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:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Busy Beaver 29 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - by Pcdunn 8 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - by Pcdunn 8 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Simon Wood 9 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by jerryd 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (8 posts)
Maybrick, James: Diary Handwriting - (8 posts)
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (3 posts)
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (2 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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
  #21  
Old 07-20-2011, 05:30 PM
Heinrich Heinrich is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi
Not sure if he is our man for sure but I think Barnett is a viable candidate. ....

But did he not have an alibi-something about playing wist all night?
....
No, he said he played cards until after midnight only and then went to bed.
This gave him ample opportunity to go back to Mary Kelly's lodgings and do the deed.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-20-2011, 05:36 PM
Heinrich Heinrich is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c.d. View Post
If Barnett were her murderer, why did he admit to a falling out with her? That doesn't seem wise.

c.d.
It was common knowledge.
The killer was not especially clever in any case, given the risks he took.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-20-2011, 05:38 PM
Phil H Phil H is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 2,362
Default

I don't think we have to assume that Joe murdered all or any of the other women (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes) - buthe may have relied upon what he thought was a copy of "Jack's" methods to deflect attention from him. (Perhaps he has been successful for over 120 years!)

On Abberline and having let him go - I "detect" some double-standards here. As a group - we debate endlessly the defects of the police methods and their failure to make a conviction. We rail against the "pernicious" certainties of Macnagten and Anderson (or some of us do). Yet because Abberline saw and talked to Joe and let him go, he is regarded as "off the hook".

I don't see we can do that - although I understand the NEED to do so on the part of those who have suspects of their own, are irrevocably attached to the canonical five or a single killer etc etc. But that would surely be sophistical - to argue to a conclusion because you need that conclusion?

I agree with those who have said that Joe had means, motive and opportunity (though that other Joe - Fleming - might also have had something similar). The circumstances of the murder - indoors, timing (gap and hour) extent of the mutilations, age of the victim could all argue for a different hand and a wholly different motive from the outdoor murders. (I recognise that one could say that there are other explanations but to argue that would miss my point.)

I believe we should be keeping our options open in regard to potential killers and Joe cannot be ruled out (logically, or in my humble opinion).

On the key - as that is the subject of this thread - the "key" point is that there was confusion over the door - no one could get in. As it defied belief that no one would have tried the door, that the nature of the lock would have been known to McCarthy and (I assume) Bowers at least, and that he had to take a pick axe or some such tool to it, something kept them out. Could it have been that Barnett - as occupant, changed the lock and then removed the key - allowing him to secure the premises.

Finally, is our testimony about opening the door through the broken window pane, only from Barnett? In other words the door may never have been opened in that (to me somewhat dangerous) way.

I do not accuse Joe Barnett - I have insufficient evidence to do so - but I certainly do not think he can be eliminated from OUR enquiries, even if Fred Abberline eliminated Joe from HIS.

Phil
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-20-2011, 05:49 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil H View Post
On Abberline and having let him go - I "detect" some double-standards here. As a group - we debate endlessly the defects of the police methods and their failure to make a conviction. We rail against the "pernicious" certainties of Macnagten and Anderson (or some of us do). Yet because Abberline saw and talked to Joe and let him go, he is regarded as "off the hook".
What we rail against is relying on memoirs to support feeble arguments, which includes the memoirs of Abberline. What we prefer is to acknowledge the thoughts and actions of all the police, including these same officials, at the time of the murders, not decades later.
No double standard there.

Regards, Jon S.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-20-2011, 05:56 PM
Phil H Phil H is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 2,362
Default

If you say so, Wickerman.

Phil
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-20-2011, 06:00 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,652
Default

I don't suppose for one moment that Barnett was the murderer, but as far as confirmation of his presence in the lodging house is concerned, this would undoubtedly have been provided by his fellow whist players and not by any official record of entrances and exits from the building. This was not common practice.

All the best,
Ben
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-20-2011, 06:07 PM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,516
Default

Obviously no one can be eliminated entirely including Barnett. But unless Abberline and his fellow officers were total fools, they would have had to have realized that Barnett was indeed the prime suspect and acted accordingly in questioning him. They obviously eliminated him as the murderer. I think we have to give that a lot of weight.

I also think that people put way too much emphasis on the whole argument and falling out business. Such events are common then and now and occur regularly without someone having their intestines ripped out.

c.d.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-20-2011, 06:08 PM
Sally Sally is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Badgers Drift
Posts: 2,094
Default

Beat me to it Ben.

Darn it.

Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-20-2011, 06:14 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,652
Default

Quote:
Darn it.
Darn it, Barnett!

No lodging house records for you!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-20-2011, 06:32 PM
Sally Sally is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Badgers Drift
Posts: 2,094
Default

Quote:
Yet because Abberline saw and talked to Joe and let him go, he is regarded as "off the hook".
Phil! I think the point must be that Joe had an alibi. and that's why Abberline let him go. I guess that if Barnett was playing whist in the lodging house until half midnight or so and then went to bed, and then was seen there in the morning by whomsoever saw him - that might have been why he was 'off the hook' as you put it.

'Cos where would the time be to do his old missus in if he was fully accounted for - whenever in the morning one happens to think she copped it.

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 03:09 AM.


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