|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
danefirmin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 11:55 pm: |       |
Hello. I'm a student in Highschool. *actually I'm graduating in a few weeks. Yey* I was first interested in "The Ripper" case since I was little, although at that time I looked at Shirlock Holmes as solving it. For the past few days I've been reading as much information on casebook.org as possible. This website enthrills me. It really is amazing the amount of detail and time was put into it. Getting to my question/point:
I heard somewhere that Whitechapel and Scottland yard were both on high alert for the Ripper murders and I also heard that the day after Mary Kelly was murdered that they went off of high alert. My question was, is there any truth to that statement? If so, can anyone give me added information to that. As to maybe, "Why" that was done. If that statement is true then it is very perplexing to me.
The additional statement I had was a theory based on just an idea that I have. I was reading about possible suspects and Joseph Barnett really sticks out in my mind as the likely suspect. Why? Well, because of an old saying that I was once told, "There is no wrath like that of an angry woman." You might ask how does that have anything to do with this, and really, it does, but my logic being, the most likely suspect in a murder is usually someone who knew the victim. He was Mary's lover and they had an arguement days or a few weeks before her murder. Love truely does bring out the best and worst in everyone.
My entire theory or atleast my next statements are all based on logic and I honestly don't have facts to back them up. My sole purpose in posting this is so that I can get others to help me learn about the Ripper Murders and maybe to be able to help people look at it in a new way.
It's stated that the next day they interviewed Joesph Bennett for 4 hours. The statement was made, "If there was any shred of evidence to point to him then they wouldn't have let him go so easily." But across thinking about it I realized 4 hours sense like an awlful lot of time to interview on suspect right after a murder. Especially if he was her "lover/friend" and surely would have been in greaving over her death. Which caused me to ask the question, "Why would they talk to him for so long?" There are ofcourse many logical answers to this, but I choose to look at things in a different light and a different perspective. *Yes I realize I'll be using "what if's" in my next statement. But this is for the fact that I've only been doing research for 2 solid days and honestly I'm just trying to learn as much as possible at this point*
What if the real reason why they took 4 hours to interview him was actually because he confessed to her murder(s)? That would make some logic and yet it leaves us with the question, Why didn't they arrest him? The answer to that is, Maybe he had some influential power. (blackmail maybe?) What if they instead of arresting him put him under constant survailance? As some sort of apeasement.
How could I even come up with this ridicilous theory? Well, like I stated, it all goes back to my original question. It seems almost Stupid to take all the police officers OFF OF high alert the following day after Mary's Murder. It seems as though you would try to INCREASE the ammount of security during those times, especially after such a brutal murder. The only explaination to this was "They had to have caught the killer or they atleast had assurace that he wouldn't kill again." Again I'll take this oppertunity to state that I'm merely a student who has only been during research for about 2 days so my information could totally be wrong and my theories crazy.
Really I guess what I'm trying to see what logic other people have on this matter and hope that thye could help me in learning. I know my theory is "very off the wall" it might even be ashame to call it a theory. It might better be described as a hypothosies. In the end, I think we're all on the same cause, trying to find out who was the killer. The best way to do that is to spread knowledge between everyone and that's my main goal in offering this. To gain knowledge from people that actually know what they're talking about.
Oh, as far as to why Joseph Barnett "why whould he kill the other 3" I think the best possible theory on that is that he was doing it trying to scare Mary (his lover) out of the work she was in. I realize in my own case that I wouldn't kill the very person I love first. *If I were that sick and twisted ofcourse* I would start by trying to scare her away from what it is she's doing. That's a common practice in our life today. When a man see's his wife talking to another man he doesn't like, he does one of two things (1) He walks over and protections his "property" and trys to cause the man to back away. (2) He trys to scare her away from the man. (Namely through lies or by making "fibs" on him to make her not want to be around that person.) I think that Joseph could have been doing that just to a greater extent. The most logical idea is that he was upset with Mary one day, saw a prostute and took his rage out on her.
