|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 14, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The missing key to Kelly's room.:
Archive through November 14, 1999
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 04:19 am |        | This may not be exactly on topic but I wonder how much actual evidence we have that MJK was in hock to McCarthy for so much money? Given the value of the pound in 1888 it would seem likely that she would have been evicted well before the time of the murder. I presume the statement come directly from McCarthy but are their any independent witnesses who say that MJK's debt was as huge as this? Could it be that McCarthy inflated the debt after her death to show what a magnanimous landlord he was or did he produce accounts to the Police proving his statement?
Peter |
Author: Caz
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 07:04 am | | Hi Peter,
That's exactly the point I made in my last posting. This may have been an opportunity for McCarthy to try it on. With Mary murdered, McCarthy could see any money she owed him falling swiftly down the drain, whatever the size of the debt. The larger the figure he came up with for her arrears the better from his point of view, either for building a reputation as a lenient landlord or a chance to more than make up for his loss of earnings. For example, could he have told the press, 'I've lost out big-time here. You clear Mary's debt, you get my story'?
I don't know how much it would affect matters if Mary's debt was a smaller one. I'll leave that for you lot to work out.
And, Leanne, I really don't think anyone has been hostile towards your theory. They are just putting their own opinions about why JB does not strike them (!) as being our Jacky Boy.
Of course you can't count any of the mouthy one-liner brigade because they are much too afraid to outline their own theories up here :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 08:47 am | | Hi all,
As Caz says, Leanne, I'm not getting hostile about Barnett being suspected as Jack. We can't rule him out at all. The evidence against him is a lot thinner than some others, however, and much evidence indicates him being not the wanted man
Notice however that what is written in some book is no guarantee for it's truth (just look at the 'diary'). That is what I meant with Rick Geary's book and also the bit about 4 in the morning. Contemporary evidence simply does not support that time claim. We can really only go on that which was testified and witnessed at the time, and that is
i) Precious little
ii) Even when original, may not be correct
The bit about Geary's book being based, for example, on 'authenticated volumes.' What volumes, who was able to authenticate them, and how? Do these volumes exist, or are they heresay. Geary also claims to have used S. Harrison's 'Diary' as well as S. Knight's book as 'sources' for his book. I personally would not use these books as a source of anything other than idle amusement, with all due respects to the authors.
I will not be too hard on Geary, his book did follow much known evidence and his skill with the pen is undoubted, but look at his bloomer with the sailor's peaked cap. He, as an American, visualised a sailor's cap as that worn by American navy sailors instead of the 'P & O' type meant, which is why he wonders at the peak.
Caz, the bit about the rent arrears being 'adjusted' by MaCarthy could of course could contain some truth, although if we take the point at which Barnett got his butt kicked out of Billingsgate (ca. end August-mid september, I believe and thus couldn't pay any more rent) until the first week in November, we come up with a pretty high amount which could have been outstanding.
It wouldn't have helped MaCarthy to have claimed that anyway. Kelly was dead, Barnett had no reason to pay, it being never his room, and no-one else was likely to cough up. Still, he may have done it according to the motto 'Look what that all has cost me!' I don't know the practices of the newspapers then, but I'd think that Joe Barnett would have been a better choice for the lolly. Aha! A new idea. Barnett butchered all the victims for the money he'd get from the daily rags by telling Kelly's story... Sound idea?
Best regards/love
Bob |
Author: Jeff D
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 02:16 pm | | Hello Everybody!
There are just a few statements made by Joseph Barnett at Kelly's inquest that appear a little strange to me, or am I just reading things into these statements that are not there. For example;
[Coroner] Have you heard her speak of being afraid of any one ? - Yes; several times. I bought newspapers, and I read to her everything about the murders, which she asked me about.
I'm just not sure that the explaination to "Have you heard her speak of being afraid of anyone?" with the answer "I bought newspapers, and read to her everything about the murders...." was an answer to the question that was actually being asked. Or was the Judge asking 'was Kelly afraid of the Ripper?'
