the key

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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 ?

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"Barnett admitted that they argued ..."

Yes, he did. But I donīt think he claimed that they did so "constantly". Do you think he did?

"You might choose to see this as a loving and successful partnership but that would not fit the evidence."

It would fit the evidence every bit as well as your claim that the couple quarrelled "constantly" at any rate, Heinrich!
But why not opt for the solution to the problem that is written all over the place - they stayed together because they liked each other, they sometimes drank and quarrelled, but they made up afterwards and stayed on together.

Maybe it was not a case of totally black or totally white, Heinrich? And maybe that is why I suggest that you should not try and present the relationship to other posters as one of "constant" quarrelling, when there is not any support for such a claim.

People may think that you are biased on all of this, you see. And you would not want that, would you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

....
I think it has been pointed out that there is no evidence that Mary was
ever beaten by Joe.

Unless slitting her throat and eviscerating her corpse is something else.

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.

Indeed, the treatment meeted-out to poor Mary Kelly by Joseph Barnett was exceptional.

It probably wasn't a realistic expectation [that Joseph Barnett could persuade Mary Kelly to give-up her livelihood on his say-so]...

It certainly wasn't, Rubyretro.

I must say that it is terribly belittling of Mary and Joe's relationship to write "shacked up" in a very patronizing way.

I wrote this way about Joseph Barnett because that is what he did.

....
"Barnett admitted that they argued ..."
Yes, he did. But I donīt think he claimed that they did so "constantly". Do you think he did?

Yes, more or less.

"You might choose to see this as a loving and successful partnership but that would not fit the evidence."
It would fit the evidence every bit as well as your claim that the couple quarrelled "constantly" at any rate, Heinrich!

Hardly.

But why not opt for the solution to the problem that is written all over the place - they stayed together because they liked each other, they sometimes drank and quarrelled, but they made up afterwards and stayed on together.

They didn't stay together; Joseph Barnett left 13 Miller's Court 10 days before the body of Mary Kelly was discovered.

Maybe it was not a case of totally black or totally white, Heinrich?

There is no need for equivication when the evidence against Joseph barnett is so damning.

And maybe that is why I suggest that you should not try and present the relationship to other posters as one of "constant" quarrelling, when there is not any support for such a claim.

My claim is supported by all the evidence with nothing contradictory.

People may think that you are biased on all of this, you see.

The evidence points to the guilt of Joseph Barnett more than anyone else and I accept that.

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"There is no need for equivication when the evidence against Joseph barnett is so damning."

To think, Heinrich, that you have been joking all along, and I did not realize it until now! Good one

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Heinrich -Fisherman suggested that the evidence that points to Barnett and Kelly having a successful and loving partnership is just as strong as the evidence that they quarrled constantly, and things needn't be seen as black and white...and I totally agree with him.

I think that (off the top of my head) :
-most of Mary's biography came from Barnett, and it included tales of how she was led into prostitution (by a cousin ?) and how she went to France
as a prostitute. It seems that, whether or not she embroidered the details, she could talk about the person she was honestly to Joe
She obviously didn't feel so frightened of him that she invented a story about being an innocent virgin, raped and ruined and forced into prostitution against her will by some evil man.

-there are stories that Joe sat and read to her (a victorian entertainment),
which seem cosy and domestic.

There is also an independant statement that Mary regretted her lifestyle and wished that she was 'back home' and not a poor whore. It might very well be the story that she told Joe when she met him -it was no doubt true, when she thought about herself lucidly.

Why do you think that Joe using his earnings as a market porter to keep Mary off the streets is "controlling" ? It's more likely that she told him that she
didn't want to be a prostitute but had no other choice, and he felt that they had a 'connection' and he would rescue her.

I don't see how that vision of the relationship is any less true than yours.

[Heinrich]

Heinrich -Fisherman suggested that the evidence that points to Barnett and Kelly having a successful and loving partnership is just as strong as the evidence that they quarrled constantly, and things needn't be seen as black and white...and I totally agree with him.

I am crushed, Rubyretro.

-there are stories that Joe sat and read to her (a victorian entertainment), which seem cosy and domestic.

Nothing very cosy about reading all the details of the Whitechapel murders from the penny dreadfuls.

Why do you think that Joe using his earnings as a market porter to keep Mary off the streets is "controlling" ?

This is not what I think; rather, it was Joseph Barnett's prohibition on Mary Kelly from having her own friends and going on the streets when he was out of a job and unable to give her money that was his controlling behavior.

It's more likely that she told him that she didn't want to be a prostitute but had no other choice, and he felt that they had a 'connection' and he would rescue her.
I don't see how that vision of the relationship is any less true than yours.

Ever consider becoming a novelist, Rubyretro?

[Ausgirl]

I think "controlling" is something very different from "I don't want your scuzzy hooker friends in my house, Mary, and I also don't want you selling your body to other men."

"Straighten up or I'll leave" sounds more like self-respect than psychopathy.

Just saying.

[Archaic]

Put Yourself In Joe Barnett's Shoes

Hello Heinrich. May I ask you a question?

> If you had a girlfriend that you lived with, loved, and wished to marry, don't you think that you'd object if she chose to consort with hookers and to prostitute herself?

I think it's remarkable that Joe loved Mary enough to forgive her rather sordid past. How many other men would do so?

I also think it's perfectly reasonable of him to wish that Mary would straighten out and show some self-respect rather than fall back into prostitution and the low lifestyle that went with it. Yet after she did fall back into it, Joe still cared enough to come round to check on her and to give her money if he could. How many men would show such devotion under the circumstances?

Would you be less suspicious of Joe if he didn't care whether Mary went out whoring or not? If your answer is Yes, then that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I view Joe Barnett as another of the Ripper's tragic victims, and I feel great compassion for him. Joe
cared about Mary and was right to draw the line he did, yet must have blamed himself for the rest of his life for being unable to save her from the most horrific death imaginable. Can you imagine how he must have felt?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Robert]

Hmmm....so Barnett has a blazing row with Kelly, quits his lodgings, continues to visit her from time to time, including the last evening of her life, then goes back to his new lodgings, plays cards, and then goes back to Miller's Court in the middle of the night and butchers her. I wonder why his mood suddenly changed?

Maybe he lost at cards.

[Fisherman]

Are you saying that he used a poker, Robert ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...or did it happen when she asked him "Can Asta bunk here tonight?"

The best,
Fisherman
spent out