Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Violent?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Violent?

    It occurs to me that while many tout Barnett as a suspect (Please note that I keep an open mind) I have not found a reference to him being violent with Kelly. I would expect to find some indications that they did more than argue. I ask because there is a reference to the couple arguing and a window getting broken but Kelly could have easily been the violent one in that instance if she was in her cups. What say all of you?
    Neil "Those who forget History are doomed to repeat it." - Santayana

  • #2
    Its a good point you make on Barnett. The reason I think he is not the Ripper is because George Hutchinson didn't say it was him who was with Kelly before she was murdered. He describes someone unknown to him (and probably unknown to Kelly) and Hutchinson was a friend of Kelly's. So he probably met Barnett and would have said that was him
    Jordan

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by YankeeSergeant View Post
      It occurs to me that while many tout Barnett as a suspect (Please note that I keep an open mind) I have not found a reference to him being violent with Kelly. I would expect to find some indications that they did more than argue. I ask because there is a reference to the couple arguing and a window getting broken but Kelly could have easily been the violent one in that instance if she was in her cups. What say all of you?
      I don't rule out Barnett as her killer, but I do not see Barnett as the Ripper.

      The broken window, actually two broken pains in the same window.
      Strange how they happen to be close to where they need to reach the lock, at least one of them was - convenient?
      I had to wonder if the suggested "argument which resulted in the broken window" was an excuse, because they had actually lost the key and broke a pain intentionally so as not to be charged for another key.

      Regards, Jon S.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Wickerman,

        I think that is sound reasoning. If not then indeed that was a very helpful break in the window. In fact, you could go as far as to say that if the window had not been broken, then someone would have had to break it. Or else buy a key. Ans Barnett was out of work, and they were already in arrears with their rent.

        Best wishes.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi,

          I dont hold much credence with Hutchinson's words at all. I find him a very dubious character.

          Best wishes.
          Last edited by Hatchett; 04-25-2011, 03:24 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe him and think he is the most important witness in the case. But its cool if you disagree
            Jordan

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Jordan,

              Well that's what it's all about, isnt it? We dont have to agree. Everyone is free to voice an opinion and say what they think. That.s good.

              Best wishes.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Hatchett View Post
                Hi,

                I dont hold much credence with Hutchinson's words at all. I find him a very dubious character.

                Best wishes.
                Understood, but the East End was populated with dubious characters.
                Were they all liars because they were dubious?

                So long as Hutch admits to being stood in Dorset St. at a time & place where another witness claimed to have seen a man standing, just by the preponderance of the evidence we should accept those words as true.

                Therefore, there is a possibility Kelly went out that night after her liason with Blotchy.
                The possibility exists, thats as far as we can take it. As for Mr Dress-up, that is the only part of the story which caused concern, and I think that was what his entire statement was judged on.
                Last edited by Wickerman; 04-27-2011, 03:35 AM.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Wickerman,

                  I think that that is the heart of the dilemma. if part of the statement is judged to possibly be untrue then how much credence can you put on the rest of it?

                  That's life, isn't it? If someone lies to you once then you don't really believe another word they say.

                  Best wishes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What is it with Hutch? Gadzillions of threads have been derailed by the very mention of his name

                    As for Barnett, well. I think it may be impossible to tell, from this remove, whether or not he was capable of violence. Personally, he's not my man. I'm not sure that we can state, with any certainty, that he wasn't ever, or couldn't be, violent. But there didn't appear to be anything of that sort intimated by any of MJ's associates, and you might expect something like that to be divulged if any of them had been privy to such information. Seemingly, MJ wasn't particularly cagey about her personal relationships; she had discussed 'the other Joe' and his predisposition to ill-use her, supposedly because of her living with Barnett. To that extent, I'd gauge that she'd be equally forthcoming about any ill-use on Barnett's part--which she doesn't seem to have been. But I'm not convinced their relationship was as clear-cut as it seems to have been presented, at the time--another thread, another day, though
                    best,

                    claire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hatchett:

                      "I find him a very dubious character."