And
[Coroner] Did she express fear of any particular individual ? - No, sir. Our own quarrels were very soon over.
Here, Barnett insists that their own quarrels were soon over, although again, this was not the question that was being asked.
These are just a few minor points that I have read in the Kelly inquest reports, that (to me) seem uncalled for. It appears as though Barnett is insistent on driving home the fact, and painting a picture that he and Kelly left on extremely amicable terms the last time they were together. The points discussed make it look like their relationship was the most ideal it could possibly be. Certainly no mention of items being thrown in argument, windows being smashed, keys being lost.....
I know I probably am reading too much into these statements, and more than likely, there is a simple, logical explanation for these statements being made and recorded, they do look to me though, like Barnett is going over the top to emphasize the blissful relationship he and Kelly shared. Does anyone have any comments ?
Cheers All
Jeff D |
Author: Jeff D
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 02:28 pm | | Oh.... and hey Bob_c !!!!
... how could I not consider my return to the boards complete, without challenging your statement, as above, where you write...
'The evidence against him is a lot thinner than some others, however, and much evidence indicates him being not the wanted man'.
Woooah Bob ! What evidence indicates that Barnett is not the wanted man, or what evidence exists that is thicker regarding other suspects, than Barnett ?
I guess the 4-hour interrogation, examination of clothes, etc., certianly does indicate he was relatively clear of suspicion, but still, the Ripper could have very well have burned all evidence, clothes, etc., had a good wash and was away into the night.....
Cheers Buddy ! I know you will have no problem in knocking my claims back. But I shant quit until I do get buckled ha ha !
Jeff D |
Author: Boris
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 09:58 pm | | WHOO, Yeah!!!, Kelly, Barnett, THE LOCKED DOOR, great stuff, primo facto, just what the JTR myth is made of...
"the mouthy one-liner brigade"... |
Author: anon
Friday, 12 November 1999 - 11:24 pm | | | Right on Boris |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 01:46 am | | Dear Bob C
Could you email me about the dimensions to Kelly's room?
Bob Hinton |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 02:53 am | | G'day All,
I used the word 'hostile', to describe the way people seem to react at the mere suggestion that 'Mr-goody-two-shoes' could butcher the woman he loved. If we believe her good friend Julia Venturney, this love wasn't being returned by Kelly, who really loved Joseph Flemming. He was paying her visits and giving her money. Flemming may have accepted Kelly's 'work' as a prostitute, but Barnett definitely didn't!
BOB: What do you mean 'much evidence indicates him not being the wanted man'? Joseph Barnett was born in the East End and lived there his entire life. Jack the Ripper was probably known to each of the victims and JB was a 'familiar local figure', he came from a 'disfunctional family', (his father dying and his mother abandoning him in the 'cruel' East End) and he had this handy speech impediment, so people thought he was harmless and actually felt sorry for him.
I agree with Caz and Peter that McCarthy may have used the situation to his advantage!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 03:21 am | | G'day All,
JEFF D.: No I don't think you are reading too much into Barnetts statements. He contadicted an earlier statement he made to Abberline, but instead of being viewed with suspicion, everyone felt sorry for him.
Barnett gave the inquest jury a different reason for his seperation from Kelly. To Abberline, on the 9th, he said: "in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her, and her resorting to prostitution". At the inquest he stated: "Because she had a woman of bad character there, whom she took in out of compassion, and I objected to it. That was the only reason". The 'Star' reported that he said: '..and should not have left her except for her violent habits'.
LEANNE! |
Author: RLeen
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 07:43 am | | Hello Everybody,
Leanne, I was fascinated by your morsel of information that Joe Barnett had a speech impediment. Could you detail what form the impediment took, e.g. a stammer or a lisp etc, and could you direct me to the source.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Bob_C
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 09:01 am | | Hi all,
Bob, a message is underway, with thanks.
