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!

Problems with 13 Millers court Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Barnett, Joseph » Problems with 13 Millers court « Previous Next »

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

James Lugert
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 10:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello
I have only been into the ripper a short while, and I like this Barnett as a suspect.Possible motive with Kelly, ripper central, eyewitness reports match him, his key, his pipe left at scene, his job disembowelling fish are all good points against him.
However, I have come to the absolute conclusion that it as totally impossible for Barnett to be the ripper alone.He must have had an accomplace. I will outline my reasons.

A. I have looked carefully, in the 'Victims' section, at that tiny room in 13 Millers court.If one person resided there, than no problem. But, with 2 people sharing that tiny room, it is impossible to conceal any evidence of murder at all.This murderer has cut out wombs, kidneys and internal organs, and taken some with him. He has got blood and guts on himself and the tools he has used.

B. Mary Kelly was a prostitute , in harms way herself, and knew other prostitutes in the area. With the police and media in a frenzy for help, had Kelly suspected anything at all she would have gone straight to them.

C. While they were living together for the first 5 murders, Joseph Barnett could not have done what the ripper did without raising suspicion from Kelly - IMPOSSIBLE.

D. If he cleaned up his tools and clothes in a public area, he would have been seen. If he lobbed in at 2.00am covered in blood, I'm sure Kelly would have noticed.

This has led to the conclusion I cant, or wont, go around.If Joseph Barnett was the Whitechapel Killer - he must have had an accomplace whose home he used on the murder nights.
BARNETT - ALONE AS THE RIPPER - IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.
Thank you - would be greatful for some input.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1758
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 6:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day James,

If you think that Room 13 Miller's Court was too small for two people to live in comfortably, imagine how Barnett felt when Mary Kelly invited her prostitute friend Julia Venturney to stay, and then as soon as she left prostitute Maria Harvey was invited in.- prostitutes everywhere!
Why did Mary do this when she knew it frustrated Barnett? It's the reason he left.

How much blood do you think Jack the Ripper got onto his clothes? When a person is dead, their heart stops pumping blood and there was so many slaughter houses in the area that blood on clothing wouldn't have raised an alarm. Jack the Ripper likely stood behind his victim when he sliced her throat to render her dead, or if she was laying face up on the ground, he would have made sure that he was out of the way of spurting blood.

If Mary Kelly ever had any serious suspicions, the money and gifts that Barnett was bringing home obviously made her stop and think! She probably thought that as long as she pleased him, she was safe.

That goes against her inviting her prostitute friends into the room against Joe's wishes, but maybe she thought there was strength in numbers, perhaps she wanted him to feel pressured into moving out, (making it his own decision), and besides, it failed to protect her in the end, didn't it? Barnett flipped!

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

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1759
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 9:30 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

Joseph Barnett lost his well-paying job at Billingsgate Fish Market in the weeks prior to these murders. He began working like many Irish females as a hawker of oranges which would have brought in much less money. He would have had to be up and on the way to the fruit markets nice and early, as the best-bargains went as soon as the markets opened, plus he had to hire a cart then walk the streets grabbing customers before anyone else did.

Imagine his frustration with the thought of losing Mary, (like his mother), back to prostitution and the continuing visits of Mary's former lover Joseph Flemming. And in the end Mary's prostitute friends intruded, probably forcing him to sleep on the floor before he walked out. When Maria Harvey had found other lodgings he wasn't asked to return either! Mary Kelly was clearly the dominant half of the relationship!

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

James Lugert
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 7:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Leanne,
Firstly, I am not saying he wasnt the ripper - but I strongly believe he needed help to pull this off.
* If there were prostitutes also in that small room , than it only stengthens my point.You couldnt have got anything past anyone in that room.
* Leanne - Do you honestly believe the murderer did not get any mess on him whilst mutilating?
At the very least he had killing utensils to clean up.
* what has he done with the organs? If he didnt bring them back to Millers court with him - why did he remove them and take them from the crime scene.It doesnt make sence.
* If Mary Kelly , or her boarding colleagues, had any suspicions that they happened to be rooming with Jack the nasty one, I am sure they would have not hesitated to inform the authorities. A few pennies and toffies wouldn't have 'bought thier silence'.

