Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through January 01, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Mary Jane Kelly » Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly? » Archive through January 01, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 481
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 8:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Robert,
The fact is The 'Ripper' who ever he was fooled everyone, so why cant our Joe .
Have a good xmas.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 1:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Robert,
As long as we don't start sharing out rooms or are caught on the way back from the pub pre 9.00 am we should be o.k!! Lets hope that we don't have ther horrors of drink upon us too often!!! Have a good one!!
Cheers
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1643
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 2:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard, Suzi

Enjoy your Christmas. Talk to you again after the festivities.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Sergeant
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 43
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 4:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert,Richard et.al
And you..have a good one!! thanks for your good wishws..lets continue this when we've all recovered!
Cheers
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 451
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 12:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello All

I happen to believe that Jack was living in the area of Dorset St. during the killing period. Nevertheless, I don't believe that this points to Joe as being Jack the Ripper. There were thousands of men living within the vicinity of Dorset St. and any one of them could have been the Ripper.

Has anyone ever mentioned that Jack would have had to return to his lodgings after the murders to 'clean up'. If Joe was living with Kelly he would have had some serious explaining to do to MJK if he arrived back at Millers Court on the mornings of the murders with blood on his clothes. Not to mention the fact that he would have been bringing home a collection of human viscera which he would have had to hide from MJK.

This begs the question of why Kelly never became suspicious of Joe's movements which would have had to have corresponded with the dates of the killings.

He could have had other lodgings to retreat to besides Miller's Court, but I don't see how he could have afforded private lodgings as well as pay for Miller's Court. I realize that he was in arrears in the Miller's rent, but the arrearage did not date back to the August of 1888, when the murders are believed to have begun. This is notwithstanding the fact that I believe assaults against women and attacks against prostitutes by JTR dated back before the first acknowledged killing.

JTR could have returned to the home of a family member after the killings but he would have had to face the exact same set of problems he would have had in behaving while with Kelly.

All The Best
Gary

P.S. I have been having computer problems and
hope to get back on the boards again soon.


.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 101
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all..
Looks like like we've got to the end of a board!!
Nearly New Years Eve Chums!! Carry on..
Cheers
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 517
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Gary,
As you rightly say , if Barnett was Jack, then he could hardly , return to Millers court in the presence of Mary,splashed with blood, but a possible solution for that is there is some imformation, that Kelly may have not resided at number 13,all of the time, but used to see a man called Lawrence[ some state her husband] and went to stay with him, untill she tired, and returned to millers court.he could have killed at least some of the women on dates he knew she was not there.
Also did he not have a sister nearby, and brothers, he could have gone to them at convenient moments.
There is a saying is there not ' where theres a will , theres a way...
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1696
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes, Gary - strange how Joe managed to fool Kelly - plus everyone else!

Richard, what's different with the idea of Joe fooling everyone, is that Joe would have actually known that he was going to be questioned, also Joe actually was questioned, on the very day of the last murder.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 336
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If any of you have either been in a failing relationship or know someone who has then you know that while two people live in the same house neither asks nor cares what the other is doing. In fact most just wish the other to go away even if only for the time being and really don't care where they go or what they are doing.

MKJ had no use for Joe as he had no money to support her, and to make her living she needed for him to be gone so she could use the seclusion of #13. Where he went or what he did was of no concern to her so why would she pay any attention?

Shannon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 452
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Richard


If Kelly was not residing at Millers' Court at least 90% of the time before the murder,then I must state I would be shocked. If you have forthcoming information in your book about the exact location of her movements prior to the slaughter at NO.13, I would be very anxious to read it.

As Robert indicates in his post, Joe must have had to account for his movements on the nights of the murders when he was questioned by the police. In the immediate aftermath of the killing Joe would have been the first suspect the police would have had to eliminate
as he would have been a suspect in both the Kelly killing and the other murders which did
fit a pattern. He was cleared by the police and I realize a great many guilty subjects are able to fool the police. However, having said that Joe must have had to endure an intense examination before the police let him go on his way.