Jeff, your trust in me is overwhelming. Insofar as there is any real evidence against anybody, we must say that Barnett would fare no better than all others. One of the main reasons, however, for the failure of the police to catch Jack lay, so it was claimed by very high-ranking police officers indeed, was that Jack did not come from Kelly's immediate acquaintance or relative circles. i.e. he was a random killer.
For this reason alone, one could suggest that Barnett must be exonerated. The police may have had no luck, but they weren't fools. They would have looked at Mr.Joseph Barnett very carefully indeed, and any smallest indication of anything would have started the ball rolling against him.
It is indeed known that most killers and their victims are related or live in near circles, which left Joe normally as a pretty good candidate, at least for Kelly. If so, why wasn't he caught? (At least for Kelly)
There are just a couple of points that, I think, show in Barnett's favour as being innocent. I have a whole list of points, actually, but there is no place to put them here, and most such points are valid for other suspects too.
Leanne, you seem to want to insist that Barnett be the killer (why was he goody-two-shoes? Do you hate him while not ever having known him?) and Barnett alone, although available evidence does not give any solid support for not considering other suspects. Naturally, as I said before, his innocence is also not proved, but if that is a criteria for having him guilty, so was Abberline or any other person around at the time, like CGH, MaCarthy, Bowyer, etc. etc.
Evidence of any sort against Barnett is simply weak, just like that against Kosminski, Druitt, Isenschmidt, Pizer and most of the others. If I HAD to chose from all names named, I would probably say Chapman, but the evidence against him is also weak. The only reason why Barnett was suspect was, as I said, that he lived in Kelly's circle. That is, curious enough, exactly one of the main reason for me, at least, to decide against him as candidate.
Rabbi Leen, just butting in, as far as I know, Barnett is supposed to have suffered from Echolalia, an impediment that causes the afflicted to repeat the last words of questions directed to him. He is also reported as having stuttered at the inquest. If that has any sort of bearing on the case or not exceeds my knowledge.
I wish all a very pleasent week-end, I had written more but now I am going for a pint,
best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 01:13 pm | | Hello Bob_C & Everybody,
Thanks for the reply Bob, and your well thought out comments are certainly very valid and most likely correct.
I have done a fair amount of reading over the past while, and nothing I have read would really ever rule out Barnett totally from the investigation. To be totally honest with you. I don't really believe Barnett was actually our man, I just think that the Ripper, phyisically & possibly psychologically was very much like Mr. Barnett. Referring to Barnett then, just helps me to picture what I believe the Ripper was like.
I don't believe we'll ever really put a name to the miscreant. I just think Barnett was very like our man in many ways, and this is all really. In my ramblings on Barnett, I guess my only real goal is to see if I can 100% totally rule him out as a suspect. I shall then focus on what I feel are other top, credible suspects from a similar angle. I enjoyed the Stewart Evans dissertation on the Seaside Home incident very much. Everything here was possible, and many things probable. It certainly does cause one to consider Kosminski in a lot more detail.
I am reminded of the theory where a criminal will always leave something, and take something away from the scene of his crime. We all have a good idea of things the Ripper took from the scene. I'm still trying to see if I can find anything he may have actually left at the scene, besides his horrible signature. (Pipe maybe he he!)
Cheers All !
Jeff D |
Author: Wolf
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 11:44 pm | | I am interjecting some clarification once more.
Leanne, I have told you once before, that Rick Geary's book is a work of fact based fiction. There is no "unknown British gentleman " nor are there "twenty-four volumes" of journals. The introduction is just a devise to help tell the story with something like authority.
The statement in your book, ‘The Whitechapel Horrors, Being an Authentic Account of Jack the Ripper Murders' that "Another female witness corroborated the statement of Sarah Lewis........ at FOUR in the morning of the fatal Friday.", is talking about Elizabeth Prater, who corroborated Sarah Lewis's statement regarding the cry of murder at around 4:00 a.m.. It doesn't add an unknown witness to the case.