* Could you then tell me please: where has he cleaned up on each occasion. What did he do with his tools of the trade? What did he do with the organs?
It all makes sence to me if he had a safehouse to go to inbetween the crimescene and 13 Millers court.Thank you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1760
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 3:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day James,

But mate, you're assuming that he carried body parts and didn't tidy himself until he went home later in the day. A street-hawker of oranges would have had many places where he could have cleaned up in private. The Ripper, (whoever he was), just disgarded half of Catharine Eddowes's apron in Goulston Street. I don't believe he stopped to write the chalk message, but he would have found a bit of privacy at least.

Barnett's working day finished around noon and by the time he made it home, Mary and her friends were likely asleep getting ready to stay out all night drinking and prostituting. He probably got his sleep at this time, before heading off early the next morning to the orange market near Mitre Square. St. James Market, as it was called, was popular for street hawkers who got there early to hire their carts and secure the best bargains which went to early-comers. That's where I believe Elizabeth Strides killer was headed to secure an alibi, before he encountered Kate Eddowes.

LEANNE

(Message edited by Leanne on May 22, 2005)

(Message edited by Leanne on May 22, 2005)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Police Constable
Username: Phil

Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 1:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

A street-hawker of oranges would have had many places where he could have cleaned up in private.

I don't follow that remark. Could you expand please.

What evidence do we have that Barnett became or even had the capital to become a full-fledged orange seller with carts and a "round" or pitch. I doubt it was that easy to muscle in on others, or cheap to hire a cart and buy a cartload of oranges even at wholesale prices. A couple of handfuls of slightly damaged fruit in pockets would be more the mark IMHO.

Grateful to know the basis of your reconstruction.

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

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1763
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 9:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

I've been reading through a social investigation report of Henry Mayhew. that was made in about 1862.

It said: 'Oranges are sold by all classes connected with the fruit, flower or vegitable trade of the streets. The magority of street-sellers are however, women and children and a great part of these are Irish.'

The report goes on to say there were 4000 persons selling oranges in the metropolis, while 3000 hawk them from street to street. The rest I suppose worked at stalls. The smallest sum required to provide a stock of oranges was 50 for 15d or 18d. That 'enables the poor who cannot raise stock-money sufficient to purchase anything else, to trade upon a few oranges.'
'Oranges are bought by retailers in Dukes-place [which was near Mitre Square], and in Covent-Garden. They are sold in baskets of 200 or 300. The costermongers, [street-sellers], nearly all resport to Dukes-place,
[also called 'St.James'].

Henry Mayhew described 'Dukes-place' as the costers called it, as a large square yard with iron gates in one corner, a 'dead' wall, a gas-lamp in the centre. It was quite a dirty place. Not a shop in the market had a window and every corner was filled up with sacks and orange cases. Before every doorway were long, potbellied boxes of oranges and lemons.

I'll read through this and other reports tomorrow and try to find out the cost of hiring a cart etc. Anyway Barnett's earnings would have been much less than his earnings as a fish-porter and much harder to obtain! You wouldn't have needed much money at all to sell oranges.

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

Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson

Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 11:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Duke's Place, Aldgate was re-named to St. James Place in 1824. This, according to the Robson and Pigot's Directories. A few entries in the 1830 edition of Robson's still referred to the Square as "Duke's Place."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Police Constable
Username: Phil

Post Number: 9
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 12:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I had the impression that 18d would have been a good deal of money for someone of Barnett's class. It's a third of the week's rent he and MJD could not pay.

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

Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 2523
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 4:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

James

Have just picked this up and am sorry but have to say a few things here...


1. OK the room was small 12' odd wide and long ish but LUXURY at the time!

2.Mary was many things....wish we knew a lot of them ,but I cant help but think that Prostitution wasn't her first way of turning a few bob!(so to speak!)

