Barnett's candidacy - a few issues

[John Wheat]

If Barnett was Jack the Ripper then where are the other victims? I think it's highly unlikely he would just stop after killing Mary Kelly and considering he lived until 1926 there would surely be several more victims.

[Craig H]

Hi May,

I went down the same path about Louisa's born in 1855 - 56.

Louisa Barnett said she was 55 on the 1911 Census. As the Census was taken first week April, 1911, this means that she was born sometime between April 1855 - March 1856.

She said she was born in Bethnal Green. FreeBMD has over 40 Louisa's born in Bethnal Green in the above time frame, 30 in Stepney, and 30 in Whitechapel.

You had mentioned 11 Louisa's . You probably know the London area better than me. Is my list too broad ?

It would be good to find an obituary for Joseph or Louisa from 1926 as it may have a mention from Louisa's family which reveals her maiden name.

Any advice on how to search obituaries from back then ?

Craig

[MayBea]

Do we know his wife’s maiden name ?... Maybe he was living with Louisa (not officially married) and may have used her name in the census ?

All we know so far is that Louisa died in 1926 Nov. and FreeBMD says she was 70. Without a marriage, the only way to find her maiden name is to look at all the Louisas born about 1856.

There are 11 Louisas born in East London that year. She would be among that list + or - .

I definitely think Mary's killer knew her based on overkill, and that he was Jack based on timing, victimology, method and escalation.

[GUT]

G'day Hawkecr

Welcome, hope you enjoy.

I think Joe is an interesting character.

However the description would fit so many men n 1888, my dad fits it my son probably even better.

Personally I think if Joe did anything it was only Mary. Just my take.

[Craig H]

Hi all,

First time poster here …. but have been reading your posts with great interest.

My interest in Joseph Barnett came from looking again at the more reliable witness descriptions of JTR :- around 5’6” height, 30 – 35 y.o., moustache, deer stalker hat (what’s with the hat ????) and able to have a conversation with the victim (laughing, etc).

The Bruce Paley book was excellent.

You’ve talked about Leanne Perry’s book “Catch me when you can”. Can I buy it anywhere or get a soft copy ?

I read some posts about identifying who Joseph Barnett married, His 1911 Census record said he was married to Louisa for 23 years which suggests he moved in with someone almost immediately after Mary Kelly’s death.

Do we know his wife’s maiden name ? I’m trying to get an obituary or death notice from when Joseph and Louisa died in November 1926 which might shed some light on why he does not appear in the 1891 or 1901 Census. Maybe he was living with Louisa (not officially married) and may have used her name in the census ?

Craig

[caz]

Hi J6123,

I suppose I was thinking that Mary Kelly was gutted rather than boned.

Presumably whoever boned fish at Billingsgate would have done the gutting (aka cleaning) too, although I can't think experience in either process would have been particularly useful when it came to extracting a human uterus, kidney or heart.

Maybe Kelly was a mermaid - vital statistics 38-22-one and thruppence a pound.

And yes, I thought there was evidence that our Joe settled down with another woman - Louise or Louisa? - for the long haul, whether they married or just lived together.

Love,

Caz
X

[J6123]

Hello Caz,

Boning of fish - I don't think there is any evidence that his work involved gutting fish. at least none that I have come across. the author seems to have simply assumed that his work involved boning fish, because that then gives Barnett the rough anatomical knowledge and knife skills that the killer is believed to have had. the same goes for his apparent dismissal from his job for 'theft'. there's no evidence I'm aware of that he was dismissed for theft. again, the author suggests theft as the reason for his dismissal to make him seem more like a potential serial killer.

Medical Knowledge - that is interesting. notice how close the Polly Nichol's murder was to the London Royal Hospital. most likely just a coincidence, but still worth noting.

Barnett's candidacy - I agree with you. it doesn't add up does it. nothing tells me that Barnett was angry, hostile or demented enough to carry out these mutilations. obviously some serial killers appear fairly normal on the surface, but look at what this offender did to Mary Kelly. it seems unlikely the perpetrator walked out of Miller's Court after this crime and simply slipped back into an ordinary life, never to kill again. Barnett, on the other hand, appeared to be genuinely distraught and affected by events, and appears to have settled back into a quite normal life afterwards. in fact, didn't he marry again?

[pinkmoon]

I forget, what was the evidence that Joe graduated from fish porter to fish gutter?

Not that it makes much difference if MJK's killer also murdered Eddowes and Chapman. We had a surgeon posting here a few months back, who advised that these murders featured techniques used on human corpses that were probably picked up from the dissecting room by an amateur observer or medical student.

