|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 750
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 7:29 am: |       |
G'day Caz,
When Joseph Barnett met Mary Kelly, they had a drink and decided to live together. Who knows what Mary promised?
It was reported that Barnett forbade Mary to 'walk the streets', and he threatened that he would not live with her if she lead that course in life! No contradiction!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 751
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 7:43 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
'I'm sorry, but regarding those geographical "links" to the individuals mentioned, I just have to say: So what?'
The possibility that one or more of the other victims had at some point 'rubbed shoulders' with Mary Kelly, or had been a friend of a friend of hers, or even had been someone she had merely spotted on the street, would have made it a more attractive choice to select them during a 'trolling phase'. He didn't have to go out looking for them specifically. We can't even be certain that Jack the Ripper never ventured out and came home again without making a kill!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 752
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 7:59 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
I think that the similarity in the ages of the first 4 victims, could possibly have reminded Barnett of his Mum or Mom. But trying to find other physical similarities between the four victims could spoil a good theory.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 974
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 8:51 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Re the logistical problem :
Mary's killer may have been a client whom she'd brought home (I tend to doubt this myself).
The killer may have been a lunatic who walked into the room without knowing whether it was safe, and not even thinking about the issue. He may even have walked in thinking it was a back entrance to the by then defunct shed.
The killer may have been hanging around the Court
and heard her say goodbye to a client (Hutchinson's man as client?) He would thus have been able to tell that there was no other man there and probably no other woman.
Joe would not have known that Mary was alone, unless he saw a client saying goodbye. It's true that Harvey said in his presence that she wouldn't be seeing Kelly again that night. But that was early in the evening, and Kelly still had time to offer a berth to a homeless woman (something she'd done twice in the last few days).
Joe knew that Mary was a prostitute and wouldn't have known in advance that he wasn't going to find a client in the room.
For Joe to have killed Kelly he would have had to leave his lodgings without being noticed, enter Kelly's room without being noticed (in an area where he was well known), leave Kelly's room ditto, and get back into his lodgings without being noticed. He would have had to find somewhere to put his bloody clothes, the knife and the heart, and he would have had to wash himself, all before returning to the lodging house. He would have known when he stepped out into the rain on his way to kill Kelly that the police were going to be scutinising him more than anyone else next day.
You say that he may have made several abortive attempts before he got into her room unnoticed.
But after all the trawling for victims who resembled his mother that he's supposed to have done previously, I'm just wondering when this guy got any sleep. Maybe he packed the heart, the knife and the bloody clothes in the bags under his eyes.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 457
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 9:16 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
Regarding the "possibility that one or more of the other victims had at some point 'rubbed shoulders' with Mary Kelly":
Yes, I follow your reasoning, but it is still speculation. There is nothing that indicates that such were the real circumstances.
"When Joseph Barnett met Mary Kelly, they had a drink and decided to live together. Who knows what Mary promised?"
Yes, who knows...
"It was reported that Barnett forbade Mary to 'walk the streets', and he threatened that he would not live with her if she lead that course in life!"
Once again, a completely natural reaction and point of view on his part. I can totally identify myself with the bloke and I would have done and said the same thing. A completely sane standing point.
"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!"
That is my whole point, Leanne! That is one of the reasons why I wouldn't chase a certain suspect in the first place! What have we to go on? I refuse to do such an investigation merely based on loose speculations and constructed scenarios. If I would write a non-fiction story -- yes. But a factual book? I don't think so. With all the best respect to yours and Richard's work -- I do believe you both have the best intentions and believe in what you're doing -- but that's why I feel it is most useful to lay out all facts and circumstances before the reader and then let the him or her find their own suspects, like Sugden and Rumbelow. I believe Jeff had a excellent suggestion on how a detection on Barnett or any other suspect could be done wiyhout necessarily stuff it with fictional stories based on third and second hand sources. I don't have a lounge chair, by the way...
Still, I must say I'm more and more looking forward to your book. I honestly expect it to be an interesting read. No sinister intentions implied.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 975
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 9:19 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I don't believe the Ripper pre-selected the victims. I think you must be picking up on something I said in reply to Shannon.
PS What's happened to the block capitals in your Sugden post?
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 310
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
Robert, Shannon,
Re Dorset st logistics.
I think Robert is bang on. Kellys killer was her client.
If he is spotted leaving, so what ? He doesnt have to explain, he has a reason to be there. Marys neighbours knew the score. The only problem is shutting the door as soon as he exits and making sure no one can get in to have a look.
Then he disappears.
Now use that scenario with Joe. Only problem....the neighbours. 'yeah, we saw someone leave but it was only Joe'. What do you think will be going on in Abberlines head ?? Bells as loud as Big Ben I reckon.
Its was a bigger risk to take IMHO. Too big. I would have thought neutral ground would have been better.