Saying that (may be) he had a conversation with her after the first murder, he could possibly have made a statement about her quitting her work. She "could have" made an agreement with him explaining that it was some freak thing that won't happen again, which "could be" why he murdered again, and again and finally killing someone that she knew hoping that that would stop her work. When it did, he snapped, angry, he kills her.
The explaination about the one witness that saw to people together, Joseph fits the description. That's the only facts that are known about that. The person might not have actually known Joseph. Maybe she kept it hidden from him. Or maybe he had heard about joseph and but had never seen him. So when he saw her at evening, it was to him, just another customer.
Those are the conclusions that I draw from everything. Ofcourse I'm mostlikely naive and wrong in most/all of my statements but it still seems to me that Joseph is the best canadiate for the killer. He had motive, knowledge (to an extent), and that arguement really sticks out in my mind as something intresting. I will admit that I've only been able to read about Barnett and Sickter so far, so I might come across someone else that I feel is more likely Jack. But for now I have this feeling (which could not prove anything in a court of law) that Joseph is really Jack the Ripper. I thank you in advance for your help everyone. And especially the owner of this website. I only hope my knowledge grows as much as those here.
~Dane |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 5:57 pm: | |
I beg your pardon?
Verbose you are.
Please consider the fact - as an earnest student - that the most conclusive point you may be able to conclude is that Her Majesty's government saw fit to offer 'Her Majesty's Gracious Pardon to any accomplice not being a person who contrived or actually committed the murder' after the Kelly murder, which they had not done before.
That should get you on the right track.
|
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 11:44 pm: | |
Dane,
The police kept up their patrols and "state of alertness," as you say, well after the Kelly murder.
Peace,
Scott |
danefirmin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 10:27 pm: | |
hehe. Alot of big words there. lol. Well It seems again that maybe he knew who the killer was and told them in the course of the interview. That amount of time they interviewed him for seems like a long time for someone that (if they had not committed the murder) would surely have been very upset over the news that his lover was slain in such a hidious way. Or maybe that leads to another important question, Was there actually an accomplice? One that he might beable to put the blame on? Still that leaves the question, Who? I need to read more about possible suspects. I went to the bookstore and Library today trying to find "The Complete History of Jack The Ripper", no luck. /= The Library has to order it so it will be a few days before it gets in. sad really, But luckly the casebook has some very good information for me to search through.
As it stands Josephs seems to have the key things. And also another point which I'm not sure people might have focuses on. If Joseph was the Ripper that might explain why they never caught him. If he lived in the whitechapel area for all his life surely he would have known back routes and alleyways to evade police officers. In a few days I'll see what points I can find that point to him and what facts point away from him and compile them together so I can see if I can't explain some of the counterpoints.
*I really need to register for the forums. I SWEAR I'LL MAIL THE LETTER MONDAY. lol* |
danefirmin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 1:52 am: | |
I see. hehe. So I guess that throws off my whole theory idea. Dang you evil corrupt tv shows that lie about Jack The Ripper facts. (It was on tv that I had heard that the day after Kelly's murder they went off of "High Alert".) It just goes to show you that tv will do anything for ratings. |
Neil K. MacMillan
Police Constable
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Dane:
You post an interesting theory. A few of the points you made strike me as threadbare at best but I have to say I respect your initiative in pursuing this case.
First, four hours might seem excesive today but remember we are talking about 1888 and the police were questioning him about a series of high profile murders. I can state for a fact that in those days at least here in the United States, 12-20 hours of interrogation would not have been considered excessive. I doubt that it would have bee thought so in the U.K. either.
Second, Joseph Barnett was a fishmonger (He packed and sold fish) He lived in Whitechapel which was, and I believe, still is One of the poorest areas in London. This man would have nothing to blackmail anyone in authority with unless he saw a policeman or such committ the crime. Though that has been a theory, I would not credit it as fact without really good evidence in copious amounts.
