Violent?

[Fisherman]

As for the remaining 2 per cent in Sugdens book, I was of course thinking of the pictures! Or I simply got it wrong...

The best,
Fisherman
no mathematician

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“If you find it very hard to understand, please inform me, and I will make a renewed effort”

No, please don’t “renew” any “effort” that does not concern the topic of the thread, which is Joseph Barnett. You’ve already written the article and we’ve already had the interminably long exchanges over its conclusions on the relevant threads, so there’s really no need for you to keep bringing up Walter Dew and the “wrong night” idea whenever Hutchinson’s name is mentioned. You’ve just done it again – practically writing out your entire article on a thread that was supposed to be discussing an interesting new discovery of an article relating to a possible ripper sighting from Thomas Bowyer. It’s frustrating because your on-topic posts are usually very astute and considered. It’s only when you start Dewing again that things get spoiled as it only dredges up previous criticisms of my own published ideas, which, in turn, stimulates repetitive debate. I just don’t know why you’d a) bother, or b) be remotely surprised when I find it slightly antagonising.

It’s not a question of not “understanding”. I simply don’t agree. As far as I’m concerned, you have been very inconsistent in your opinions of Dew. I was the first person on these message boards – at least the latest incarnation of them – to refer to Dew’s thoughts on Hutchinson, and your first reaction when I did so was to discourage me rather vehemently from “listening” to anything Dew said, citing his age, terribly wrong mistakes etc. Your initial reaction to the “wrong night” Dewism when I brought it up was an expressly negative one, but shortly thereafter you went from the most vocal Dew critic I’ve personally ever encountered to seemingly his staunchest supporter. Don’t get be wrong – there’s nothing wrong with changing one’s mind about a certain thing, quite the reverse, but I was surprised at the sheer speed with which you formulated your recent pro-Dew/mistaken Hutchinson ideas, especially when you optimistically predict that you will one day be proven correct about them.

“Most of it is correct - AND from a source that worked the case, mind you!”

Odd that you weren’t emphasising these sorts of points on this occasion:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=150499&postcount=216

“Otherwise, letīs get on with the discussion and treat this as finished business.”

Well let’s do that anyway. You know my thoughts on this, and I intend nothing personal by them. If you disagree, that’s also fine, but we should “finish the business” by resigning ourselves to our differing views rather than constantly regurgitating them.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"As far as I’m concerned, you have been very inconsistent in your opinions of Dew."

I know that. And thatīs fine by me - you are very welcome to any view, including the ones I do not agree with - like this one for example. The problem I am having here is that I find you misrepresent me. To you, it is either black or white, by the looks of things; if i say that Dewīs book has mistakes in it that should urge us to be careful with it, you somehow stretch that into a bid on my behalf that the book should not be allowed in the discussion at all. But saying that something should be treated with care, is not saying that it should not be treated at all!
Walter Dew worked the case. Walter Dew became one of the most respected detectives in British history. Walter Dew would have been in the know about the Ripper case, both as a result of his own participation and retrospectively, through the contacts his career made him.
He wrote his book fifty years after the case, mentioning that this would probably cause him to slip up on a number of details, and we all know that this did happen to some extent. But all in all, it is universally accepted that he got most things absolutely correct. In conclusion: read, because it is an important read with lots of useful stuff in it - but read with care.
It is no stranger than that.

Can you not find it within yourself to accept this?

If not, if you need to believe that I somehow changed my mind dramatically - which I didnīt - then fine! I have no problems with that. Whenever something comes up that shows me that I have been wrong, I always change my mind. The last example was the text Debra Arif supplied on the Bowyer bit; I got it wrong from the beginning, thinking that it showed us that there were two astrakhan sightings at hand. But when Debra pointed out to me how she saw it, I immediately recognized that her view was the better and more logical one. So I changed my mind. And if it makes you feel any better to say that I have changed my mind about Dew too, then, like I said, be my guest! The only important thing for me is to try and understand, as best as I can, what happened back in 1888. And I truly believe that Walter Dew was on the money when he stated that George Hutchinson seemingly was out on the dates. I know Dew believed so in 1938, and I suspect he was of the same meaning back in 1888, together with the police force as a whole.

