|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Erik S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 11:00 am: |       |
First off, I'd like to thank all the wonderful people on this board. I am very interested in the case myself, even though I'm very new to it. But all of the great knowledge I have read over the past months has been extraordinary.
One thing I have to ask that I'm unsure of, unless this part of the mystery has already been solved, is why is it just these women: Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly. Why are they so significant? It just seems to me that Jack would have known all of them. I'm not pointing out a suspect because I'm not really sure myself. I guess of course this leads to the conspiricy theory, but I don't believe that theory. Is it possible that Jack knew those five women? Why does each death get worse? Is it because he is losing his mind, or is it anger? Do any of the suspects REALLY fit the bill by knowing the victims? If so, why did Jack kill them?
Again, thanks to anyone who replies. Case is so interesting, plus I'm a teacher, and I talk to students about the case. Any info I will pass on.
Erik |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 796
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
Erik,
I believe that the murders were random (at least Nichols, Chapman and Stride's was. In my opinion Kate's may have been premeditated and Mary's happened after an argument but this is going on the fact that Joe Barnett was Jack the Ripper.
If Joe wasn't the killer then I think they were all random. Basically it could have been any women. When a person is randomly killed some people wonder why it was that person that was killed but it could just as easily have been any other person.
Sarah |
Erik S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:25 am: | |
Sarah,
Thanks for the reply. Ok. Let's say it was Barnett. Did he know the victim's, the five I should say? If so, why were they killed, despite his hatred for prostitution. I can see Mary Kelly and why that came to that conclusion.
Just seems that it starts quick and ends quick.
Erik
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 832
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
Erik,
Its possible that he knew them....just as its possible he didnt. My God Im sharp.
Its believed that facial mutilation is an indicator that the killer knew his victim (all to do with erasing, I wont bore you). Therefore Jack may have known Eddowes and Kelly.
Motive is purely Jacks Im afraid and we can only speculate. We draw in information from other serial killers and their behavioural patterns. Suffice to say and as you can tell from studying these boards opinions differ greatly. I suggest you read around (this site and these boards (also some great dissertations), other sites (such as JTR Forums) and any book by Begg, Evans, Skinners ect (go look on the book thread for reccomended reading)).
You are right. The timeline for the Canonical 5 is very short. I think there maybe more attacks (not necessary murders but..) before and after though, but thats my view.
Whats yours ?
Monty
 |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 232
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
Erik,
And, just to show there are no two people who agree on all things in this case, I don't think the facial mutilations of Eddowes and Kelly necessarily indicate Jack knew them in this case. These last two victims, with mutilations now occurring in areas other than the abdomen, may reflect a willingness to risk more time, and to escalate the overall mutilations.
There is some indications that he attempted to decapitate Annie Chapman, and having failed at that, he may have just decided to mutilate the face rather than remove the head. With Kelly, it's not just abdomen and face, but it's pretty much the entire body that is attacked. Therefore, I would do not place much importance on the fact that the face is also included.
But, this is just an alternative. Facial mutilations are sometimes performed by killers who know there victims, so Monty's point is not to be entirely dismissed.
- Jeff
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 837
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 4:22 am: | |
Erik,
See,
And Jeff's point shouldnt be entirely dismissed either.
For what its worth I do not think Jack knew Eddowes.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 815
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 4:33 am: | |
Erik,
If Joe was the killer then I think he didn't know the other victims except possibly Kate. The others just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If Joe wasn't Jack then I think they were all just in the wrong place at the wrong time, for them anyway.
Sarah |
Erik S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
Thank you all very much. Your points make a lot of sense. I have read all around on this board, and also have read Philip Sudgen's book (which was awesome). It just seems to me that Jack knew them in some way, and of course this relates back to the royal conspiracy, which I don't believe.
Monty: Could you shed some light for me on how you think Eddowes knew her killer and how a connection could come about?
Sarah: Dealing with Joe, what are some points I might not know that points him out as Jack? I know that he was the boyfriend, he lost his job, the fight with Kelly, the pipe, the key. Anything I'm missing?
Thanks again. Anybody else want to shed some more light on the subject. Of course, I could ask loads of questions.  |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 838
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 9:09 am: | |
Erik,
You seem to have covered all the points on Joe really except that he hated prostitutes and repeatedly asked Mary to stop prostituting herself but she basically told him to get lost. He was starting to lose her as she didn't need him anymore for support as he had lost his job and couldn't earn enough to support her anymore so he was frustrated about that too.
What makes you think that Jack knew all the victims? There are people who kill randomly and this is what I think this was unless it was Joe in which case I think he killed Nichols, Chapman and Stride randomly and killed Kate because she knew who he was and then killed Mary after a fight earlier in the evening.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 839
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 3:49 am: | |
Erik,
Im not convinced she did know him but...
