|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 21
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 6:49 pm: |       |
Sorry, back to the subject of the missing rings... |
Faye
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 6:48 pm: | |
hello everyone
I am one of those people that reads the board but never posts. I saw this post about crime and bpd. I would like to explain a few things about Borderline personality disorder.
There is a HUGE difference between someone suffering from bpd and people who are psychotic, psychopathic or whatever. because I have people in my close enviroment who suffer from bpd I can safely say that I know what it is and I have read anything I could get my hands on about this subject.
In general the diagnose borderline is a very broad one. Like a shrink once said to me: "Borderline is the label you get when you get too complicated for psychatrists to diagnose". It is a very broad diagnose and if you have two people with this diagnose and compare them they can be the opposite and still have this diagnose.
In general there are two types: the one that is self destructive and the one that is distructive. In general male patients are the destructive/anti social type.
When triggered a patient can go into a form of psychosis however while in daily life they can function just fine.
It is very possible the murderer acted in a burst of rage. Very common for bpd patients is the fear of abandonment and extreme feelings as a reaction to that.
Personally I have my own theories about mr the Ripper, but I am still working on those, but if anyone is interested I would be delighted to share them with you all.
Faye |
Clement Unger
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 11:18 am: | |
Had Jack been bilked by a prostitute prior to his murderous campaign? Could this be one of the reasons he took to killing women? I say one of the reasons becuase his behavior points to these murders being of the sexually motivated variety the taking away of part of the vagina of one woman obviously points to this. But could the fact that he was duped by one these unfortunates have kicked him off into a murderous campaign of revenge?
By all accounts the sightings of him put him in the age bracket 28-30 yrs. So what started him off at that age? There must have been an impetus.
I seem to remember a quote from the Yorkshire Ripper, where he said he had hit a prostitute over the head because she had duped him out of ten quid.
The taking of any money and rings from his victims would point to the fact that he was getting even with them for duping him out of his hard earned.
As for taking the money and rings as trophies, he left plenty of articles on his victims, i.e combs, cigarette case, etc. surely these would have made better trophies, they are more personilised than coins. I think he took the coins and rings because of ther monetary value not as a trophy. |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 7:26 pm: | |
"As for taking the money and rings as trophies, he left plenty of articles on his victims, i.e
combs, cigarette case, etc. surely these would have made better trophies, they are more
personilised than coins. I think he took the coins and rings because of ther monetary value
not as a trophy. "
As Caz and I have suggested, we don't know enough about Jack to say what did or did not appeal to him as a trophy. We do know he was a trophy taker, nevertheless.
Clement, your post gave me an idea, which is always a dangerous notion.
It's possible that the theft of coins represented neither theft for economic gain nor trophy taking. If Jack was indeed "down on whores", perhaps he robbed the women to relieve them of ill gotten gains: money derived from whoring, which he regarded as an abomination and unclean.
Just a thought.....The main point I want to continue to raise is that I think it is dangerous to use the robberies as a clue in establishing to which economic or social class Jack belonged.
Sir Robert |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 3:04 pm: | |
Zkot: Thank you for your post. I didn't realize the impact of what exactly you meant (Brain cramps don't you know)until I detailed the six muders I accept by their escalation in the Martha Tabram post. You're absolutely right, Our boy was indeed a sick puppy! I'm not quite as familiar with Gilles de Rais but your post makes me think he's one heinous dude also.
Clement brings up a good point. He could be taking the money for "reparation" (My quote, not his.) But as Mr. Radka so rightly points out, this is all speculation. Fun, but speculation none the less. Have a good weekend all, Neil |
Saddam Hussein The Dictator
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 9:59 am: | |
A woman isn't powerful because she has a comb. Nor a tin of tea nor a thimble. But if she has a coin, she can do something for herself with that. And if she has a uterus, she can do something with that too.
SHTD |
Amy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
So, what does everybody think of the rings? were they/ are they been taken by the ripper? 
amy |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
Amy,
The rings are a question I've asked myself about. Obviously - they had to go somewhere.
But I'm divided. The Ripper may have taken them, mistaking them for something of value, but I don't know. I don't believe he would have taken them as trophies, as he took her uterus; next to that, a brass ring seems insignificant.
I've always entertained the idea that they could have been removed by one of the people who discovered the body, or in the interim between it's discovery and the arrival of the PCs to the scene.
It's an interesting dilemma, one that we probably can never truly answer.
B |
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 36
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 1:37 am: | |
Who knows, perhaps she had removed the rings from her fingers herself before she was killed.
Like Brian, though, I've also favored the belief that the rings had been taken sometime between the discovery of her body and the 10-97 of the PCs.
However, I also still believe that anything can be considered a trophy, no matter its monetary or street value. The killer could very well have taken her rings off and slipped them into his pocket before he began his mutilations and ultimately stole away her uterus, or vise versa.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z) |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 6:42 am: | |
G'day Brian,
Reading the official notes in the book: 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion', the first mention of Chapman's rings was in a report written by Abberline saying: 'The deceased was in the habit of wearing two brass rings (a wedding and a keeper) these were missing when the body was found and the finger bore marks of their having been removed by force. Special inquiries have beem made at all places where they may be offered for pledge or for sale by a person believing them to be gold, but nothing has resulted therefrom.' Oh dear! I think I may have quoted this before!
