Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Paddy 50 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Sam Flynn 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - by Debra A 5 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 8 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre square, very upsetting! - by Rob1n 8 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Rob1n 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (11 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (9 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (5 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre square, very upsetting! - (1 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Barnett, Joseph

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 07-15-2012, 08:00 AM
Sally Sally is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Badgers Drift
Posts: 2,094
Default

Quote:
The belief that Joe Barnett is Mary Kelly's murderer is based only on solid corroborated evidence as I demonstrated on the other thread.
No you didn't. You didn't demonstrate any such thing (because you have no evidence, that would be impossible). What you did was insist upon your conviction without any supporting evidence. As in fact you're doing now.

Quote:
The only conviction I have is that a jury would have found Barnett guilty had the police prepared a proper book of evidence for the prosecution.
No they wouldn't.

Heinrich, you are wrong.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-15-2012, 11:39 AM
Heinrich Heinrich is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sally View Post
...
Heinrich, you are wrong.
Then tell the rest of us whom you think murdered Mary Kelly and on what do you base your belief?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-15-2012, 04:57 PM
Rubyretro Rubyretro is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sussex, England
Posts: 1,906
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich View Post
Then tell the rest of us whom you think murdered Mary Kelly and on what do you base your belief?
Well I can't tell you what Sally will reply, Heinrich, but I'm pretty sure that she will have the grace to qualify her response with " I think", "In my opinion" etc.

The fact is that nobody knows who killed MJK at this remove in time.

Anybody here, however learned they are, or however new to the case, can only offer their opinion.

That Joe Barnett could of killed MJK is based on your fantasies of "dear Mary" (I believe that you said this in a previous post) and their reationship, of which you know absolutely nothing. Oh yes, and the fact that you read one book which evidently captured the restricted imagination that you have.

If you were person with more understanding of human relationships and a lot less blinkered , you would see that neither of them were saints, and Joe's behaviour fits with just the way that one might expect a normal man in his
position to behave...it doesn't appear to be "controlling" nor particularly violent (as you suggest).

Try and step back and see a bigger picture, Heinrich. Stop being so subjective.

Try kicking a door instead of taking all your anger, hate and frustration out on the long dead Joe Barnett.

Stop identifying with Mary kelly.
__________________
http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-15-2012, 07:42 PM
Heinrich Heinrich is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubyretro View Post
Well I can't tell you what Sally will reply, Heinrich, but I'm pretty sure that she will have the grace to qualify her response with " I think", "In my opinion" etc.
Just for the record, I always post what I think and I am in the habit of posting my own opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubyretro View Post
The fact is that nobody knows who killed MJK at this remove in time.
Some of us hold the view that by visiting Casebook and reading the forums we can actually come to a conclusion that the mystery can be solved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubyretro View Post
That Joe Barnett could of killed MJK is based on your fantasies of "dear Mary" (I believe that you said this in a previous post) and their reationship, of which you know absolutely nothing.
We know a lot about Mary and her killer, Joseph Barnett.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubyretro View Post
Oh yes, and the fact that you read one book which evidently captured the restricted imagination that you have.
Besides several books about Jack the Ripper, I also read your posts and the contributions of other members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubyretro View Post
Stop identifying with Mary kelly.
I admit to having compassion for Mary Kelly.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-15-2012, 09:22 PM
curious curious is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardnunweek View Post
Hi.
Just a observation, which needs to be addressed.
Maurice Lewis claimed to have seen Mary Kelly in The horn and plenty, between 10pm-11pm Thursday 8TH, she was with another woman , and Dan, the latter being the man who she had lived with until recently,and who sold oranges in the markets.
According to Barnett, he last saw Kelly around 730pm 8TH, so that being correct would mean it was not him that he saw but Barnett's brother Dan , as he initially said, and Lewis mistook him for Kelly's ex, which is understandable as they most likely would have been all together at times.
However why did not Dan come forward to describe events, we have no knowledge of him being questioned,or giving evidence at the inquest.
Maybe it was Barnett, and he still played cards back at his lodgings , but why did he lie about seeing Mary after 730pm?
Many will say Mr Lewis is a unreliable source, but if one uses behaviour patterns, truth does emerge from a lot Lewis states, for instance..I was playing pitch and toss in the court around 10am, [ an illegal game[.
Why admit that, just for the hell of it?
He clearly knew Kelly had been involved with a Barnett,he knew Julia, and he would hardly involve the man he called Dan in his fairy -tales...
This has not been discussed before, so I have brought it to attention.
Regards Richard.
Hi, Richard,
I suspect it was Dan with Mary and another woman on Thursday evening. After all, he was like a brother-in-law to her and those family connections don't die immediately when a couple splits.

