|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 449
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 11:10 am: |       |
Leanne,
I'm sorry, but regarding those geographical "links" to the individuals mentioned, I just have to say: So what?
Let's assume some of the women were friends or at one time or another socialized with each other, what can we conclude from that? Does it automatically indicate that Barnett had to set out to murder each and every one of them because they would have been a bad influence on Kelly? I don't get it. Where in this soup of circumstancial "facts" does their accuaintance with each other result in evidence or probable indications on that Barnett had to become a serial killer?
And regarding our earlier discussion: Monty asked me for my profile on Jack the Ripper and I presented a probable one (which of course can be wrong, but I don't think it is that much far off the track), which indicated that ol' Jacky was some sort of chizofrenic with paranoid tendensies and a lunatic -- not a manipulative psycopath. That was the whole point. Since your Joseph Barnett theory seem to be based on that the murderer Barnett was the latter, he doesen't seem to fit the profile except from his personal background. I ask you again: where are the signs of Joseph Barnett being a paranoid schizofrenic or a disorganized character, as I believe the Ripper might have been?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi Everyone ,
Glenn is going to squirm, however these points have to be made.
Questions asked.
What evidence is there agaist Barnett, why cant he just be a poor grieving soul?.
1]He suffered from a mental disorder, that without the medication that is known today, could result in progressively outbursts of anger, and deep frustration.
2]He collected press clippings which started with the Tabram murder.
3] Sorry Glenn.. He was the number one contender for the grave spitting episode, circumstancial I know.
3] He by his own admission read the same press cuttings to kelly, regarding the murders, and by all accounts made her a nervous wreck, since the double event she had been scared to venture out alone at night, and she seemed absolutely petrified to be alone at nights.
4] There is evidence that he saw her ] according to maurice lewis after the time he claimed he last saw her]
5] The murders occured not long after he lost his well paid job.
I could go on , and on, but to my mind this man is the number one suspect, and if he is not who is guys.?
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 968
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 1:17 pm: | |
Hi Richard
The mental illness, grave-spitting and press cuttings - either no evidence, or vague evidence.
She is so terrified of Jack that she orders Joe to go, preferring the protection of her female friends, and on some nights to sleep on her own?
Lewis was not called at the inquest. Why?
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 969
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
It's a tough mission you give Joe as you send him out into the night. He has to find women who
a) live or had lived in the immediate area of Dorset Street, and
b) were known to Kelly
Both a) and b) so that he can frighten Kelly.
These women must also
c) resemble Barnett's mother.
No wonder there were so few murders!
Plus, he happens to bump into two of these women,
not in the tiny area you talk of, but in places further afield - Mitre Square and Buck's Row.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 1:42 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I am not suggesting that is evidence, for goodness sake what evidence, except for finding a confession,is possible after 115 years?
I am just submitting every thing that is known to suggest he is number one suspect.
The facts seem to suggest, that although she appreciated his help , she could not live with the man, and she invited her unfortunate friends to stay over with her, towards the end of october to sleep with her. He from that point would have known that he could not alter her morals, and deep frustration would have set in.
As regards to Maurice Lewis not being called at the inquest, I Believe, and it will be mentioned in the book, that the police believed they had a major breakthrough, after kellys murder, and their investigations, which would have eliminated Barnett as being a suspect, also would have doubted Maxwells statement.
To quote a police officers remark at the time'We are looking for a different type of person'
Sorry if that all sounds confusing , but I am trying to contribute to this discussion, without giving too much away.
Richard.
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 138
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 3:05 pm: | |
Robert, not so impossible a mission if you realize he only murdered four women in four months. He was unemployed and able to walk the streets looking for someone who fit his profile any night he chose. Mary was either working herself, and IMO, he chose nights she was to further emphasize the point, or she didnt care nor question him when he went out. If their relation was as strained as I believe it was, she was actually happy not to have him around.
Between Martha's murder on August 7th, and Mary's murder on November 9th, you have 94 days in which to find any number of candidates who live in the area, match mom's description, isolate them, kill them, and return home as though nothing happened.