I don't think anyone would have taken them before the P.C.s arrived, leaving a tell-tale sign.
Charles Cross, the carman who discovered her body, said that it was too dark to notice any blood. The next on the scene was P.C. Mizen and P.C. Neil, then Dr. Llewellyn.
If the killer took them, he must have had someone to give them to! They were never found, so they offer us no clue!...Shame!
LEANNE |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 7:45 am: | |
Leanne,
"I don't think anyone would have taken them before the P.C.s arrived, leaving a tell-tale sign."
Why not? We know that Hanbury Street was well travelled - who's to say that in the interval between her death and when PCs Mizen and Neil arrived, someone didn't pick her clean?
Granted, I agree with you, and don't think it is likely, but the possibility remains.
My main point is that I'm not certain what weight to give to the missing rings.
B |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 71
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 11:01 am: | |
Hi all
Am I missing something? How did Cross, Neil et al. get into Chapman's murder? I thought in Victorian days everyone knew their place!
I too think it unlikely that a local stole the rings - they'd have been incriminating items to have on one's person, or to try and sell.
On the other hand, if the locals weren't above charging money for a view of the murder site, who knows?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 267
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 1:00 am: | |
G'day Robert,
OK, OK, you win! I made a mistake in a late-night post! Charles Cross was the one who found Mary Ann Nichols body! Annie Chapman was murdered the day after the Nichols funeral - interesting!
Annie Chapman's ring finger still 'bore marks of their having been removed by force.' Special inquries were made at places where they may have been sold. Chapman's body was discovered by John Davis.
John Davis was a carman who found the body at about 6:00am and then went directly to Commercial Street Police Station: 'previous to that he had not informed anyone living in the house of the discovery'.
During cross-examination, he said he was not the first person down that morning. A man named Thompson was up!
'The A-Z' says that 'Thompson', who was a resident of 29 Hanbury Street, was a carman who lived on the second floor and arose at 3:30am, without going into the yard'. I wonder if....Na! He would have informed the police of the body!
On page 53 of 'The Ultimate Companion', there's a report by Acting Superintendent John West, dated 13 Sept. The last paragraph of this, reads: 'Enquiries are being made by Inspectors Abberline, Helson & Chandler respecting the various statements made to Police including that of the Dustman, whom it is alleged, saw a man on the morning of the murder with blood on his clothing.' Who was this Dustman and was the man with blood on his clothing, Isenshmid? Maybe they should have frisked the Dustman!
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 177
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 7:31 am: | |
Hi all,
Zkot, thank you for your very informative post on the borderline personality. I've often heard from others that the argument against Barnett is in the mutilations inflicted upon Mary. People don't think that those injuries could have been inflicted by a previous lover.
I've posted examples of domestic homicides that do end up with the victims being mutilated in a similar manner. Scott has pointed out that these cases are not the norm in domestic murders, and I agree.
But they do sometimes happen, as evidenced by my examples. And it's possible the killer (estranged partner) is acting out of a particularly virulent psychological disorder, when these types of crimes are committed. What I'm trying to say is that 'yes' these types of domestic crimes are not the norm. But the people who commit them are likely not the norm. Perhaps Joe Barnett was suffering from a mental disorder. We'll never know for sure.
All we know from Joe's statements is that his relationship with Mary was a very intense relationship, marked by many bitter arguments. This could have triggered a previous psychological condition that may have taken seed in his difficult childhood.
Sorry to go off track. Regarding the missing rings: the fact that they were reportedly removed with force leads me to believe that they were removed by the killer. It just seems like the simplest explanation to me. They don't seem to have been of any monetary value, so I am guessing that the killer took them as a 'trophy'. Trophies often serve to help a serial killer fantasize about the murder, and relive the moment. Whereas a bodypart will degrade, or will be cannibalized by a killer, coins and rings are keepsakes.
The killer may have enjoyed keeping the coins, or spending them. He may have worn the rings in a pocket, or kept them close to him, to remind him. Just a thought.
Faye: thank you also for your thought-provoking post regarding the borderline personality. I'd love to read about your theories. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 8:36 am: | |
Hi Marie,
You have evidence pointing to a dead prostitute being the victim of a serial killer, and the only 'evidence' pointing to a former lover's guilt is their less than perfect, happy and argument-free love life, and his less than perfect, happy and trouble-free upbringing. There must have been thousands upon thousands of relationships like Barnett and Kelly's, many of them featuring violence or other types of abuse.
Lowly prostitutes like Kelly were all vulnerable one way or another, but to speculate that her death was down to an ex-partner with a mental disorder, when a deranged serial killer has been claiming her sisters in the same small area in the same tiny time-frame and in such a similar manner, surely demands stronger evidence that Barnett was capable of exploding into domestic violence of an almost unprecedented nature, and at just the right moment in history to hide successfully behind the ripper's recent work.