Just because there is not existing record of what Dan had to say does not mean he was not interviewed by the police and did not tell them what he knew, which was likely nothing much.

The scenario that makes sense to me is that they had run into each other, exchanged a few pleasantries, had a drink and gone their separate ways.

Ever had an exchange like that when you're out and about? Only of course, the person never ended up dead.

The inquest was cut very short. Dan's testimony was not relavent and so he was not called.

Just a guess -- as you already know.

curious
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-16-2012, 09:04 AM
Sally Sally is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Badgers Drift
Posts: 2,094
Talking

Heinrich.

Quote:
Just for the record, I always post what I think and I am in the habit of posting my own opinions.
I think not, Heinrich. I think that you post what you believe. There is a distinction. You know what they say, Faith is the enemy of Reason.

Quote:
Some of us hold the view that by visiting Casebook and reading the forums we can actually come to a conclusion that the mystery can be solved.
There's more than one of you? Good Lord.

Well, some may, and clearly do, come to the conclusion that the 'mystery' can be solved. In my view, that conclusion is wildly optimistic at best; and pure fantasy at worst. Generally speaking - with one or two notable exceptions - 'suspect' theories tend to exhibit an overly simplistic approach at best, and be deliberately misleading at worst.

Gee, its Best and Worst Day....

Suspect Blindness. Once a person has convinced themselves of the guilt of another; all objectivity is lost, down the toilet

However big, and however many the flaws and holes in their argument, a person who has decided on a suspect will be blind to them - and indeed will typically argue that black is white for the sake of their 'theory'.

Furthermore, many (most, perhaps) such 'theories' are conclusion led; and fuelled by belief, conviction.

I understand, I do. Nobody likes to be wrong, especially when they emotionally invest in something - in this context the 'solution' to the Ripper Case.

But personally, I think its a waste of time. In my opinion, there is no single suspect (to date) for whom the evidence of guilt is strong enough to convict. Some I find more plausible than others; but many suspect 'cases' are the result of selective reporting, wilful blindness and wishful thinking.

Entertaining, perhaps, but ultimately pointless.

Quote:
We know a lot about Mary and her killer, Joseph Barnett.
Nah. Guess again. I know that Joseph Barnett was a steady sort who settled near the London Docks and suffered from gout in middle age - all of which would have been unlikely to have happened had he been the mentally ill dosser that you imagine. I don't know where he was between 1888 and 1897 - I suspect he was in Ireland for some of the time.

As for Kelly, we don't know anything much about her, again, in spite of what you imagine. We don't know who she was, where she came from - only what she is reported to have said; very little of which has ever been substantiated, in spite of gargantuan efforts by very good researchers over the years. Historically, she is invisible. So no, we don't 'know a lot' about either of them - especially not about her.

You ask me who I think killed Kelly? Somebody that she knew - whether intimately or not. I don't think that Barnett killed her - I think that there is no real case against Barnett, I'm afraid, for reasons already stated: extensively questioned by the police - because he'd be an obvious person of interest, obviously; had an alibi; lived a settled and mundane life until his death in 1926.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:26 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,670
Default What We Know

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich View Post
We know a lot about Mary.
On the contrary, we know next to nothing about her. We don't even know for certain that Mary was her real name.

Regards, Bridewell.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:54 AM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,841
Default yup

Hello Colin.

"On the contrary, we know next to nothing about her. We don't even know for certain that Mary was her real name."

Hear, hear!

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.