3.As to Joe living with Mary and 'committing' the murders!!...well of course he could have done.......... Such is the way of the man who can commit such things.keep calm and read the paper!(As in Peter Sutcliffe etc etc)....but as Joe isn't my No 1 suspect will leave that to those who know more here

4.The area ,as we know, was surrounded with slaughter houses and people covered with blood was nothing to be winked at....people washing 'bits and pieces ' off of themselves wasnt a problem

Oranges/Fish and all sorts were for sale if these poor guys could get a job to sell that was a bonus....the queues for these jobs were something else thogh...about 300 men for 20 or so jobs!.. and it does show a certain determination with Joe that he had and later lost his job, but was in some way trying to get another...hence the I dont have any money to give you now line

I think at the end of the day that Joe was a good if rather shallow guy but with a good heart....looking for 'chummy' I think lies closer to an 'everyday' chap in and around Dorset St...Mr Invisible....he's the one!

Suzi

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 2525
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 4:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In fact to go back to the room thing I don't think there would have been a problem sharing with someone sleeping on the floor or wherever!

MAYBE Joe took exception to sharing with one (or lots )of women who were sharing their misfortune and enjoying the 'comfort' of an indoor accomodation for the night! That may make sense..!

Imagine the scene....Mary has a friend in prior to the rest arriving.....Joe turns up with his 7.30 comment re no money etc and leaves,.......the night progresses people men ane women come and go ....

NOW I start to see some confusion which may explain Lewis,Prater,Maxwell et al!!!

Just musing

Suzi }
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1764
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 9:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

Bruce Paleys 'The Simple Truth' says: 'Charles Booth calculated that the average casual dock labourer earned about 6s 3d per week, a sum far below the 2 or 3 pounds a week or so that Barnett had been making at Billingsgate Market. Nor could he have earned much more jobbing around the fruit markets.'

Mary had a weekly rent of 4s6d, plus her drinking habit to feed. On top of that Barnett had his bed at 'Bullers' to pay for.

SUZI: How else do you think that Mary Kelly could have earned money? 'I think at the end of the day that Joe was a good if rather shallow guy but with a good heart...' What we are looking at Suzi, is Joseph Barnett's 'Mask of Sanity'.

There is a report somewhere of P.C. Smith's that told of his findings after trying to trace the Ripper's route after depositing Kate's apron piece in Goulstone Street. He found himself looking at a blood stained sink in Dorset Street. That report was ignored. I'll try to locate it.

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

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1765
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 9:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

Ok here's what I found after a quick search: 'In 1912, Anderson wrote an article for 'The People' in which he tells of a Constable Halse tracking the killer's most likely route from the apron piece to a blood stained sink where he: 'washed his hands at a sink up a close in Dorset Street, only a few yards from the street'.

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

Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil

Post Number: 12
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 1:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I was under the impression that the "sink" story had been satisfactorily and totally discredited years ago.

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

James D. Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diomedes

Post Number: 22
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 2:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Like to say hello to everyone, been away for awhile with my job. I do share in the belief that their was probably more than one person involved in the killings, but I don't think Barnett to be her killer. Has anyone ever given any thought as to the killer having a look out posted in the area while he was doing this grizzly work?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1766
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 2:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Phil,

I haven't heard that! Please explain!

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

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1767
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 3:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

I just found this in Anderson's book 'From Constable to Commisioner', Chapter 16: 'The Assassin had evidently wiped his hands with the piece of apron. In Dorset Street, with extraordinary audacity, he washed them at a sink up a close, not more than six yards from the street. I arrived there in time to see the blood-stained water.'

No it did not say the exact location of this sink, but it does tell the likely direction and the street to which the killer fled. It also leads one to believe that the killer cleaned himself up before entering a home.

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

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1768
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 5:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

The blood-stained sink in DORSET STREET was also mentioned in a book written in 1914 by true crime author Hargrave Lee Adam. The book was titled 'Police Work From Within', and Adam likely interviewed eye witnesses.

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

James Lugert
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 4:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne,
" I assume that he has carried the body parts with him". I am only going by what I have read on the matter. Certain parts were removed from the victims by the killer and never found.In your oppinion Leanne, what has Joseph Barnett done with these parts?, and why did he remove them in the first place?

