated in this murder and hence, the rest of them afterwards. He was dismissed as suspect by the investigators, despite his seedy lifestyle. The victims themselves were disreputable, that does not mean that they deserved to die, nor does Joe Barnetts background mean he is a killer. They were each of them products of their environment, creatures of habit - bad ones but habit nonetheless, and are all deserving of postumous credit for their good points and in Joe's case specifically, retaining the vindication he recieved in his own lifetime.
Author: Leanne Monday, 12 April 1999 - 09:28 pm
Dear Tina, I'm not just trying to pick on "poor Joe",I merely wish to point out, that we must not be fooled by peoples opinions of the person, at the time. Not even the polices opinions. I just wondered if Bob C. had a good reason for crossing Barnetts name off our list of possible 'Jacks'.
Author: Glenda Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 02:25 am
Hello everyone, I've been quiet for a while as I've been busy with my writing ,but I'd like to say that there is no possibility of Joseph Barnett being "poor Joe". He also was not a madman in the classic sense of the term. He was certainly enraged and acted accordingly. But, don't feel sorry for this man. He was not a man of upright moral fibre. His statements to the police and others are to be taken with a grain of salt. Cheers, Glenda.
Author: Bruce Paley Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 08:47 am
To Glenda, Leanne, Tricia et al - I've just gone on-line and I was thrilled to find such interest stemming from my book Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth. I haven't digested all the correspondence yet so I can't comment on each entry, but years later I'm still convinced that Barnett was the Ripper. When you look at all the points together in the summation at the back of my book I think an extremely strong case emeges against Barnett - certainly stronger than against any other suspect, I think. I've also tried to summarise my case against Barnett in the new Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper. Incidentally, census reports show that Barnett went to school through his teens, so he certainly could read and write (and of course h used to read the newspapers to Kelly). But what's all this about Barnett having written the diary? It's the first I've heard of it. Anyway, its nice to get this sort of feedback.
Author: Leanne Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 04:15 pm
G'day Bruce, As the first JTR book I read was 'The Diary of---', Maybrick was the suspect I favoured. After reading 'The Simple Truth', Barnett moves to the top of my list and there he remains. People are trying to work out if the diary is a forgery & weather it's an old or new forgery. The writer obviously knew alot of the details of the murders and if it's an old forgery, could have been written in the 1920s. I found out the date of Barnetts death was 1920 something, so I then thought "Hey....Maybe Barnett wrote the diary"! I then decided to post this idea, to see if anyone else had considered the possibility. I'm looking forward to your new book! -LEANNE!
Author: Caz Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 09:47 am
For my money, I'd say Barnett is a possible outside bet for Mary's murderer, but as for the diary.... I'd have to see some pretty strong evidence, but anything's possible. I've heard this phenomenon before, whereby the last ripper book read by anyone is the one that solves the case to their satisfaction, and I wouldn't wish to suggest for one moment that this is not the way to go (not least because one day this may happen for real, please God!). My own brother, whom I respect as one of the brainiest shi*bags alive (I'm dead envious really), thought the bugger wot dunnit had royal/masonic connections, because the latest book he had read was Stephen Knight's. This was when I first told him I was involved with JtR myself. He did some more boning up and realised he may have been mistaken. I, on the other hand, never had any 'fave' suspect before I started. I knew the bugger as Jack, pure and simple, and went from there. I still don't know for certain if we will ever get a concensus on who Jack was, but I do hope so. The difference with yours truly is that I have no book to plug, no axe to grind, and am doing my research for the sheer bloody love of it. I'm having the time of my life just being a non-singing, but all-dancing detective. And, while you are here, Leanne, can I wish you the best of British luck with your artwork? Get those illustrations off for consideration by The Ripperologist magazine. I'm not very good in this field to advise you, but your work looks great to me! Adam Wood or Julian can tell you more. Lots of love, Caz
Author: Leanne Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 05:01 pm
G'day Caz, Thanks for your nice comments on my artwork! There are so many people trying to please someone with their drawings, that I cant even find a tertiary school, willing to accept me. I even tried applying for a 'Computer/Desktop Publishing' course. The college concerned told me that 500 people applied and they only had 50 seats. They gave those seats to people already employed, who needed the skill to keep their jobs. Unemployment is a major problem in Australia and I can't see it getting any better. LEANNE
Author: Leanne Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 05:20 pm
G'day Bruce, I've been doing some personal research on this 'Diary' business, and wish to communicate with you, Bruce. If you send me an email: ernie@weitech.com.au , I will automatically get your email address. I am doing this, on behalf of us Aussies, so don't worry Jules! - LEANNE!
Author: Matthew Delahunty Monday, 26 April 1999 - 09:00 am
Leanne, Just click on the blue link of Bruce Paley's name and you'll get his email address. Dela
Author: Julian Monday, 26 April 1999 - 05:32 pm
G'day Leanne, Thanks mate, I'll leave this one in your capable hands while I go rummaging around elsewhere. Jules