With over 35,000 women to chose from in Whitechapel, possibly 5,000 of them are or resemble "working girls" and of those say half live in one of the doss houses along the "evil quarter mile" between Flower and Dean Street and Thrawl Street, and again say half of them have a resembelence to his mother, the killer only managed to find these 3 (plus his girl friend). I would say our killer was very selective in his victims.
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 972
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 3:20 pm: | |
But Shannon, I thought Joe was supposed to be obsessed with Mary. Yet he goes off and leaves her, to prowl for his targets. Surely she can't have been working all the time? If she was, he was remarkably tolerant - almost as if he didn't care....
You say that Barnett was looking for working girls and that he knew the victims. Yet you say that Kate wasn't a prostitute. How did Barnett make this mistake?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 452
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 4:12 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
What is "squirm"..? Aaah, you mean 
Actually, I'm tougher than you think, Richard...
Regarding your points:
1] That one I haven't heard before. If you can produce evidence (medical documents etc.) on that, that is a detail I would find interesting. Otherwise, if it's just speculations in order to make personal interpretations fit the theory, that claim is totally useless (I hate being the one pressing for evidence, but on such a detail I think it would be vital, or else we're left with your speculations on the matter). Why? Because we don't have any sign of his alledged temper or mental illness in the ordinary Ripper files or witness statements.
2] He collected the press clippings because he was interested in the murders, like many others, I believe (this was head-line stuff that sold papers).
3] Oh, please... Don't tell me you made a big deal of that in the book after all...? Not the grave spitting, Richard! From an unverified second-hand source (at best)!
4] He read the clippings to her in order to scare her off the streets and the prostitution occupation, because he feared she would be a Ripper victim and that he didn't like his girlfriend to give herself to other men. Strange fellow... You may see it as torture, I interpret it as concern for her welfare, as well as spearing himself some grief.
5] I believe that one will appear in your book, so I won't lure you into elaborate on that. It is an interesting circumstance -- if it can be verified -- but it still doesen't suggest he killed her or any other woman.
6] Could very well be. So? I don't see the connection. Why would this lead him into being a serial killer?
"I could go on , and on, but to my mind this man is the number one suspect, and if he is not who is guys.?"
I have no idea whatsoever. That's where we differ, Richard; I'm not trying to stress a subject (and wouldn't dream of doing so), you are.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 453
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 4:26 pm: | |
One could also wonder about that "resemblance" matter. If he looked for women that resembled his mother, how come the murdered women then look so completely different? Surely, they were all around 40--45, but (based on my experience as a portrait painter) I can't say they looked that much alike! Check out the difference between Chapman and Eddowes. Couldn't he -- of all these possible candidates -- find a bigger number that all looked more alike one another? I see neither the pattern or the link!
And as Robert stated, how did he know that Eddowes was selling herself occasionally, when she according to some here didn't? I though she wasn't a prostitute after all? Or didn't he know her at all, when it comes down to it?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 745
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 5:32 pm: | |
G'day Alan,
Well, Philip Sugden was wrong! Michael Kidney testified at Stride's inquest: "I live at 38 Dorset-street, Spitalfields, and am a waterside labourer."
LEANNE
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 6:23 pm: | |
Ah Leanne
your bold type and exclamation marks are a prelude to your passage through the universe.
One day - I feel it will be many years hence - you will accept the bald fact that Jack were but a small chrome ball dropped into a huge cosmic pinball wizard and just bounced around at the whim and fancy of drunken gods, who sometimes fell against the machine heavily and caused a sudden jar.
But you must have your machinations and if those machinations lived at 38 Dorset Street then so be it.
Whoops! Better go, too much SSB and I did ban myself after ten. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 7:32 pm: | |
 |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 139
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 8:06 pm: | |
Glenn, What I have noticed is that you are quick to challenge anyone who presents a theory you do not agree with, refuse to view the case from anyone's point of view but your own, and yet with all the knowledge you claim to have as a crime historian lack the conviction to put forward a suspect, or to creat suspect "X" and see if anyone can find the one who fits your profile. I and many others here are very much interested in those who present a theory contradictory to our own. To dismiss the number of theories you have, you must have formulated one of your own, so...
