|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 16, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through June 16, 1999
Author: Stuart Mccoll
Friday, 11 June 1999 - 11:38 am |        | Dear Bruce,
I've just enjoyed reading your book for the second time and have a couple of questions regarding Barnett. If he was so much in love with Kelly, (a). how could he mutilate her, possibly taking hours to do it and why take away her heart?
psychologically disposing of it contemptuosly would be difficult surely and keeping it could be rsiky in terms of evidence. (b). As none of the removed trophey's from any of the victims turned up apart from the kidney possibly sent to Lusk, how could he keep this hidden in the barely furnished 12ft.sq. room he shared with Kelly?
I enjoyed the book and its logical approach to the murders, but these questions puzzle me?
Any comments? or for that matter anyone else got any ideas?
Stuart. |
Author: Caz
Friday, 11 June 1999 - 12:52 pm | | Hi All,
I too have grave doubts that a man could do such a thing (even in momentary hatred or revenge) to the woman he loved, then revert to so-called normality (and fish gutting :-)) without ever giving himself away somehow.
To give some examples of what I'm getting at:
A) Joe didn't break down and confess when called to identify the body of his beloved.
B) The police didn't see fit to collar or charge
him (like they might well do these days, with even less to go on, IMHO).
C) He didn't confess later (when the dreadful deed might well have robbed him of his sleep, if not his sanity)
D) He didn't get in his hansom cab and drive it into a brick wall or anything (the modern equivalent of a similar domestic situation often consisting of using exhaust pipes/fire/steep cliffs to dispose of himself and his entire family.
Nowadays, the police often use a press conference to watch the body language of those close to murder victims to try to assess if they should be investigated further. Sometimes a family member will be watched closely for indefinite periods to see if a guard is dropped. I wonder if someone spent any time and trouble watching Joe's later movements like this. I gather it can be quite successful in the capture and/or elimination of such suspects.
Any thoughts?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 11 June 1999 - 04:58 pm | | G'day Caz,
I wonder if Joe could have written part of the 'Diary' in the 1920s, from memory AFTER the murders and the Maybrick 'flavour' was added by a 'modern forger', to cover his identity and 'save' the family name.
This would explain why some tests on it,show that it was composed sometime in the 20s, while others say that it is a modern forgery.
Joseph Barnett, is the only 'known suspect', to have lived into the 1920s. All others either died or were put into assylums.
I have been researching this 'wild' idea and have several points to support it! What do you think? Am I waisting my time?
LEANNE! |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 11 June 1999 - 06:45 pm | | Hi y'all.
LEANNE: Glad to "see" ya. Why wouldn't Joe Barnett's alledged relative on their mission to save the family name - Just simply burn the "diary"? Do you have a fact or two to serve as a firm foundation for your points? In my experience, confirming facts is never a waste of time.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 12 June 1999 - 12:14 am | | G'day Ashling,
Maybe the relative saw the '$$$$$$' that could be made.
Scattered throughout the 'Diary', (not on every single page), are threats to Inspector Abberline: "I see thousands of people chasing me with Abberline in front dangling a rope". Knowledge of Abberline's involvment in the case, wasn't generally known outside of Scotland Yard at the time of the murders and until 1959. Donald Swanson was 'Chief Inspector', so the diarist was either modern, a Scotland Yard insider or was the real 'Jack' and once interrogated by Abberline.
In Kelly's room, after the gruesome discovery, Abberline and Dew found three clues: the warm fireplace, the unlit candle and JOSEPH BARNETT'S PIPE.
I've re-read the 'Diary' and noticed that "Kelly" is the only victims name that appears: "May God forgive me for the deeds I committed on Kelly, no heart no heart".
LEANNE! |
Author: Karoline
Saturday, 12 June 1999 - 09:50 am | | Hi all -
so, am I right in thinking the current idea here goes something like this:
Weedon Grossmith forged the diary in 1889 to frame James Maybrick. He then gave it to Joe Barnett who kept it and added more bits in the 1920s. Barnett in turn gave the diary to Billy Graham's father, who handed it down to Anne Graham, and then some time in the late 1980s, a modern forger found it and added in all the overtly 'Maybrickian' references.
Is this about right?