Monty
 |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 12:52 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
It would help when discussing the above posts, what time kelly was killed, i dont believe she was killed by the man seen by mrs cox, he was obviously a previous client of kellys, for he led Kelly into the court, in single file, so he certainly knew the way, Anyway Hutchinson saw her 90 minutes later, I also dont think that man killed her, for he was hardly dressed for a massacre, so she must have been killed between 3am-930am, the later being suggested for the mutaltion time period.
Therefore as we have no imformation, of her being seen out on the streets after Hutchinsons sightings, we can assume she was either being observed close to millers court, and was killed by that person when she was alone, or she survived to daylight hours, which there is evidence to suggest.
If Barnett was her killer ,he would either have loitered near the court, until he believed her to be alone, before moving in, or he met her in the morning, and killed her, after returning to her room, and her getting back into bed, for as i have said previously on old and new boards, their is evidence, she was not feeling at all well, and it is more than conceivable that she undressed, and got back into bed with just her chemise on, while Barnett, she thought was fussing over her, then I believe the murder took place , proberly by flinging the sheet over her face and cutting her throat.
Speculation once again, but I Putting forward a possible scenerio.
Richard, |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 976
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 1:12 pm: | |
Hi Monty
I tend to doubt that her killer was a client, unless he propositioned her just as she was saying goodbye to a previous client. One reason is the clothes all neatly folded on the chair. Would Jack have waited for her to get undressed and lie down? I always seem to be in a minority (of one!)when this comes up, but I do have difficulty with the idea that he'd have waited - and then we get the apparently bungled job with the defensive wounds, the scream, the stab marks in the sheet, the blood pool in the corner as if she was trying to get away from him, and his seeming inability to strangle her before cutting the throat.
If she had just been saying goodbye to a client, at least that would explain the folded clothes.
A lunatic coming in on her and awakening her seems to be another possibility.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 977
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 1:31 pm: | |
Hi Richard
It's true that if Kelly was killed in the morning, then Barnett's night time alibi no longer exonerates him. But now he would have to get in and out of Miller's Court in broad daylight without being recognised. It would have taken a strong nerve, trying to get away with that.
And all the time he was mutilating her he would have been aware that any nosey person who pulled aside the coat would see instantly what was going on.
Plus, weren't there some people playing pitch and toss in the Court?
And then, he has even less time to clean himself up (this time in daylight) and change into clean clothes (where would he have done this? in Kelly's room?) before waiting for the inevitable interview with the police.
I'm still not sure when the rent was collected - different days that I've seen are Saturday, Friday, and every day!
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 143
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 1:42 pm: | |
Robert, remember it was "Lord Mayor's Day" and everyone was out and about making preperations for the celebrations. The residents of the area would not have given Joe a second thougth as he had lived there for so long and even after he moved out for whatever reason, he returned on a regular basis. He could have walked right past them, and they wouldn't have noticed or cared, and later wouldn't even recall he was there...
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 1:55 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I know its full of flaws, we have no way of knowing the activity of Dorset street at any given time, but it is entirely possible, that Barnett knew he was not observed going back with Kelly, or something was said which triggered off a response, and he was just plain lucky that he committed the murder , and retreated to his obode, without being sighted.
As for the change of clothing, the missing heart,I cannot answer that, its impossible to know for certain, for we do not know if this murder was premediated or spur of the moment.
As for pitch and toss, that was between 8-9am, for Lewis claims he saw her leave her room at 8am, and return with milk at 9am.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 2:03 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
A good point, the Lord mayors show was a big moment for east enders in those days,the pagentry, and colour , was something to take their minds of the drab lifestyle most of them led.
And you are right such a familiar figure as Barnett would not have been given a second glance.
If this murder was premeditated, then this would be a apt day to commit it.
Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 116
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
Richard,
So the clippings are reported by the fellow who researched the wrong Joe Barnett. Doesn't that mean the clippings are from a decendant of the wrong Barnett? Maybe I'm just conservative, but I don't think the clipping evidence is very reliable.
But thanks for the reference as I've never seen this presented before.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 117
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | |
Leanne,
Sorry, you are correct. We have two papers reporting that he stuttered (or stammered; similar thing) and one that says he "repeated the last word". Stuttering is a common speach impediment with no reason to suspect any mental disorder. Repeating the last word has been put forth as evidence of "echolalia", and then blown into schizophrenia.
Why do you choose to push the "echolalia = schizophrenia" link when two of the three papers that report anything odd about his speach suggest it's not even remotely like echolalia in the first place? And even if he did repeat one word, the fact he then followed this by presenting a completely coherent answer, that stayed on topic, etc. indicates he's not suffering from schizophrenia. Joe simply was not schizophrenic. There is nothing in his behaviour that even remotely suggests it, notwithstanding the one newspaper that said he repeated the last word from each question. Given that the other two papers report a stutter/stammer, the explanation that seems most apparent is that the paper reporting the "repeating words" is lieing and using his stutter to make a joke. And this is what everyone knows about the newspapers - the reports are, at best, blurred reports of what actually happened when they are not busy just making stuff up.