All The Best
Gary

P.S. Why are we talking about Joe's status as a suspect on the Mary Kelly Or Not Mary Kelly thread? The Barnett suspect thread must have collapsed under its' own weight, it was getting so large.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1701
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 2:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Shannon

I would have thought that if Kelly was engaging in prostitution against Joe's strongest wishes, and if she was using 13 room for the purpose, then she'd actually have had a very good reason to make a mental note of Joe's comings and goings, what time he was likely to be home, etc.
She wouldn't have wanted him walking in while she had a client there.

A 12 ft square room was not an ideal place to hide organs in, surely?

Gary, they've identified a new computer virus called the Barnett virus - once it gets in the works, it spreads everywhere!

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 105
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 4:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert,
O.K. Mary was putting up the odd (very odd probably) chum in her little 12x 12 room I agree she wouldn't have wanted JB walking in un announced..especially by opening the door via the window!.Can you imagine the potential horrors there!All of Mary's chums must have had some form of rota..I'll be in Ringers till 10. ish and then you've got to be out..leave the door on the latch or I'll use the window sort of thing..This makes sense!!Still think the poor beast on the bed wasn't M.J.K. tho!!
Cheers
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw

Post Number: 453
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 4:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi ALL

The posts above have reminded me that the door was open and anyone could get in by reaching through the window. In addition I recall that Kelly invited all sorts of prostitute friends in for a spendover.

I can just picture Maria Harvey or another 'down on her luck' prostitute poking about in that small room. A selection of knives, human organs bloody clothes, unmailed letters to the police and Central News Office. "Oh my, Mary's old man is a bit of an odd sort."

Asking us to believe that, as Robert says, a 12 foot square room without a locking door which was frequented by any and all local prostitutes, was Jack's hideaway, begs credulity.

Robert-The Barnett virus explains why we are now talking about ol' Joe on any and all threads of all topics on the boards.

All The Best
Gary
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Everyone,
When I started 'Joseph Barnett , number one suspect , many months ago, I did so with strong conviction, which I still have, and lets face it love the theory , or loath it, it haunts these boards, and seems to form heaps of conversation, so I guess , as nobody has put foreward a stronger suspect, he remains focused in our minds.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 112
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard

(Have a look at the Xmas boards on Pub Talk)
I still have a very strong conviction re J.B. but can't quite dismiss the Hutchinson problem..come on..why did he wait for a couple of days until Sarah Lewis had made her statement before he shuffled forward to then police! All that business about talking to a 'copper' in the street...Oh ..perleassse! J.B. and Hutch must have known eachother!!Difficult not to in Dorset Street and its' envirirons!!Can't help tht one or the other of them was keeping out of the way after the murder to see what happened..
Cheers
Suzi





Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko

Post Number: 113
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 11:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Richard,

"...as nobody has put foreward a stronger suspect,..."
I think 'stronger' is not the right word, 'more controversial' is more like it.

By the way, I still think George Hutchinson would be a stronger suspect than your man Joe.

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 321
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 5:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Agreed Frank, the only reason there is so much discussion about Joe is because so many people have a problem with him as a suspect. Hutchinson is far stronger, as in my opinion are many of the others who are talked about less only because there is less objection to their candidacy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1033
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 6:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

HEY! No one has a problem with him as a suspect! Those who are convinced that he doesn't even deserve a closer look have the problem! How is Hutchinson far stronger? Why did the fool come forward and introduce himself to the world?

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko

Post Number: 116
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 10:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne,

You can't decide for everybody if 'No one has a problem with him as a suspect!' Alan does, so it seems. But maybe he just means that some of us just don't see Joe as a likely suspect.