There are only so many ways I can say this, Ben. And as I said, if you feel an urgent need to put my stance down as a changed mind on my behalf, then feel free to do so. Thatīs as generous an offer as youīre ever likely to get.

You really should take it before I change my mind ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi All,

I think it would be better if we looked on Dew's book for what it was. A personal memoir. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In it he states quite candidly that he had no idea who Jack the Ripper was at the time of writing anymore than he did at the time of the murders.

At the time of the murders he was a junior officer, and would have had no more idea of the over all investigation any more than other officers of his rank.

As for him being the most respected Pilce Officer. Well, he may have been. But where does that come from? He was certainly the most famouse but that was to do with the circumstances surrounding his most famous successful case; Doctor Crippen and his thwarted escape bid with his mistress

His views on Hutchinson are clearly put forward as personal supposition, which is what you would expect in a personal memoir.

Read as it was intended, Dews book, is an enjoyable read. Trying to read it for what it wasnt intended turns it perhaps into a statue of Ozymandias.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Hatchett! Here are a few answers to your post:

"I think it would be better if we looked on Dew's book for what it was. A personal memoir. Nothing more. Nothing less."

Who is reading it differently? The book very obviously represents Dews personal memoirs, tied to his years as a policeman and a detective. And he was connected to, and working the Ripper case. Nothing more. Nothing less. I know what it tells me.

"In it he states quite candidly that he had no idea who Jack the Ripper was at the time of writing anymore than he did at the time of the murders."

Yes? And? Is somebody claiming that Dew had the solution to the Ripper riddle? I think not.

"At the time of the murders he was a junior officer, and would have had no more idea of the over all investigation any more than other officers of his rank."

Well, Hatchett, Iīm afraid we cannot possibly know to what extent this applied. He may have known some more, and he may have known some less. It does not only lie in rank, but also in personal interest and contacts, as I think you will appreciate.
That is not to say that you are necessarily wrong - on the contrary: Roughly, at least, you will be right. But that does not tell us exactly how much Dew and his peers knew anyhow, so it helps very little. Maybe they all knew what had gotten Hutchinson dropped, allegedly. Maybe none of them knew.

"As for him being the most respected Pilce Officer. Well, he may have been. But where does that come from? He was certainly the most famouse but that was to do with the circumstances surrounding his most famous successful case; Doctor Crippen and his thwarted escape bid with his mistress"

I think it would be a very reasonable suggestion to say that Dewīs success in the detective department would have led him to the aquaintance of many a high-ranking officer that had been involved in the Ripper case. As an ex-copper and a famous detective, not many doors would have been kept close to him.

"His views on Hutchinson are clearly put forward as personal supposition, which is what you would expect in a personal memoir."

Then again, Hatchett, when policemen write memoirs, one may perhaps expect that they make use of information, experiences, rumours and such they had come across during their carreer. If this was not the case, we could just as well read Vita Sackville-Westīs memoirs and hope to come across vital Ripper information in them.

What is it with this great fear for Dew? People - including those in the know - sometimes say things and write stuff that do not suit all our purposes. The thing to do in such a case is to accept that it has happened. Putting our hands over our ears and saying that it has not does not work. But this is the preferred method visavi Dew on account of some posters, for some reason.

Dew is an enjoyable read, yes. But he is much more than so - he represents source material coming from a police officer that worked the Ripper case. And if we canīt see the relevance in that, we may need to look again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Absolutely, Hatchett.

This is precisely how I read it too.

Dew's comments regarding Hutchinson clearly did not reflect the official police view at the time of the murders or else he’d have said so. Instead he appeals to the readership to agree with his speculations with an “Is it not probable…?”. He does the same thing with the Goulston Street chalking. He is more than happy to conclude that it was unrelated to the murders, despite the police seniority being of the opposite opinion at the time. The only difference, of course, is that his GSG opinion has since become popular amongst modern commentators for understandable reasons, unlike the "confused date" which is very seldom championed as a likely solution.