Lets hear it? Who do you believe did it, or give us as detailed an explaination as you can of why you beleive the killer to be a psycopath, or schitzo, or however it is you care to define their psyche.
For those on these boards that are willing to stand by their convictions, to forward a suspect, and believe in what they are doing, I have the utmost respect....
Shannon |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 115
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 8:44 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
There is nothing to suggest Joe suffered from a mental disorder. At the very longest stretch, there is the possibility that he stammered during his inquest testimony. One paper suggested he repeated the last word from questions. Somehow, this one newspaper report, which itself may simply be a lie, has grown to indicate he had "echolalia" (repeating one word is not, by the way, echolalia; that would be repeating phrases and such). Regardless, this "echolalia" has then been turned into "hard evidence" of schizophrenia. Unfortunately, if any of this was actually more than fabrication, then odd behaviour by Joe would have been quite noticable by those who knew him. And, this entire line of argument ignors the fact that all the testimony about who got angry points to Mary as having anger managment problems and Joe was much more passive. To put forth the complete opposite is to ignor what little evidence we have. Please note, my emphasis in this post is not directed at you. This notion was originally suggested by Bruce Paley, I believe, and it seems to have been accepted. It's one of the myths, however, that really needs to be dispelled. It doesn't clear Joe if he's not schizophrenic, and it doesn't prove his guilt even if he was. What's important is the fact that the evidence that has been used to suggest schizophrenia is just not there.
In other words, point 1 cannot be supported. There is nothing to support the claim that Joe suffered from any sort of mental disorder.
2]He collected press clippings which started with the Tabram murder.
No he did not (unless you've found some record that I've never seen hinted at before? and that would be very exciting) I know he's supposted to have read the paper to Mary, he did not have a collection of clippings. If he did, then I'm certainly unaware of where this is recorded. Please indicate where it is recorded that Joe kept "clippings" (i.e., like a scrapbook or something).
3] Sorry Glenn.. He was the number one contender for the grave spitting episode, circumstancial I know.
This incident has almost no chance of actually happening. This evidence is so questionable it should be ignored and only referred to as the sort of stories that have developed surrounding the case that have no substantiation to them.
3] He by his own admission read the same press cuttings to kelly, regarding the murders, and by all accounts made her a nervous wreck, since the double event she had been scared to venture out alone at night, and she seemed absolutely petrified to be alone at nights.
He said he read her the paper, and read the articles pertaining to the most talked about events of the time. Hardly surprising, and actually, sounding rather domestic despite the macabe nature of the events. Was Mary Kelly afraid? Probably. Was this due to Joe reading her the paper? No, this would be due to the fact someone was killing women like herself. It didn't require Joe reading the paper for her to know about these events.
4] There is evidence that he saw her ] according to maurice lewis after the time he claimed he last saw her]
I know there's been some presentations about the times given in the various testimonies, but I believe if this is what you're talking about, it's been shown that they are all consistent depending upon if the time given reflects "arrival" or "departure" times.
5] The murders occured not long after he lost his well paid job.
And seem to stop before he gets another one, unless he was working as an orange porter (which is sometimes used as a way to place Joe near Mitre Square: so is he or is he not working?). and the murders start well before he seems to have left Mary, and before they seem to have had any major arguments, and not really that soon after he lost his job, etc. At least with Druitt, he's dead shortly after the last murder, and shortly after losing his job. This, I assume, is just a coincedence for Druitt, why could it not be the same for Barnett?
"I could go on , and on, but to my mind this man is the number one suspect, and if he is not who is guys.?"
He is a good suspect, but not for any of the reasons you've listed I'm afraid. He's a good suspect the same way Kidney is, and the same way Kelly (Eddowes' Kelly) is a good suspect. He's associated with a murder victim. The attempts to make that case stronger, like the above, are founded upon little to no supportive evidence, and often ignor the fact that just as much evidence suggest the conclusions are not valid.
