Archive through July 29, 2001

** 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 July 29, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through July 29, 2001

Author: Jon Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 08:43 am
Leanne I do not see the detainment and questioning of Barnett as unusual in any way. You emphasise the report that he was held for 4 hours. My suggestion is not that they interrogated him for 4 hours but that once they got his 'account' straight, he was detained until the police confirmed his alibi, which took a few hours, in total he was detained 4 hours. Assuming he was questioned for 1 hour (for instance), then the police had to confirm his story, go out, find and question people, this took a further 3 hours. who was at Buller's?, who did he play whist with?, who saw him leave?, when and where did he go? Remember, in these lodging houses they don't sleep alone, the police may have found people who confirmed Barnett was bunked down beside them all night. Don't assume the police simply took his word for it. Regards, Jon
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 09:25 am
G'day John, Do you think that someone stayed up all night and watched that Joseph Barnett didn't budge from that bed? He probably didn't get to sleep! Back in those days, police didn't have the amount of serial killers that had by the 1970s, to study the behavior of! Leanne!
Author: Jon Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 09:53 am
:-) No Leanne, of course not. But why would he go to bed just to get up and sneak out to murder Kelly.....did he assume he was being watched? By the way, have you read Ann Rule, 'The killer beside me', it may be released under another title in Aus. It crossed my mind about Barnett = Bundy. That she knew Bundy and would NEVER have suspected that the sadistic killer she was looking for was the nice pleasent friendly man right under her nose. Not that I secretly suspect Barnett, I don't, but then I have been known to play devils advocate from time to time. If Bundy & Dahmer are anything to go by then innocent, approachable, quiet 'nice guys' can be the devil in disguise. It might be of interest to review their backgrounds and then take another look at Druitt & Barnett. But even if we do discover similar traits we still have no evidence to speak of, just a new awareness that we are back to square one with a suspect list comprised of the 16-60 age group, with a particular focus on 'nice guys'. Regards, Jon
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 11:25 am
Jon, that's just the trouble with this series of murders, isn't it?. Even though it's such a short time ago,--it's a long time ago!! We relate so much to our Victorian forebears, we treasure their trinkets and furniture, we live in their houses, people like Harry Mann and myself remember our grandparents,we knew them,we remember the sound of their voices, and they were born in the 1850s-60s!!. I'm not saying they knew anything about JtR, but they lived as adults through the time of his reign of terror, they were closer in time to him than we are. I understood my gran and grandad because I was a child, I don't think I would understand much about their ways, as old as I am today!!. You can't take yourself back 113yrs and expect to understand Victorians, they weren't the same as us, their values weren't the same, they didn't speak to each other the same way we do. Like Harry says, with these murders you have to use SOME surmising and guesswork,--and trust to luck, because if it hasn't been written down, you will never prove it. And even if it has been written down, some people don't believe it!! Jon, if Barnett said he went to bed at 12:00mn shouldn't he have had to supply a witness -who would swear on the bible that he---Barnett, did not move from his bed,-until a certain hour. And that witness swear that at the inquest. Whatever anyone may say, that was no alibi. The police could find no blood on his clothes,-- if the fire in the room is true, could that be to burn something incriminating belonging to Barnett, because I do believe he stayed in the room for a time after butchering Mary. Regards Rick.
