the key

[Rubyretro]

Heinrich-

Tragically, too many victims of spousal abuse take this line, Rubyretro

.
I think it has been pointed out that there is no evidence that Mary was
ever beaten by Joe. I agree that the conditions in which the couple lived are ones which often lead to domestic violence -but certainly not the complete
butchery which Mary was subjected to.

Hardly reasonable since he had met her as one of her customers and shacked up with her in an attempt to keep her all to himself. Joseph Barnett knew what Mary Kelly was from the beginning and his expectation that he could possess her and that she would give-up her livelihood for an unemployed broke laborer was far from realistic

[/QUOTE]
It probably wasn't a realistic expectation, but people usually go into
relationships with optimism and hopes for the future. Mutual promises are made. I must say that it is terribly belittling of Mary and Joe's relationship to
write "shacked up" in a very patronizing way. Why wouldn't they be capable of 'finer feelings' like anyone else ? Because they lived a long time ago, were very poor, and members of the lowest classes ?

[Heinrich]

....
Letīs see now, what have we got ... Hmmm, itīs a good thing I donīt need many fingers for counting .... AHA! There we go, Iīve got it:

No need for the condescending mocking tone, Fisherman.
Barnett admitted that they argued, although he puts the balme on the deceased Mary Kelly, claiming that she rowed with him. Not surprisingly, he makes himself look good despite admitting his failed attempts to control her. He characterizes this relationship where there was a constant battle between himself and his victim which was made worse when she (and probably himself) had been drinking. This was so bad that he eventually left the dwelling after one of these arguments. They were heard to argue at other times by different witnesses. You might choose to see this as a loving and successful partnership but that would not fit the evidence.

....
"He would not allow her to go on the streets... or else he would leave her." A very logical thing in my opinion to tell a woman who maybe could try to go into a different line of work to help them both out while he was unemployed.

Rather than avuncular advice that Mary take-up other work in order to keep him, it is more a case of Joseph Barnett's failed attempts to control her until he eventually accepted defeat.

....
Mary and Joe were two people with dire money problems, forced to live together in a tiny room with no personal space, and there was alcohol in the mix : any couple would argue sometimes in such conditions.
It doesn't mean that they didn't basically like nor love each other ...

Tragically, too many victims of spousal abuse take this line, Rubyretro.

It was perfectly reasonable for him to object to her prostituting herself whilst he was living with her, if he didn't like it.

Hardly reasonable since he had met her as one of her customers and shacked up with her in an attempt to keep her all to himself. Joseph Barnett knew what Mary Kelly was from the beginning and his expectation that he could possess her and that she would give-up her livelihood for an unemployed broke laborer was far from realistic

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;186371]Heinrich,

[QUOTE]"He would not allow her to go on the streets... or else he would leave her." A very logical thing in my opinion to tell a woman who maybe could try to go into a different line of work to help them both out while he was unemployed. It's as much manipulation as a parent telling their child not to use heroin[/QUOTE
I totally agree , Mike.

Mary and Joe were two people with dire money problems, forced to live together in a tiny room with no personal space, and there was alcohol in the mix : any couple would argue sometimes in such conditions.

It doesn't mean that they didn't basically like nor love each other, and it certainly doesn't make Joe manipulative nor a murderer.

It was perfectly reasonable for him to object to her prostituting herself whilst he was living with her, if he didn't like it. It was reasonable for him to move out if the situation didn't change. That doesn't mean that he was obliged to stop seeing her as a friend, or to cut her
totally out of his life from one day to the next.

Personally, I would take him more seriously as a 'suspect' if he had had an extreme reaction such as forbidding her name to be ever mentioned in his presence again, or refusing to acknowledge her existance. Continuing to call round, in the immediate time after the breakup of the relationship, seems a normal and reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.

[The Good Michael]

Had I hooked up with a prostitute in the first place I would neither have a right nor a reasonable expectation that she would change, especially were I a broke sacked laborer unable to provide for her.



