|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 566
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 6:18 am: |       |
Richard,
I personally think that all the 39's you made are pure coincidence although I can sort of see where you are coming from. I happen to think that all the things you have mentioned are a little far fetched, especially with regards to when Barnett left Mary and when she died, etc. but I had a think about this and thought again about the Compulsive Obsessive Disorder. Personally I have a thing about even numbers which I hear is quite common but when something isn't even I get a little nervous and agitated (don't ask, I probably need help  ) but if I was going to kill people (not that I would) I might do something based on even numbers, like how many I kill or something similar. I still think the 39 theory is a bit far fetched but I can see your point.
Sarah |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 5:32 am: | |
Richard wrote:
"You want solid reasons."
Yes! But you still haven't given me any.
Hating Jews, collecting paper reports, trying to control the woman he dated, being ridiculed by the woman and so forth makes him a typical male living at the time. By those criteria the killer could be any one of thousands of men. The fact that Barnett was one of those thousands isn't surprising in the slightest, let alone indication that he killed anyone.
"most murders tend to be domestic"
Most serial murders aren't, which would be solid reasoning *against* your theory, not in favor.
"He acted extremely agitated at the inquest"
That points more to grieving than it does to killing, so that's another point that actually works against you.
"only the killer would have known that Tabram, was to be the start of a series"
Absolute nonsense. The police and papers reported Tabram as a Ripper victim. And since you haven't proven that Tabram actually was the start of the series, trying to use that to support Barnett is circular reasoning.
"possible gravespitting"
We already covered this extensively in another thread. There is no evidence to support that this actually happened, no reason to think that if it did it was Barnett, and no logic to believing that someone who would spit on a grave would kill someone.
"According to a relation, he once remarked 'He often felt sorry for kellys killer, for he could never come forward , for fear of being topped' "
If that's actually documented (unlike your ludicrous gravespitting rumor), that's the best evidence you have. Of course it's worthless for trying to prove anything, but even as weak and silly as it is it's the best you've presented on these boards yet.
"The coincedence, with the dates of these murders"
...is even more ridiculous than your gravespitting rumor.
"The above list, I consider ample ammunition,to at the very least consider him a prime suspect."
The above list is no more incriminating against Barnett than it is against any random man in Whitechapel at the time, and in some cases less incriminating. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 643
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
I think it would be a fair bet, if we were having this discussion in the house of commons, the words 'Order. Order' would be shouted out.
I Will stand by my points, although I should have said most victims in accomodation, are found to have been killed by spouses.
Regarding the collecting of cuttings, I was making an observation , that if Barnett collected the cuttings from the first murder Tabram, one would have imagined that he cut that article out of the newspaper , from the next days edition,
Question,
Why would he do this, if not to read that peice to Kelly?.
The gravespitting, oral history or not,is condemming to Barnett, as it refers to the service, which he attended[only male apart from the priest].
And as for the 39 theory, when is a coincedence, considered to strong not to be one?.
The thirty nine stab wounds, the dates of Nichols-kelly are clearly a pattern, simple 31st-8th , 30th -9th. 31st[ 8 month] 30th [ 9th month].
I do not feel my suggstions are at all ludricous, infact, I would say they are more them plausible.
Regards Richard. |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 130
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
Richard,
When is a coincidence more than a coincidence? One definition might be when a single act is repeated enough times to become statistically significant. The problem with the 39 thesis is that too many variables are introduced. If every victim received 39 stab wounds, if every murder were committed at intervals of 39 days and . . . well, then it might be more than coincidence. As it is, the theory strains to find a certain number in any number of ways. Then, there is the fact that at least one of methods chosen to produce the number "forces" a number between 2 and 43 anyway. And . . . well, it isn't worth the time.
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 3:54 am: | |
Hi Don,
you refered to an interval of 39 days, there is one important point to make, could the killer have not missed out the month of october because, if one counts from the 1st october - the day after Strides, and Eddowes death until the 8th november, the day before kellys departure=39 days.
Another intresting point, i have not made to often , is the letter the police received, 'Saying I live at number 39 Cutler street. Why 39 ?. why not 1-38.
Another coincedence?. also cutler street was very close to Dorset street.
Mayby Chris, could obtain references to what type of building was number 39, cutler street.
The whole point about the 39 Thesis is it all fits, coincedence or not.
Richard. |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
What would the number "39" have to do with Jack the Ripper and his crimes? It's like that red hanky that someone saw a man give to Mary Kelly. Then people point out that Sickert had a red hanky too. Is that a coincidence or not? (???) Who knows? It's no smoking gun or should I say bloody knife that Jack used.
