Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

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

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 1 hour and 8 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by MysterySinger 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (17 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (11 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (7 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (3 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob Levy - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Barnett, Joseph

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-07-2008, 09:53 PM
CraveDisorder CraveDisorder is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10
Default Was It Personal?

This is my 1st post, so be kind. Firstly just wanted to say have had an interest in JTR since i was about 13 and came across a book about the murders in a library, I'm now fast approaching 41!!

Anyway one of the things that has always struck me about the murder of MJK was the severe mutilation of the face. I have heard it argued that Jack had more time etc but surely with the other victims he could have done the same??? It seems to me that the MJK was personal, removing the features of the face to take away who she was so that he could deal with what he was doing. I know the others had facial mutilation but nowhere as near to the extent of MJK. It would be really usefull to know which mutilations came first, was the face mutilated at the start???

I think that Barnett was responsible for the murder, now wether that means he was the Ripper is another thing entirely. The fact MJK was a prostitute and lived close by links her to the other victims but to me whoever murdered MJK was doing something to destroy who she was, the others were being destroyed for what they were??

We can speculate that Barnett was in love with her and hated what she did, or he was the Ripper and it was only a matter of time, or they argued, he moved out etc. Perhaps the earlier vicitms were murdered because Barnett hated what MJK did and so took it out elsewhere eventually leading to that final terrible finale where he had to deal with the woman he loved.

It seems to me that a lot of killings in modern times have a lot in common with what happened in 1888 but I personally beleive that Barnett was repsonsible for MJK, I am however not at all convinced he was involved in the killings of the others.

I hope this made some sense.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-07-2008, 09:58 PM
Glenn Lauritz Andersson Glenn Lauritz Andersson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Posts: 979
Default

Hi Crave Disorder and welcome to the Boards.

Yes, it makes perfect sense and I totally agree with you that the murder of MJK appears to be 'personal' in a way that differs it from the other murders.
My only objection is that - although Barnett is a logical suspect since he had lived with her until a week prior to the murder, there also is another viable suspect in another one of her former spouses, Joseph Fleming, and whom she did see while she was still living with Barnett.

All the best
__________________
The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-07-2008, 10:02 PM
joelhall joelhall is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: aylesbury, buckinghamshire
Posts: 485
Default

ive always thought fleming to be a much more likely suspect than barnett, especially with what we know of their history. its also far more logical as barnett would have been easily id'd if anyone had disturbed him.
__________________
if mickey's a mouse, and pluto's a dog, whats goofy?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-07-2008, 10:25 PM
CraveDisorder CraveDisorder is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelhall View Post
ive always thought fleming to be a much more likely suspect than barnett, especially with what we know of their history. its also far more logical as barnett would have been easily id'd if anyone had disturbed him.
I did think about that but didn't Barnett give a description of a man he saw when giving his police statement? If it was Fleming wouldn't he have said so?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-07-2008, 10:26 PM
Brenda Brenda is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraveDisorder View Post
Perhaps the earlier vicitms were murdered because Barnett hated what MJK did and so took it out elsewhere eventually leading to that final terrible finale where he had to deal with the woman he loved.
Hello Crave. You've managed to put in one sentence something I've tried to say many times using way too many words!

There was once a show on CourtTV featuring a man from the US who had killed several women. At the time of the murders, he was living with his girlfriend. When he was finally caught, he confessed that he committed the murders at times when he was angry with his girlfriend, and to keep from killing her he murdered the others!

Here is a summary of that case: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/d...ps/sc90977.pdf

That confession of why he committed the murders is located on page 5.

All of this of course proves nothing. But because I do think it shows that it is not impossible that Barnett could have possibly killed Mary AND the others.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-07-2008, 10:31 PM
CraveDisorder CraveDisorder is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10
Default

I read that and that's the sort of thing I was on about when I said about modern cases etc. I just find it strange or conveniant that Barnett moves out the week before JTR commits his 'worst' attrocity.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-07-2008, 11:14 PM
Glenn Lauritz Andersson Glenn Lauritz Andersson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraveDisorder View Post
I did think about that but didn't Barnett give a description of a man he saw when giving his police statement? If it was Fleming wouldn't he have said so?
What man was that? Have I missed something?

All the best
__________________
The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-07-2008, 11:15 PM
Glenn Lauritz Andersson Glenn Lauritz Andersson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Posts: 979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda View Post
All of this of course proves nothing. But because I do think it shows that it is not impossible that Barnett could have possibly killed Mary AND the others.
I don't think for one moment that Barnett killed any of the other women; it's a theory that I've never found particularly convincing.

All the best
__________________
The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-07-2008, 11:20 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,077
Default

As I always point out whenever Joe Barnett is cited as possibly being MJK's killer, what he did after the event is not, in my view, typical of a guilty man. He continued to live in the East End, in Shadwell, until his death in 1926.
Unless, of course, he was brassing it out. However, the police gave him a good grilling by LVP standards, and cleared him after checking his clothes, etc. I don't think he did it, not that my opinion carries any weight. More likely is Fleming, but even then that can only really be speculative - but at least Fleming did end up in the laughing-academy, according to at least one researcher.

I've always felt that whoever dispatched MJK was a practised killer and mutilator - which Barnett certainly was not.

Cheers,

Graham
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-07-2008, 11:28 PM
richardnunweek richardnunweek is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,216
Default

Hi all,
Now this is my kind of thread, having believed Barnett was the killer of Mary for a considerable number of years.
I am not alone in this belief, at the time it was considered to be a crime of passion [ so to speak] as in old fashion jealousy, albeit this could also introduce one J Flemming into the mix,
We are familiar with Barnetts night time alibi. ie. going to bed after playing whist, however the spanner in the works, is the sighting of the deseased at a time when Mr Barnett had no alibi, however as she was found in a undressed state on her bed, complete with boots by a apparent fire, believed lit by a nightime caller, the obvious suspect was not considered to be number one.
The whole crux of the matter is a question .
What happened to Joseph Barnett after Mjk was buried?, he appears not in the 91/01 census, he simply vanished . ie until Paley appears to identify him around 1908?.
Remember we are dealing with a very primitive police force during this era,even Colombo could not have used 1888 police methods to convict the perpretator.
Regards Richard.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.