Joseph Barnett didn't just say so but he continually argued with Mary Kelly about it and even forbid her from prostitution; "He would not allow her to go on the streets." (Julia Vanturney's statement at the inquest)

Heinrich,

"He would not allow her to go on the streets... or else he would leave her." A very logical thing in my opinion to tell a woman who maybe could try to go into a different line of work to help them both out while he was unemployed. It's as much manipulation as a parent telling their child not to use heroin. From what I have read, Kelly certainly was child-like and needed someone to straighten her out. If that sort of thing always led to brutal slaughter and flaying of flesh, the morgues would be full, and there wouldn't be any children left anywhere.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"The best source is Joseph Barnett himself. His and Mary Kelly's relationship is characterized by disagreements and arguments although he claims they always patched things up amicably. "... she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly" (Joseph Barnett at the inquest of Mary Kelly), as I already mentioned in Post #92. Not amicably enough to prevent their break-up just days before the murder, however.
Elizabeth Prater heard them arguing on the night of the "double event".
Julia Vanturny, as I mentioned a couple of post above, testified that Joseph Barnett would not allow Mary Kelly to go on the streets.
He did not lie when he admitted to these quarrels."

Wow, Heinrich! Amazing! Thatīs some evidence youīve got there, for Barnett and Kelly "constantly quarrelling!
Letīs see now, what have we got ... Hmmm, itīs a good thing I donīt need many fingers for counting .... AHA! There we go, Iīve got it:

1. Barnett claimed that they DID row, but always made up amicably afterwards. Oh-oh; hardly the best of evidence for any "constant" quarrelling, would you say, Heinrich?

2. Prater overheard one (1) instance of quarrelling inbetween them. But since we know that Prater could hear a hatpin fall to the floor in Kellyīs room, more or less, I think this "evidence" for a "constant" quarrelling, instead points in the direction of a very placid relationship...!

3. Vanturney claimed that Barnett would not let Mary walk the streets. But did that mean they quarrelled? Or did he plead, simply? Was Kelly annoyed by it, furthermore? She may well have been equally flattered, right?

4. No, wait, there is no number 4. Or 5. Or anything else.

So that was it, was it, Heinrich? This is what allows you to claim that Joe Barnett and Mary Kelly quarrelled "constantly"? Letīs realize that it does not fill out the suit you opted for. Not by a long way, actually.

So what prompted you to write about "constant" quarrelling? I take it you had no wish to try and fool the rest of the boards - although many posters are not fully read up on the details, some are, and there would be effectively no chance that you would get away with your claim. So in all probability, you were not trying to pull a fast one on the rest of us.

What remains, then? A steadfast belief on your behalf that this MUST have been true? Is that it?

The best,
Fisherman

[GregBaron]

Barnett is innocent...

Hi Ausgirl again,

Greg, thank you for your response. I'll have a hunt around for the threads you mentioned.

You're welcome.....

MJK seems the exception in a lot of ways - but it's really hard to think of her horrendous mutilation as being done by anyone else but the man who did the same to Eddowes.

Agreed.

Has it been discussed whether these crimes could have been committed by a local pimp trying to scare the prostitutes of Whitechapel either out of his territory, or into his 'care'? People have done things every bit as bad as those murders for the sake of money, and in far less impoverished areas. Perhaps some of the more infamous local thugs were hauled in for questioning?

Yes indeed, see Charles Le Grand...a terrible fellow and a recently discovered suspect...

I realise this is a Barnett thread - but I'm not convinced he killed Mary Kelly. Unless there's something I've missed that hints more strongly toward his being bonkers enough to have also killed Catherine Eddowes and Annie Chapman.

I'm not convinced either but you're right perhaps some of these discussions should be taken to other threads...

There's so much about this case that I don't - or can't - know. You regulars are probably quite sick of new people wondering about the same old things, so perhaps it's better to go back to lurking a while until I have something more useful or conclusive to say.

Don't fret..........there are some curmudgeons out here but most people are polite and welcoming to newcomers...

As an aside, where I differ with some is I don't believe that MJK was a domestic one off - the evisceration was too intense and depraved and overdone.....this was Eddowes on steroids in my view...


Greg

[Ausgirl]

Greg, thank you for your response. I'll have a hunt around for the threads you mentioned.

MJK seems the exception in a lot of ways - but it's really hard to think of her horrendous mutilation as being done by anyone else but the man who did the same to Eddowes.

Has it been discussed whether these crimes could have been committed by a local pimp trying to scare the prostitutes of Whitechapel either out of his territory, or into his 'care'? People have done things every bit as bad as those murders for the sake of money, and in far less impoverished areas. Perhaps some of the more infamous local thugs were hauled in for questioning?

I realise this is a Barnett thread - but I'm not convinced he killed Mary Kelly. Unless there's something I've missed that hints more strongly toward his being bonkers enough to have also killed Catherine Eddowes and Annie Chapman.

There's so much about this case that I don't - or can't - know. You regulars are probably quite sick of new people wondering about the same old things, so perhaps it's better to go back to lurking a while until I have something more useful or conclusive to say.