OK, so you are saying that after every murder he has commited, then he has found a secluded part of Whitechapel to do any cleaning up of himself and his utensils.Are you saying after each murder, including the double event, he has not gone home to Millers court until after work?
This is interesting, as I assume he is using his work , and early starts, as his alibi if caught.Is this the exact scenario you are trying to tell me?
* he murdrers victim/s
* leaves the scene to find private place to clean up.
* He then proceeds to go to work as an orange street hawker before going home to Mary. He also intends this to be his alibi. If questioned by policeman on morning of murder walking streets - he has intended to say " constable I am just going to work, I am not the killer".
* by the time he gets home, any vestige of the crime has been erased by the days work.

I just wasnt sure Leanne of the exact sequence of his movements.It would appear to me that his entire plan of attack revoved around his job as a street hawker.THIS WAS HIS ALIBI ALL ALONG. By the time he made it to his oranges after the murders, he was home free.







Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 2527
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 4:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne

Have been reading about Daniel Halse (b 1839) A witness at Kate's inquest retiring in 1891.

It appears that he was patrolling in Houndsditch at 1.58 (probably a tad too accurate) with Outram and Marriot when they all responded to Morris's whistle from Mitre Sq. Halse appears to have gone on a 'search' of the district(!) ,passing Goulston St about 2.20 when 'allegedly' he didnt notice any form of apron!He may of course not have thought to look into door ways in search of one!!!)

He did of course see the 'graffito' and urged it to be photographed!!! (God what a shame!) ,also he was the man who suggested that "Ok scrub out the word Jewes" and then photograph it... but was still... ignored!!

What Sir Robert A said in his book is spurious I think.....'extreme audacity 'it may be but the sink(!) 6' from the street could honestly be anywhere on that run from Mitre Square!, Dorset Street... ok on the way.. but Millers Court maybe too tidy!!!

Suzi

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 2528
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 6:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne

Also Dr (before he became Sir) Robert Anderson had as his 'suspect ' Kosminski aka Cohen....

The witnesses as Lawende ,Levy and of course Schwartz(if we go there!) with Stride..


Therein of course lie a lot of other horrors!

Suzi

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1769
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 3:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

JAMES: I think that body parts were removed and taken by Jack the Ripper to increase his 'power', to make him 'bigger', more shocking to the public. In that sense they were 'trophies'.
What did he do with them? Your guess is as good as mine, but why must we believe that he took them home? The murders all happened very early in the morning and unless he lived alone, the best thing for him to do would have been to go to work as per normal, and establish an alibi. The scenario you 'paint' is exactly how I believe it happened, (no matter who it was).

SUZI: We'll never know exactly which sink Anderson was referring to, but does that give us permission to dismiss it? The officers were trying to establish the killers most likely path and they ended in Dorset Street, but as you point out Anderson was at the time of the belief that Kosminski was the Ripper.

Also consider the time of day that the blood-stained sink was discovered, I don't think it would have been left by a slaughter-house worker, and if it was in a passage leading to some homes, I think that the person who used it was a resident there.

I'm going on a holiday/vacation for 10 days so tomorrow morning I'll make my last post for a while. Behave, and I'll read all your comments as soon as I get home!

LEANNE

(Message edited by Leanne on May 25, 2005)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 818
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 4:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne

From Constable to Commissioner was not Anderson's book, it was by Major Henry Smith, the acting Commissioner of the City Police. Smith is a reknowned teller of tall tales, and his story of the blood-stained sink in Dorset Street does not add up. He claims to have arrived in time to see the blood stained water in the sink, yet this is supposed to have been several hours after the body was found. As you say, there were many people in the area who needed to wash blood from their hands, so if this ever happened, which is unlikely, it hardly indicates that the blood had to have come from the hands of the Ripper.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1771
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 7:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Alan,

Yes you're right. Sorry it was written by Smith. I found it here after searching on Anderson's page.

His words: 'I arrived there in time to see the blood stained water', were obviously exagerated. He would have had to look inside every passage door, and probably found a sink with fresh blood on the bowl. But he did end up in Dorset Street, didn't he?

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

Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil

Post Number: 14
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 12:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Alan thank you for finding the references re the dismissal of the "sink" as a tall story. I have been away on work and have only just had time to trace the refutation - see p 418 of the latest UK p/back edition of the A-Z (under the entry for Maj Henry Smith).