This is sort of like the "coincidence" of 9-11-01. There is a bunch of "11's" and "9's" found. The twin towers themselfs looked like the number '11" but what does that mean? |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
Richard wrote:
"The whole point about the 39 Thesis is it all fits, coincedence or not."
Even a square peg can fit through a round hole if you hammer on it hard and long enough.
At this point I think you've damaged your toy set so badly that you won't be able to get the right peg to fit even if someone finds it for you. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 646
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Hi,
Without going into profiling, that issue has been discussed fully.
My point is why is it not possible that this famous murderer worked to a pattern, for reasons known to himself.
When he attacked and killed Tabram, it is a fact she was stabbed a total of thirty nine times,one wound for every year of her life, thirty eight of these wounds , could have been inflicted with a ordinary penknive, but one of them was caused by a more fatal weapon , described as rather like a Bayonet.
He then went on to kill on the 31st of the 8th month
Chapman was killed 8 days later.
He then ventured out on the 30th of the 9th month, and despatched Stride and Eddowes.
He then waited till the 9th of November, approx 39 days, before he despatched kelly. in room 13, which was known as 26,Dorset street.
She was killed on the very same day the 9th, as Barnett started living with Kelly.
Your opinion is I am trying to put square pegs in a round hole, but I am saying my pegs are round.
We all have opinions, on this case , and rightly so, the above is mine.
Regards Richard.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 572
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 5:38 am: | |
Richard,
Even if this 39 theory actually was more than a coincidence how is it linked to Barnett?
I also wanted to let you know that agree with you about the reasons as to why Joe was possibly the Ripper apart from the part where he acted agitated at the inquest. If you were in Joe's position and you were innocent, wouldn't you be upset and agitated too if the woman you loved had just been killed.
I can't find it at present but someone said above somewhere that he may have spat on her grave as she mocked him and basically made his live miserable and so that could be the explanation for why he would spit on her grave but that would mean that he wouldn't have been agitated at the inquest because he would have hated her so it doesn't add up. If he DID spit on her grave and also seem agitated in the inquest then I do see this as suspicious behaviour. Hope that makes sense.
Just my opinion of course.
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
I see Barnett as a extremely cunning person, he could contain his feelings when he was in a position, when he had to.
For exsample at the inquest, he came across in a very agitated state, but was able to give his evidence, to the satisfaction of the coroner.
At the funeral , IF?. the grave spitting did occur,and IF Barnett was the guilty party, that would show him as a person who could control his outbursts until the right time , as obviously he conducted himself with normality, during the service.
Richard. |
Neale Carter
Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 46
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 9:01 pm: | |
Just back to CB's point "Dr.T had six sisters there names were, Mary,Jane,Ann,Elizabeth,Alice and Margaret",
Rose Mylett was known by several names including Alice & Liz; as has been mentioned these are common names for the times however Rose's murder has many JtR hallmarks (ie. timing, location, strangulation, vocation) minus the ripping. Just some idle thoughts & vague connections.
Are there any Margaret's as candidates for victim?
Regards
Neale |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 581
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 10:10 am: | |
Richard,
It's interesting. I see how Joe could be the killer too but in a very different way to you. I see him more as a nervous wreck who just had no control over his actions. The only one I see him killing on purpose is Kate but I obviously have no evidence for this. I do not believe he went to Marys with the intention of killing her, or at least that he hadn't been planning to kill her for ages.
Anyway, I don't want to wander off topic.
Neale,
I was wondering about that too. Although those names for very popular names for the period so it is probably just a coincidence.
Sarah |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 109
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Sarah,
Why do you think he killed Eddowes on purpous? You think he was the person she referred to when she said she knew who the killer was? |
katfish
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
greetings:
he was a disorganized killer. He wanted to freak the public out; that's why he was quick to kill them, the mutalation is where he got his kicks; how they were going to viewed, like the boston strangler.
And he didn't want to get caught.
Names and numbers had nothing to do with it. that would take too much organizing, and this guy went for luck. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 590
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 5:13 am: | |
Kris,
In my theory yes I think he was, but of course that is just my opinion.
Katfish,
I sort of agree with you but I was just wondering what makes you so sure of why Jack killed? How do you he wasn't organised? I'm not saying he was, I just wanted you to expand if possible.
Sarah |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 176
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Could somebody please tell me what was customary regarding payment to the prostitutes? Would they have their clients pay beforehand? Was that the usual procedure?
