|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 984
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:52 am: |       |
Hi Leanne
Caz once suggested that Jack may have hung around watching the women, to make sure they didn't have a pimp waiting in the wings. That scenario seems possible with Stride (who'd been attacked by a man and hadn't been defended by a pimp), Kelly (who took a client back to her room) and Chapman (he may have moved in on her after she'd serviced someone). It depends whether you believe Cadosch heard Chapman being killed, or Chapman servicing a customer.
Re captals, I never mentioned them! It was AP who commented on them.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 756
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 4:01 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Thanks for correcting me. I just edited my post and typed AP: in.
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 81
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 6:15 am: | |
It would have seemed weird to see him clutching her uterus!
Apropos of nothing but a couple of weeks ago out of interest for what exactly we are talking about in terms of body parts I persuaded a friend of mine who works in the Histology/Pathology department of a local hospital to get me in to see what a uterus looks like outside the body.
My God those things are big!!!! There must have been one heck of a bulge in Jack's pockets as he ran from the scene!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 985
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 6:59 am: | |
You surprise me, Alan. I thought I remembered one of the doctors or coroners saying something about "fitting into a breakfast cup" (whatever that is).
Maybe the Victorians liked big breakfasts (or liked a nice big mug of tea with them).
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 757
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 8:31 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: It was you who asked: 'P.S. What's happened to the block capitals in your Sugden post?' but it doesn't matter, let it be. Sorry A.P.
JEFF: Everytime I type 'echolalia' into my search engine heaps of links show up. unfortunately there's a rock-band with that name but once I ignore those, only links about 'Autism', 'Tourette's Syndrome' and 'Schizophrenia' remain. No links appear about common nervousness!
In 1888 'Schizophrenia' hadn't been identified. Other symptoms of 'Tourette's Syndrome' are nervous facial tics and grunting or barking and I think he would have been locked away if he suffered that. So that leaves 'Autism' and 'Schizophrenia'.
A site I found Brain Injuries says: 'This, [echolalia], is a normal stage of language development in infants, but is abnormal in adults.'
I think if Barnett suffered from undiagnozed autism, other symptoms would have made it obvious that something was wrong.
Excuse me? Which two newspapers stated that it was not even remotely like echolalia? I missed them. Many newspapers got there details from other newspapers or one common source. If your going to accuse one newspaper of lying or joking, please elaborate on this by stating what possible motive could have been behind this lie!
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 5:45 am: | |
Shannon,
Jack London also said he had observed people in a doss house standing sleeping on a rope stretched across the room.You prove you can match that trick and I will believe anything.
Now the population of Whitechapel was made up of many different kinds of persons,as was any society.
Shopkeepers,schoolteachers,policemen,labourers,ashmen,packmen,schoolboard men,doctors,nurses,publicans,slaughtermen,cow bangers,wharehousemen and others too numerous to mention.And children outnumbered the adults.
There were also many unfortunates,and some criminals.Pretty much like today,though most of us enjoy a better standard of living
and housing.
Pre the second world war,animals were still being driven through the main streets of my home town in england,on their way to market.The same cobbled gas lit streets,and public houses,and slums,were in evidence in the same condition as they were in the ripper's time.It was inhabited by the same kind of people,as were most towns and cities of the British Isles.It did not spawn a Jack the Ripper. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 987
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 9:32 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I noticed the block capitals and the three exclamation marks, but I didn't say anything until I noticed they'd gone,which was when I asked what had happened to them.
You're not banging on about echolalia again, are you?
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 988
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi all
One of the things I've noticed in my occasional dilettante looks into the online censuses, is that servants weren't restricted to the rich. You sometimes find working-class people, maybe with several children to support, with a servant listed as living with them. I can only assume that wages for servants were rock bottom in those days.
For example, Constable Watkins once had a ssrvant, I believe.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 461
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 10:12 am: | |
Dan Norder,
I believe you have got it all completely wrong. If you wish to comment my posts -- which I very much appreciate that you do -- you could at least have the decency not to just pick out parts that suits you and leave out others.
