Announcement

**JacktheRipper** · 02-17-2008, 12:58 AM

The heart was absent from the corpse of Kelly, not the room she was in. The murderer never took it away.
The police interrogated Barnett after Kelly's murder, and were satisfied of his innocence. He wasn't seen in the vicinity of Miller's Court on the morning of the murder by Cox, Prater, or anyone milling about in Dorset Street.

**Dan Norder** · 02-17-2008, 01:19 AM

Hi JtR,

The doctor noted it was absent. He had made notes of other body parts taken from the corpse and where they had been left in the room. If the heart had still been in the room he would have made note of its location as he had with other organs.

Also, additional contemporary and near-contemporary sources mentioning that her heart had been taken from the room exist.

Between those two facts I don't think there's much room for argument that the heart wasn't missing from the room.

**j.r-ahde** · 02-17-2008, 07:48 PM

Hello Dan!

The only thing possible with the heart being in the room is, that it was burnt in the fire-place.

But no smell of burning flesh has ever been mentioned in any records, so even that possibility is nonsense!

All the best
Jukka

**NOV9** · 02-21-2008, 08:52 PM

Why did Jack bother to lock the door?

I am new on this site.

Jack was full of rage, his MO is quite clear, his signatures are very important to him.
Interesting though he did not let the body drop, before he proceeded. Why would he care?

My main question is, why would Jack bother to lock the door after killing and mutilating
Mary Kelly?

He would have had to exit the door and turn to the side of the building to put his hand through
The opening in the window and slide the bolt closed. Something that Mary and Joe used to do.

Joe showed the detectives how to unlock the door this way, because the key was lost.

Jack took a risk of being seen doing that. Why would he care if the door were lock or not?

**Sam Flynn** · 02-21-2008, 10:16 PM

Hello Nov9,

Originally posted by NOV9 View Post

My main question is, why would Jack bother to lock the door after killing and mutilating Mary Kelly?

Self-locking mechanisms were widely available at the time. Newspapers at the time reported Kelly's door as having a spring-lock, a type which indeed uses a self-locking bolt mechanism.

**NOV9** · 02-21-2008, 11:14 PM

Thanks Sam.

**brummie** · 05-11-2008, 10:35 AM

Frankly as far as i am concerned the idea that anyone would not only murder but horribly mutilate a series of women to scare a woman into staying at home is simply not crrdible as a motive,and since the whole case against Barnett seems to rely on this i tink we must dismiss Barnett as a suspect. If anyone was to use this method of control over prostitutes it is just as likely to have been the pimps running them, and even this defies belief.

**miss marple** · 05-12-2008, 02:42 PM

pimps

Brummie,
You have a strange idea of the LVP, if you think' pimps were running them,
It's not the mob in 1920s America. There were no pimps, part time or casual prostitution was endemic amongst working class women. These street whores were barely earning enough to keep body and soul alive, they worked when they needed too , for a drink, a bed, No one controlled them, but in some ways it was a preferable living to a sweat shop. The more up market whores in west end brothels were more professional, but the brothels were run by women, usually ex whores. This was the tradition in England since 16th century. 20th century organised crime was responsible for male violence and pimping as a global business. I.ve said this before, but it needs to be said.

Joe Barnett seems to have been a nice man, He loved Mary, wanted to protect her, keep her of the streets.[ quite a normal reaction] He stilled remained friendly with her after they split up. He had a close family of siblings whom he saw frequently, and Mary knew his brothers.There is no evidence he was violent or extreme. Unlike the mysterious Fleming.He was probably safe but a bit dull for fiery Mary, and without money to keep her a waste of space.
Miss Marple

**brummie** · 05-12-2008, 08:38 PM

Forgive my ignorance of victorian vice, i'm still a bit new to this.What i actually had in mind was the gangs who saw eastend prostitutes as an easy target to extort mony from,but there seem no reason for them to resort to this level of mutilation.

**revpetero** · 05-13-2008, 05:26 PM

Barnett

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.

Only ideas....

**miss marple** · 05-13-2008, 08:36 PM

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.
Miss Marple

**Graham** · 05-19-2008, 12:19 AM

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.

Cheers,

Graham

**Dan Norder** · 05-19-2008, 01:43 AM

Hi Graham,

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.

**paul emmett** · 05-19-2008, 03:03 AM

Hello, Dan.

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.

Announcement

Joseph Barnett

Joseph Barnett

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment