|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 9:34 pm: |       |
G'day,
Has any one considered checking the old Billingsgate Porters licenses? Bruce Paley did this and said that these are deposited at the Guildhall Record Room, London. Birth and death certificates are on file at 'St Catherine's House', London.
If you find the most likely Barnett on the census record, he'd have to be on file as a Billingsgate Porter too, because that's one definate detail we know about the right Joseph Barnett! His Billingsgate licenses would have stopped in 1888!
LEANNE
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 12:27 am: | |
Why is Hutchinson a better suspect than John Richardson? Richardson was in the backyard at Hanbury Street---knife in pocket--at one hell of a problematic moment.
Presumably Richardson is 'cleared' because the police didn't seem to be interested in him---
Yet can't the same can be said of Hutchinson? [or Barnett, or Bury for that matter]?
The police were not lacking in manpower. They investigated even the most improbable of leads. Seeing that even the ridiculous Malay story was carefully traced, can't we take it for granted that blokes like Richardson & Hutchinson & Barnett would have been quietly investigated?
I call my method 'innocence by ommission'.
Cheers, RP
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 24
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 1:29 am: | |
Hi. RJ
Richardson had a reason to be in Hanbury Street and more specifically at No. 29 because his mother lived there and he was checking on the premises on her behalf. Unlike Hutchinson, he was not spotted at the scene of a murder. If he had something to hide he could have lied about his presence and no-one would have been any the wiser. Not to mention the fact that he worked at No 29 for his mother. He also worked at Spitalfield's as a porter.
His knife was a table knife which the police ruled out as impossible to have been the murder weapon. (see the A-Z; Begg, et al.)
His leather apron was temporarily significant only because of the Leather Apron uproar.
Hutchinson, unlike Richardson did not come forward immediately; further, he had no reason to be in the area where Kelly was killed let alone admit to making contact with a victim. He also avoided the inquest where he would have had to testify under oath.
I realize you don't believe either man was JTR, and that you are only using Richardson by way of comparison. I'm not saying Hutchinson was JTR, only that he has some explaining to do.
Best Regards
Gary |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 3:58 am: | |
G'day,
Bruce Paley's Barnett was living with his sister at '21 Portpool Lane, Leather Lane, Holborn' in 1888, and he got this from the inquest testimony.
He next has Joe living with his brother Daniel, and he got this from Daniel's death certificate as well as Joes new Billingsgate porters license.
The 'A-Z' says that 'Daniel's frequent residence at the same address as Joseph, culminating in their sister's house at Portpool Lane, proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Bruce Paley, Mark Madden and Neil Shelden have identified the correct Joe Barnett in their research, and Paul Harrison has not.'
So I'd say that No.10 'Age 32 born in Whitechapel' is both Paley's Barnett and the correct one! (the census must have been made before his 33rd birthday).
In Paley's book it says: 'Barnett would of course appear somewhere in the 1891 census, but there is no name index of entries'. I'd say Chris has found him and he was No.10! Chris did you eliminate him because the original page said he was 52, or because he had offspring older than 3?
LEANNE |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 25
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 4:19 am: | |
Hello All
I was just thinking out loud about why I cannot accept Barnett as MJK's killer or the serial killer known as JTR.
Barnett is suspected because he was MJK's lover and had recently broken up with her. Nevertheless he was believed to be on good terms with her. However, what may have been going on in his mind with regard to her lifestyle is subject to speculation. Former lovers are often the first people to be suspected by the police.
When a spurned lover kills a former significant other there is often evidence that an attempt has been made to obliterate the victim and overkill is often evident. Kelly was certainly the the object of obliteration and overkill.
However, we may assume that the police looked at Barnett and could not find anything to link him to the crime. The obliteration and overkill can be explained by the escalation of violence by the typical serial killer. If "Polly" Nichols was the first victim we can trace this escalation and overkill. If Barnett was JTR there is no explanation for the degree of butchery upon the other victims. This is especially true of poor Kate Eddowes. The argument has been made that Barnett killed the other victims to scare MJK off the streets. If Barnet was JTR, then we are dealing with a case of first impression based on my experience after having studied serial killers for a lengthy period. I have never heard of a sexual serial killer whose motive was something other than the need to kill and control victims for the sake of some type of sexual fantasy gratification. The exception would be the serial spouse killer.
This killer does not kill in a violent bloodbath to the best of my knowledge: Rather he or she most typically uses poison or avoids the business of hands on murder and hires a third party to perform the act. Further, they have a ready motive which can be financial gain or the removal of a spouse for the ability to take another lover.
I believe the above points to be true whether you believe Barnett was JTR or simply killed Kelly and Kelly alone.