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 979
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
Well Shannon, don't forget that Barnett had just had a public row and split-up with Kelly. Also that Kelly liked to tell her friends about Joe, her problems with him etc. So to see Joe entering the court during the night or leaving early in the morning might have set a few female tongues wagging.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 118
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 6:21 pm: | |
Richard,
I'm not saying that Harrison presented that evidence in bad faith, as I'm sure he thought he had the 'right' Barnett. However, it may be that the descendant was pulling a bit of a fast one. These kind of complications are why research involves so much looking for many independent sources that lead to the same thing. Hence, the problems with grave spitting, the clippings, etc. One bit of evidence is interesting, but by itself, not enough. It needs to be verified and backed up by other sources before it stands a chance of being considered reliable. Research can be very exciting, but the exciting bits occur after an awful lot of boring and tedius steps have been travelled. Most of them feel like covering the same ground again, but that's how we find out what bits can be verified over and over, and what bits are "one off's", and therefore unreliable. That is the name of the game I'm afraid. It's rarely big discoveries that are most important, but rather the seemingly trivial ability to verify a single fact. It's these reliable facts that alow us to build a case, the non-verified are just things to guide future searches for new evidence, but until that is found, they must be considered noise.
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 982
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 6:46 pm: | |
Richard and Leanne
One thing I'm hoping for from your book, is that we'll finally be sure we have the right Barnett!
And no, I won't be judging your book on whether or not I feel after reading it that the Ripper has finally been nailed. If it's well written, well researched and well argued, it'll be worth buying.
PS Why not call it Jealous Jack?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 755
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:25 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: That defunct shed was boarded up a few weeks prior to Mary Kelly's murder. It may have still been functioning at the time of the 'Double Event', and been temptation to Catharine Eddowes who was without money for a bed. I think it would have been obviously closed to everyone passing.
Elizabeth Stride being murdered just after another man was seen attacking her, would fit with Kelly's killer waiting until just after Hutchinson's man left.
'Kelly still had time to offer her berth to a homeless woman.'
'....and wouldn't have known in advance that he wasn't going to find a client in her room.'
No he wouldn't have known, if he went there with intensions of killing her. That's why I believe she let him in willingly and he killed her in a rage.
AP: About those block capitals: You were the first to read and respond to my message. I thought that the capitals bothered you and remembered Glenn saying that capitals implied an angry shout. So just before I went out, I edited my post. You can do that by clicking on one of those little icons to the right and above your message.
MONTY: Barnett would have known the habits of neighbours. If one did spot him, he could have claimed he just discovered the body and clung on to her heart crying: "Oh Mary, Mary my love." It would have seemed weird to see him clutching her uterus!
You know why he didn't choose neutral ground? - Because her murder wasn't planned.
I just hope this book will put Barnett back in the picture, and keep him there!
LEANNE
|
Donald Perkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 4:21 pm: | |
Hello all and thanks for the welcome! My registration has been sent, so hopefully I won't have to go through this wait much longer. But on to the topic.
I have to say I'm with Richard on this. Once you've overcome the natural aversion to killing someone, further acts against the body aren't THAT big a step. The fallacy of the JTR argument seems to me to be that whoever mutilated Mary Kelly was clearly insane, therefore it HAD to be JTR. IMHO, once you've shown you're capable of killing someone, you've shown you have no regard for them as a person. They've become an object. Once that point is reached, mutilation of the body could be perfomed for perfectly logical and rational reasons. In this case, the killer knew that the worse the body was, the more people would assume it had to be the Ripper and wouldn't even look into other possibilities. This may not be likely, but if true, you have to admit it worked better than he could have hoped, because here we are 120ish years later still arguing the case. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 2:56 am: | |
Hi everyone interesting reading. However i think it is important to remember that in some cases black is white and white is black such as the kennedy asasination. However in the case of jack the ripper [I am not putting his name in caps becouse i dont think he deserves them] I BELIEVE WHITE IS WHITE AND BLACK IS BLACK. Mary Kelly unfortunately was a prostitute she chose a very dangerous profesion. Many serial killers prey on prostitutes and jack the ripper was a serial killer. Back in 1888 the concept of serial killers was unknown. I have never heard of a serial killer killing victumes in order to scare his girlfriend of the streets. If that was the case why did not joe just simple kill them. Cutting there throats would have been sufficiant. Why did he take the organs and were did he hide them? I feel the ripper took the organs as a trophy. a symbol of his power over women. The ripper i feel was scared of women and out of his fear grew great frustration. I dont believe he would have had a relationship with a prostitute furthermore i dont believe someone who was as insane as the ripper was could have kept it from his girlfriend. Remember it was Ted Bundys girlfriend who went to the police becouse she suspected he might have been the ted they were looking for. I have thoughts that the ripper might even had homo tendencies and ot of frustration he took the wombs of his victums as a way of desexing them. I do think the time of death could be mistaken. However this could be explained by obviouse it was rent day and kelly was working to the last second trying to make rent. Theories are interesing and fun however white is white and black is black in this case. Thanks for reading. CB |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 6:31 am: | |
Alan,
I was surprised when I looked at that welath & poverty map of whitechapel. I thought that Whitechapel was completely overrun by the poor and destitute. I have found no reference to Whitechapel being a respectable working class area. On a website entitled "19th Century Housing & Health" it states "It was reported by a surveyor in Whitechapel that there were no sewers and consequently it was, 'the filthiest place you can imagine'".