Thanks,
Frank |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 829
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Since biblical times prostitution has been regulated by one simple rule, cash in hand and never cash on delivery, as common research has shown that almost 50% of the men engaging the prostitutes for their wares are unable to complete the business transaction to the satisfaction of either party. Most men end up paying for a pat on the back.
I don’t imagine the system today to be any different to the system that operated in the LVP, and that is cash in hand every time.
It is what happens after that is perhaps more crucial.
Do you perhaps ponder what happened to the cash in hand that the prostitutes should have had about their person when discovered ripped apart and quite dead?
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 177
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Thanks AP, I thought it worked that way but I wasn’t sure. And to answer your question, yes, but I only had Elizabeth Stride in mind here - that is, she possibly being a victim of an interrupted Jack.
Frank
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 830
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Frank
it has always been my thought that transactions between Jack and the prostitutes he murdered would have never reached the stage of actually passing money for services required or desired.
It may be addled, but I have always imagined the girls approaching Jack, and then a two or three second envelope dropping down and the rest being history.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you think otherwise. |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 7:01 am: | |
Hi AP
The lack of cash on the victims has always puzzled me, because I imagine that payment would be required as soon as a secluded place was reached - perhaps it was asking for payment that triggered the attacks? In which case theories about what position sexual intercourse took place in and attacking from behind etc. fall to the ground.
I can't see him searching the body to recover the coinage (which surely would be pocketed somewhere safe before any service was performed).
Regards
Pete
|
Rosa Divineski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:33 am: | |
sarah;
there were too many elements he could not control, people traffic, the patrol of police, outdoor spaces and tenants. All he needed with him was a knife and charm.
He would chose his victim purely by who came by. Although he would have a lot to choose from. He killed them quickly so that he would have complete control over them. The challange for him would be how quickly and outrages his kill could be, and get out of there. That is why I think Kelly was the jackpot. No pun intended. Although he did get a completely controlled enviroment he still only needed a knife and a smile. Kelly let him use her room.
Rosa. (aka Katfish.) |
rosa divineski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 12:52 am: | |
Sarah:
P.S.
I also suspect something happened for him at the double event. He was determined to get a proper killing done. That is why he killed a second woman, because he was interupted with the first. Also, he must have thought he could get away with it. I mean they were looking for him a distance away. But I think killing the second woman that night scared him in some way. Something he thought would get him caught. It could have been his own behaviour, i.e. loss of control, or someone could identify him. Because, 1. he doesn't kill for a length of time. 2. He gets a woman in doors for his next kill.
See we all learn from our mistakes, if we are paying attention.
Rosa. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 717
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Rosa,
Catching Kelly on her own....controlling the victim....
Surely a contradiction between organised and dis.
Thats why I go for mixed.
Peter,
Chapman was searched. And Kate. Recovery of coinage ?
Monty
 |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | |
Pete
Yes, it has always bothered me as well, and I suppose has been one of many factors that I have often employed in arguing the case for a Jack who was not actively seeking out a prostitute, rather that the prostitute approached him and this in turn triggered his fight or flight tripwire.
I just see a drunken prostitute as being the ultimate threat to an obvious ‘nerd’ like Jack.
Believe it or not I once came across the case of a young man who was absolutely convinced that women had teeth in their private parts, and he had attacked woman who made sexual overtures to him, luckily he restricted these assaults to using his fists so not too much damage was done.
I suppose it is in our basic human nature to assume that the majority of men would be either flattered or aroused by the approach of a prostitute offering sex for sale, but I feel the true situation might be a complete reversal of that concept, and some of my studies have led me to such a conclusion. For instance the case of a happily married man who when in town actually solicited young men for sex but when they complied viciously battered them around the head, he admitted quite freely that he battered these young men because he was disgusted by their lewd behaviour, even though he had paid them to be lewd in the first place.
This particular chap was curable, he only had to admit that he was a homosexual and the behaviour would cease, but it does show the sort of ‘push & pull’ that goes hand in hand with obvious sexuality and the marketing of it out on the street.
I do see images of Jack in both these cases I have outlined.
And I have always felt that Jack’s immediate reaction to the approach of a drunken prostitute would have been abject fear and confusion.
Personally I don’t see Jack as ever having money in his pocket, so if he did search some of the victims it might well have been his investigative nature at play.
|
Rosa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 9:41 pm: | |
Monty:
It is a step towards getting organized. He learnt something along the way. Disorganized killers will with time get organized. It's also a sign, funny as it sounds, of maturity. Each murder is a progression from the last. And you can see it in this series of murders. Excluding Catherine which was interupted. But I'm sure he learnt something from the interuption.
Rosa |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