It is certainly an interesting idea. |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 12 June 1999 - 05:24 pm | | G'day Karoline,
Weedon Grossmith did not forge the diary in 1889, no one did! Ink expert Dr Nicholas Rendell, said that 'the writing of the diary, is not consistent with the letter formations of the late 1880s'. Rendell concludes that ion migration tests indicate that the diary was composed between 1909 and 1933. I wonder what page this ion migration test was made on?
The 'Diary' is not a normal Victorian diary, it was a scrapbook, (maybe of poems and press clippings). 'Jack' was obviously confident and delighted in believing that he could never be caught, so he kept a scrapbook. I believe the 'Maybrickian references', were ALL added by someone in modern times.
What year did Weeden Grossmith die?
LEANNE! |
Author: Caz
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 04:11 pm | | Hi All!
Hey Karoline! These boards are a collection of ideas by separate posters, a kind of melting pot, if you will. I put in my thoughts about why I didn't think Joe fit the typical domestic killer 'profile' (nor do I think he was a serial killer either), and Leanne came in with some very different ideas of her own about Barnett.
Hope that clarifies it a wee bit for ya. Oh, sorry, you were puliing our legs, you naughty girl :-)
Wanna put in some Barnett-type comments of your own while you're here? Then we could combine your ideas with mine, Feldy's and Leanne's and make it all an even bigger load of cobblers :-)
Try combining three or four ripper authors' or 'experts'' different theories and see if they make any more sense ;-)
Hey Leanne!
Weed-on shuffled off in 1919.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 06:18 am | | G'day Caz, Karoline and all,
Caz, do you believe that some of the 'Diary', came from the mind of Weedon prior to 1919?
I'll tell you why I suspect Joseph Barnett:
On the second last page of the handwritten 'Diary', with no references to any Maybricks, it says:
'I do not have the courage to take my life...I deeply regret stricking her, I have found it in my heart to forgive her for her lovers'.
The next paragraph says:
'I believe I will tell her all, ask her to forgive me'... Note this is after he talks about taking his own life.
The last sentence is:
'May God forgive me for the deeds I committed on KELLY, no heart no heart'.
KELLY's is the only victim name I can find in the whole diary. This leads me to believe the author was close to Kelly.
LEANNE! |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 07:35 am | | Hi, Leanne:
To set the record straight, the quote you give, "the writing [of the diary] is not consistent with letter formations of the late 1880s" is by documents expert Kenneth W. Rendell, not as you state "Ink expert Dr Nicholas Rendell." See Kenneth W. Rendell, "Report on the Diary of Jack the Ripper," in Shirley Harrison, "The Diary of Jack the Ripper," 1st edition, Hyperion, New York, 1993, pp. 305-312 (quote on p. 311). The ink test concluding "that the diary was written between 1909 and 1933, with a proposed median date of 1921" was conducted by R. J. McNeil (Harrison, p. 313).
Chris George |
Author: Nikki Dormer
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 07:39 am | | Dear Leanne,
I can see your point there, and I'm not one to put my fly in your ointment, but if the author/murderer was close to Kelly, wouldn't they have used her first name rather than her last?
Oh, and here's another interesting idea....mmmm, no not here, someone'll get mad at me.... |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 07:43 am | | Hi All,
Hi Leanne,
The lines you quote could just as easily be a hoaxer pretending to write as James Maybrick, who is known to have had a bad quarrel with his wife, Florie, who was known to have had an affair with Brierly, and probably Edwin Maybrick too.
The last pages were, I think, designed by a hoaxer (ancient OR modern :-)), to suggest that JM was weaning himself off his hopeless diet of arsenic, becoming remorseful of his misdeeds in the process, to the extent that he can now put a name to his 'final' victim, and wants Florie's forgiveness before his own end hoves inevitably into view.
I also think the hoaxer is trying to suggest that JM worshipped Florie but hated her faithlessness, so much so that he went and killed Kelly, a detached target, to vent his spleen. This was evidently too much to cope with and within 6 months James was dead, possibly as an indirect result of coming off his 'mother's little helpers'.
That's what I think the hoaxer, whether it be the Barretts, or Devereux, or Weedy, or anyone else for that matter, was trying to convey.
All IMHO of course.
To take Joe Barnett from his cozy fisherman's wharf in London to creating bits of the diary for whatever purpose would involve some mighty strong evidence-gathering, not to say lateral thinking, but I guess you knew that and are trying to do this behind the scenes? I wish you luck.