                      Based on what, exactly? Is it not fair to say that it would seem that the police and the press made another evaluation altogether at the time? Abberline put much faith in Hutchinson, Dew had him down as a man with the best of intentions and added that he would not reflect on him as a witness, and the Daily News tells us that there is no reason whatsoever to doubt his word, whereas the exact same paper on the exact same day more or less mocks Prater and Lewis and hints at their testimonies not being worth very much.

                      In fact, in a demi-world of obscure characters, villains, prostitutes and rough bullies, the contemporary picture (as well as Dew´s picture in 1938) of Hutchinson was apparently that of a totally reliable and completely honest man!

                      I of course know why you name him dubious just the same. It lies in his testimony. "If part of the statement is judged to possibly be untrue then how much credence can you put on the rest of it?", you ask. And that is a fair question, of course.
                      But keep in mind that you are only speaking of a testimony, part of which you deem "possibly untrue". You have no substantiation for any lack of truthfulness. So when you continue your reasoning by adding "If someone lies to you once then you don't really believe another word they say", you really need to ponder the fact that you cannot for a second prove that you HAVE been lied to by Hutchinson. You CHOOSE to regard him a liar, and you do it on basis of not wanting to accept a description that we actually know fit a number of men back in 1888.
                      Moreover, we have no means at all to establish just how many men would answer more or less well to Hutchinson´s description, just as we cannot possibly tell how many of them who would have frequented the East end streets. Reasonably, they would have made up a small fraction of the Londoners - but how small? And arguably, they would have been an unusual sight in Dorset Street in 1888 - but how unusual? Keep in mind that seemingly ALL the men Liz Stride associated with on the night of her death were described as respectably looking men! Not all Eastenders were "dubious", rag-clad existencies ...

                      Not guilty until otherwise proven. How could we stick any other label on a man whose honesty was not questioned by the ones who met him - and even interrogated him?

                      On the streets of my hometown I have seen men dressed like women, naked people, people dressed up like pirates, clowns and goblins. I have also seen people flashing fake jewellery, dressed up in fancy italian costumes and Borsalino hats and displaying gold teeth. If I had been witness to a crime at those stages, would you have the police discount my testimony because I described unusual meetings with unusual people? If you were the witness yourself, would you appreciate being called a liar for telling what you had seen? I think not.

                      Re-evaluating vulgar pictures of characters who have been awarded a role to which we cannot tell in what degree they truly answered to is always useful and sometimes quite rewarding.

                      Claire:

                      "What is it with Hutch? Gadzillions of threads have been derailed by the very mention of his name "

                      Oh, alright. Back to Barnett, then. To my mind, he remains a useful bid, not only as Kelly´s killer, but also for the Ripper´s role in extenso. My view is that Kelly was killed by a man who combined knowing her well with being the man who had previously slain Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and that leaves us with not very many bids. Just HOW many is impossible to say, though.

                      The best,
                      Fisherman
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 04-27-2011, 11:34 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi,
                        I would say that I am one of the first posters to have discussed at length suspicions against Barnett, along with Leanne Parry, and the thread ''Barnett number one suspect'' ran for a considerable time.
                        I am still inclined to believe that all is not what it seems about the relationship between him and Mary, and he remains high on my list.
                        The only suspects I can field against him is Maxwells [unknown ]Market porter, and possibly Joseph Fleming.
                        As I agree with Fisherman that kellys killer proberly knew Mary Kelly well, and may have been infatuated with her, I would say its a good bet that she was slain by a man with the initial J.....ie, Joe B, Joe F, a unknown Joe, and failing that 'JACK'.
                        Regards Richard.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Bloody hell.

                          Someone wants to go here again?

                          Really?

                          Well bear with me while I deal with it and then – then! – it’s back to Barnett.

                          Hatchett has expressed his entirely legitimate and uncontroversial opinion that George Hutchinson is a dubious character. This, quite frankly, has become a popular perception for a number of years, and there is not the slightest indication of that popularity being reduced any time soon. Nor is there the slightest reason for anyone to be surprised when someone expresses it. So I'm not sure why Hatchett's post has elicited such noisy dissent, especially on a thread relating to Barnett.