It's very hard to make a strong case against Joe with what we know. It's also impossible to rule him out entirely as well. So, he's a good suspect, alphabetically by last name he's probably number 1 as well. But the case against him can't be made stronger by starting with the assumption he is guilty and then demonstrating that one can create a story with him as the guilty party.
I know he's your favorite suspect, and that's fine. Just don't get into the situation where you let that preference determine the evidence rather than let the evidence determine your preference. And please, there is nothing to indicate Joe was in any way schizophrenic. This "last word repeating" is in one and only one newspaper. Another says he "stammered", so which is it? Notice, that nowhere else does anyone ever testify that this was normal for his speaking habits. No where can we support the notion that he even stammered on a regular basis. In other words, we have absolutely no reason to assume that Joe had any sort of speech impediment at all, let alone enough to turn this into full blown schizophrenia. It might be useful to the arguement that Joe was the Ripper to try and present him as a schizophrenic, but just because that might be a "useful thing to say" doesn't mean the evidence is there to allow us to say it.
This is getting much like "It would be useful to have a motive for Sickert being the Ripper. Sexual impotence would be a good motive so let's say Sickert was impotent based upon him going to a hospital where operations on fistula were common. Now, let's say that proves he was there because of a fistula. Although the most common fistula were in the bowel, let's make his penial because that way we can say he was impotent! Let's ignor the claims of sexual intercourse with other women". See what I mean? Take one statement, blow it all out of proportion, and one can end up with all sorts of unsupported claims being made. It's this kind of reasoning that gets Joe to be schizophrenic because he may have stammered at an inquest about his ex-girlfriend's murder. It is of the same nature as Sickert's impotence. It's just not supportable.
I know you're working on your book, and that Barnett is the suspect of focus. That doesn't mean, however, that you necessarily have to prove it was Barnett. It might even be more useful if you don't try to prove it, but rather you take the approach of dispelling myths, like the grave spitting thing, like the schizophrenia, etc. Sure, one would end up with "not much reason to really suspect Barnett", but one would also be unable to "remove him from the list".
This means, that he remains a person of interest. It admits that more information pertaining to his life is required to determine if he should stay or should he go from the list of suspects. But we might actually get a more accurate picture of things. Carving out the myths is probably more useful than giving them a false sense of reality. And, by focusing on Joe, it limits the topic to just those incidences that are in relation to Joe Barnett. The scope of the book doesn't have to deal with all the myths (like coins at Chapman's feet), just the ones pertaining to Joe Barnett. Someone else's book could deal with the others, for example.
Anyway, I'm writing this while rushed, so I'm sorry if my concern over seeing a reference to Joe having a "mental disorder" etc comes across a bit heavy handed. It's just I'm seeing this being presented more as "a fact" these days when it's nothing more than an elaborate line of wild speculation of things presented by Paley. It's not true, by which I mean the data we have certainly are not suggestive of it.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 2:48 am: | |
G'day,
ALLAN: What do you mean Whitechapel was mostly a fairly normal and respectable inner city working class area? Do something different: read a history book or search the internet! 'Horrible London' describes: 'deplorable living conditions', 'overpopulation', a 'flooded' labout market; 'The Bitter Cry of Outcast London' describes scenes and episodes of poverty and degradation. The author Andrew Mearns described a slum coutyard as: 'reeking with poisonous and malodorous gases arising from accumulations of sewage and refuse scattered in all directions'. Of the inhabitants he wrote: 'In one cellar a sanitary inspector found a father, mother, three kids and four pigs.' Common lodging houses were: 'often the resorts of thieves and vagabonds of the lowest types...sometimes 60 or 80 in one room.'
ROBERT: Do you believe the Ripper pre-selected these women? Kate Eddowes, (his occasional neighbour), just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If she didn't bump into Jack, we'd be studying the murder of someone else!
'Surely she can't have been working all the time?' - Joseph Barnett had to leave early in the morning to be there for the start of trade at Billingsgate at 5:00a.m., go to bed early, and the same when he was out looking for work!
As Catharine often stayed in the 'shed' next door, and he had an urge to kill and mutilate because he'd just been disturbed, would he think: "Oh no, don't kill her, she's not a regular prostitute"?