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

Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 2529
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 4:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all
In case I forget have a great Holiday Leanne!!

Right have spent a bit of time on Smith here....

This 'From Constable to Commisioner'(1910) he starts by saying..'There is no man living who knows as much of these murders as I do'

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!

Love this bit later from G.H Edwards when he says that Smith's anecdotes were 'demonstrably untrue'!! The fact that he was within 5 mins of the perpetrator one night and that then he just happened to see the last of the fateful blood gurgling down the plughole in the 'public sink' where the Ripper had washed his 'bloodsatined hands' after the Mitre Square murder are to say the least to just agree with Edwards.

It appears that according to his own movement records that he was no where near to anything anyway!

The we get to his daft theory about the student polishing farthings to pass them off as sovereigns and all the business about the Lusk kidney,........I can however go with him with his annoyance at the Warren creature rubbing out the 'graffito'.


The lines at the end of all this from Smith himself when he says 'I must admit that the Ripper completely beat me and every police officer in London, and I have no more idea where he lived than I had twenty years ago'.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

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

James Lugert
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 2:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Suzi Hanney,

I just found it odd is all. Odd that a man on a murdering rampage of prostitutes just happened to be living with some, and they never suspected him. I thought it only logical he had a bit of help anyway.

I actually do agree with you Suzi that it could be Mr invisable - a suspect not put forward yet by ripperologists.It is funny you should mention that,as when I was at the book store today, I looked at a new book released this week called 'Uncle Jack' - ' Britian's Whitechapel killer's true identity has actually now been discovered'. The new Jack the ripper is Sir John William.A suspect not yet mentioned. If anyone can shed some light on this than let me know. I will start reading it this weekend and open up a new thread on this new JtR.Thanks.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 1:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi James,

Yes, I have considerd the possibility that the ripper had help. he could of had a lookout. I believe that John Anderson, The sailor theory, claims that he had help. Tumblety may of had an accomplice. In 1903, Abberline believes that the ripper may have been harvesting the organs for someone else. The police did offer a pardon to anyone with knowledge of the Kelly murder. Assuming that they were not planning on pardoning the ripper, then they may have believed that more then one person was involved.

Hi all,

I think that it is unlikely that Barnett could have kept the fact that he was the ripper from Kelly, but it is not impossible. He may have washed up before returning home. He may not have wanted to keep the organs, and he got rid of them some place before going home. However, I like to look at things plain, and James lugert is correct. He would not have been able to keep the fact that he was Jack the ripper from Mary.

The detectives who worked the case believed that if the ripper was living with someone, then that person would have known that they were living with the killer. Anderson believed that the ripper was being protected by family, or someone. Of course, this fact could have been the reason they offerd a pardon.

Hi Leanne,

I believe that I read a report that was written by a detctive that mentions the fact that the ripper had washed up. I am not sure what book the report was in. I have read so many things about the case, it gets confusing. The biggest mistake I think that I made, was reading to many books before I had a core understanding of the case. Live and learn.

Your friend, Brad
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil

Post Number: 16
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 4:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There are at least two recent threads discussing this book.

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

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1772
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 5:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Brad,

You obviously haven't read a book that says that Julia Venturney, (who stayed with Mary & Joe for two nights and was Mary's close friend), said that Barnett refused to let 'Mary walk the streets', and Mary was in fact fonder of another man named Joe, (Joseph Flemming). I'll elaborate when I get home and have more time.

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

Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 2530
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 5:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

James

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont start another thread discussing Uncle Jack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The 'Mr Invisible' as a known and respected /or just ordinary individual therefore 'invisible' person has been an old chestnut for some time,but feel free to comment on it

Best
Suzi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 8:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne,

I am aware that Joe did not want Mary walking the street, and that Julia claimed that Mary was in love with another man named Joe. Two things that I am confused about.

1. Did Joe keep Mary off the streets the whole time they were together?
2. Did Julia name Joeseph Flemming by name?

The odd thing to me is the ripper struck on weekends. If Barnett kept Kelly off the streets while they were together, Then the ripper killed her the first real chance he had. The first real weekend that Barnett was moved out, and Kelly had no company, the ripper struck. I find this odd. This may suggest, some sort of Barnett connection, or the ripper knew Kelly and her situation, or the ripper was stalking Kelly waiting for his chance, or just maybe Kelly was unlucky.