[Heinrich]

....
Constant arguing? Constant? Really? Was that what Barnett hinted at, when he at the inquest stated that "I lived with her, until I left her, on very friendly terms."

Did he lie, Heinrich? Are there other, better, sources that tell us that Barnett and Kelly argued constantly?

The best source is Joseph Barnett himself. His and Mary Kelly's relationship is characterized by disagreements and arguments although he claims they always patched things up amicably. "... she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly" (Joseph Barnett at the inquest of Mary Kelly), as I already mentioned in Post #92. Not amicably enough to prevent their break-up just days before the murder, however.
Elizabeth Prater heard them arguing on the night of the "double event".
Julia Vanturny, as I mentioned a couple of post above, testified that Joseph Barnett would not allow Mary Kelly to go on the streets.
He did not lie when he admitted to these quarrels.

[GregBaron]

Valid for speculation...

As I've been reading through all this and many other threads and articles here and elsewhere, the idea that the Ripper may have stalked his victims for a time has occurred to me more than once.

Okay, probably not a new thought by any means, but...here goes.

All the victims had something new on them. Several of these things seemed unusual or unexplained - the expensive cigarette case, the new bonnet in the absence of even a few pence. Perhaps they were indeed 'groomed' for a short time prior, perhaps the Ripper was not an unfamiliar face - which could account for the lack of screams.

And okay, admittedly this is a very wild and hairy speculation here (rather than mildly unkempt? ) but ... some men like to pay prostitutes for 'fantasies' and Victorian England is quite famed for behind-closed-doors spanky games - what if he'd paid his victims for an 'unusual' service before, and gained their trust? I mean strangulation fantasies, that sort of thing. From what I read isn't at all unusual a thing for prostitutes to be asked to submit to. If they knew the punter and were used to his 'unusual requests there'd be less likelihood they'd panic and scream before he could cut their throats. In any case, the crimes could have looked a lot more random than they actually were.

The Ripper seemed very sure of himself - took substantial risks in areas where he could have easily been disturbed. Yet, if the victims led him to their favoured spots for business, and he knew what those spots were, he could pick a time when things were reasonably quiet in the street - and, if he was indeed stalking the victims, wait for them to be in the right place at the right time - and still get the thrill of taking a chance.

Somehow, the idea of a very mentally ill person killing that many women in a crowded city within spitting distance of neighbours and passersby, in enclosed areas and taking the time to perform not only a murder but some pretty involved mutilations - and not only doing this unseen but getting away cleanly, without being seen drenched in blood (being smart mentally together enough to have avoided that, possibly) - well, it just doesn't sit right. I think the Ripper's mind was probably pretty sharp and that he liked to play games. So stalking isn't that far a stretch, for somebody with a calculating mind.

I read that several of the murder sites were fenced in on two or three sides? (I really need to go back and find that information...) If that's actually so, it isn't so unlikely to me that he'd pick Mary Kelly's place, if he was already taking chances in alleys and yards with not a lot of room for undetected escape in case of discovery, and if he had been stalking Mary a while and thereby knew her habits and those of the people who lived there.

How far off the regular beat of patrolling officers was each site? Perhaps part of what attracted him to each victim was that the risk of police discovery wasn't really a factor, but close enough to make it exciting? Just a thought - I don't have that information yet. Perhaps he knew the beats, since the police walked very regular routes and thus were sort of predictable in the timing of their rounds.

I don't think the idea of the Ripper having stalked his victims is all that terribly unlikely as to warrant outright dismissal, anyhow.

Hi Ausgirl,

All that you've suggested has validity. It's been discussed on these boards before whether Jack was a clever, conniving psychopath or a crumbling schizophrenic who got lucky. Of course we don't know. If he was the former your suggestion of stalking etc... is certainly believable as is his being a previous customer.....again and frustratingly, we don't know....

The pimp question has been brought up before and the consensus was that these women were too low-life to have pimps with the possible exception of MJK. They didn't make enough money for some guy to steal. Pimps would have gathered around the more lucrative girls..MJK may have chosen to go solo...?

The police indeed had beats that I'm sure the street prostitutes knew like a symphony and possibly Jack as well. Perhaps the predictability of them wasn't a good strategy?

The only fenced in on 3 sides would be Hanbury St....the rest were in the street, a court, an alley....etc...

Greg

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"we have only evidence of constant arguing"

Constant arguing? Constant? Really? Was that what Barnett hinted at, when he at the inquest stated that "I lived with her, until I left her, on very friendly terms."