SHANNON: I'm not convinced that Barnett specifically chose victims because they had the same hair colour as his mother or something. They were low-class whores just like mum! And he was losing his precious Mary the same way!
JEFF, and Glenn: The 'Standard' 13 November, and the 'Illustrated Police News' 17 November said: 'Witness [Barnett] spoke with a stutter'. The 'Daily Chronical 13 November said that he stammered. The 'Cardiff Times & South Wales Weekly News' 17 November reported that he repeated the last word of every question asked. They knew nothing about the causes of this at the time, some papers chose to save space in their reports by ommitting this detail, and some passed it off then and people still pass it off today as just great emotion. But how many other lovers or relatives had notable speech characteristics? But it is recognized today as a common symptom of the hidden mental disorders of schizophrenia and Tourettes syndrome, both of which can now be treated with drugs.
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 140
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 3:54 am: | |
Leanne, Spot on about the living conditions in Whitechapel. They were anything but "normal" slums. The conditions were so bad in the east end that the queen even admitted she had no idea how to correct the situation, and the country allowed it to remain so until WWII when the German bombers did to Whitechapel what England couldnt.
About Joe's choice of women; not so much the hair colour as the same physical aspects. All were 5'0" - 5'2" darh hair (brown or auburn), a bit chubby in appearance (some with the aid of their clothing), appeared to be about the same age, something of a drinking problem, and he would not have been able to tell eye colour until he was in front of them due to it being night and the street lights not being the best. IMO it was more a precieved appearance similiar to what he remembered his mother to looks like since she left him when he was 7 or 8 years old.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 141
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 4:18 am: | |
Jeff, Joe and the logistics of Miller's Court...
1) The entrance to Miller's Court is only 3 feet wide and located on Dorset Street; one of the worst streets in Whitechapel. Not a place you could find unless you knew it was there.
2) Inside the court are a number of dwellings all inhabited. You would have to know not only where it is, when it was safe to enter unnoticed. The only way to do that is by having been there a number of times.
3) From Dorset Street you can only see the door to #13, the windows are on the opposite side and can only be seen from inside the court. How would a killer know when it was safe to enter her room and kill her unless he was able to view the room to know she was alone especially since she was known to not only have Joe there, she also had other overnight guests of the unfortunate class.
4) The list of suspects grows thin with each consideration listed above. The killer had to know his way around the area, know where the entrance was, know when it was clear to enter her room and kill her, and when he would be able to leave and not be spotted.
5) Now, if it were Joe who was spotted in court no one would think anything of it and he would be able to explain his presence and abort the murder for another time (which he may have done in the days after he moved or was kicked out). If he commits the murder and is spotted leaving, all he has to do is claim he just found her and the blood was from holding her while he cried over her body. No one else would be able to pull this off except the #1 suspect...
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 78
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 5:37 am: | |
Hmmm, yes, the problem is that instead of getting my information from websites with lurid names like "Horrible London" I tend to rely on contemporary descriptions or on Charles Booth's poverty map of 1889 both of which tell a very different story.
Regarding the Sugden thing, I'm only reporting what he said. In the book he states that Kidney in an interview with the Central News Agency told them that he and Stride had lived at 35 Devonshire Street until 5 months earlier and then moved to number 36. Why he should take this information as being more accurate than the address of 38 Dorset Street which was reported in both The Times and the Daily Telegraph you would have to ask him, but I'm assuming he had some reason for doing so. Without doing the research myself I would have to declare myself undecided on the issue. |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 142
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 6:25 am: | |
From Jack London's notes in 1902:
"Saturday night I was out all night with the homeless ones, walking the streets in the bitter rain, and, drenched to the skin, wondering when dawn would come. Sunday I spent with the homeless ones, in the fierce struggle for something to eat. I returned to my rooms Sunday evening, after thirty-six hours' continuous work and a short one night's sleep. To-day I have composed, typed and revised 4000 words and over. I have just finished. It is one in the morning. I am worn out and exhausted and my nerves are blunted with what I have seen and the suffering it has cost me... I am made sick by this human hell-hole called the East End. Jack." [2]
"How often I think of you, over there on the other side of the world! I have heard of God's country, but this country. God had forgotten that he forgot.