Here's a question - if no one had been downing whores in the weeks before Barnett supposedly reached flashpoint, what would he have done? Controlled himself because there was no one else he could easily shift the blame onto? Or would he have attacked his wayward woman anyway, and no doubt have been hanged?
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 185
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 9:16 am: | |
Hi Caz,
"surely demands stronger evidence that Barnett was capable of exploding into domestic violence of an almost unprecedented nature"
Nope, not in my opinion. Some killers show little, or no signs of previous violence, or criminal activities. Ted Bundy is one that immeadiately springs to mind.
"and at just the right moment in history to hide successfully behind the ripper's recent work."
I'm not personally convinced that ALL of the Whitechapel victims were one man's work. Even as late as Alice McKenzie, there was much debate and disagreement between doctors and Police Officials as to how many victims 'Jack' had claimed.
"Here's a question - if no one had been downing whores in the weeks before Barnett supposedly reached flashpoint, what would he have done? Controlled himself because there was no one else he could easily shift the blame onto?"
Caz, there's just no way I can answer this question, because my name's not Joey Barnett.
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 186
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 9:26 am: | |
Mind, I'm not claiming that Barnett killed Kelly for sure, and I'm undecided about the other victims.
I argue the case for Barnett because he seems like the most likely suspect to my mind.
And because I like to come here and argue. I may well have a new pet theory next week, or month- based on something I've read, or what other people have written here that impresses me. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 7:26 pm: | |
G'day ladies,
HOW DID BARNETT DISGUIZE THIS DOMESTIC MURDER AS A RIPPER KILLING? SURELY HE'D READ ABOUT MISSING UTERUSs [uteri]& KIDNEYs! BUT NO, HE TOOK HER HEART!
But the experts were convinced this was another Ripper killing.....Answer: Joseph Barnett was the RIPPER!
If he was capable of exploding into domestic violence of that extreme, why couldn't he have been capable of doing it to other 'lowies' that meant nothing to him?
LEANNE |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 11:54 pm: | |
Leanne,
Let me get this straight. Your reasoning behind Barnett being the Ripper is that "Well, he killed Kelly, and since the police say Kelly was killed by the Ripper, therefore Kelly must be the Ripper".
Unfortunately, there's no "commutative law of serial killers".
Like I've been trumpted on here pretty solidly for two weeks now, besides your theories, there is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE to support the contention that Barnett killed Kelly. Nothing.
Based on the crime scene, the police believed that the Ripper was the killer.
We have no evidence that Barnett ever abused or hit Kelly, like we have with Kidney and Stride. All we know is that he didn't approve of her being a prostitute - he was so strong in his disapproval that he did that amazingly violent thing of.....moving out.
Barnett wasn't a serial murderer, and the person who killed Kelly wasn't a "newbie". He'd done it before. And killing a fish and killing a human are two totally seperate things - being proficient at one does not equal being proficient at another.
C'mon. Let the man rest in piece. If someone comes up with something (besides baseless conjecture) that lends some credence to the idea that Barnett could be the Ripper, I'd love to hear it.
B |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 2:24 am: | |
Brian,
The night that Barnett moved out of number 13, Kelly threw something at him and smashed a window! Doesn't that suggest a little more than a 'quarrel' to you?
I don't think being trained in how to mend people, would lead to butchering them. So should we ignore all the suspects with medical training?
Oh, about those missing rings, which is what this discussion should be all about: would removing them with force from a body that was already dead, cause the blood to flow and leave tell-tale red marks?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 2:29 am: | |
G'day,
If she removed them herself before she met her killer, would she have removed them with force, leaving marks on her fingers?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 4:31 am: | |
Hi ,
It just dawned on me that the majority of people who put Barnett in the frame for these murders are females [by the way I am not..] I will put that down to good female intuition.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 86
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 6:28 am: | |
Hi all
As Richard says, this does seem to be a bit of a female thing - and it seems to have been that way 115 years ago. All we seem to get, is Kelly's, and Kelly's friends' side of the story. We don't seem to hear much of Barnett's side. But of course, when Barnett does say something, he has to be lying!
And Barnett can't win, can he? He wasn't known to be violent? Then he had to be the kind that bottles it up and explodes. He treated Kelly well? Then he was obsessed enough to kill her. He didn't like prostitutes? Draw your own conclusions!
Robert |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 195
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 7:43 am: | |
Robert: amusing post! 
But there are statements that I find to be quite odd, which come from Joe himself. Such as:
"She did not express fear of any particular individual, except when she rowed with me..."
My own emphasis, but this comment hints to me that maybe Kelly was afraid of Joe. Why?
As I've posted before, I do have a lot of compassion for the person Joe was, and the life he lived (innocent or not).
And I don't mind being wrong.... |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 88
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi Marie
Yes, that statement might look incriminating, but we don't know what, or who, they were rowing about. There are lots of possible explanations.
Maybe she feared Dan, or some pimp(McCarthy?), or Fleming, or simply Jack, who must have seemed in some ways like a "particular" individual. Or somebody else. All I'm saying is, how do we know what the correct explanation might be?
Robert
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
