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:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 27 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 11 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Sam Flynn 13 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 14 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 14 hours ago.
Witnesses: What EXACTLY did Maurice Lewis say? - by Joshua Rogan 15 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (12 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (8 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (3 posts)
Witnesses: What EXACTLY did Maurice Lewis say? - (1 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 06-10-2014, 09:17 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,163
Question Convince me that it wasn't Barnett

Because having read Dr. Frederick Walker's article here on CB, I think Barnett's the likeliest suspect of them all.

In summary:
1) One of 2 men likely to have had a key -- the other has an alibi.
2) Resembles eyewitness descriptions, down to exact age and height.
3) Lived at Ripper Central, the heart of the neighbourhood.
4) Likely to have known at least 3 of the victims.
5) Violent quarrel with last victim a week before her death.
6) A former next-door neighbour, could have been Eddowes' Suspect.
7) Return address consistent with initials on Hanbury envelope.
8) Working-class Irishman, could have written Lusk Letter.
9) As a market porter, he would have owned an appropriate weapon. (His fish-filleting knife.)
10) Would have washed hands in Miller's Court after double event, then could have easily disappeared. This is only true of Barnett.
11) Left his pipe at the scene of the crime.
12) Doesn't have to be a "psycho." Knowing the victims personally, he could have had a rational motive.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-10-2014, 11:30 AM
Penhalion Penhalion is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: South Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 154
Default

1) One of 2 men likely to have had a key -- the other has an alibi.

The killer didn't need a key. He could have either purchased MJK's company for the evening or opened the door through the broken window like everyone else seemed to.


2) Resembles eyewitness descriptions, down to exact age and height.

Eye witness descriptions vary considerably and are general enough to fit a large number of men living in the area.

3) Lived at Ripper Central, the heart of the neighbourhood.

True. As did several thousand other men.


4) Likely to have known at least 3 of the victims.

Definitely knew MJK. Can't prove he knew any of the others. Can't use unsubstantiated 'maybe/likely/could have' as proof of anything.


5) Violent quarrel with last victim a week before her death.

Yet he visited her regularly and was still apparently on friendly terms. No other examples of violent/anti-social behavior.

6) A former next-door neighbour, could have been Eddowes' Suspect.

Speculation not proof. With the population density in the area and the degree of transience, simply having a close address for a period of time proves nothing.

7) Return address consistent with initials on Hanbury envelope.

Hanbury envelope was picked up at random from the flop-house kitchen. It was not directly tied to the victim.

8) Working-class Irishman, could have written Lusk Letter.

Possible. But we don't know that JtR wrote the letter. It is the strongest candidate but still unproven. And dialect can be faked.

9) As a market porter, he would have owned an appropriate weapon. (His fish-filleting knife.)

Many men in that area at the time had a work knife of some sort. We would need to match the blade of his knife (if he had one) to the cuts in the victims.

10) Would have washed hands in Miller's Court after double event, then could have easily disappeared. This is only true of Barnett.

There were public lavatories/spigots in several places in Whitechapel. Blood could have been washed off at any of them. In the dim light of early morning, a quick wipe and hands in pocket would have hidden the blood just as well. They didn't screen everyone on the streets for bloodstained hands

11) Left his pipe at the scene of the crime.

He used to live there and still visited regularly. Perhaps Miller's Court seemed safer than a flophouse for leaving personal possessions?

12) Doesn't have to be a "psycho." Knowing the victims personally, he could have had a rational motive.

We don't know if her knew them. But it is true that he didn't have to be a slobbering maniac. But that is true of anyone, not just Barnett.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-10-2014, 02:03 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,321
Default

G'day Harry

Have to say I agree with Penhalion.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-10-2014, 02:24 PM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,163
Default

Hello Penhalion,

Well if the door could be easily unlocked via the window, why were the police forced to knock the door down? There was probably a 'trick' to unbolting it, something which Barnett would've been privy to.

Also, many of the witnesses claim to have seen a man between late 20s early 30s, 5'7" to 5'8" tall, with a fair complexion and moustache, wearing a dark hat and overcoat. Yes, that could apply to a lot of men living in Whitechapel, but it's still a point in Barnett's favour.

We only have Barnett's word for it that the two of them were on 'good terms'. They hardly sound like love's young dream, what with the drunken quarrels and the window being smashed.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-10-2014, 02:50 PM
Penhalion Penhalion is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: South Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 154
Default

The police might not have known about the latch but Barnett did, therefore he didn't need a key.

And it was Kelly who broke the windows and apparently was up on drunk and disorderly charges in September so it was MJK not Barnett who had the violent temper. Anybody living hand-to-mouth in Whitechapel with long term unemployment, eviction, drunkenness, and prostitution can hardly be described as living any kind of love's dream. However that same scenario applies to a large percentage of EVERBODY living in that area at the time. Their situation was hardly unique and in a way better off than the other victims who had NO stable address.

Many of the apparent witnesses to JtR described a dark haired man with dark eyes and a dark mustache. Since we don't know for sure who JtR was, we can't know which of the various descriptions was correct.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-10-2014, 03:13 PM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,813
Default

Hi,quite possible he had an alibi and I think the fact that he lived happily ever after and didn't butcher any other poor unfortunates can rule him out let's face it when you look at the photo of Kelly who ever did that wasn't going to walk away and live a normal life and all of a sudden get better.People always forget to ask the simple question "what prevented him from killing again" I think any credible suspect has to be either dead or locked up somewhere .Also there seems to be an obsession that our killer lived locally it is more than possible that he only visited the area to carry out his awfully work I'm not saying that he didn't have any connection to the area or he hadnt frequented the area at some time but to rule anyone out purely because they aren't local is wrong.
__________________
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

Last edited by pinkmoon : 06-10-2014 at 03:28 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-10-2014, 03:31 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,321
Default G'day Pinkmoon

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkmoon View Post
Hi,quite possible he had an alibi and I think the fact that he lived happily ever after and didn't butcher any other poor unfortunates can rule him out let's face it when you look at the photo of Kelly who ever did that wasn't going to walk away and live a normal life and all of a sudden get better.People always forget to ask the simple question "what prevented him from killing again" I think any credible suspect has to be either dead or locked up somewhere .
While I, in general, agree with you on this the one exception could be if our killer had a specific goal, he might be able to stop when that goal was achieved.

Quote:
Also there seems to be an obsession that our killer lived locally it is more than possible that he only visited the area to carry out his awfully work I'm not saying that he didn't have any connection to the area or he hadnt frequented the area at some time but to rule anyone out purely because they aren't local is wrong.
Agree.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-10-2014, 03:38 PM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,841
Default #2

Hello Harry. Good questions.

Regarding #2, aged 40 and foreign looking?

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-10-2014, 03:42 PM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
While I, in general, agree with you on this the one exception could be if our killer had a specific goal, he might be able to stop when that goal was achieved.



Agree.
Hi gut,These murders went far and beyond simple murder by mutilating his victims our killer was greatly increasing his chances of been caught this theory about Mr Barnet simple dosnt wash.when people keep mentioning the word witness we never seem to take into account the lighting conditions and the time the so called witnesses had to view our killer I don't really think any suspect can be ruled out purely because he dosnt tally with a description ......except for the elephant man and the lost tribe of American Indians theory.
__________________
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

Last edited by pinkmoon : 06-10-2014 at 03:46 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-10-2014, 03:43 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkmoon View Post
Hi gut,These murders went far and beyond simple murder by mutilating his victims our killer was greatly increasing his chances of been caught this theory about Mr Barnet simple dosnt wash.
Oh I agree that Joe doesn't wash to my way of thinking.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
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 03:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.