Your friend,Brad
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe

Post Number: 573
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 4:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

CB,

Why try to create problems where they may not exist? That is, Mary was badly in arrears on the rent, probably knew the rent man would be around in the morning, in order to get something was clearly back on the game and having a room to use meant a client would pay more for the "comforts."

There is good evidence she'd already brought someone ("blotchy-face") back to the room that night and it's a strong possibility she had gone out again to trawl for a John. Alone on the street at that time in that area it's a good bet she wasn't hurrying to a WCTU meeting. Isn't it simplest to accept Mary solicited the wrong man?

Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil

Post Number: 23
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Even if Barnett killed MJK, which I won't rule out, that does NOT mean that he was JtR. As with Stride, Mary may have been a sort of " domestic" killing.

So my first question is this: even if you think Barnett killed Mary where is your evidence that he was Jack?

Second question: why should the presence of Joe's pipe in the room be evidence? He had lived there and we know he still visited. there are other explanations.

Third question; does anyone seriously believe that gutting fish made a man skillful enough to disembowel human beings? If so why?

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

Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz

Post Number: 1777
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:40 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Phil,

Where is the evidence that Joe gutted fish for a living? I thought he was just a market porter. Would the fish have been routinely gutted before it reached the shops and stalls where it was sold on to the public?

That said, I imagine most people would have gutted fish at one time or another. Fishmongers often let the customer do the cleaning after purchase. So I agree that this says nothing at all about Joe's strengths when it came to murder and mutilation.

As you probably know, I don't see a single reason not to believe Jack killed MJK, nor a single reason to think Joe ever turned to violence against the prostitute he chose as his partner.

I'm not sure which Joe theory I find less plausible; there's not a lot between them IMHO.

Love,

Caz
X
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil

Post Number: 27
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 2:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Caz:

I don't claim Joe ever gutted fish!! I was simply questioning a statement made by James Lugert in the initial post in this thread.

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

Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz

Post Number: 1783
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 12:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Phil,

I never said you did.

But if Joe's job at Billingsgate didn't involve gutting fish in the first place, the question of whether a fish gutter would be more qualified to do what Jack did would simply not arise.

Love,

Caz
X
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil

Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 5:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What more is there to say!!

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

CB
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 7:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Donald,

You are correct, Kelly most likely solicited the wrong man. I just thought that the timing was odd. I am just trying to look at all the angles, and give the Barnett theory a fair shake. I agree, she probably picked up the wrong guy.

Your friend, Brad
__________________________________________________

"The world is no better if we worry; Life's no longer if we hurry."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

James Lugert
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Suzi,
Not quite sure what you mean by Mr invisible - are you saying an ordinary citizen, as I assume most suspects already were just 9to5ers? Can you elaborate a little for me.

Are you saying I should save my money and not buy 'Uncle Jack' - I am not sure of the credence that is held on him as a suspect, but I am getting the vibes that he is lower than Walter?
Thanks alot.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 6:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Caz.

Sensibly spoken, and a welcome return from fairy-land. There is not a grain of evidence against Barnett, no evidence of any violence either before or after the Ripper killings. A domestic disagreement,that may well have been repaired had Mary lived, is NO motive for such savage slaughter, except in the minds of irresponsible people who care nothing for slandering the names of the innocent, to further their desires for groundless sensationalism.

You're a sensible lady Caz. A pity there's not a few more like you here.
With warmest regards.

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

Penelope Brewster
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 9:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

QUOTE: "Joseph Barnett lost his job in July as a fish porter for theft". WOW! A suspect with a criminal record just before the autumn of terror. I'll keep him in my safe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil

Post Number: 30
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 11:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Penelope - I hope you were being ironic in your post, because in my book murder and theft are slightly different...

Or do the police where you live arrest all the known thieves whenever there is a murder?



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

Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe

Post Number: 575
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 1:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joseph Barnett lost his job in July as a fish porter for theft

This is another of those Ripper "facts" that when left unchallenged eventually acquire an unwarranted patina of veracity.