Now, this next bit is a warning to Leanne and Jeff D and anyone else who is relying on the casebook for their Kelly inquest report. Notice at the top it states, "The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, November 13, 1888", this report is taken from this newspaper account and is therefore unreliable as I will show.
Leanne, you wrote, "John McCarthy said: "They had a row when the window was broken". This proves that he knew about the window and what caused it, by the time of the inquest." What McCarthy really said was in my last post,"they lived comfortably together, once broke the two windows.", no talk of a row.
Jeff, you wrote, "Coroner: Have you heard her speak of being afraid of any one ? - Yes; several times. I bought newspapers, and I read to her everything about the murders, which she asked me about." Also, "Coroner: Did she express fear of any particular individual ? - No, sir. Our own quarrels were very soon over."
when Barnett's responses were, "She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders. She seemed afraid of some one," and, "She did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly."
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 14 November 1999 - 12:35 am | | G'day Rabbi, Bob, everyone,
Bruce Paley, an American living in London, has worked as a private detective, but his main interests are working with film-makers, rock bands, photography and sculpting. He has researched Joseph Barnett for over 15 years and according to him, he fits the contemporary mould of 'Jack the Ripper' and had compelling motives for killing Kelly - 'sexual jealousy and rejection'.
He says that Barnett developed the speech impediment of 'echolalia', (which may be symptomatic of schizophrenia), due to the traumatic childhood of losing his father and being deserted by his mother in 'Harsh' Whitechapel.
In the witness box, he lost his composure and the press noted his stress. He spoke with a stutter, contradicted earlier statements and repeated the last words of every question asked. Everyone felt sorry for him and the coroner said: "You have given your evidence well".
BOB: I'd say 'Jack', (Barnett or someone else), was at some time interviewed by the police, but was never caught because he was never investigated. That's why I called him 'Mr Goody-two-shoes'.
NO I DON'T 'HATE THE MAN'. I think that's a very stupid thing to say!!!!! Do you hate Chapman? Does anyone 'Hate' their favorite suspect?
You say that the only reason Barnett is a suspect, is that he lived in Kelly's circle. That's not true:
* Barnett knew the East End extremely well and lived there his entire life.
* He was a familiar local figure and everyone thought he was harmless.
* His job as a fish porter, required considerable strength, a 'basic anatomical knowledge' and provided experience with knives.
* His "various jobs" when he lost that, would have excused him for being seen anywhere, carrying any kind of bag and wearing any kind of clothes. (Catherine Eddowes was killed near an orange market, where he worked).
* Being aged 30, 5'7" or 8", of medium build, with a fair complexion and a moustache, he fitted some eyewitness reports.
* He hated prostitutes.
* and he came from a 'dysfunctional family'.
I have nothing to gain from this! I am an artist, studying computers and Desktop Publishing. I write stories about the 'Creative Process of drawing' and draw cartoons.
Bruce Paley emailed me once and thanked me for supporting his book and theory!
LEANNE! |
Author: RLeen
Sunday, 14 November 1999 - 03:57 am | | Hello Everybody,
I don't personally think that Joe Barnett was Jack the Ripper, as such, but I think that there is compelling evidence (if circumstance, assumption, and hearsay are allowed!!) for Barnett to be the murderer of Mary Kelly.
I think it was a drink fuelled row which escalated into murder. Incidentally I know from first hand knowledge of a father who killed his son in circumstances of this nature. A knife was used, to such horrific and efficient purpose, that the victim was almost decapitated.
On that distressing note I'll take my leave and say a short prayer.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 14 November 1999 - 05:12 am | | Dear Leanne,
I think you may be indanger of accepting what has been guessed at by Paley as fact. Mr Paley is suggesting, no stronger he cant possibly know, that Barnetts speech impediment, if indeed he had one, was caused by a traumatic childhood.
I would suggest that what we term today as being traumatic might have passed for normal then. For example I remember talking to a mate who was telling me about an action he had been involved in. He said 'When that shell came through the bulkhead it really upset Ginger.' Of course I had to ask why. 'Because it took his head clear off!'