As I said this is just an exercise in thinking out loud and I understand that much of what I have said is probably a rehash of previous posts. Nonetheless I am trying to clarify in my own mind why Barnett has been discussed on the new boards to such an amazing degree.
Best Regards
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 26
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 4:52 am: | |
Leanne
If Bruce Paley was correct in his identification of the correct Joseph Barnett, it may be possible that his brother Daniel may have been a candidate for JTR.
He was said by to be drinking with MJK on the evening of the night she died by Maurice Lewis. Daniel was born in 1851 which would make him 27 in 1888. This is within the age range of the killer as estimated by the witnesses.(See the A- Z, Begg, Fido, SKinner)
If I recall properly he was a little over 5'4" tall although I cannot recall the source of that information.
Best
Gary |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 247
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 8:33 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Apologies to you and Joe Barnett No. 10!
I have managed to get a clearer copy of the original page and No. 10 on my original list was definitely 32 at the time of the census and not 52!
So he is back in the running on that score but still has a sizeable family of varying ages which might cause problems squaring with his living full time with Kelly in 1888. I'll leavethat to foldk to decide.
The full household details for no 10 from 1891 census are:
Civil Parish: Mile End Old Town
Address: 50 Mile End Road
Head:
Joseph Barnett aged 32
Born in Whitechapel
Occupation: Traveller C.J.
Wife:
Julia Barnett aged 32
Born in Whitechapel
Children:
Louie aged 12
Rachael aged 11
Gershon aged 9
Matilda aged 7
Rosetta aged 5
All children listed as born in Spitalfields
I'm attaching the entry so you can see what I mean about the age - it is clearer in this copy
Regards
Chris
 |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 248
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 8:45 am: | |
Leanne
On the basis of what you said about "Paley's" Barnett I did a search for a Daniel Barnett in 1891 census and found the following:
Daniel Barnett 1891 Census
Resident at Victoria Home No 1, Commercial Street, Whitechapel
Details:
Daniel Barnett aged 44
Single
Born in Whitechapel
Fish porter
Lodger
If you are right and the Barnet No 10 is the man, hen this would be his older brother, older by 12 years
regards
Chris |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 9:58 am: | |
Gary--Hi. As you say, we might find ourselves booted off this thread.
But one of the arguments above is that Hutchinson was seen at Miller's Court "at the time of the murder", making him the best suspect. But is this really the case?
If Hutchinson can be trusted, he left Miller's Court at 3 a.m. This might be partially confirmed by Mary Ann Cox , who, when returning to her room at 3:00 a.m., did not see him.
Now, Kelly's time of death is debatable. Wolf Vanderlinden had some interesting thoughts on this on the old boards. If Kelly was killed later in the a.m. [say 9 a.m.] then Hutchinson wasn't at the crime scene at the time of the murder at all.
In this light, Richardson becomes a little more interesting. He is in the backyard at Hanbury at 4:45 a.m., but sees nothing. Yet, when Dr. Phillips examines Chapman's body at 6:30, he estimates that she had been dead for two hours..'not later than 4:30.'
Now, I think it unlikely that either man is the murderer, but maybe Richardson has some explaining to do, too. When asked why he put a 5" table knife in his pocket, he can only lamely respond "I suppose it was a mistake." And of course, he ran home and produced the knife; we only have his word that he produced the same knife.
But my point is that these latter day "suspicions" against fellows like Hutchinson and Barnett are only circumstantial. They may be good suspicions, or bad suspicions, but I think we have to allow that if there was any doubt whatsoever the police would have looked deeper into the details than what we can see in the extant documents. Cheers, RJP |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 249
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 10:40 am: | |
Location of Joseph Barnett in 1881
From the 1871 Census we learn that Joseph Barnett (Paley's Barnett) had a younger brother called John Barnett who is listed in that census as 9 years old and born in Whitechapel. I searched the 1881 census looking for this brother under these criteria:
1) Would be 19/20 years of age
2) Born in Whitechapel
3) Possibly worked in Fish Market (as did his father and older brother Daniel)
Only one entry fitted these crieria but was listed as a Visitor - but guess who he was visiting???
The listing is as follows:
Address: 1 Horatio Street, London
Head:
George Bailey aged 28 born in City of London
General Dealer
Wife:
Mary A. Bailey aged 26 born in St Lukes
Children:
James aged 5 born St Lukes
Lizzie aged 3 born Shoreditch
Alfred aged 1 born Shoreditch
Lodger:
Joseph Barnett aged 22 born in Whitechapel
Unmarried
General Labourer
Visitor:
John Barnett aged 20 born in Whitechapel
Unmarried
Fish Porter
This Joseph Barnett fits in exactly agewise and place of birth with the No 10 from my 1891 listing and with "Paley's" Barnett. However, there is one remaining problem. The 32 years old Barnett listed in 1891 has father a son of 12 and a daughter of 11, while the 1881 JB, ten years earlier, is listed as an unmarried lodger. If these two Barnetts are the same then the most logical explanantion is that at least the first two children were illegitimate.