For the record, Joe Barnett claimed to have lost his job as a market porter, but to date no one knows why. It could have been because of theft, but might also have been for incompetence, insolence, tardiness, that he was found "redundant" for any of a number of reasons, that he told them to "take this job and shove it" or (fill in your suggestion).

Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 1413
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 2:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Donald,
I believe people have the wrong impression about Barnett, they seem to portray him as a saint, he was fond of a drink , he liked to play cards.
Infact the actual Barnett has never been identified, Harrisons man is the most likely.
On the very first interview to the press November 9th 88 McCarthy claimed that Barnett was originally a coal porter[ a occupation hardly mistaken] he appears to have given the name on renting room 13 as kelly, thus Mccarthy believed as they were posing as man and wife that she was Mary kelly, known only by locals as Mary Jane.
It only became evident after her death that the mans real name was Barnett, but that became irrelevant after the carnage in room 13 on the 9th november. people in the east end assumed false names all the time.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 2532
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 4:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

James-
Hi by Mr Invisible I mean the sort of guy (person) who could walk about,about his business and be 'unseen',there were and I assume still many who can do this.....postmen,milkmen etc etc but in 1888 in Whitechapel there were trades such as slaughtermen and other less 'pleasant' jobs that would entail wandering about with the 'odd' spot of blood here and there which would have raised no interest whatsoever!

Right.... tell me if you'd notice someone you were used to seeing every day THIS is what I mean by 'invisible'

Cheers

Suzi

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi

Post Number: 2533
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 4:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Don-
'An unwarranted patina of veracity'.I LOVE it!! a great line...

Richard-
I agree here Our Joe was surely nowhere near a 'saint' he was probably just an average 'Joe' at the time a poor soul who queued daily after losing his job for a bit of work at the markets......unlikely since he had lost his job earlier for reasons unknown..I feel he wanted to work ........hence the 'I have no money for you' line,but that 'times were hard' for our Joe...mind you he seems to have had enough money to have the odd drink (with or without his brother) and afford his room at Bullers!

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

Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe

Post Number: 576
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 6:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard,

I don't think we are in disagreement at all. I was not trying to make Barnett out to be a saint, only that we don't know if he lost his job for theft or something innocent. Ah, how many times writing about this case do we have to say "we just don't know"?

Anyway, since you have made a particular study of Joe I will always listen to what you have to say on that subject.

Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1773
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 3:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

I'm back!!! And that's what I like to see when I get home: Heaps of posts I can reply to! Firstly:

RICH: Didn't you know mate? It has already been determined that Paul Harrison researched the wrong Joseph Barnett, and failed to credit Bruce Paley in any way. Look here under 'Book Reviews - 'Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved'. Harrison Paul.'

C.B.: '1. Did Joe keep Mary off the streets the whole time they were together?'
Well, Brad, George Hutchinson claimed that he had occasionally given Mary Kelly a few shillings, and that he had known her for about 3 years. Mary met Joseph Barnett in April 1887, about 20 months before Mary died. Either Hutchinson paid Mary for little favours or he freely gave his money away, even when Joe was earning a good wage!

'2. Did Julia name Joeseph Flemming by name?'
I think it's safe to assume that Julia Venturney meant Joseph Flemming, unless Mary was seeing 3 Joes all at the same time!

Kelly's killer definately felt comfortable knowing that no one but the rent collecter would be visiting that room!

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

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1774
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 4:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

CAZ & PHILL: 'Where is the evidence that Joe gutted fish for a living? I thought he was just a market porter. Would the fish have been routinely gutted before it reached the shops and stalls where it was sold on to the public?'
There's that same old argument in Barnett's defence and against Bruce Paley's writing that I hope to settle in my book which gives a thourough description of the working conditions at Billingsgate Market, and full credit to appropriate sources! I have found it stated in a contemporary source that some porters were employed by market shops and stayed on for 4 or 5 hours after the main market trading was over to clean and pack fish. As Joseph Barnett had worked there for over 10 years it's safe to assume that that he found this extra work occasionally. Also some fish was bought alive and had to be killed with a blow to the head.