....there is a link, albeit a dodgy one. Nevertheless, its no more hooky than the Barnett link.
I cannot name it as I know someone else is working on this suspect and Id rather not go there publicly.
But like I said, its supposition. It wouldnt be fair.
Cornwall take note.
Monty
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 5:20 am: | |
Most serial killers don't know all their victims ahead of time, so I very much doubt that Jack knew his.
It's conceivable he knew some of his victims, as serial killers sometime do, though I'd think that'd tend to be more toward the beginning then the end of the string. The mutilated faces don't strike me as a good reason to think he knew those victims. I mean, we already know he likes to mutilate the parts of a woman that make her feminine and that he can get at, faces sounds like a logical progression.
And, of course, I think the question "why just those women" might be missing the boat, because we don't know that it was just those women, I tend to think he attacked more than that. |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 11:58 pm: | |
Erik....
I think a distinction needs to be made, when we say that Jack "knew" his victims. I don't believe he knew them personally, but I believe he knew "of them". In other words, he knew what they did, where they did it, and when they were most likely to be found. In a sense, they would make it more "practical", for lack of a better term, to find a victim.
I honestly believe, the escalating degree of savagery, had nothing to do with Jack being not of sound mind. In fact, I believe the opposite is true: Jack was of complete sound mind, and the degree of evisceration was his way of elevating the level of fear residing in the general public at the time. I have reservations in believing Jack was "insane". As explained to me by a psychiatrist, people who are technically insane (cannot distinguish right from wrong, due to disease or injury-i.e. paranoid schizophrepnics, for example), are usually unable to form requisite thought needed to pull of such complex tasks (stalking, murder, disposing of evidence, fleeing jurisdiction, hiding out, etc.). When they do kill, many times, it's in the spur of the moment, and out of a delusional sense of self-preservation. Often the police arrive, to find them still on the scene of the crime.
All the best,
Dustin Gould |
Avril Ford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 6:55 pm: | |
Sarah
I agree with your point that Joe wanted Mary to give up prostitution however, how can you say he had a hatred of prostitutes when he provided for and wanted to take care of Mary. No one can say for sure what his true feelings were on this matter. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 2:45 pm: | |
Hi Avril,
It must be considered highly likely that Barnett desperately wanted his common law wife to give up prostitution, completly understandable.
I Would suggest that Kelly gave him a hard luck story when they first met , husband being killed in a accident, having to wait for compensation , and staying with a unfortunate cousin, and having to live a immoral life because there was no way out.
He would have accepted her past, asuming that she would be in no need to prostitute herself from that moment on.
But events moved on , he lost his job, she resorted to her old ways, she associated with the east end harlots, and desperation formed.
The fact is Kelly was not a person that would take things seriously even if she was concerned.
My opinion on the rest of events is well documented.
Richard.
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 398
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 2:59 pm: | |
Richard,
I have asked this of others (without a satisfactory answer) and I shall now amplify Avril's question: Where is the evidence for HATRED of prostitutes by Joe Barnett? Not to want someone you fancy to walk the streets is understandable, but that is not hatred.
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls." |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 3:23 pm: | |
Hi Donald.
Any man finding his girlfriend, or wife, or common law wife, resorting to a former life, would i agree be extremely upset and possibly annoyed I would therefore suggest that this could possible turn to the person involved becoming paronoid, first of all defending his loved ones actions ie. its not her fault but her association with the other women, this if not controlled lead to a resentment of the whitechapel prostitutes, and as Mjk, was not altering her ways dispite preaches from Barnett, the action on Martha Tabram, may have been a drastic attempt to stem her lifestyle.
Don.
Like all of us on this website , we can only summise, and try and interpret events within our individual minds.
Richard.
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 399
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 3:39 pm: | |
Richard,
Fair enough answer. Now to make the word control.
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls." |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 1:54 pm: | |
I am in the "totally" random camp.
Stephen Knight tried to link the women as knowing each other and failed. There is though the interesting coincidence of the name "Kelly" that recurs.
I think "Jack" simply picked on women who were vulnerable at that moment - Nichols drunk; Chapman desperate for money, probably tipsy (at least) and unwell; Eddowes still well-tanked-up; Kelly probably a bit merry.
Stride I do not believe to have been a Ripper victim (killed by Kidney IMHO).
But what about the others - its OK to talk about the canonical victims, but what about the other possible JtR victims before Nichols and after MJK?
If one could prove a link between the 5, but not between the 5 and any other named possible victim, then one might be on to something - I don't know what!!
But Whitechapel was a small place, I think most inhabitants probably knew each other by sight at least.
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