I'm still looking forward to some more insightful posts on Barnett as potential domestic/serial killer, if not diary forger.
Karoline? Waddya think of Joe Barnett as a suspect? Any views gratefully received.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 09:28 am | | G'day CAZ and all,
I know James Maybrick was having a quarrel with his wife, but didn't Joe have a quarrel with Kelly when he the window got broken? Could MJK be "The bitch, the bitch, the bitch", 'The whore' and even 'the whore mother'. I read that Kelly had a child adopted out, before she met Joe and was rumoured to be pregnant at the time.
Here's another point, suggesting that some of the poetry was written by someone else:
Take a look at the verse about Queen Victoria. The poet suddenly calls himself; 'Sir Jack' instead of the usual: 'Sir Jim'. A single line, at the start of the 3rd verse says 'arise Sir Jim she will say', then the poet goes back to 'Sir Jack'. The end of the poem reads: Jim Jack Jack Jim'. All 'Jims' on these pages, could have been added by a modern forger. What are your views?
NIKKI-You say that if the diarist was close to Kelly, why wouldn't he have used her first name? Remember the first victim was a Mary too. Joe would have been aware of this, as he read the newspapers to Kelly.
CHRIS-I believe Joe wrote these verses, before he died in the 1920s, to confess and ask for Gods forgiveness.
I'll go to bed now and read the replys in the morning!
ALL IMHO LEANNE! |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 12:00 pm | | Hello All,
Leanne, you mentioned that Mary Jane Kelly was pregnant, which is also something that I believed to be the case. However, this assumption was brought up in another page and several contributors debunked the notion. I'm afraid we'll need to find some documentary evidence to conclusively prove that MJK was with child.
If someone can prove this it gives Joe Barnett a fine motive to kill Kelly. After all, perhaps the argument they had concerned the fatherhood of the alleged sprog. Could it be, and this is hypothetical, that paternity of the still unproven and undelivered child, (I have to stress this point to show my objectivity!), did not belong with Joe Barnett resulting in his murder of the woman who cuckolded him.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 12:15 pm | | Hi All!
Forgive me for appearing dense, but wouldn't Kelly have been 'cockolding' all over the place in her profession? ;-) Or wasn't Joe aware of her being on the game?
One question I'd have, admittedly a delicate one, concerns the Victorian ladies' of the night contraception methods (ahem!)
I don't have an informed opinion on whether MJK was expecting, but if she was regularly on the game up to 9th November 1888, and reasonably intelligent, I would guess that she wasn't preggers. All IMHO.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 12:31 pm | | Hi all -
Caz - for answers to questions of Victorian contraception etc. I'd recommend Michael Mason's excellent book 'The Making of Victorian Sexuality'. It's a very radical view, but scholarly and completely debunks the myth of the 'repressed' 19th century. You would be surprised at how progressive many of their attitudes were. It certainly gave me a new perspective in my work, and helped me to comprehend the way these people may have thought and acted.
It's available in paperback, not too expensive and worth the money.
Re. the contraception available to working girls of the time: condoms were obtainable, but I suspect they were probably too expensive for someone like MJK. I should imagine the cheapest and therefore most widely used method was douching. Not too effective, I guess you'll agree. Unwanted pregnancy must have been pretty common.
hope this helps
Karoline |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 08:08 pm | | Hi y'all.
Joe left a pipe behind at Millers Court:
1. When he moved out?
2. On one of his almost daily visits to Mary after he moved out?
3. After murdering Mary? --- In a small rooom (about 12' x 10 or 12') which contained very few objects, Joe remembers to take some of Mary's organs, but overlooks his own pipe?
There's always exceptions to the rule, but the 100s of serials killers I've studied in my lifetime - of the JtR type, which outsmarted the police & rarely left any clues ... That type doesn't -- just because it's more violent than the previous ones, suddenly become "unhinged" by a fifth murder & "drop their wallet" on the crime scene.
IMHO, JtR was born unhinged. His violence increased at a steady - prepared for - pace, as his fantasy became more intricate. He didn't suddenly get an attack of "normalness" & cry out, "oh goodness, what have I done, I can't face this, so I'll flip out." Sorry, that wasn't very scientifically phrased - but hope y'all get my drift.
My money's on scenario #1 or #2 above.