CAZ: You know why you can't find a single reason to think Joe ever turned to violence against the prostitute he chose as his partner? Because he took his frustration out on other prostitutes until he realized he was losing his woman and his war.

PHILL: 'Third question; does anyone seriously believe that gutting fish made a man skillful enough to disembowel human beings? If so why?'
How 'skillful' do you think Jack the Ripper must have been and at what? A phychological profile of the unknown Ripper was created in 1981 and it was determined that he was likely a man who worked at the sort of job in which he could vicariously experience his destructive fantasies....leagally!

I am looking for a Publisher willing to publish a book written by a unheard of author, on a very controversial subject. I have been rejected by one and am waiting to hear back from another two. I have been working consistantly hard on this and I hope to at least give enthusiasts extra material to consider.

LEANNE

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1775
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 4:34 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

For those who didn't read it when it was posted in the past, The Billingsgate bylaws stated: 'If any Porter....shall be found guilty of dishonesty or drunkeness, or shall use any obscene, filfy, or abusive language, or otherwise misconduct himself in the market or its immediate neighbourhood, it shall be lawful for the Committee fothwith to revoke his licence.' Lesser infractions of the rules were dealt with by fines or suspension.

......but, but, this Joesph Barnett was a saint, wasn't he? He had worked there for over 10 years and was totally committed to providing for Mary!

READ BETWEEN THE LINES!

LEANNE

(Message edited by Leanne on June 04, 2005)

(Message edited by Leanne on June 04, 2005)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz

Post Number: 1807
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 9:32 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne,

So Joe could have been guilty of having a box of fish fall on his toe and shouting "Fuc* it!". And this makes him Jack the Ripper???

Love,

Caz
X
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 1424
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 1:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne,
Hope you had a great holiday.
If Harrison researched the wrong Barnett my question is 'How is it that he met a man claiming to be a descendant of Barnett complete with a package of newspaper clippings?. in a arranged meeting in a pub.
Of course we have only the word of the author that this did infact take place.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil

Post Number: 578
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 5:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne - I don't think Jack had any medical/anatomical knowledge at all. (INdeed, i recently posed the question in another thread, as to whether that ignorance may have led to a fascination with internal organs etc).

But I don't think gutting fish had anything to do with it.

My point was aimed at probing the origins.basis of the statement by someone else. Not supporting it!!

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

Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 1776
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 8:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

CAZ: Yes we could assume that Joe wasn't merely finded and payed the heaviest penalty of losing a licence that he'd held since 1878 for using the four letter word, but I really think that's being a bit niave.

One contemporary source, (written in 1852), said: 'Foul language is often characterized as "Billingsgate".....The people who do business in it are a low and dirty class, and at all hours of the day the market is a scene of noise, confusion and filth.'

RICH:
Many people during that time period who showed an interest in the crimes would have kept newspaper clippings, but I hardly think that is proof that they must have been the killer.

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

Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 1428
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne,
But we are not talking about 'Many People' but a man Harrison traced using the name Barnett as a guide who interviewed a descendant[ so claimed] to be just that.
He also relayed certain remarks made from his descendant such as' I always felt sorry for her killer[ Mary] for he could never come foreward for fear of being topped'.
He also had a vast collection of persumably original clippings dating from Tabram- Mckenzie which he produced.
So summing up .
Harrison traces a desendant of his Barnett , who meets him in a public house , gives him a reluctant interview and produces a verbal account of joseph barnett and shows him a pile of clippings relating to the 'Whitechapel murders'.
I would therefore assume one of two assumptions are likely.
a] Harrison invented the whole scenerio.
B]Harrisons Barnett is the original.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil

Post Number: 589
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Has anyone else ever seen this "vast collection" of clippings, Richard?

I think that being able to assess whether such a collection was genuine - what newspapers the reports had been gleaned from - would be essential.

My expereince, from seeking to validate the Roswell (New Mexico) claims, JtR and other "mysteries" such as Rennes Le Chateau/Priurie de Sion, is that claims are ten a penny, supporting evidence is almost always unavailable when it comes down to it.

So has anyone else seen or published these clippings?

Phil

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.