Hope this is of interest
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 27
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 11:55 am: | |
Hi RP
I will check on Wolf Vanderlinden's thoughts I respect his opinions and research. Mary Ann Cox may have had no reaon to notice Hutchinson when she returned home if he was the killer. This would be the case if Hutchinson was inside MJK's
room at the time performing the butchery. Itappears, however that Kelly may have died at about 4 a.m. based on the muffled cries of 'oh murder' which were heard at that time by two earwitneses. This raises the question as to where Hutchinson was during the period between 3 and 4:a.m.
The A-Z authors consider it a virtual certainty that Phillips was wrong in estimating the time of Chapmans' death and I must admmit that the more I learn about the doctor's who examined the bodies the more I question their reasoning. Nevertheless the "A toZ" may be raising a questionable argument. It appears they take Richardson's statement as the truth and thereby conclude that if Richardson was at 4:30 sitting upon the location where the body was found at 6:00, then Phillips had to be wrong as to the time of death. This reasoning falls apart if Richardson was lying. This bolsters your point.
However, I believe as you do that neither man is the killer AND THAT HUTCHINSON IS A BETTER CANDIDATE THAN BARNETT.
I would neverthess say that circumstantial evidence can't be discounted as people are often prone to do. Aside from a reliable eyewitness, (who are not often found unless they are participants testifying for the prosecution) a demonstrable and verifiable confession is the only means we have of bringing any case to court without circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can often accululate to form a solid case which can convince a jury.
WE SHOULD NOW GIVE THE THREAD BACK TO THE BARNETT DISCUSSION. PLEASE FORGIVE MY RELATIVE INEXPERIENCE IN ALLOWING THE THREAD TO MEANDER, HOWEVER YOUR POST INTRIGUED ME.
Best Regards
Gary |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 2:47 am: | |
G'day,
CHRIS: If No.10 was THE Joseph Barnett, and he married Julia or took her as his common-law wife between 1888 and 1891, then she could have already had 5 children.
In 1906, Bruce Paley has him living at: '18 New Gravel Lane, Shadwell' with his brother Daniel, so the 'marriage' must have failed, because no wife is mentioned.
Paley says that Daniel Barnett was born in 1851 in Kent, so in 1891 he would have been 40. But considering the closness in age, plus the fact that your Daniel was a fish porter, don't eliminate him! Can someone look at the Billingsgate licenses to see if Daniel was registered in 1891?
IF GEORGE HUTCHINSON WAS A KILLER, THEN YOU KNOW WHERE HE WENT WRONG?...THE FOOL CAME FORWARD AND VOLUNTARILY INTRODUCED HIS NAME TO THE CASE!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 3:21 am: | |
G'day,
GARY: Detectives work in 'circles', starting with the victims 'inner-circle' of partner, spouse, children, parents. Then they move out to the next 'circle' of friends, servants etc. That is standard detective work! They had to interview Barnett, to find out about the victims circumstances, her past etc. They would have wanted to get back to work in looking for someone who had a clear motive for killing prostitutes.
Joseph Barnett is a suspect today because:
1. We've discovered that he did have a motive because he strongly opposed prostitution and blamed Kelly's cousin for starting her on it and her prostitute friends for encouraging her back!
2. He was born in the East End and had lived there for his entire life. By 1888 he had lived near to all the murder sites and Jack the Ripper demonstrated great ability to avoid detection!
3. Some eyewitness reports describe a man as 30 years of age, 5ft 7ins tall, with fair complexion and moustache, which was an exact description of Joseph Barnett.
4. He fits the mould of the modern day serial killer being 30, from a dysfunctional family with an absentee father and 'distant' mother, and he had a disability of a speech impediment, which may have caused the victims to trust/feel sorry for him!
5. Detective Constable Halse, traced the killers most likely route from Goulston Street and wound up in Dorset Street, where Barnett and Kelly lived.
6. At Mary Kelly's inquest, her friend Julia Venturney told how Kelly's drunkeness would trigger rows with Barnett. And that Kelly was fond of another man named Joe, who used to come and see her and give her money.