Author: Jon Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 11:43 am
Rick Barnett may not have been required to produce any witness, the police could well have verified his story while he was detained at the station. If we had sufficient records about this investigation we would know the steps they took, but as it is all I see is a proposal of guilt against Barnett built on a series of 'don't knows'. We dont know where he was, we dont know what he was doing, we have no records to help us, we have no statements to absolutely clear him.....therefore he MUST have been Jack !! I think we have to do better than that Rick. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 11:54 am
In addition..... The police were arresting individuals on a regular basis, they needed a resolution to this case, it was high profile, even papers around the world were sending reporters to London. Questions were being asked at the Parliament level and the Queen herself was concerned. I fail to accept the police, having laid there hands on her live-in-lover, obvious suspect #1 in a case such as this, would simply let him go on his word without verifying his story. We have to use some common sense here, the police were required to check Barnetts story out before letting him go. Maybe you disagree, but I give the police the benefit of the doubt, right from the beat PC up to the Commissioner....they wanted Jack the Ripper, and they're not going to let the No.1 suspect go on his word alone. Regards, Jon
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 11:58 am
Jon, that was lightning Rick
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 05:39 pm
Dear Jon, But these people you cite who want Jack so badly (promotion)...are they clever people or more fools dressed in the garb of the State, clowns who aspire to be The Great Modern Detective? And how many of THEM do we see? "They were not going to let him go on his word alone"! Jack had already done four jobs (with a joke or two inbetween)... as if he cared for these jokers. HE HAD CONTEMPT!!! Fragrant Rose :-))
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 06:18 pm
G'day, JON: He was known to people as a "NICE-GUY", don't you think that would have been a perfect 'cover' for 'Jack? ROSEMARY: I'm not saying that the police of the time were dumb! They just didn't haver the experience in the minds and behaviour of S.K.s that they did by the 1970s! Leanne!
Author: Jesse Flowers Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 08:51 pm
Hello all- Jon's reasoning seems perfectly valid to me. If police could have built even a circumstantial case against Barnett they would have been only too happy to send him straight to the gallows. This leads me to believe that Barnett must have had an ironclad alibi. As a case in point we may take the case of Jacob Isenschmid. The police were prepared to believe that he was the Ripper on the flimsiest of pretexts, and had the real killer not struck again while he was in custody he may well have been hanged for the crimes. Similarly, Thomas Sadler was in danger of being charged with the Ripper murders until he was able to prove his whereabouts on the night Carrotty Nell was killed, and even after he was acquitted the police still believed he was guilty of Coles' murder. I can't believe that the police would have let Barnett go on his merry way without being absolutely convinced of his innocence. Jesse
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 23 July 2001 - 04:13 am
G'day Jesse, If the police where so good, then why are we still trying to identify 'Jack the Ripper'? Do you believe that the police never even came close to catching the right man? Do you see: "I was in bed.", as an iron clad alibi? No one, no one can verify such an alibi, unless they stand-watch over someone sleeping! Leanne!
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 23 July 2001 - 08:07 am
Ah, now that'll be me cousin...Murphy Oz. Bedlum Rose :-)
Author: Jesse Flowers Monday, 23 July 2001 - 08:26 pm
Hello Leanne- To respond to your points- 1) I have no doubt that, then as now, the police force had its share of incompetents. I am equally sure that at least some of them were very good at their job. Considering that Inspector Abberline was the recipient of no less than 84 commendations and awards during the course of his career, I think we are on fairly safe ground in including him in the latter category. If we further consider that Abberline probably knew things about this case that we will never know, it seems highly unlikely that he would have set Barnett at liberty without thoroughly checking his story. 2)No, I don't think that "I was in bed" is an ironclad alibi. However, "I was in bed and 50 people saw me there" is, I should think, as ironclad an alibi as one could reasonably hope for. For the sake of argument, though, let's suppose that Barnett could not satisfactorily account for his movements that night. That would mean that he had both motive (he's the estranged boyfriend) and opportunity (no alibi)-a state of affairs sure to set off alarm bells in the mind of even the most dull-witted detective. The only reasonable explanation, therefore, is that Barnett did have such an alibi. These are just my opinions, based on what seems probable and reasonable to me. Of course Barnett could have been the Ripper-anything not outside the realm of possibility is, by definition, possible. As I see it, though, it is just one of a myriad of other (and, to my mind, more likely) scenarios. Jesse
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 07:42 am
G'day Jessie, Abberline was not "incompetent"! Mankind was less eductated about serialkillings back then. Apparent motiveless murder was extremely rare if not new to these experts. Abberline may have sensed something, that he couldn't work on, because it wasn't standard proceedure. (like asking Barnett why he never retrieved his pipe after he left it in Mary's room). How do you thoroughly check the alibi: "I was in bed"? 50 people may have seen Barnett go to bed, but did they all watch him all night? He would have been extremely upset, angry and confused as to why Mary didn't invite him back! If he didn't sneak off to Miller's Court to plead with her, then I'd say he layed in bed, wide awake! Leanne!