I know it's difficult to separate ideas sometimes, but in IMHO, any "diary" discussions should be moved to one of the many other boards set up for that. Just a quick question regarding:
"Florie, who was known to have had an affair with Brierly, and probably Edwin Maybrick too."
Flo was suspected of doing the Bedsheet Tango with Ed?? Where is this written, please?
LEANNE: There's no proof or even reasonable suspicion that Mary had a child, adopted out or otherwise. Some newspaper stories mistakenly gave the idea that Mary had a son ... it was later proved that she'd been confused with another woman who resided at Millers Court. If you're thinking of a child by her early marriage to Davis/Davies - no documentation has been found on that marriage either, much less of a child. Mary Kelly might have been as much of a fibber as Liz Stride.
Wading through even half the JtR literature is like navigating a mine field ... I've learned not all books are created equal. To each their own, but I'm placing Stephen Knight's book, and the "diary" in the fiction category ... so to speak.
RABBI: I enjoy your posts. Imagination combined with open-mindedness is refreshing & sorely needed on these boards of late.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 05:24 am | | G'day Janice,
I didn't start this discussion on the 'Diary' board, because they are 'stuck' on discussing the conflicting stories of the two Barretts. M says he forged it while A says it was 'handed down'. The posts are all very long and would take too long to read and understand, so I thought I'd start it here, as it concerns Joe Barnett.
In 1908, Anderson stated in 'The Daily Chronical' that were only two real clues to this case: the Goulston St graffiti, (which indicated the direction the killer fled), and JOE BARNETT'S PIPE, (where he left it after he killed her).
You say that killers rarely leave clues. what about the bloody piece of apron and the chalked message? Here in 'Casebook', under 'Victims/Mary Jane Kelly', it says that 'of her marriage to Davies, there was a suggestion that there might have been a child in this marriage'.
LEANNE |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 05:57 am | | G'day,
The pipe, the pipe, why did he leave it there? He could have left it there on purpose, as an excuse to return later that night, after he made sure he had an aliby. He just forgot to remove it from the scene as he was leaving, because he was too busy thinking over what he just did. IMHO!
LEANNE! |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 07:01 am | | Hi All,
Karoline, cheers me dear, for the info on contraception.
Considering unwanted pregnancies were common, the murdered 'street' girls don't seem to have got things wrong on too many occasions. Or maybe they just had several trips to the friendly local knitting-needle-wielding abortionist (wonder how much came out of their wages for that). Or perhaps they tended to use other methods of keeping their punters satisfied on 'dodgy' days.
I know one of my forebears produced 21 kids with his two wives, the first one dying shortly after her 7th, the second having 14!
Hi Janice,
I agree about a seasoned serial killer not losing control and leaving clues by accident, and I don't think Joe was ever in this category.
And I've already said why I don't think he just killed Mary while the real Jack killed the others.
Perhaps Jack deliberately left Joe's pipe there as a 'clue'?
Sorry to bring up the Maybrick case again here, but you did pose a question about Edwin (though not directly addressed to me, so I hope you won't mind my answering it.)
'Fraid I'll only be quoting from Harrison or Feldy here so everyone can take it or leave it :-)
p409 of Feldy's book quotes a letter dated 7th June 1889 from Charles Ratcliffe to John Aunspaugh, both close to the Maybricks. The letter was reproduced from the Trevor Christie Collection.
"Edwin is in bed with 'nervous prostration.' Tom and Michael are seeing to it that he leaves England, and Michael says Edwin's letters will never be produced in court."
p235 of Shirley's updated book now:
"Compromising love letters were found from Edwin to Florie-and destroyed."
It is my contention that the diary hoaxer knew of a possible affair, and used Edwin as the original 'whoremaster'. If you read aloud any of the diary references to brother Edwin, using a sarcastic slant, you get a picture of a deeply bitter James having found out or suspected his 'favourite' baby bruv is getting his jollies with 'er indoors, or going with the Flo, so to speak :-)
Did Anne and/or Mike intend to give this impression of Ed and Flo's '9 and a half weeks', in the 11 days Mike now says it took for them to concoct this thing? Or am I reading too much into it?
As you say, this should not technically be on the Barnett board, but as it counteracts Leanne's idea that Joe 'edited' the diary, I guess it has enough relevance at this point to justify its inclusion. I will certainly not be initiating any diary discussion on the wrong board, as I see it, so please don't worry :-)
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