As for giving evidence in a witness box, you give me a witness who stands up straight and true and gives his unwavering evidence in a clear calm voice, and I will suggest you treat him with the utmost caution.
Barnett had identified the horrifically mutilated remains of someone he evidently felt great
affection for by recourse to her hair and ears, that being practically all that was left of her. I would think that would make anyone stumble a bit with their statement, he certainly impressed the coroner.
As for his hating prostitutes I find this totally unsubstantiated. He frequented places where prostitutes gather, he struck up a relationship with MJK and agreed to set up home together after the first meeting, and apparently stood by her for over a year. This hardly equates with his hating prostitutes and by definition hating MJK.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: anon
Sunday, 14 November 1999 - 08:32 am | | | Quite right Mr Hinton. |
Author: Bob_c
Sunday, 14 November 1999 - 10:17 am | | Hi all,
Yes, I agree in the main with most of the above posts. Without wanting to harp on the subject of Barnett, the chances of his being the killer of at least Kelly are pretty small, in particular while he was simply not caught.
There does seem to be some confusion over Barnett, but Leanne, why was it a stupid 'statement' of mine 'asking' about hate? Your remarks, for example, about Flemming tend to show IMHO a 'slant' against Barnett that is not substantiated anywhere at all, and in favour of Flemming with the same lack of solid evidence. Of course we should not take such remarks too literally, but a sugestion that Flemming be some Saint, and Barnett the villain of the piece is, I submit, simply not substantiated by the available evidence.
Let us then consider Flemming. The little that is known of him is that Kelly lived with him together for a time. During this time, there were reports that 'he would beat her', substantiated or not. As Barnett 'picked her up', she was prostituting and 'living' alone in lodging houses. She and Flemming had evidently parted or she had left him for some reason.
In any case, either Flemming threw her out, she left him, or they both got thrown out of their domicile and separated.
i) If he threw her out, he didn't love her, if she loved him or not.
ii) If she loved him, and he was such a Saint, why did she leave?
iii) How do we know that Flemming tolerated her going on the streets? Could exactly that be the reason, or even the opposite ( she didn't want to go), for 'beatings' or a possible eviction?
iv) If they both got booted out, why didn't they at least remain together?
Now, there is no evidence that Kelly 'loved' Flemming at all. It was said that she 'was fond of another man, also called Joe' who may well have been Flemming. There is no mention of this man in direct connection with the murder enquiries as far as I know, one is tempted to ask 'why not?'
If Barnett's position as suspect for being Jack was alone dependant on his being born and raised in London, working as a manual labourer, having a moustache and having had a harsh childhood, then there must have been hundreds of thousands, when not millions, of JTR suspects at that time in London, or at least Kelly killers.
Once again, it cannot be RULED OUT that Barnett was the killer, that does NOT incriminate him. As to the question of character, for my part, a man who tries to get a woman in distress away from the streets and pays for her as long as he can is better that a man who may be presumed to have not only tolerated it, but possibly have either abetted or even forced it, i.e. a pimp. I do not claim that Flemming was one, or even a worse person than Barnett, we just don't know what the situation was.
Jeff, the bit about a killer always taking/leaving something at the scene is, as far as I know, not really substantiated. In any case Jack did not leave anything except the dead and mutilated victim. He did take things, although not in every case. I have a faint suspicion that the Lusk letter may have been from him, and the half-kidny could indeed have been Eddowes's. On this assumption, I have tried to make a case out for almost anyone, and land up occasionally with 'Victoria, Queen' or even 'Sooty'
Talking of Sooty, what has that little blighter been up to lately?
Best regards to all,
Bob |
Author: auntie beeb
Sunday, 14 November 1999 - 12:28 pm | | Clearly fallen in with bad company
http://www.eft.co.uk/prod/ktsooty.html |
|
|
|
|