Author: Bob Hinton Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 06:16 pm
Dear Leanne, The probable reason why Barnett did not retrieve his pipe is that it had no value. They were given away free! yours Bob Hinton
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 06:22 pm
G'day Bob, In Spitalfields? It's not that I doubt you, but where did you read this?...so I can have a look! Leanne!
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 25 July 2001 - 02:11 pm
Dear Leanne, Clay pipes were the equivelant of beer mats. Often they carried adverts for different products. Regiments had them made up in their thousands to use as souveniers. Tobacconists used to keep a tankard of pipes on the counters so if you wanted to sample a new blend you were given a pipe to do so. Whenever you brought pipe tobacco you were offered a pipe as well. Its like giving away books of matches or a straw with a milk shake! If you're interested I could post some pictures of them on the site. Good Luck (bugger now I'm a newt!) Bob Hinton
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 25 July 2001 - 03:01 pm
Hi Newt, er, I mean Bob: Yes I would be interested to see the pictures of clay pipes. I still have some broken ones I picked up as a child in Aigburth, Liverpool, as a child in my grandparents' garden, in what was once farmland north of Battlecrease House where Florie and Jim lived in domestic harmony. And you are quite correct that a number of the stems and bowls of the clay pipes have inscriptions on them, I suppose of advertisements, as you indicated, of the firms that made the pipes or the tobacconists who sold them or gave them away, as the case may be. Best regards Chris George
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 25 July 2001 - 09:00 pm
G'day fellas, The only mention of a clay pipe came at Kelly's inquest when Abberline testified: "There was a man's clay pipe in the room and Barnett informed me that he smoked it". If it was such a cheap, disposable one (like today's disposable lighters), and Kelly was alive when Joseph Barnett left it, Why didn't she throw it away if she dispised him? Leanne!
Author: graziano Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 04:47 am
Hello Leanne, probably because she even did not notice it. Barnett could have left it himself on the mantelpiece just some hours previous to the murder when he went to visit her. The fact that it was on the mantelpiece could suggest that he laid it there just after having cleaned it by knocking repeatedly it against the grate of the fire and then for one reason or another he deposed it there and he forgot it. Being an object without great value and available for free could also suggest that it was not compelling for him to go back that night when in need of smoking. He could have found easily another one at the first whatever shop. Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 04:51 am
Hello Leanne, in the previous message when I say "for one reason or another" I am of course not including the one "for cutting Mary Kelly to pieces". Bye. Graziano.
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 09:18 am
OH OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!
Author: graziano Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 12:37 pm
Hello Leanne, well, it is not so obvious. If you think that Joe Barnett could have been so cool blooded as to cut to pieces the woman he loved and which whom he lived for 20 months. The woman that he was quite certainly still loving. If you think as you stated in previous messages that he did not fear the coming of other persons that night and that this allowed him to take his time in butchering Mary Kelly in the way he did. And if you think that he could have killed another 5 to 6 women just to frighten the same Kelly, why should it be so difficult to imagine that he kills Mary, he rests satisfied cleaning his pipe knocking it on the grate, lays it on the mantelpiece and then begins cutting. But this is what you think. Not what I do. Of course, I could have misunderstood your scream. By the way, the initial "oh" of it sounds nice. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 05:16 pm
Graciano, since I've been old enough to understand, I've been led to believe there is a very fine line between love and hate,-- and the older I get the more I do believe that saying. Whats more, if you are an Italian and a Latin, then you should understand that belief better than a coldblooded Englishman like me. If Barnett loved Kelly for 18mths,-- If Barnett was a little touched in the head,-- (but I have to admit, that is not known), If Kelly,- in Oct, told Barnett of her true feelings for him, Then I can understand how Barnett could have killed Kelly in the way he did!. The Pipe, -- I think the pipe was smoked, that morning, after the mutilation, it could have been quite valued, pipe smokers value their pipes more when a layer of carbon has built up in the bowl. I don't think the Ripper would have tapped his clay pipe out on the grate,--- he would have had a nosewarmer in no time at all,-- it would have been on the palm of his hand. Regards Rick
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 06:13 pm
G'day Graziano, Where's the information that the pipe was tapped on the grate? I can't even find the information that it was even found on the mantlepiece at all, or clean? Graziano, haven't you ever heard or read about lovers and husbands who kill their 'wives'? I think that the strong possibility that Mary's face may have been covered with the sheet, is greater evidence than the pipe! MARY DIDN'T LOVE JOE BACK! Leanne!