I am NOT presenting evidence of anyting (and I think nobody else here does either); everything is a matter of opinion, really, and I do believe I have pointed that out loud and clear in my posts. But I obviously have to put it in bold text and capitals if I don't want to be misunderstood in that respect. I think it's hillarious that regardless how many times I try to repeat things like "in my personal view", "can't be sure of anything" "assuming" etc., I still get accused of trying to deliver the ultimate truth. That is NOT the case!
As I clearly stated, criminal profiling is not an exact science and it is merely based on subjective interpretations of facts and of empric studies. Those things must naturally be taken in consideration, and I though some here were intelligent enough to grab that point. Criminal profiling is wrong just as many times as it has proven right, but that doesen't mean that it has no value as basis for personal opinions or anaysis -- compared to the contradictive and uncertain nature of the material abailable in the Ripper case anyway, and the confused "theories" based on studies exclusively on these sources sometimes have produced.
Yes, I have expressed myself in terms like "don't believe it for a minute", but this is still only my personal opinions, not statements meant to be read as stated facts! I do think that is obvious for most people here.
Once again, Dan, the Rostov Ripper you refer to was obviously a psychopath and those have no trouble whatsoever living in longer relationships or to be married. I have never said that it is impossible for a murder that mutilates women to be married, but I said that it wouldn't be possible if the killer turned out to be disorganized one. I don't see Jack the Ripper as a psychopath, however, since I don't find him intelligent enough (considering certain circumstances surrounding the crimes). BUT! I could actually be completely wrong, and I have also expressed that possibility! But to believe that all such killers are psychopaths and social enough to live in a relationship -- THAT is rubbish. We have quite a few examples here in Sweden showing that such an assumption is wrong.
"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."
Unfortunately you can't blame the constructions of the laws on me, Dan. Yes, I fear that he would rather be incarcerated than sent to prison if Martin Fido's, FBI's and my own personal assumptions would be correct, but that is not something that I applaud with joy, believe me. I am afraid I have to pleed innocent to such accusations.
"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.)."
Absolutely, Dan. I totally agree with you. There is no evidence whatsoever about anything. I'm just expressing what I believe based on my experience and my own studies, I do think I am entitled to do that, even if you happen to disagree with me. We will probably never know the real truth anyway.
I am pleased to see, however that we seem to agree on the copy-cat detail and the unsureness about Barnett. I don't want to completely rule him, I just think that his candidacy is less probable.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 462
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
Dear David /"Saddam"
Actually, I am against all kind of theorizations -- that may be hard to see, but that is actually the case. I agree that criminal profiling is some kind of theoretical approach in itself, but I am also aware of its shortcomings. It may look as though I use the method in an uncritical way, but I can assure you that that is not how I work. I do want to give the method a bit of a push further into the Ripper investigation, though, since I feel many other methods and ways of interpretations here have shortcomings as well. It is not more speculative than many other attempts of anaysis here, where some is ONLY based on speculation or guess-making, without a theoretical base whatsoever.
"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."
I don't want to get rude or personal here, David, so please forgive me, but I do think that is a very strange statement, coming from a contributor that "lays his energy" on posting all kinds of weird messages that on many occasions have appeared to be quite incomprehensible and pointless. No harm intended.
I really don't understand what kind of approach you want to use to study the case, since you disregard all kinds of personal assumptions and interpretations and just wants us to solely concentrate on the naked facts (which we know is impossible). How do you reckon any form of progress in the investigation, then, is meant to occure? I really don't get it, David.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 83
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 11:12 am: | |
Regarding Echolalia, I used to be a member of a quiz team of that name. We took the name from a dictionary as meaning "the meaningless babble of infants", and when asked what it meant always explained that it was when a baby tries to speak but what comes out is constant repetition of a single syllable such as "bab-bab-bab-bab-bab" etc. 
Now co-incidentally, my eldest brother was diagnosed Schizophrenic some 30 years ago and admittedly he has been on drugs for most of the intervening time but I don't ever recall him making a noise of that kind! 
