which Barnett was it.

[Cogidubnus]

"July, 1888: Barnet loses his license as a fish porter, apparently for theft."
http://www.casebook.org/suspects/barnett.html

"In July/August 1888 after working at Billingsgate market for over 10 years, Joseph Barnett was sacked, for reasons that are not clear, though was most probably theft."
http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...morley/14.html

I thought, being such an authority on Barnett, maybe you'd have primary sourses lined up....I'm disappointed but unsurprised.

All the best

Dave

[Rubyretro]

On the contrary, I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt in another thread that Joe Barnett is the most likely murderer of Mary Kelly.
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2983&page=2
It makes no sense for me to apologize for being right.

[/QUOTE]

Heindrich, Heindrich......Heindrich...

How can I put this ?

Either, you are a man with an incredible sense of humour, or the biggest prat that these boards have ever known (and there has been some competition at times). I'm not betting on the former.

[Heinrich]

... Where DID you get this pilfering from? ...

"July, 1888: Barnet loses his license as a fish porter, apparently for theft."
http://www.casebook.org/suspects/barnett.html

"In July/August 1888 after working at Billingsgate market for over 10 years, Joseph Barnett was sacked, for reasons that are not clear, though was most probably theft."
http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...morley/14.html

I would suggest that, having been proved wrong, at the very least you owe Sally an apology...at worst you might have to back down at least a little...

On the contrary, I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt in another thread that Joe Barnett is the most likely murderer of Mary Kelly.
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2983&page=2
It makes no sense for me to apologize for being right.

[Sally]

Dave -

yet Heinrich, you have the brazen gall to carry on, ad infinitum, in the same vein...without proof, without any references at all in fact.

Oh, who has proof these days? Or evidence for that matter? And REFERENCES?!! Are you kidding? 'Bolster the Suspect' has become de riguer apparently; without regard to evidence as such. Supposition, much of it utterly baseless, has become the name of the game. Sadly.

Where DID you get this pilfering from?

Bruce Paley. I've read his book myself.

When I was a girl, I was told not to believe everything I read; so I know that opinion is not fact; something which plainly escapes some. And Murdering Bad Joe Barnett? That theory has holes big enough to drive a tank through - no, a battalion of tanks.

But I've seen worse.

I would suggest that, having been proved wrong, at the very least you owe Sally an apology...at worst you might have to back down at least a little...

Ta Dave, but I can't see it happening anytime soon. Suspect Blindness. It's everywhere I look and is generally lacking in critical awareness.

I do apologise for coming across as grouchy - I'm increasingly shocked and depressed by what some people will accept as evidence, when it is nothing of the kind.

Best regards, Dave.

[Cogidubnus]

Humble Pie

Originally by Sally Joe Barnett wasn't a dosser. He had a job. Demonstrably, he had a job for the majority of his adult life. He wasn't one of the idle poor; he was one of the working poor. Fact. Not my opinion. Fact. His siblings were the same, respectable, working people.

By Heinrich You are wrong; he had been fired from his porter's job for pilfering.

By Richard NunweekBarnett's sacking, is unknown, and speculation is all we have, albeit Pilfering, and being drunk are two possibilities.

And yet Heinrich, you have the brazen gall to carry on, ad infinitum, in the same vein...without proof, without any references at all in fact. Where DID you get this pilfering from? I hesitate to suggest it, but it is perfectly clear that your personal prejudices by far outweigh your powers of reasoning...

I would suggest that, having been proved wrong, at the very least you owe Sally an apology...at worst you might have to back down at least a little...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

probability

Hello Heinrich. Thanks for the recommendation.

Of course, the result of a psychometric analysis would have a certain probability. So again . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

Speaking of statistical probabilities, there is nearly a perfect positive correlation between milk consumption as an infant and violent crime. Indeed, over 99% of violent criminals consumed milk as infants.

So I suppose serial killers did too.

May I recommend you have a look at a book understanding psychometrics in the behavioral sciences, Lynn, in particular the distinction between descriptive and inferential statistics.

[lynn cates]

crime statistics

Hello Heinrich. Thanks.

Speaking of statistical probabilities, there is nearly a perfect positive correlation between milk consumption as an infant and violent crime. Indeed, over 99% of violent criminals consumed milk as infants.

So I suppose serial killers did too.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich.