Author: graziano Friday, 27 July 2001 - 05:12 am
Hello Leanne, that the pipe was tapped on the grate is just one possibility that i mentioned just to try to explain why it was found on the mantelpiece. It is worth what you put on it and nothing more. Same thing for the fact that it was clean. For the mantelpiece I did read it somewhere but since I am away from home and books now I can't check. I will try to find something on it on the Casebook. If you have besides you "The Ultimate Sourcebook" I think (but really not sure) it was stated there somewhere. I think Bob Hinton should know something about it. It was not possible for me to imagine it just because it was at that moment that I learned the word "mantelpiece". Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Friday, 27 July 2001 - 06:02 am
Hello Rick, undoubtedly, you are older than me. Undoubtedly you still look very good. And right now this is what Angela is telling me in a way it makes me wonder.....I am gonna kill her! Of course I am kidding (not for what Angela says about you). I do not know where you got the idea that italians kill more their wives than english men do. It is true nevertheless than till about thirty years ago (I do not remember the exact year in which it was abolished) you got only some years jail (less than 5 instead of a life imprisonment) if you killed your companion for a question of honour (a disgusting legal mixture of jealousy and shame before the others). But this was good for men and women and for the majority of the cases it was only the excuse to get rid of someone you wanted to get rid of for some other reasons without being too severly punished and even (from recollection but I should check) being able to recover your civil rights. As for my experience and knowledge of italian men about jealousy I would be more tempted to think that they would prefer to get rid of the contendent, not of the woman they love and even if they do because they could have felt (as probably Joe Barnett in your theory) very umiliated they would tend to surrender themselves to the authorities just for everyone to know that yes, they have been "treated as dirt" but they have vindicated themselves showing that "dirt" they are not. Could this have applied to Joe Barnett, I do not know. Maybe : "Mors tua, Vita mea". But more specifically about the theory of Joe being Jack or at least a copycat killer for Mary Kelly I think without any doubt it is one of the most original and intelligent theory (with the one who put Hutchinson in the same role) of the whole story of the research of the solving of The Whitechapel Murders' mistery. What makes it unbelievable to my eyes is that of is lack (as for Hutchinson) of evidence and that it rests on the supposed psychological behaviour of one man of whom we know only a little more than his birthdate. Aside from the fact that no one is going to make me believe that Jack was one ( I already wrote something about my beliefs regarding that on other boards). With all your experience, Rick, have you never tried to strangle or chloroform a woman by your own without her (whatever her wickness) shouting, kicking, scratching. No matter from before or behind. No, no, I also not, just a way of speaking. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 27 July 2001 - 06:41 am
G'day Graziano, I have here in front of me, the book: 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion', which contains the police notes of witness statements, written in Abberline's own handwriting. The last sentence of his own statement goes like this: " I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & that they opened the door by reaching through the window, a pipe was there & used by him". It doesn't say that it was found on the mantlepiece, on the floor or on the table near the window, messy or clean. I think if you find anything else about that pipe in any book, the information was made up to suit the author's particular theory. By the way, Abberline's statement in his own handwriting, says nothing about how easy it was to open the door by reaching through the window!!!! Leanne
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 27 July 2001 - 08:03 pm
Hello Graciano, I didn't think you would answer my post because it was only petty stuff I was writing. I don't know who Angela is, but she sounds very nice to me, I don't deserve what she said, and don't you dare lift a finger to her!!. Yes I'm older than you,-- I'm older than everybody except Harry, and he can only give me a couple of years. I think you were talking about a "crime of passion", Graciano?, that excuse has never worked over here. But it's quite a belief here in England that Italians are much better lovers than Englishmen. You seemed to come close to accepting my theory on who the Ripper could have been, and then you shot of at a tangent, Maybe if we talked face to face we could come to some sort of compromise , is that likely this Aug/Sept at Bournmouth ?. Regards Rick,
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 27 July 2001 - 08:19 pm
Graciano, that should be Sept/Oct, sorry.