But seriously, there have been times when he has refused to take his drugs and believe me I don't think anyone would be able to avoid noticing that there was something seriously wrong with him at those times. Even on the drugs he has trouble holding down normal relationships with people. I don't think Barnett could possibly have been a schizophrenic without quite a lot of people noticing it. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 315
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 12:03 pm: | |
Posted in error...again, sorry
Monty
 |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 316
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 12:04 pm: | |
LEANNE,
If the murder wasnt planned then the risk has just increased.
You're assuming he would have known he had been spotted ?
"Mrs Such and such stated she saw you leave the premises Mr Barnett...what, you didnt know that ? Whats that you say now ? You remembered that you just discovered the cadaver...why did you raise no alarm ? "
Again, I put it to you. Do you think that he would commit such an act, planned or not, on his own doorstep ?
Would you ?
Monty
 |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 184
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 12:15 pm: | |
Regarding the term "Echolalia:"
I don't have a medical definition handy, but I can tell you what it literally means. The meaning of "echo" is obvious. The Greek word "laleo" means "to speak" (sometimes it is translated "to babble", but it is most often used of casual, intelligible speaking in the literature I am famliar with). Thus echolalia is literally "speaking in echos."
I really wouldn't put too much stock in this. It could just have been a nervous habit. Some people feel the need to be saying something while stalling for time and formulating their real response in their minds. For some people the vocalization is "Um, Uh...." For others it might be unconsciously repeating a word or two of the question.
We do it all the time:
Q: What did you have yesterday for lunch?
A: Yesterday for lunch... (places hand on chin) Hmm... (holds up index finger) Yesterday for lunch I had pizza.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 990
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 1:10 pm: | |
Alan, from your experience of your brother - of course, I'm not suggesting that he remotely resembles a serial killer! - but from your experience of his condition, do you find the idea that a schizophrenic could be tipped by stress into butchering several women culminating in a bloodbath, and then snap out of it enough to endure, immediately afterwards, the stress of police questioning plus an inquest while displaying no other symptom of his condition than echolalia - do you find that idea at all plausible?
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 84
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:03 pm: | |
I'll be perfectly honest Robert, schizophrenia can take many different forms so it would be difficult to answer that question. However one very common symptom is a tendency to obsess over things that they find upsetting to the point of disappearing within themselves so I would find it unlikely, but not impossible. As I said, if he was a schizophrenic I find it highly unlikely that nobody would have noticed some quite severe symptoms prior to this.
Obviously I don't think my brother would be capable of the first bit let alone the second. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 465
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
Good point, Robert! After reading Alan's very interesting post, I was just about to ask him the same thing. I know two people who suffers from schizofrenia myself (although no personal relations of mine), and I can very much relate to Alan's description of what happens when they don't take their medication (they can get complete uncontrollable and confused -- and even violent -- during the worst stages), although the exact nature of the illness and the level of illness of course is individual.
But I do believe, that if Barnett would be suffering from it, then we would have some more detailed records expressing such signs, and it would also show in the reports from the interrogation and the inquest. I don't think just echolalia would tell us enough to sort that out.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 993
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
Thanks Alan. I know this is an illness that can be developed quite late in life, because one of my relatives has done just that. I find it very odd, though, if he wasn't behaving at all strangely during the murder period, particularly just prior to and just after Kelly's murder.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 994
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:23 pm: | |
Glenn, just seen your post. Yes, no one that I know of has ever suggested that Barnett behaved at all oddly. In fact, no one except the newspapers has even mentioned the echolalia.
And now, I've been wanting to say this for months, so here goes : I thought echolalia was something that afflicted George Formby.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
I believe to much is being made of Echolalia, Barnett is being described as a person that was growing insane every day, and that type of individual would not go undetected. Surely it would depend on the severity of his condition, he may have been odd on occassions, he may have even lost his job , because of as anger outburst,
who can say. but there was a lot of strange characters in that area at the time, he may have simply been known as a simpleton.