"I've read of misery, and seen a bit; but this beats anything I could even have imagined. Actually, I have seen things and looked the second time in order to convince myself that it was really so. This I know, the stuff I'm turning out will have to be expurgated or it will never see magazine publication.
"I won't write to you about the East End and I am in the thick of it. You will read some of my feeble efforts to describe it someday.
"I have my book over one-quarter done and bowling along in a rush to finish it and get out of here. I think I should die if I had to live two years in the East End of London. Jack"
He sent his manuscript off in the mail to be held for him by the American Press Association in New York. He included his own photographs and the extras he found by other photographers. He scribbled a last note to himself and attached it to the manuscript draft: "...If I were God one hour, I'd blot out all London and its 6,000,000 people, as Sodom and Gomorra were blotted out, and look upon my work and call it good."
Shannon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 456
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 6:43 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
Take it easy, Shannon. Not necessary to get personal here.
You keep on rerrering to the "mother resemblance" factor, although it isn't there. That clue is absolutely worthless. I tell you again: look at some of the women, Shannon. They don't resemble each other at all, then how can they resemble his mother, regardless if we mean facial features or body constitution? Take a look at Eddowes and Chapman -- I think it is hard to find two women looking less alike than those two. And I am not talking eye colour here! It could be, though, that the Ripper was looking for women that represented his mother (as prostitutes), but that is another thing. Then he just could have picked any women without knowing them, and that's what I think happened. So I must agree with Leanne there, apart from the fact that I don't think Joe had anything to do with it!
And once again: I though you said Eddowes wasn't a prostitute? When why did Joe chose her if he knew her and she wasn't a "lady of the street"? Robert never got any answer regarding this.
Then, regarding my views on a suspect and the trace for one, I think I have to make a more thorough explanation:
The trace for a suspect can naturally lead to the result that authors may produce interesting facts about the case. I don't dispute that.
You ask me where my suspect are, since I have the guts to call myself "crime historian" -- the latter a detail Bob Hinton also with pleasure attacked. Now, I have written one book and some dissertations and two more books are on the way, but these are not known outside Sweden and they are locally based. In these I have delt with a lot of unsolved cases. BUT NEVER in one of them I have tried to "solve" the cases in question or inserted my personal views, except from how I value my sources. It may be a result of my years in university, but I wouldn't dream of doing so.
When I study a case, I simply present the historical background, the crime, the material and witness statements, the environment and all the leads, clues and persons connected with the case. Then I let the readers draw their own conclusions, that's it. That is how I work, and to me that represents a more trustworthy and serious approach, since it doesen't lead to speculations. If a case is already drowning in fairy-tales I would hardly be the one to create new ones that even further drags it in the mud. The latter is what I believe has shown to be the down-side with most of the coverage of Jack the Ripper. Stressing a suspect has led to too many unnecessary factual falacies and circumstancial efforts, which has done more harm than good, and the worst examples are Stephen Knight's and Patricia Cornwell's efforts, although I admit they are in a league of their own. Even if an author with this approach finds new interesting material during the investigation, it will nevertheless be interpreted in order to make it fit into the author's theory. That is not how I want to approach a study of a crime.
So what about my Ripper suspect? Let me just say, that, although I'm quite satisfied with my work at home and have gotten fine appreciating for it, the Ripper case is something different. I'm quite new to the case and have yet not taken part of all the information available. So that's one other reason for me not having a "favourite" Ripper suspect. I may be cocky and looking for trouble at times, but I'm not stupid or suicidal. That, however, shouldn't hinder me from questioning other people's candidates or challenge their views.