Author: Bob Hinton Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 10:07 am
Dear Everyone, I'm now going to attempt the previously impossible post a picture. Could we have Jon on standby please? \image all the best Bob Hinton
Author: graziano Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 11:31 am
Hello Rick, the compromise is over Angela or over Joe ? Over Joe, no way. Bye. Graziano. P.S.: Writing about love is writing about petty stuff ?........ Yes, I think italians are better lovers. (But I do not think that with your look you had to envy them a lot in your life).
Author: graziano Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 11:46 am
Hello Leanne, I think that for whatever reason the last message I sent (to answer you) has been lost. I send another one, if the previous comes back, take it only as a "bis repetita". The pipe on the mantelpiece is mentioned on the Casebook under the voice "Dissertations". It is the one written by Dr. Frederick Walker under the title "Joe Barnett". I am pretty sure that I read it also in a more "official" document. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 02:11 pm
Graziano, I've looked up your profile, you have me at a dis-advantage. What can I say,-- except, you are a very polite gentleman. Best Regards, Rick.
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 06:59 pm
G'day Graziano, It doesn't matter where you read it mate! Out of all of the writings, official or not, the only mention that I'd trust is the one in Abberline's own handwriting! This is an example of how facts get twisted over 113 years, to suit peoples theries! That's a shame! And if it's found in an official document, that particular notetaker could have misheard! Agree? Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 07:18 pm
G'day Graziano, I just read Dr. Frederick Walker's disertation and found this statement: 'Morro believes Barnett left it (the pipe) behind when he moved out a week before'. If Joe was visiting Mary everyday after he moved out, I don't think he would have left it then. If it was found clean on the mantlepiece, he didn't throw it there in anger after his last visit to room 13, when he was rejected by Mary. If Mary found it where it were Joe threw it, picked it up, cleaned it and put it on the mantlepiece, then she would have been expecting him to return to pick it up! She would have been sure not to invite any 'customers' inside! I'd say that Abberline found it on the floor! But ignored it as evidence, because he thought he already knew who the Ripper was! Leanne!
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 10:29 am
c:\pics pipe.jpg
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 10:37 am
Dear Everyone, Success of a sort. Its a bit big. The stained pipe is one given away by a tobacconist. You can just see his name 'Cork' impressed on the stem. The one below that is a face pipe, similar to Mr Punch and the bottom one is a regimental pipe made for the 57th Middlesex Regt, 'The Diehards'. The stained one still has the remnants of the last pipe of tobacco in it! all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 10:54 am
Hi, Bob: Thanks, Bob, good work. Very interesting. Now if the pipe found at Mary Jane Kelly's had the crest of the Sussex Regiment like the corner of envelope found with Annie Chapman's body, we might begin to tie things together. . . All the best Chris George
Author: graziano Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 11:28 am
Hello Leanne, Abberline: " I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time..." (How much ?) "...and that they opened the door by reaching through the window..." (In which way exactly ?) "...,a pipe was there..." (What kind ?, Where exactly ?) "... and used by him..." (Last time, when was it?). If you only trust Abberline's statements you are not going to go very far (as himself). Bye. Graziano.