As I have said before alcohol, could have dictated his mood swings , when he drank a certain amount, he could have got himself in a state of thinking , that heightened his deepest thoughts, and when abstaining, was apart from his stammering relatively normal. I Feel that he could control his emotions , when he wanted , and fuel anger when he wanted, and after the Kelly murder, he no longer had the desire to carry on, for he had no purpose.
It is entirely possible that, he had enough control, when away from kelly,and was therefore not in a situation, to fuel anger , he was able to lead a normal sort of life.
Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 120
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:37 pm: | |
Leanne,
What newspaper said stammering/stuttering is nothing like echolalia? I never said one of them did make such statement. I'm telling you that stuttering/stammering is nothing like echolalia, which is the repeating of words heard back to you. Things like:
N:"What do you want to do today?"
E:"You want to do today"
N:"No, what do you want to do today"
E:"Want to do today".
(N has normal langugage, E has Echolalia)
Now, stuttering and stammering are hesistations in trying to speak. Like "I w..w...would like to g..g..go out". That is nothing like echolalia.
Two papers said Joe stuttered/stammered. One said he repeated the last words of questions asked him. That means two papers said he spoke like the second example (which is nothing like echolalia), and one said he repeated the last word of questions. However his recorded testimony, which interestingly enough seems to have left out this repeated word in each and every case, shows that he gives coherant, lucid answers which are relavent to the questions asked: meaning his answers are nothing like echolalia.
Furthermore, if you look at his testimony, you can see he gave very informed answers, they were lucid, they stayed on track, he was not showing any signs of a mental disorder. Nothing like schizophrenia, especially when they are displaying echolalia (which occurs during schizophrenic episodes, when the disorder manifests itself).
Stuttering (or stammering) is a common speach impediments that, by itself, does not in any way indicate any mental disorder. Repeating the last word of a question followed by a completely coherant and lucid answer is not echolalia.
So, you may be able to find links between echolalia and schizophrenia, but that is hardly surprising. What you do not have is a link between Joe and echolalia, and his testimony indicates he didn't have either echolalia or schizophrenia.
Was I just unclear before?
- Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 468
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 3:41 pm: | |
Robert!
"I thought echolalia was something that afflicted George Formby." 
You crack me up, Guv...
All the best
P.S. Sorry to hear about your relative as well. (Must be something catching on...)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 188
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 4:03 pm: | |
Well put, Jeff. It is impossible to say for certain but I really think Barnett was just nervous. Perhaps without thinking he tended to repeat words from the question while formulating his lucid answers. Perhaps he got a bit tongue-tied when answering some questions.
It is said that George VII "stammered." I have not heard but the faintest trace of this in any recorded speeches of his. I had read that the King's condition tended to manifest itself when he was nervous or upset. He was quite capable of carrying on conversation normally.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 995
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi Andy
I haven't made a study of George VI's filmed speeches, but from what I've seen of them, he tended to go silent rather than stammer. There would be a pause when he was trying to say the word, and then it would come out. He may have had speech therapy, I don't know. I'm like you, I haven't actually heard him stammering badly.
And yes, he was quite capable of conducting a normal conversation.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
As co writers , Leanne and myself would freely admit , that although we are accusing Barnett, in the involvement of these crimes, we have different opinions, throughout the book, and these opinions will not be snuffed out, if there is a difference of opinion it will be stated, which of us has different views.
We both feel that is a healthy way of presentation, and will give readers an insight of both our thoughts. I am of the opinion, that Barnett, was of nervous disposition. and his repeating of words, and stammering were part of that, although I Could also accept, that he may have had more sinister problems.
I believe he was a person of strong moral beliefs, but easily led. and his emotions could be manipulated. I also believe, he could be extremely two faced, and cunning, and could hide behind a mask of respectability.
Leanne , and myself have worked hard to build a case against him, and we will present a good account, however we differ, on points, but as I have said we have not got carbon copy personalitys, and the final result will to say the least be intresting.
Regards 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.
|
|
|
|