"Instead of concocting an imagined reason for the echolalia based on the nervousness of a manifestly innocent do-gooder, I prefer to see his speech impediment as something that fits the FBI profile of the killer."

But is that not an imagined reason as well?

Not really, as it is based on experience and statistical probability. There is an art to profiling which surpasses creativity alone.

[Lechmere]

The other problem with the Evans Fleming is that he was in the hands of the police as Evans. Then his Fleming name came to light. Where he Kelly's Fleming and had he not been eliminated from their enquiries in 1888, then it is implausible that the police would not have taken any interest in him when he was sent to the insane asylum.

[lynn cates]

Imagine all the profiles, burning for one day, hey, hey.

Hello Heinrich.

"Instead of concocting an imagined reason for the echolalia based on the nervousness of a manifestly innocent do-gooder, I prefer to see his speech impediment as something that fits the FBI profile of the killer."

But is that not an imagined reason as well?

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;228547]

Oh..so if your partner lost her job, you'd show her ( or him !) the door would you ? Or expect her to walk away, head bowed ?

Only if he continued to nag at me about my associates and my livelihood and otherwise attempt to control me in his hours of idleness.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

But he had lost his job and continued to live with Mary Kelly who was the renter.

Oh..so if your partner lost her job, you'd show her ( or him !) the door would you ? Or expect her to walk away, head bowed ?

Do you have a partner Heinrich ? -forgive me for asking..

[Heinrich]

...
Barnett's sacking, is unknown, and speculation is all we have, albeit Pilfering, and being drunk are two possibilities.

But he had lost his job and continued to live with Mary Kelly who was the renter.

Since he was sacked Barnett had worked selling oranges/fruit,we have no information, that he was ever without some income

This is not consistent with his statement to the police at the time of the murder when he stated that he had not worked for as much as four months.

The rent arrangement is not clear, according to the landlord, in Feb 88, Mary Jane , had come to live with a man called Kelly, and as she posed as his wife, was known as Mary Jane Kelly.

The rent had not been paid in over two months so the unemployed Barnett was no help.

The ''came to live with'' would imply that Barnett was the rent payer, and therefore the majority of arrears would have been down to him

This doesn't follow but it mattered not to the landlord where the money was coming from as long as he got paid. He seems to have been tolerant of Mary not coming up with the rent and he sounds as if he never had any dealings with Barnett.

it appears that good hearted Joe, was still giving her money when he could, to keep a roof over her head.

Only Barnett's own self-serving statements are in agreement with this scenario.

He even called on her on the evening of the 8TH, to say he was sorry he had none.

While attempting to make himself look caring, Barnett unwittingly admitted in this statement that he once again refused to give Mary money and placed himself at the murder scene on the night of the killing.

I agree that echolalia is associated with psychopathology, but I would have the opinion that Barnett was extremely nervous, and although not illiterate , hardly well educated, he would have been terribly upset and bewildered by the inquest, and may have repeated the last line of a question, simply because he wanted,and needed, to understand what he was expected to say

Instead of concocting an imagined reason for the echolalia based on the nervousness of a manifestly innocent do-gooder, I prefer to see his speech impediment as something that fits the FBI profile of the killer.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Heinrich.
A few points to mention,
Barnett's sacking, is unknown, and speculation is all we have, albeit Pilfering, and being drunk are two possibilities.
Since he was sacked Barnett had worked selling oranges/fruit,we have no information, that he was ever without some income,
The rent arrangement is not clear, according to the landlord, in Feb 88, Mary Jane , had come to live with a man called Kelly, and as she posed as his wife, was known as Mary Jane Kelly.
We know that this man who McCarthy had initially known as Kelly was actually Barnett, however when that became knowledge is unclear.
The ''came to live with'' would imply that Barnett was the rent payer, and therefore the majority of arrears would have been down to him, it appears that good hearted Joe, was still giving her money when he could, to keep a roof over her head.
He even called on her on the evening of the 8TH, to say he was sorry he had none.
I agree that echolalia is associated with psychopathology, but I would have the opinion that Barnett was extremely nervous, and although not illiterate , hardly well educated, he would have been terribly upset and bewildered by the inquest, and may have repeated the last line of a question, simply because he wanted,and needed, to understand what he was expected to say.
Regards Richard.