He is known to have a history of working in the fish markets so wouldnt be adverse to gutting them.
He did suffer with Echolalia which is a known (but not always) side of Schizophrenia.
His father dies when he was six and his mother disappeared not long after. What hidden scars could this leave on a person? The rejections and spurning from Kelly could then cause a dramatic change in his personality and what he would be willing to do so as not to feel abandoned again.
The is no evidence that Barnett suffered from echolia. that is Paley's suggestion as he had to fit Barnett's life into 20th century FBI profiling. So Barnett was deeply tramatised at the inquest and repeated last words. This a sign of stress,
If Joe a normal bloke, loved Mary, seeing her butchered body would have been horrific, particually as such images were rare. LVP people were not hardened by seeing horrific full colour images of horror on the media as we are today.I think Joe was suffering post tramatic stress at the inquest. He read the papers tO Mary and no one said he had a speech impediment. he spoke lucidly to the police.
The disappearence of his mother, if true,would not have been the same trauma, as it would have been in a 20th century nucear family. Joe was very close to his siblings.The kinship of the east end family was based on the extended family, siblings brought up by other siblings, aunts grandmothers etc, they were not isolated, the irish and the jews being particually clannish.In 1881 census, their aunt was living with brother Dennis and wife.It is possible that Catherine Barnett was living with Thomas Allman [ an irish dock worker who may have been known to the Barnett's . John Barnett worked on ther docks and the irish populated whole streets near the docks}as as a servant in two censuses. John Barnett died in 1864 as did Thomas Allman's wife, leaving a small daughter. Poverty makes you pragmatic.Catherine Barnett would have faced dire poverty with the loss of the main breadwinner. It might have been expedient to move in with him, housekeep and earn some extra as a sackmaker, particually if Dennis and the aunt could keep an eye on her children.There is no evidence she lost touch with them.They is no evidence she stayed in contact, but likely that she did, if with Allman.I m still working on it.
Cartwight St where the Barnett's were living in 1861 is parellell with Glasshouse St where Allman and Catherine were living in1871 census.
m any dockworkers were irish catholic. It was a trade that required great physical strength.
The casual dockworkers inhabited streets near the docks.
Allman and Catherine were born in Cork.
Last edited by miss marple : 05-13-2008 at 08:41 PM.
Not that it matters, because I don't believe Joe Barnett was responsible for any of the East End Murders, but he did suffer from echolalia, which is the compulisve repeating of the last few words of any sentence spoken to him by another. He did have a traumatic upbringing, no doubt about it, and although he was probably 'respectable working-class', he had no problems about living semi-rough, and as he was sacked from Billingsgate Market (why, we don't know) he was no angel. He doubtless did harbour some affection for MJK (or whoever she was) and doubtless did suffer stress as a result of viewing her remains (but at the morgue, not at 13 Miller's Court). I read him as basically a responsible kind of bloke, but one who nevertheless was not all that bothered by social niceties, including carrying on a love-affair with a known prostitute. I'm sure he did try to convince MJK of the error of her ways, but without too much success, or so it would seem.
Joe was certainly grilled by the police, but released. There was no evidence against him. He continued to live locally for the next 40 years, and had he been responsible for doing in MJK I'm sure he'd have hot-footed it as far as his legs could carry him.
Incidentally, I once worked with a guy who suffered from echolalia, or something similar. He drove me and others absolutely crazy. You could be talking to him, and then just stop in mid-sentence, and he'd carry on. The really sad and maddening thing about him was that he genuinely believed that he'd heard YOU say what he said himself! Eventually he had a breakdown and went off for the appropriate treatment.
Overall I agree with what you say, but whether Joe suffered echolalia is very much disputed. We know from inquest reports that he stuttered during his testimony, and one source includes that he repeated back some questions asked to him. That's it. We don't know if the repeating of statements was anything more than clarifying what had been asked of him, and even the stuttering may not have been anything more than a temporarily problem based upon the stress he was under. The claim that he had full fledged echolalia came from an author trying to find some defect in order to argue that Barnett met aspects of the profile the FBI made of the Ripper. It seems to be more of a suspect-driven bit of wishful thinking than an actual fact.
Sure, echolia is to fit a theory, but if Barnett did begin his answers with the last words of the questions he had been asked, in some bizzare way that's like basing, say, a double event on a story of a double event. Both use the past to structure the present.
Last edited by paul emmett : 05-19-2008 at 03:07 AM.
[quote=Graham;20182]Not that it matters, because I don't believe Joe Barnett was responsible for any of the East End Murders, but he did suffer from echolalia, which is the compulisve repeating of the last few words of any sentence spoken to him by another.
If you refer to the transcript of Joe's testimony, there are only two instances of him repeating a phrase in any way that would indicate echolalia.
Q: Were you on good terms?
A: Yes, on friendly terms.
Q: Was she, generally speaking, of sober habits?
A: When she was with me I found her of sober habits.
It seems that the recent wave of Joe-had-a-speech-disorder supporters have all based their theories on a press report, rather than actual testimony.
For a more detailed refutation of the echolalia premise, see Christopher Scott's "Will the Real Mary Kelly...?"
Beginning a sentence with the main idea of the posed question, is a way to give yourself a split second of time for recall or embellishment. Students often do that when asked questions and are not so prepared to give answers.
I don't think a shorthand-scribbling reporter in 1888 or at any other time would have bothered to make careful notes of the witterings of an echolaliac, so I'm not sure that Joe's testimony can really be taken as proof that he wasn't suffering from echolalia (which is a condition linked to autism, so I'm told). I don't know where and by whom it was first stated that Joe had this complaint, but it's most definitely mentioned in the far-famed A-Z.
As I commented on the pre-crash boards, I once worked with someone who had this complaint, and he drove us all friggin' mad! It's funny at first, then it becomes annoying; after a few months you feel like you want to strangle the poor sod. Maybe that's why Mary Jane put Joe on his bike - he drove her nuts.
He indeed had motive, but the first 4 murders were done by someone with a knowledge of anatomy. Wile Joe was just a fish porter. But the murder of mary kelly was done by someone without a knowledge of anatomy...so Joe could have killed mary and mutilated her body to blame it on JTR but the first 4 murders were not the cause of Joe
I think we're virtually forced to examine the jtr number 2 theory if we suspect Barnett was responsible for Mary Kelly's murder! The locked door in Mary Kelly's room does seem to deviate from the ripper's desire to publicly exhibit his victims.
A copy kill?... Or an attempt to blame someone else ( the ripper at large ) for a horrific domestic murder??
The Burnett=2nd ripper theory is more believable than a lot of the nonsense that's circulating about who the ripper may have been.