“At the time of the murders he was a junior officer, and would have had no more idea of the over all investigation any more than other officers of his rank.”

This is also true, and Fisherman will be the first to back you up here:

“Moreover, back in 1888, Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level.”

Fisherman hasn’t changed his mind about this, which is sensible.

Hi Fisherman,

I don’t have access to the inner workings of your mind, and as such, I am not in a position to determine whether or not you changed it. I’ll happily take your word for it in spite of what you’ve posted, but it does seem that whenever Dew is mentioned these days, your comments about him are overwhelmingly positive, despite the fact that your initial reaction to my mention of Dew’s “wrong night” fun was an unambiguously negative one. Just click on that link and you’ll see. I don’t think anyone would suggest that he didn’t get “most things” correct, but it was the nature and extent of the things he got “terribly wrong” that prompted you to caution me against “listening” to him.

“In conclusion: read, because it is an important read with lots of useful stuff in it - but read with care.”

Okay, and I’ll also accept your:

“if we are to sharpen the pictuce of what happened back in 1888, Walter Dew is not neccessarily the best tool for going about it”

But look, we’re still debating Dew on a Barnett thread, and this is precisely the sort of derailment we can expect to happen in future if earlier arguments are dredged up. So it’s back to Barnett.

All the best,
Ben

[Hatchett]

Hi Fisherman,

But the point is that Dews book wasnt intended to be source material. The danger is when people try to use it as such. By his very own phrasing he is putting forward suppositions, particularly about Hutchinson. He certainly doesnt say for example that other officers, sernior or not, had the same view.

It is not a case of putting hands over your ears, or closing your eyes.

It is the way the book is being read.

Maybe some people are afraid to put on their glasses because they are afraid to read the writing on the wall!

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"the point is that Dews book wasnt intended to be source material"

Scores of books have been written with another intent than being source material - and emerged as such at some stage nevertheless. It is not as if Dewīs book was written as some sort of pastiche or farce, Hatchett. He points out that he gives his version, as best as he can, of what happened in 1888, and he adds that he may be wrong on details but NOT on the picture on the whole. And when we have a written story on the case, authored by a man involved in the investigation and more or less certified by himself to be his best effort, then we would be stupendeously and criminally daft if we did not take part of it and put it to use. But hey, perhaps thatīs just me...?

"Maybe some people are afraid to put on their glasses because they are afraid to read the writing on the wall!"

No maybe there, Hatchett. Itīs a completely correct description of the state of the affairs.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Going back to Barnett for a minute; there is no indication that he was violent. Paley's highly speculative view aside, what we know of Barnett and his life suggests a steady, unremarkable individual. If anything, I would expect him to have been dominated by Mary, who comes across as far more adventurous than he seems to have been.

This is a man who, when he next surfaces in the historic record, is living and working near the London Docks, where he remains for the rest of his life; with his common law wife Louisa; with whom he remains for the rest of his life.

Hardly an unstable type. I don't find him suspicious. I think that he was the boyfriend of one of the Ripper's murder victims; simple as.

[Fisherman]

I would agree totally, Sally - had it not been for the likes of Dennis Rader ... As it stands, I leave the door open, but with a distinct feeling that you are right here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Going back to Barnett for a minute.........If anything, I would expect him to have been dominated by Mary, who comes across as far more adventurous than he seems to have been.

Putting it mildly :-)

Opinion of Elizabeth Phoenix, when asked about Mary Kelly..

"...She is described as being very quarrelsome and abusive when intoxicated, but "one of the most decent and nicest girls" when sober."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881112.html

A reporter enquires at a Dorset St. Doss-house, if anyone knew the deceased?