Although I suppose that a lot of the East End of London was a pretty dismal place so maybe in regards to the rest of it Whitechapel wasn't too bad. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 4:48 pm: | |
Glenn wrote:
"Barnett had obviously the capacity to live with women and involve himself in a relationship with Kelly; I don't believe for a minute that that would be possible for a man with the character of the Ripper."
Andrei Chikatilo was married and lived with his wife, so he also "obviously" the capacity to live with women and involve himself in a relationship. You might not believe for a minute that that would be possible for a man with a character of the Rostov Ripper... but you'd be dead wrong. And if you'd been investigating Chikatilo and let him off based upon this shoddy reasoning, you'd have let someone who killed more than 30 people (and tore out eyes and slashed faces and stole body parts and ate them) escape.
(Similarly, by most serial killer profiles, he was too old, or obviously more than one killer because the MO changed, or because males and females both were targets... or for one of any number of things that just didn't fit the assumptions I see people toss around these boards as if they were holy truths.)
You can't just assume that two people living together means they had a mature, stable adult relationship, or that someone who could hunt down victims, mutilate them and take parts away as trophies isn't also capable of an at least semi-normal relationship.
We have no idea if Barnett and MJK actually had sex, or how loving it was if it happened. He could have been a virgin who MJK kept around because he paid money and hugged a lot. He could have tried but was impotent. Maybe they were strictly oral. Maybe he got off by whipping himself while she stood on her head (OK, that'd probably make distinctive noises that neighbors may have reported later... maybe... assuming that lack of records means no one did). He could have basically raped her everytime he wanted anything. We really don't know for sure what happened in that tiny room on a night by night basis. Assuming that he couldn't be a killer because you imagine without any proof that he was too sexually and socially adept for that kind of thing is a faulty conclusion based upon a flawed premise.
If we want to rule him out, the alibi is pretty strong, that goes a long way to making him very unlikely right there.
I do agree with Glenn that it's extremely unlikely that MJK could have been the handiwork of a copycat. I could believe maybe that Barnett might have been the ripper (if you ignore the alibi and some other parts that don't quite fit), but I would find it extremely hard to believe that he killed MJK as a one time killing. I can't completely rule it out, mind you, but it just doesn't make sense to me. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 4:10 pm: | |
It's pure nonsense that a serial killer who rips his victims, steals body parts, etc. couldn't live with a woman.
Andrei Chikatilo, the Rostov Ripper, who killed more than 30 people, ripped them, took body parts as souveniers, stole their eyes, etc. lived with a wife. And if Glenn were in charge of investigating that case, he'd have let him go because he obviously couldn't really be responsible for such horrible crimes, it must have been some raving lunatic disorganized killer, because Glenn says so, that's why.
There's no evidence to assume that Jack was any different from Andrei Chikatilo (who single-handedly dashes most profiler's theories, as he is "too old" to be a killer, changed his MO, switched from male to female victims, etc.).
As far as it being Barnett, eh. I could maybe see him as being the ripper, but certainly not a one-off killer of just MJK with another killer on the loose too. EIther way, though, he has an alibi for the night of MJK's murder, so I think he has to be ruled out. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 11:29 am: | |
Glenn,
We appreciate your theoretical efforts concerning the case evidence, but it seems you go down the same flowered path as hundreds of thousands of previous Ripperologists over the past century. It seems to me that you are adding a great mass of theory to the evidence, some of which would seem probable, but little or none of which is necessarily true. I have learned to identify Ripperlogical failures by the quantity of unsupported theory they offer compared to the quantity of necessary connections within the case evidence they make. It seems to me what you need to do with your energies at this point is to delete whatever theorizations you have made that do not rise to the level of confirmation within your theorizations.
Best Wishes,
David
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
