|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 201
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 12:24 pm: |       |
Hi Robert,
The statement reads as: "She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders she seemed afraid of someone, she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly.
It seems to me as if Joe contradicted himself. First he states that Mary is afraid of 'someone' relating to the murders. Then he states that she shows fear of 'no particular individual' except when she rows with him.
See what I mean about the contradiction? It baffles me. Although -to my mind- he quite clearly states that she was afraid of him, when they argued. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 1:26 pm: | |
Hi Marie,
I was questioning the idea that Kelly’s murder was a domestic one-off by a mentally unbalanced Barnett, not the Barnett-as-ripper theory. I said we needed evidence that he ‘was capable of exploding into domestic violence of an almost unprecedented nature’, if we are being asked to embrace this idea when we already have a handy deranged killer on the loose, whose penchant is ripping organs from whores in the same small corner of the world.
So I don’t quite understand your response:
Nope, not in my opinion. Some killers show little, or no signs of previous violence, or criminal activities. Ted Bundy is one that immediately springs to mind.
Your comparison with Bundy the serial killer is surely only valid for the argument that Barnett was one too. If Barnett was Jack, he was well and truly into the swing of his secret life of violence by the time he butchered his ex. But as plain old Joe, there was not a whisper that he ever hurt a soul, or that his arguments with the missus ever spilled over into actual bodily harm.
I also don’t understand your response to my scepticism that Joe’s career as unbalanced wife-killer could not have begun and ended in a better time or place, successfully hidden behind the ripper's recent work. You wrote:
I'm not personally convinced that ALL of the Whitechapel victims were one man's work.
They don’t have to be – ‘the ripper’s recent work’ merely refers to the murders in August and September that everyone saw as being linked, and Kelly’s murder most certainly was linked with these by everyone at the time, otherwise poor Joe would have been in a pretty pickle, guilty or not.
In fact, it appears to me that several of the contemporary police theories about the ripper’s identity were based on what became of their pet suspects as a direct result of the Kelly murder. So whether you see Barnett as Jack or jilted Joe, you evidently see him as capable of butchering Mary and fooling Scotland Yard’s finest - two remarkable achievements considering how little is known about the man.
Lastly, if you are arguing that Barnett killed Kelly, anything he is reported to have said afterwards has to be treated accordingly. Similarly, if he was innocent, he would have lied, or avoided saying anything incriminating, if he had been afraid of being charged with her murder. Why, in God’s name, would a guilty man (capable, don’t forget, of fooling every policeman on the case) say anything that could suggest his victim had been afraid of him? And why volunteer the information that he knew how to get into his victim’s room without a key? The only thing that makes sense is that Joe could tell it like it was because he knew he had nothing to hide and nothing to fear.
So he co-operated and out came the simple truth.
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 202
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
You wrote: "Your comparison with Bundy the serial killer is surely only valid for the argument that Barnett was one too"
Actually, my example was intended to prove the fact that people who have no history of violence, can 'suddenly' kill.
After all, after his FIRST murder, Bundy wasn't a SERIAL KILLER yet. He was a guy who had no previous history of violence, who had killed someone. Then he went on killing.
"So whether you see Barnett as Jack or jilted Joe, you evidently see him as capable of butchering Mary and fooling Scotland Yard’s finest - two remarkable achievements considering how little is known about the man."
Yes, I do personally think that whoever the killer was, they were capable of fooling Scotland Yard. Police work was certainly not as advanced as it is today, and neither was criminal psychology. I've read newspaper accounts from professors who claimed that the killer must be possessed by a 'demon'. I think that they were looking for an absolute raving lunatic, and most likely Jewish to boot. I'm not convinced that they were wholly objective, and I think that they didn't take Joe seriously as a suspect.
"Why, in God’s name, would a guilty man (capable, don’t forget, of fooling every policeman on the case) say anything that could suggest his victim had been afraid of him?"
Caz, killers give themselves away all the time. I've read so many accounts of this happening. Also, Joe was on the scene before the door was broken down, why didn't he volunteer the information about the window then?
As it stands, I'm undecided as to whether Joe was 'Jack', or not. I haven't read Paley's book, and I need to do that before I can consider Joe as Jack.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 90
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
Hi Marie
I still don't see that Barnett was necessarily incriminating himself by his remark. He seems to me to be saying a) Kelly feared "someone" (whose identity Barnett doesn't know) and b) Kelly feared a second person, who was a particular individual, who is mentioned during the rows. The "someone" could have been anyone, but let's say it was Jack - lots of women must indeed have been jittery. The "particular individual" could of course have been Barnett, but need not have been. I do agree with you though that if we take the "someone" as being Jack, then Jack must be struck off the list of particular individuals I gave earlier.
A second point I'd like to make is, as I understand it the case for Barnett's murdering all the women includes the notion that he was trying to keep Kelly off the streets by frightening her, his reading her newspaper accounts of the crimes being one way of doing this. I remember someone, Leanne I think, saying that we only have Barnett's word for it that Kelly asked him to read to her, rather than Barnett insisting on doing it. If Barnett's words at the inquest are taken in an incriminating sense, wouldn't it be very strange if he remembered to lie about the minor point of the newspaper readings, but blurted out this damning admission immediately after? Of course, I know this doesn't affect your argument here, as you're suggesting that Barnett only murdered Kelly.
