Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Regarding Joseph Barnett

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • deckard1
    started a topic Regarding Joseph Barnett

    Regarding Joseph Barnett

    Hello everyone, my first post here since visiting this site for ages!
    I have recently bought the book "Uncovering Jack The Ripper's London" (Excelent read by the way), and it says that Barnett actually identified the body of Mary Kelly by the ears and eyes.
    A couple of questions have srpung to mind, perhaps someone can help me out.
    1 Did Barnett really identify the body of Mary Kelly?
    2 If so, did he do so at the morgue or at the crime scene?
    3 Wether a suspect or not, i do feel that Barnett at one point must have really loved Kelly, so the experience of looking at a butchered body that was once your lover must have been incredibly shocking for him. Any documentation of how he felt at the time and how he got on later in life?
    4 Was he perhaps forced by the police to identify the body?

    Thank you,
    Chris from Holland.

  • miss marple
    replied
    That Barnett suffered from echolalia is simply a theory, put forward by Bruce Paley to boost his own theory that Barnett was the ripper . There is no evidence that he suffered from a speech impediment,he read the papers to Mary. There is evidence that he was suffering great stress at the inquest and 'spoke with a stutter, and evidently laboured under great emotion' The trauma of seeing his girlfriend's body hacked to pieces would have caused what we now know as post traumatic stress. We forget that real people were suffering because of these murders, their feelings remain unknown to us. The Whitechapel murders have become a circus, a blame game to which many innocent people have been dragged in. while not allowing the normal reactions of loss, pain, fear and trauma.
    We don't know Barnett's exact words, we don't know how he viewed the body. He had Irish parents, brought up in an area full of first generation Irish. It is possible he had an Irish tinge to his accent making hair sound like ear.

    Miss Marple

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Hatchett View Post
    Hi everyone,

    Mary Kelly reputedly had blue eyes and a distinctive hair colouring. When he was reported to have said he recognised her by the ear and eyes, he may have said "Hair and eyes."

    Best wishes.
    The main issue with that supposition is that we do not know when and where Joe Barnett made his identification, nor how much of Marys corpse he saw. If he saw her in the room as she is in picture MJK1, then he could not have identified her eyes, they and the eye sockets themselves were obscured likely by the skin flaps cut on her forehead from the slashing, they drooped over her eyes.

    We can also see that virtually all of Mary is visible in that shot, her arms, her legs, her feet, her hands, .....in my opinion a lover living with her would recognize most if not all of the exposed undamaged parts of Mary.....and for me, her body above the neck in MJK1 would be difficult to use in and of itself as an identifier. Her face is ruined, the bulk of her hair is down her back, and I dont believe her ears are visible.

    Best regards

    Leave a comment:


  • Hatchett
    replied
    Hi everyone,

    Mary Kelly reputedly had blue eyes and a distinctive hair colouring. When he was reported to have said he recognised her by the ear and eyes, he may have said "Hair and eyes."

    Best wishes.

    Leave a comment:


  • babybird67
    replied
    nice post kensei

    I agree whole-heartedly.

    Leave a comment:


  • kensei
    replied
    I suppose her portrayals in movies don't help pin down what she really looked like. In the Michael Caine miniseries of 1988 actress Lysette Anthony played her with black hair, even though that's not Lysette's natural color. Its been my impression that the most common consensus is that her hair was some shade of red, though probably NOT the flaming orange worn by Heather Gramm in "From Hell"!

    And I'm sorry to those who think Barnett was Mary's killer, or even that he was Jack the Ripper, but I've just never bought it. They had their problems, but they were not actually broken up in the end, just "on a break," with him still visiting her regularly and giving her money when he could. There is hope in those actions. I think the poor guy has gotten a really bad rap and I can't imagine the despair and horror he must have gone through in finding the woman he loved was dead and then having to stand there and i.d. her body, no matter where or when that actually occurred.

    Leave a comment:


  • garydobbs
    replied
    But I've seen Mary Kelly being described in various witness statements as being raven haired, dark brown and even ginger.

    Leave a comment:


  • JennyL
    replied
    It wasn't written anywhere that Joe was definitely taken to #13 for the ID, was it?

    As for the identification, I'd always imagined that Mary Kelly's long ginger hair would have been requirement enough to prove it was she to Barnett. Wasn't her long, unbonneted red hair somewhat unusual among the women of the area? And aren't most of our partner's hair the most identifiable thing about them-not only color, specific texture and length but especially the shape of her hairline about the skull, right round to the nape of the neck? God knows he would have had that view fixed in his memory right enough.