Third, the murders were still being actively investigated in 1889-1890.
Fourth, while Barnett may have known all of the victims at least by sight and some if not all (Depending on how many victims you think there are and trust me I think there were more than five)as acquaintances, there is scant evidence that ties him to the other victims.
Logic is a wonderful tool and it may be that there is sound reasoning behind your statements. I lean a different way. I am currently researching Jack the Ripper for a novel about the same. I use a composite Jack for the novel but I lean toward Francis Tumblety as a credible suspect. Obviously, I am still reasearching myself. Barnett may well have known more about the killing than he told police but then, the same could be said for all of the witnesses and some of the victims. If he had known who the killer was and had given him up after his four hour interrogation, the police would have arrested that suspect and it is likely we would not have these boards to debate on. (Unless of course, Barnett lied and gave up someone way out of the loop. Kindest regards and welcome to the boards, Neil |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 - 5:15 pm: | |
Whatho Neil,
Joseph Barnett was actually a fish porter not a fishmonger. That means he carried fish around Billingsgate Market in large round baskets balanced on his head (porters wore special hard hats). But of course this does not change your statement about being unable to blackmail any body; that still stands.
Cheers, Mark
ps. Unfortunately we don't have a smiley waring a Billingsgate fish porter's hat; very remiss of the management! |
danefirmin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 10:23 pm: | |
I see your point. That does seem far fetched my theory. It was more of an observation because obviously they would have showed him the crime scene and I thought that for someone who was her lover 4 hours would have been a bit much. He certainly would have been greeving and you can't get crediable evidence when someone is broke down like that. Unless ofcourse he were the killer and could compose himself. As for Tumblety, I have just read a little information about him, so as of right now I can't make any observations either way on him. I still have good amounts of research to do, and MY BOOKS FROM THE LIBRARY STILL AREN'T IN!!!! argh. So I can't do any reading. Granted, The casebook is certainly an amazing website, but my connection speed is frustating to me while trying to use this site for research. *I live out in the country and unfortuately I can't even get close to a 56K connection speed*
As for the fishporter point. That would make it seem that Barnett had cleaned fished and in which case he might have had the ability to kill his victims in such a manner.
If we are to assume that the From Hell letter were true then I doubt JtR would have been an educated man. Or if he were then not very much because I noticed spelling errors in it. I think that that would disprove JtR being a doctor as they would have had good spelling. Though I'm sure it's clear that that could have been a fake letter. I still find it hard to disprove. If anything it can't be said either way, if it were true or not.
For some strange reason I having the feeling JtR and the Zodiac Killer had some things alike. Well atleast in premise, The Zodiac Killer sent letters to the police saying how much he enjoyed killer, JtR (if atleast a small % of the letters are real, I think that is possible) sent the same sort of letters. They both would mutulate bodies. Granted the Zodiac Killer used a gun for some of his killings, but it was still very brutual killings. Not to say that alot of serial killers aren't alike. I think the only way for a serial killer to have a possibility of not getting caught is if he's very lucky and also if he does something tottally new and people aren't prepared for.
In all honesty what got in intrested in this case was the movie, "From Hell". I looked at it and I thought that it was complete hogwash. It was a good movie. But I didn't think that storyline was possible which caused me to do research and find this amazing website. The only firm conclusions I've come to so far other than the ones I've said in this post and my other posts is that It ISN'T Sickter. I just can't see how it could be. Nomatter what Mrs. Carnwell says. I can't believe see enough evidence to agree with her. Joseph Barnett fits everything I've read so far. I just now have to do research on others. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:45 pm: | |
Danefirmin,
The Met didn't go "off high alert" after the Kelly killing for a number of months. There were 600 or so extra officers detailed to the Whitechapel district since early October, and they slowly were drawn down over the next few months after November, until they were cancelled in March of 1889, if I recall correctly.