                          Hutchinson may be considered dubious because there are strong indications that he lied to the police and was accordingly discredited, and because of the strong indications that he was loitering near a crime scene in spite of lying about his reasons for being there.

                          Abberline’s initial approval of Hutchinson was very clearly revised, as we learn from his subsequent interview to the Pall Mall Gazette 1903, where he discussed the eyewitness sightings. This accords very well with other police memoirs and interviews, most notably those of Anderson who observed that the only person who got a good view of the murderer was Jewish. This has all been argued in extensive detail elsewhere.

                          The reasons for Hutchinson’s discrediting were very obviously concerned with doubts about his truthfulness. It is clear from the observations made in the Echo that the reservations “the authorities” had with Hutchinson’s account were not limited to the Astrakhan man description alone. Two days after the publication of this article, The Star observed that Hutchinson's account had been “discredited”. This announcement was published in an article which carried the headline “Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents”. Mentioned in the same article was Matthew Packer – the obvious implication being that both witnesses were being lumped into the same category, i.e. probable time-wasters and publicity seekers. These newspapers were passing on the views of the police, unlike the “Daily News”, who made it very clear that they were expressing personal opinion only.

                          Dew’s book is “riddled with mistakes” and he “got lots of things terribly wrong”. It is for this reason that virtually nobody has sought to advance his speculative musings on Hutchinson as correct, and these are memoirs that have been in the public domain for many decades.

                          The chances of Hutchinson both noticing and memorizing all that he alleged of his Astrakhan man description are next to impossible, for very obvious reasons. If people consider it remotely plausible that a person can notice and memorize the tiniest details of a man’s upper body and lower body simultaneously (dark eyelashes, horseshoe tie tin, light buttons over button boots) along with numerous other details in Victorian London on a November night, I’m afraid they need to have a very serious word with themselves. The Astrakhan man is essentially a paint-by-numbers amalgamation of all the suspicious and sinister press depictions of the ripper’s appearance, and common sense should prevail when considering the possibility that the real killer waltzed into the district attired in that fashion, and bedecked with items that were guaranteed to attract attention from the least desirable sources. Anything less subtle is difficult to envisage. This was already one of the worst areas in London, and at the height of the ripper terror.

                          I find it very revealing, and tremendously annoying, that those with a demonstrated eagerness to claim that Hutchinson was secretly ruled out by some mythical alibi (no evidence whatsoever) are quite happy to accept Barnett as a candidate, despite the evidence that he was dismissed as a suspect by the police.

                          Anyway, sorry about this.

                          Thread derailment officially over, folks, and back to Barnett.

                          Unless?

                          All the best,
                          Ben
                          Last edited by Ben; 04-27-2011, 03:06 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The fact remains, there is not the slightest evidence that Barnett (or Hutch) was ever violent towards MJK or any other woman.

                            There must have been scores of 'dubious' characters known to MJK, or at least frequenting the same streets, around the time of her murder, but all but a handful are unknown to us and to history, so we can only focus on the tiny number who came to attention accidentally or by design. If MJK's killer would not have willingly put himself under the spotlight I see that as just one more obstacle for Barnett (and Hutch) fingerers to deal with. As it is they have to wring every last drop of potentially suspicious behaviour out of the limited information about their man in order to make the vaguest case for him being the mother of all violent murderers.

                            Chances are, the real killer always managed to lurk just out of reach - Mr Anonymous among a sea of 'em - thereby not drawing history's attention to himself and his highly dubious character and downright depraved nocturnal habits.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Last edited by caz; 04-27-2011, 04:37 PM.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by YankeeSergeant View Post
                              It occurs to me that while many tout Barnett as a suspect (Please note that I keep an open mind) I have not found a reference to him being violent with Kelly. I would expect to find some indications that they did more than argue. I ask because there is a reference to the couple arguing and a window getting broken but Kelly could have easily been the violent one in that instance if she was in her cups. What say all of you?
                              Hi
                              While there is no proof of Joe Barnett being violent, I can't help but think of him as a viable suspect for MK's murder. As a jilted lover and one that had visited her on the night of her death-did he finally realize it was really over for good between him and Mary on that last meeting? Unlike the other victims it was her heart that the killer took away.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X