PS If Kelly met Barnett at Easter, does this mean she had an Easter Barnett?
Robert |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 5:15 pm: | |
"you evidently see him as capable of butchering Mary and fooling Scotland Yard’s finest"
I would add that I don't believe that the police would have given him the benefit of the doubt either. I can't imagine they wouldn't have immediately imagined him as a suspect, and he obviously satisfied them on that point.
Sir Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:14 pm: | |
G'day,
'Why in God's name....'?' Everyone slips-up occasionally!
Why didn't Joe volunteer the knowledge of how to open the door? Bruce Paley thought the same thing, but I remember reading a report somewhere that suggested Barnett identified Kelly's body at the mortuary. Perhaps the door was already forced open when he showed up!
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 204
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 6:21 am: | |
Hi all,
Robert, I think we're reading Joe's statement differently. To me, it implies that Mary was afraid of 'someone' to do with the murders. Then he seems to say she was afraid of NO particular individual, except when she rowed with him.
To me, that quite clearly implies she was afraid of him, when they argued. Of course, that doesn't mean he killed her. But it could mean that she had a reason to be afraid of him.
Sir Robert: I honestly don't think that the Police ever took Joe seriously as a suspect. I personally think that they were looking for a Jew, and an escaped lunatic, someone like Kosminski.
PROBLEM: too many Joey Barnett threads. Largely my fault, I'm afraid.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION: we should take discussion of this suspect back to the Barnett boards.
I know threads go off track frequently, and that's just fine. But Joey's beginning to dominate the boards, and that's boring for people who feel he was innocent. Plus I feel that newcomers should have the opportunity to read about the other suspects, and victims, without Joe cropping up all the time, and dominating other threads.
PS: 'Easter Barnett' 
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 93
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
Hi Marie
Nobody's fault, but I agree : everywhere you go on these Boards there's a whiff of fish. I'll transfer to the Barnett Board.
Ideally, there would be one thread for those who believe he killed only Kelly, and another for those who believe in the full-blown Paley theory. But the two are bound to cross over sometimes I'm afraid.
I suppose now I've said "cross over" Pearly Bert will make an appearance!
Robert |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 3:05 pm: | |
Concerning the rings, is it possible that they were taken forceably by someone like John Pizer or the Nichols Gang (?) who were in the habit of ill using protitutes to extort money from them as some sort of Surety of payment? Though the rings would have had little intrinsic value, someone like Pizer could have taken them and pawned them for the price of a doss or a glass of gin. They would have taken the rings premortum thus causing the marks and would not have bothered going back for them once Annie was murdered.
Kindest regards, Neil |
Jeneli
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 2:20 pm: | |
I have been skimming these pages, as well as the archives that are up and one thing keeps popping out at me. I know much of this is speculation, but why is it automatically assumed that Jack lures these women to him by pretending to be a customer? Perhaps he did. Perhaps, though, he simply blitz attacked them. What if he quickly grabbed them and either strangled or slit their throats right away. I see many notes here (from people who know much more about the case then I do  )writing about how Jack was anti-social, asocial, a loner, etc. If he was, he wouldn't have been able to charm one of the women into a few minutes of business, no matter how hard up she was. Especially in the later cases when everyone was frantic about the madman in Whitechapel. I just figured I'd toss out this idea and see where it goes. |
Jeneli
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 2:31 pm: | |
I realize my last post was a little off subject so here's alittle something to finish up with- A couple of things could have been done with the rings: There were marks on her fingers so the Ripper wrentched them off after killing her/workers removed them after cleaning the body, or there were no marks, so the Ripper slid them off after killing her/workers slid them off(I'm not sure if there were marks/bruises on her fingers, so I don't know which). Or they were simply lost during the struggle or mutilation and were lying somewhere in the yard. If the Ripper did take them, he should have known they had no real value (else she wouldn't have been out looking for money, she was sick and tired and needed a bed). Many killers take souveneirs(sp?) and so if the Ripper yanked them, then most likely they ended up in his private stash (they'd last longer then they organs he took). For this reason i don't think the rings in the pawn shop were hers. Even if someone had taken then after her murder, you'd think they'd keep them around the show off the people as ghoulish trinkets. Unless they were taken before the Ripper was brought into suspect. Then they could've been pawned (a morgue worker?) |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
Jeneli,
In response to your first post, the Ripper was only killing prostitutes - thus, the only way he would know if they were prostitutes (as none of them solely subsisted on this work alone, even MJK) was if he propositioned them, or vice versa. If he had simply blitzed the first person who attacked them, he could've been killing anyone - married women, homeless women, regular women, etc. Added to the fact that each of these locations were semi-secluded, in dark areas it seems a logical conclusion that his cover was that of a "John".
And you'd be surprised - the level of poverty in Whitechapel at the time was amazing. A family of 4 or 5 subsisted on 1 pound or less. They only criteria these women would have for turning a trick would be that their client could afford it. Ripper or no Ripper, these women had to eat and feed their habits. They didn't have a choice.
B |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page