Bruce Paley's John Barnett, was born in 1860, so in 1871 he would have been 10/11, and in 1881 he would have been 20/21. I s'pose it all depends on what month the census's were recorded.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 5:21 am: | |
Leanne,
There is a slight difference in the age of John, But I do not feel that this is important, he may not even have known his correct age himself, I do not know the precedure about cencus details in those days but I would imagine the Head of the household would have completed the imfomation requested, and on asking John he said twenty.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 5:31 am: | |
Hi everyone,
Can anyone in there wisdom , tell me what a Traveller C.J. exactly is?. for Barnett to have been a labourer in 1881, and appearing to be in that sort of profession at the time of the killings, would he had to progress in life to be known as a Traveller c.j.?.
Richard,
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 29
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 8:43 am: | |
Hi, Leanne
I will be going in the hospital for a short while for some tests. I will respond to your post as soon as I am back.
All the Best
Gary |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 8:49 am: | |
G'day Gary,
I hope everything goes alright for you!
Take care!
LUV LEA! |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 30
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 9:13 am: | |
Hi. Leanne
Many thanks...!!!!
All the Best
Gary |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 3:30 pm: | |
Dear Richard
I think you'll find Traveller CJ stands for Traveller (no fixed point of employment) Carpenter Journeyman
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 4:16 pm: | |
Bob,
Thanks for that,it was bugging me.
Richard. |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 12:48 pm: | |
Chris Scott; Is it not possible that Joseph Barnett married a widow who already had all those children? He may have met or boarded with this woman and then they became an instant family. It just seems like a lot of children showed up all of a sudden! Too bad they don't record the wife's maiden names (Julia Venturney comes to mind)
Perhaps the marriage records would show something.
Just a thought?
Joan |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 5:56 am: | |
G'day Joan,
Good observation!!!
I can't find anywhere that records the age of Julia Venturney or whether she had any children.
Did a couple have to be legally married, to be recorded as husband & wife?
LEANNE |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 252
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 7:12 am: | |
Hi Joan & Leanne
The point about the wife's maiden name is one I had looked at and not only do I think I have found a record of the marriage, which predates the murders substantially - in fact by 10 years! I was looking for a marriage between approximate 1874 at the earliest (when Joseph would have been 16) and 1891 which fulfilled the following criteria:
1) The Joseph Barnett had to be of East End/ Whitechapel origin
2) The spouse had to have the forename Julia
3) The marriage would probably be registed in Whitechapel or very close by.
Looking through Birth, Marriage and Deaths records, I only found one marriage that satisfied all these conditions:
A marriage was registed in December 1878 between Joseph Barnett and Julia Jacobs - this was registered in Mile End. I only found one birth entry for the appropriate period for a Julia Jacobs, which was registered in East London in June 1859.
IF this is "our" Joseph and Julia, it would mean the following:
1) Julia was one year younger than Joseph
2) At the time of marriage, Joseph would have been 20 years old and Julia 19 years old.
3) The oldest child of this couple listed in 1891 Census (Louie) is 12 years old which would fit in very closely with an 1878 date of marriage.
4) If this is "our" couple, it would explain at least two of the childrens' names. We know that the Joseph Barnett in whom we are interested was of Irish descent. Julia's maiden name (Jacobs) indicates that she was almost certainly of Jewish descent which would explain why two of their offspring had unmistakeably Jewish name (i.e. Gershon and Rachael)
Of course, interesting though the above maybe, it leaves unanswered two huge questions: if the Joseph who married in 1878 is "ours" then why is what appears to be (on grounds of age and place of birth) the same person listed in 1881 as unmarried and living as a lodger, and moving in with Kelly in 1888?
Hope this helps
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 257
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 7:54 am: | |
Chris, fascinating stuff! Could I ask a general question?
When the enumerators conducted the censuses, did they leave a very slim (by modern standards) form for the head of the house to complete, the enumerators afterwards copying the information into their books? Or was it more of a doorstep job, with the information going into their books on the spot?
If it was a doorstep job, how many times would the enumerators be expected to call back, given that in some cases they'd have got no reply, and in others the person they spoke to might not have known all the details of everyone at the house until they'd had the chance to ask them?
Robert |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 253
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Robert
The simple answer I don't know what the mechanics of actually taking the census data were. Also I don't know what the penalties were then for not complying. Certainly under modern British law the gathering of census data is taken very seriously and failure to provide returns for household can result in hefty fines or even a prison sentence.
I would say that from the large number of original census pages I have seen, the general neatness and consistency of the writing suggest that if the data was collected on the doorstep, this must have been in draft into a notebook which details were then transferred into the final returns.
I will see if I can find any info about how the returns were actually compiled and if I find anything I will post it here
Ragrds
Chris
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