Like Neil said, 4 hours for an interview is nothing. It's fairly standard for a police interrogation today. Although the 12-20 interrogations are a thing fo the past (any confession given after 6-8 hours of straight questioning typically gets thrown out in court here because the courts tend to believe that any prolonged interrogation that ends with a confession is coerced and not admissable), the Met was questioning thousands of people during the course of the investigation. Barnett was unlucky, and it must have sucked to have to grieve and defend yourself at the same time, but hey - the Met thought they had their seventh victim on their hands, and his grief wasn't their primary concern.
I won't go into much more about your theory except to say keep reading! There are hundreds of books on the subject, a few good, very few great, and tons absolute crap. So be careful. Start with Sugden, and branch out from there. And it makes me happy that even though you're still new and learning, you know more than Patricia Cornwell. 
B
|
danefirmin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 10:57 pm: | |
lol. Yes well she gets alot of press which makes no sense to me because her theory seems not even close to possible. Actually, it seems alot like my theory. lol. In which I admire her for it, but thank you for answering you question. Here is another question, do they have the questions/answers that Joseph Barnett was asked on that day anywhere? Im sure they wrote everything down. Or is it just lost in the sea of missing evidence?
One point I found intresting was that about a suspected teacher who was considered to be JtR and who commided sucide in December of 1888. *his name escapes me at this time* And the last killing was in November of that year. That seems like one intresting fact that sticks out in my mind. I need to find out his name to do more research because that's the only information I've read about him. But I think that could explain a few aspects of the murders, if not opening them up to alot more questions... |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 12:51 pm: | |
Hi Danefirmin.
Thats twice I have spelt your name correctly...
Montague Druitt is your man , Last seen alive 3rd dec 88, fished out of the Thames on the 31st dec.
He was reported to have committed suicide, thinking he was going insane like his mother.
He however is a most unlikely Jack.
The most damming evidence against him in my mind was the suicide note which said ; since friday I thought I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die;
Mary kelly was butchered on a friday abeit several weeks before he was last seen alive...
Hope this helps
Richard. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 2:58 pm: | |
Dane,
Pickup Stewart Evans "Ultimate Companion" book - it's got transcripts of all of the extant police documents on the case.
You can get it from Amazon, or your larger chain stores.
Montague Druitt was the drowned teacher, but there's little to no evidence, other than the poor timing of his death, that could link him to the murders.
B |
danefirmin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 1:36 am: | |
yes, after reading about him, it seems this death is explained by other reasons that aren't related to the killings. oh well. Next suspect.
JILL THE RIPPER. Oh yes, it could be possible. A lesbian, pissed off woman......it all makes sense. *actually I haven't read about her yet so I don't know the story.*
Joseph Barnett, Still the top of my list... |
Johnny the slapper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
Dear Danefirmin
I think the killer suspected that the police had discovered the bodies, this would have thrown him into a high state of anxiety which probably caused him to hide out for a while. Where? Well the most likely place would have been under the Tower Bridge near water level. I hope this helps. |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 8:48 am: | |
Danefirmin:
How goes the research? A humble suggestion if I may, use the library for the stuff you can't find at a good book store.
Having read a bit about serial killers, I've fiound most tend to be male although there is some research that is swaying that truism. However to date most female serial killers tend toward using poison.
Montegue Druitt was a lawyer who apparently stood before the bar. He taught in a boys school and was dismissed shortly before he committed suicide. I've never seen concrete evidence to state why he was given the sack but the inference was that he was possibly having an affair with a student. Druitt committed suicide because he thought he was going insane as his mother had. In lieu of the fact that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, it is fair to assume that was his reason. Had he been Jack, my thought is that he would have committed suicide by police (Forced the police to shoot him)
By the way, mark is right, you show more learning than some who've been published on JTR. Kindest regards, Neil PS let me know how the research is going. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