Did he lie, Heinrich? Are there other, better, sources that tell us that Barnett and Kelly argued constantly?

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

Heinrich - if Barnett objected enough to be capable of murder and unthinkable mutilation, would he perhaps also have beaten her senseless prior? Are there records of people stating Kelly was often beaten-up looking while she was with him?

No, Ausgirl, we have only evidence of constant arguing and the manipulation of Mary Kelly by Joseph Barnett but no brutality. It looks to me as though this troubled relationship was building up to a showdown and the separation 10 days previous to the discovery of the body did not work as Barnett continued to hang around 13, Miller's Court until the night when words alone would not suit him.

[Ausgirl]

Heinrich - if Barnett objected enough to be capable of murder and unthinkable mutilation, would he perhaps also have beaten her senseless prior? Are there records of people stating Kelly was often beaten-up looking while she was with him?

(sorry if I'm asking things that are just too stupid to be addressed)

[Heinrich]

Heinrich -just out of curiosity, if your partner was getting drunk, engaging in prostitution, and inviting other prostitutes to sleep in your bedroom, would you be happy about this ?

Had I hooked up with a prostitute in the first place I would neither have a right nor a reasonable expectation that she would change, especially were I a broke sacked laborer unable to provide for her.

If you weren't happy with the situation wouldn't you say so ?

Joseph Barnett didn't just say so but he continually argued with Mary Kelly about it and even forbid her from prostitution; "He would not allow her to go on the streets." (Julia Vanturney's statement at the inquest)

[Ausgirl]

Oh - just a quick addendum. Well, really a few questions I couldn't find clear answers on yet.

Did any of the women have known pimps? I know prostitutes without pimps working in pimp's areas could be murdered for it. Did Jack target areas that weren't controlled by pimps, by any chance?

[Ausgirl]

As I've been reading through all this and many other threads and articles here and elsewhere, the idea that the Ripper may have stalked his victims for a time has occurred to me more than once.

Okay, probably not a new thought by any means, but...here goes.

All the victims had something new on them. Several of these things seemed unusual or unexplained - the expensive cigarette case, the new bonnet in the absence of even a few pence. Perhaps they were indeed 'groomed' for a short time prior, perhaps the Ripper was not an unfamiliar face - which could account for the lack of screams.

And okay, admittedly this is a very wild and hairy speculation here (rather than mildly unkempt? ) but ... some men like to pay prostitutes for 'fantasies' and Victorian England is quite famed for behind-closed-doors spanky games - what if he'd paid his victims for an 'unusual' service before, and gained their trust? I mean strangulation fantasies, that sort of thing. From what I read isn't at all unusual a thing for prostitutes to be asked to submit to. If they knew the punter and were used to his 'unusual requests there'd be less likelihood they'd panic and scream before he could cut their throats. In any case, the crimes could have looked a lot more random than they actually were.

The Ripper seemed very sure of himself - took substantial risks in areas where he could have easily been disturbed. Yet, if the victims led him to their favoured spots for business, and he knew what those spots were, he could pick a time when things were reasonably quiet in the street - and, if he was indeed stalking the victims, wait for them to be in the right place at the right time - and still get the thrill of taking a chance.

Somehow, the idea of a very mentally ill person killing that many women in a crowded city within spitting distance of neighbours and passersby, in enclosed areas and taking the time to perform not only a murder but some pretty involved mutilations - and not only doing this unseen but getting away cleanly, without being seen drenched in blood (being smart mentally together enough to have avoided that, possibly) - well, it just doesn't sit right. I think the Ripper's mind was probably pretty sharp and that he liked to play games. So stalking isn't that far a stretch, for somebody with a calculating mind.

I read that several of the murder sites were fenced in on two or three sides? (I really need to go back and find that information...) If that's actually so, it isn't so unlikely to me that he'd pick Mary Kelly's place, if he was already taking chances in alleys and yards with not a lot of room for undetected escape in case of discovery, and if he had been stalking Mary a while and thereby knew her habits and those of the people who lived there.

How far off the regular beat of patrolling officers was each site? Perhaps part of what attracted him to each victim was that the risk of police discovery wasn't really a factor, but close enough to make it exciting? Just a thought - I don't have that information yet. Perhaps he knew the beats, since the police walked very regular routes and thus were sort of predictable in the timing of their rounds.

I don't think the idea of the Ripper having stalked his victims is all that terribly unlikely as to warrant outright dismissal, anyhow.