"...Did anyone know her? ...A rough-looking fellow, engaged in cutting his victuals on the rude table, queried on this, "Did anyone not know her? - a remark which hugely tickled his companions. Poor Mary Jane Kelly was a figure, it appears, in street brawls, sudden and quick in quarrel, and - for a woman - handy with her fists.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881110.html?printer=true

One might wonder how JtR got out alive...

Regards, Jon S.

[claire]

'Poor Mary Jane Kelly was a figure, it appears' as someone whose identity got mixed up with other people's. Who knows if the rough chap in the doss house had the right woman?

[caz]

Hi Barnett Fanciers,

So in recent weeks you've smashed your way into headlines around the world by killing and mutilating unfortunates in the streets of Spitalfields and suddenly you've flipped and done an even more thorough job on your ex common law missus, on the very bed you were sharing until a few days ago.

You know the cops are going to be all over you like a rash, so what do you tell them and what do you keep your trap shut about? Of course, silly me. You volunteer the information that your slaughtered ex had told you the only man who frightened her was yours truly, during the rows you had with her.

So what does that make you? A serial killer who is so thick that you only got away with this memorable series of murders because the cops were even thicker than you? Or are you a master of bluff and double bluff?

I'm sorry, but if Barnett did it, Barnett would almost certainly have hanged for it. But he wouldn't have handed his guilt to 'em on a bloody plate.

Didn't the poor man suffer enough?

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

I am quite happy to exhonerate Joe Barnett as "Jack the Ripper", in that I do not believe he killed Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or any other of the putative victims. The Paley theory never grabbed me.

However, as I sense that MJK may have been killed by someone who knew her well enough to have her confidence, with whom she was comfortable and who had ready access to her room, then I find i cannot rule out Barnett.

IF MJK's killing was a "domestic" then my understanding is that the police would look first at those closest to the victim. Barnett would have been among those. While the police (including Abberline) may have given him a clean bill of health in 1888, I am not privy to how deeply they delved and never having met him, I have no notion as to how plausible Joe may have been.

The police have interviewed and let go serial killers before now, let alone one off murderers.

If this was a Cold case being re-opened, I am sure we would not simply say, "Oh, Barnett was cleared at the time, so we won't look at him again." We would go back to basics and that is what we should do now, here.

For instance, if the police were taking the view that MJK was a JtR victim, Barnett may have been able to provide alibis not only for the night Mary was killed, but for some or all of the other murders. Did the police ask the right questions? Did they let their assumptions lead them? I do not know - thus I cannot dismiss Barnett.

That said, I would put him in the frame alongside his brother Danny (supposedly seen by Lewis drinking with MJK not long before her death), Flemming and maybe other former lovers of whom we know nothing.

[If Lewis mistook Joe for Danny then that would surely be a change to Joe's known testimony? If Danny was with her, then he must surely be in the frame? But this is, naturally, subject to all the usual caveats about dates, times etc and mistaken witnesses.

So I am not harrassing Barnett specifically, for me he just is one of a group of potential suspects, IF MJK WAS NOT KILLED BY JtR.

Phil

[Sally]

Phil..

We meet again!

I can't imagine why you should entertain the idea that Kelly's murder was a 'domestic'. At the risk of repeating our conversation on t'other thread (ever so slightly) it's a little extreme, don't you think?

Now that's not to say that Kelly may not have known her killer - I wouldn't discount that - but that's not exactly the same as her murder being a domestic, is it?

Your proffered candidates for this deadly deed have nothing on them, I'm afraid - except in the case of they mysterious Fleming, who might.

Fleming, the ex-lover of Kelly:

Still saw Kelly - in spite of the fact that they were no longer 'together'

Was said to 'ill use' her

Was apparently living nearby in the Victoria Home at the time of her death (just like Hutchinson)

Had known her for three years (just like Hutchinson)

Had given her money on occasion (just like Hutchinson)

Is known to have used aliases

Was subsequently committed to a lunatic asylum.

A better case can be put there than can for the deeply boring Barnett Brothers. Course, if Flieming was the killer of Kelly, one might argue that it does constitute a 'domestic' (!)