    Given the state of her body neck-to-thighs, I'd hope that the police had covered that part of her up for Joe. How can anyone ID a skinned and eviscerated corpse?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by perrymason View Post
    If he made his ID from the window, and Mary was in the position she was in in MJK1, then he couldnt see at least 2 of those possible 3 features...they werent visible.
    He would not have made his official identification by squinting through the window, Mike. There would have been a standard protocols for such things, and playing peek-a-boo with the corpse wouldn't have been one of them.
    We know he turned himself in and was questioned for hours...when does he make the ID?
    Any time after that four hour period - or even during it. If not then, there were yet a couple of days before the inquest would be held for official IDs to take place.

    Leave a comment:


  • ianincleveland
    replied
    I would say identifying her by her"eyes and ears" or however he identified her can be looked at from the angle he didnt kill her.Put simply,she was stabbed and mutilated to the point she was barely recognizable,Barnett could,if he was the killer,have said the woman wasnt MJK(which it appears wasnt her name anyhow though whether Barnett knew that is anyones guess!!) and just claim MJK had done a vanishing act.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The "I identify her by the ear and the eyes" also appears in the official inquest record, CD. Bear in mind that Kelly's face was hacked to pieces ("beyond all recognition of the features"), I dare say that the coroner/jury had to be satisfied that Barnett had been able to identify her at all.

    To respond to some of the questions/speculations here - I don't see an issue here, to be honest. I'm sure that Barnett was only required to give a couple of token reasons why he could identify Kelly - and that is precisely what he did. It's not as if he (or any other next-of-kin in similar circumstances, for that matter) would be expected to provide an exhaustive list of every feature he'd been able to recognise. Mangled as Kelly was, there would still have been enough by which a lover would have known her, but it would have been daft if Barnett had to trot out a spiel like this: "I identify her by the ear, eyes, discoloured tooth, birthmark on left arm, hair-colour, length of hair, fungal infection of thumbnail, scar on right ankle, shape of toes, verruca on left foot...etc". If he had embarked down that road, I daresay the coroner would have politely intervened after the first few entries - if only to save time.
    I dont have a problem with that being the only recognizable features to him Sam, if he saw her covered to the neck with only her face and hair or ear and eyes showing. If he made his ID from the window, and Mary was in the position she was in in MJK1, then he couldnt see at least 2 of those possible 3 features...they werent visible.

    We know he turned himself in and was questioned for hours...when does he make the ID?

    My guess is that they would take him to her in the room for that. Her body leaves around 4:30-5pm.

    Cheers Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    A very well thought out and logical explanation as usual, Sam.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Also keep in mind that that description comes from the newspaper which was probably aiming for sensationalism.
    The "I identify her by the ear and the eyes" also appears in the official inquest record, CD. Bear in mind that Kelly's face was hacked to pieces ("beyond all recognition of the features"), I dare say that the coroner/jury had to be satisfied that Barnett had been able to identify her at all.

    To respond to some of the questions/speculations here - I don't see an issue here, to be honest. I'm sure that Barnett was only required to give a couple of token reasons why he could identify Kelly - and that is precisely what he did. It's not as if he (or any other next-of-kin in similar circumstances, for that matter) would be expected to provide an exhaustive list of every feature he'd been able to recognise. Mangled as Kelly was, there would still have been enough by which a lover would have known her, but it would have been daft if Barnett had to trot out a spiel like this: "I identify her by the ear, eyes, discoloured tooth, birthmark on left arm, hair-colour, length of hair, fungal infection of thumbnail, scar on right ankle, shape of toes, verruca on left foot...etc". If he had embarked down that road, I daresay the coroner would have politely intervened after the first few entries - if only to save time.

    Leave a comment:


  • jodi
    replied
    Was M J Kelly Barnett's Common Law wife?

    Hello again,

    Can anyone direct me to an actual statement that Barnett was Kelly's common law husband or is that automatically assumed because of the length of time they lived together?

    Appreciate any replies...

    Jodi

    Leave a comment:


  • jodi
    replied
    Barnett's Police Interogation

    Hello--I am reposting in this question here as it relates to Joseph B.


    Can anyone help me locate the police records related to the original four-hour interrogation of Joseph Barnett?

    Thanks,

    Jodi

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X