"Those who are convinced that he doesn't even deserve a closer look have the problem!"
How is this so? If they simply are convinced that Joseph Barnett couldn't have been Jack the Ripper, then that's that - they don't have 'the' problem, just as you might be convinced that Hutchinson isn't a stronger suspect - and you don't have the problem, now do you?

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 337
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 12:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne, not everyone is going to see Barnett as the killer. Some chose to overlook the obvious to discount him, others don't see the evidence as being that strong.

Each of us as a "member of the jury" has to decide for ourselves of all the viable candidates who is the most likely. After all is said and done it will come down to personal opinion and our individual interpretation of the facts. For me, he is a viable if not the number one suspect due to:

1 - Of the 5 victims (if you count Liz) Joe lived with one, across the street from one, and within a stones throw of another (if you count the shed Kate supposedly lived in from time to time). To my knowledge no other person has anything in common with more than one victim, and some of the candidates on the board have no proven link to any of the victims.

2 - Joe had a fight with at least one of the victims within a week or so of her death in the apartment he shared with her; which is in an isolated court and would be unknown to anyone from outside the area.

3 - At the inquest into her death, Joe did not provide one single answer that could be verified. Everything he said was vague at best. Had he been innocent, I believe he would have been a lot more exact in his answers or admitted that he just didnít know the answer to the questions so that he would credible. My own intuition says he had something to hide.

4 - The killing itself suggest among other things that it was personal. Psychologically, the marks to the face, removing the heart, and destroying her possessions are not the normal (if there is such a thing) for a serial killer.

5 - Up to the point where MJK's murder exceeded the others in brutality, it mirrored the others in "signature."

6 - Not every murder in WC was the work of Jack. There were over 10 different killings in the months before and after the (canonical) JtR murders took place. No one is even sure which murders are his work or the work of other serial-killer(s) during the same time.

7 - Hutchinson was so full of $%^&*( that his eyes should be brown. I find it hard to believe that he was even there, let alone following someone as close as he claimed in the middle of a cold rainy night in a neighborhood where he didnít live, and the description he gave being nearly exactly what was in the papers the preceding day along with the newly offered reward.

These are reasons why I believe he is a candidate, and in my mind a viable one. But, this is only my opinion and not expected to be taken as fact, or accepted by anyone else.

Shannon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 322
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 11:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Actually I think Problem was probably the wrong word to use. I don't have a "problem" with Joe as a candidate, I just think there are many far stronger. As I have stated many times before, I can see the scenario where Joe is sublimating his hatred of what Mary does by killing representatives of that profession, until finally his brain goes into overload and he kills the object itself rather than its representative. I see that as a feasible scenario and as such do not rule Joe out of the running. The usual scenario put out about him killing the others to try to scare Mary off the streets, however, I rank along with the royal conspiracy or the Vesica Pisces as a barely credible but very inventive adventure story.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1039
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 4:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Alan,

Don't forget that we believe Joe's hatred of prostitutes stems deeper than Mary....his mother!

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 323
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 4:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne, that's fair enough. In the scenario above, there would presumably have to be some deeper reason behind things. After all, if Joe hated prostitutes so much, why did he take up with one? Possible answer - to "save" her, and prevent her becoming like his mother. This he does, until he loses his job. Then she goes back on the streets, his long repressed anger rises to the surface and rather than hitting out at her, he hits out at "representatives" of her. I don't see a problem with that at all (I think there are more likely scenarios, but still I see this as a feasible one).

Anyway, as said before, I am looking forward to your book to see what you have come up with. If someone can prove to me that Joe was the man, I am open to persuasion. I only take umbrage the suggestion that Joe is the strongest candidate there is.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 1731
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 5:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne, if it's not giving away too many secrets, have the two of you pinned down Barnett? The last I remember, there was some suggestion that he might have been married at the time after all.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1040
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 6:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Robert,

Can I let Richard answer that one? He has been searching the British census records for Barnetts, and has yet to send me his final notes on that aspect.

LEANNE

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.