While Joe was in work I suppose it's possible that he paid to be one such amateur observer, but fish had nothing to do with it. And again, why would he have planned to kill MJK in the room they had shared until very recently, and put himself straight in the frame, when he could have done an outdoor job on her to make it appear like the work of a stranger? Not a spur of the moment decision, surely, since a very sharp knife was called for.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz my dear,what people seem to forget is that Barnet was interviewed by the police quite thoroughly so if he was the killer of mjk he must have had a very good story and a cracking false alibi.

[caz]

...I got the impression the author was willing to jump to some conclusions in order to beef up the case against his suspect, particularly regarding the boning of fish at work...

I forget, what was the evidence that Joe graduated from fish porter to fish gutter?

Not that it makes much difference if MJK's killer also murdered Eddowes and Chapman. We had a surgeon posting here a few months back, who advised that these murders featured techniques used on human corpses that were probably picked up from the dissecting room by an amateur observer or medical student.

While Joe was in work I suppose it's possible that he paid to be one such amateur observer, but fish had nothing to do with it. And again, why would he have planned to kill MJK in the room they had shared until very recently, and put himself straight in the frame, when he could have done an outdoor job on her to make it appear like the work of a stranger? Not a spur of the moment decision, surely, since a very sharp knife was called for.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

G'Day J6123

I got the impression the author was willing to jump to some conclusions in order to beef up the case against his suspect

I think you'll find that most Ripperologists do just that.

[J6123]

having read Bruce Paley's book, I must say I really enjoyed it. surely one of the best suspect books, if not the best? that said, I got the impression the author was willing to jump to some conclusions in order to beef up the case against his suspect, particularly regarding the boning of fish at work, his motives (disapproving of prostitutes and being intimately involved with the final canonical victim), and the key fiasco. still, Joe Barnett is one of the more tangible suspects, along with Hutchinson and David Cohen, but only because the rest have no more right to be there than any other man who was alive in 1888.

[Lechmere]

Checking Dickens’ post, the following points occur to me.
He says that the culprit didn’t spend time savouring the act of murder and did not prolong it. This surely was an essential feature of the act. He was compelled to kill quickly to ensure the alarm was not raised. That was what he knew. Theoretically he may have been able to disable the victim in such a manner that she was not killed quickly but could not cry for help. But that was not within his previous experience.

I disagree with Rob’s suggestion that the Ripper was a lust killer, primarily interested in exploring the body after death and seeing what was under the skin. In all the cases but Kelly he must have been acting with whirlwind speed and in very poor lighting conditions. He can barely have seen what was going on.

[GUT]

G'Day RH

If we accept the FBI BSU analysis and I'm certainly inclined to as they have "the runs on the board" that really begs the question, why did he stop? Because Quantico are clear that Lust Killers escalate not stop, t is, they opine, other serial killer types that have the capacity to stop.

[robhouse]

The Kelly murder appears to have many elementally psychopathic hallmarks – the murderer seems to have enjoyed his time both literally and figuratively; yet the process does not appear punitive in that the victim's death, (and therefore her suffering), was rapid and effective - a preliminary step and not, apparently, one to be necessarily savoured. Whoever spent that night at 13 Millers Court was careful, considered and deliberate to the extent of being almost playful. A generous fire was tended to secure suitable light; organs were not strewn around in abandon, they were placed; Kelly was less ripped than degloved, and then in an almost inquisitive manner.

This is very much in line with my own thinking on the Ripper, which is in part based on the type of killer called a lust murderer, or post-mortem mutilator... a very rare type of serial killer in fact. It is important to note that this type is not normally sadistic, ie. he does not get pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering on his victims. Instead, he is primarily interested in exploring the body after death... seeing what is under the skin. This is a primitive type of killer, and quite probably psychotic.

For reference, see "The Lust Murderer" published by the FBI BSU at Quantico, April 1980.

"The lust murderer, usually after killing his victims, tortures, cuts, maims or slashes the victim in the regions on or about the genitalia, rectum, breasts in the female, and about the throat and buttocks, as usually these parts contain strong sexual significance to him and serve as sexual stimulus."

"The asocial [lust murderer] approaches his victim in much the way as an inquisitive child with a new toy. He involves himself in an exploratory examination of the sexually significant parts of the body in an attempt to determine how they function and appear beneath the surface."

RH

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The circumstances do.
If we accept Hutchinson's account,then we have the rather easy pick up by Mr A.The laughter, the walking back pass Hutch, with arm around the shoulder, the kiss in Dorset street, and all that with a man dressed like he was out of the ''Penny dreadful'' and Mary showing no apparent alarm..
All rather strange, that she should trust a complete stranger , when the day before she said to Mrs McCarthy'' He is a concern isn't he'' when referring to the killer..
If she did know this man, it does not have to be that this man killed her, if he had known her, and had left before dawn, why would he come forward ?
Regards Richard,