As you may have noticed, apart from studying the the general facts in police reports etc., I have a profiling approach to the case, focusing on behaviourial studies and the reading of the crime scenes and the facts connected to that, and there are a couple of reasons for this:
a) I don't think it has been used as much as it ought to, although I am very well aware of the method's shortcomings and inaccurracies in some levels (however, compared to some other methods presented here...)
b) This is where I feel best at home. Others may very well tear apart medical documents and authopsy reports, but that is unfortunately not where my ablities lie, since I am completely useless regarding natural science. When I study these matters for my own projects, I contact two or three experts on the field and let them check the facts independently. I am aware of the very rough ground facts of forensics, but I can't say that I am in general competent enough, so I'd rather stay out of those discussions in connection to the Ripper investigation.
I am therefore more interested in what TYPE of person the Ripper would have been, rather than looking for an actual individual. I am not so sure either of the candidates are the right one. The one I feel is most compelling is the "Polish Jew" theory and David Cohen/Kaminsky/Kosminski, and this type of character also are the one that best fits the profile of Jack the Ripper, and while I feel to I belive to be quite probable -- most of the others don't. However, I prefer to limit myself to say that I believe him to be that type of character, not necessarily identical with the names presented.
Once again, Shannon, I believe the Ripper to be a lunatic and a paranoid schizofrenic -- NOT a psychopath. There is a huge difference between the two. The basis for this lie in my profile attempt (that in some aspects corresponds with the profile done by FBI and Dr. Bond's early attempt on the field, but also has a basis on my own experiences of study) that I put up earlier and which can be found in the archive above. It is too long a list to repeat here, though.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 6:44 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
They were low-class whores just like mum! And he was losing his precious Mary the same way!
Didn't you see the glaring contradiction as you typed it?
Why on earth would the Joe of your own imagination ever have been attracted to Mary, who was a low-class whore just like his mum - let alone allow her to become precious to him?
Was he a masochist as well as everything else he is being accused of here?
I do hope your book is going to be liberally sprinkled with maybes and maybe nots.
Love,
Caz
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 79
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 7:04 am: | |
Good point Shannon. Jack London, always one for the overly dramatic prose. And in People of the Abyss even he made it very clear that the Abyss referred to was the area around Christ Church and Spitalfields Market, the very few blocks that nobody is denying were indeed the lowest and filthiest slums you would ever be likely to encounter.
Also remember that he was writing in 1902 and has his landlady in his more respectable lodging house say:
This street is the very last. All the other streets were like this eight or ten years ago, and all the people were very respectable.
You can prove anything if you select your quotes carefully enough. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 7:07 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
I can just imagine casebook members rushing to their keypad, when I Mention where the report of clippings is from, typing 'What evidence is that'
The report comes from Paul Harrisons book on Barnett' The mystery solved'where Mr Harrison claims to have met a descendant of Barnett, who provided him with an envelope of newspaper clippings, collected by Barnett himself, the collection started in Aug 88, harrisons observation was that therefore it would appear that he knew that a series of murders was about to happen before anyone else did, the articles continued to april 1891 after Frances Coles.
I for one have no reason to doubt Mr Harrisons integrety, and if it is a fact that he saw cuttings from one of Barnetts desendants, I believe the matter is intresting. even more intresting that the Murders of Alice Mckenzie , and Francis Coles, should have been included, one 8 months after Kelly, the other 27 months after Kelly. If Barnett was resposible for the those murders, would it not show a slowing down process in his actions?.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 749
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 7:21 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
You can sit on your lounge chair for years studying all the official reports on the Whitechapel Murders, and you'll never find proof of the Ripper's identity. He wasn't identified when those reports were written! If we want to get any where nowadays, we have to consider things that people were told by their elderly relatives. We just have to use our brains, and sort out which ones are the forgeries and which and which ones have a chance of being the truth!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 7:27 am: | |
Hi Caz,
What makes you believe that MJK was , a low class whore?.
Reports seem to indicate that she was quite a respectable,bright, and clean young woman, who was simply in a no win situation.
When Barnett met Kelly in april 1887, she would have told him about her past, mayby somewhat elaborated, mayby not,Barnett would have seen her as simply in need of help and stability.and up until Barnett became unemployed around july-aug period, she and him were living a decent life.
Yes I agree from that point onwards when Barnett could not keep up their standard of living, she returned to prostitution, her entertaining sailors, in her room, who could afford a bottle of gin and a fee was the norm.
Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
