|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 8:26 pm: |       |
Hi Sarah,
So what do you suggest the police could, or should, have done that they didn’t do, to connect Joe to the scene and charge him with murder, since you claim he used ‘excuses’ and is therefore evidently guilty in your eyes? What do your eyes see now, to connect him with murder, that the police were unable to see for themselves at the time?
Love,
Caz
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 24
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 8:46 pm: | |
Sarah and Caroline,
Weak alibi? Was that his fault? It was more like Abberline's fault.
-Peter-
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 168
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 4:41 am: | |
Caz,
I'm not saying Joe Barnett was guilty, or at least that's not what I mean to say. He did have a weak alibi but as Peter points out that wasn't his fault and maybe it was true. Caz you can't really believe that the police did enough. I'm also not saying that was their fault, it was because it was the 1800's and investigative procedures weren't very good then. If the police did as much as they could then the killer would have been caught and the only reason I am leaning more towards Joe is that he was linked to most of the victims, which is more than we can say for any other suspects.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 504
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 7:36 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
Isn’t this a direct contradiction? In one breath you say it’s not the fault of the police because investigative procedures weren’t what they are today, in the next you say: ‘If the police did as much as they could then the killer would have been caught’.
What I’m asking you is exactly that: what ‘could’ they have done that you are saying they didn’t do, if Joe is our man, in order to progress from routine suspicion to arrest and conviction?
And Joe has not been linked to any of the victims apart from Mary. We can’t go around swallowing other posters’ wishful linking and churning it out as an established fact! I know how hard it can sometimes be not to read things into the evidence that push a theory forward that has already begun to get you hooked. But you really must resist this temptation before you reach the point of no return – ie when you can’t look at Joe without seeing the evil eyes staring back at you. (Every time you feel like doing this in future, count to ten and think of Cornwell, and recite: “I will not fall into the same trap”.)
Love,
Caz
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 200
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 7:59 am: | |
Also I think the police get a raw deal by historians in this respect. Saying they didn't do as much as they could is really only telling half the story. Just a quick perusal of the MEPO files tells you straight away, these guys were swamped. They had hundreds of pieces of information falling through the door every single day, every one of which had to be checked out because even the most insignificant looking detail might be the one which cracks the case, and they only had limited resources. Abberline was working 14 hour days and then getting disturbed in the middle of the night because some woman had reported someone for looking at her in a funny way. The detectives on this case were overworked and exhausted, and I think that is an aspect of the case that often gets overlooked. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 173
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 9:21 am: | |
Caz,
I think you misunderstood, when I said they didn't do all they could, I mean they didn't realise what they could do because the investigative techniques were a sham really.
I haven't said that Joe was "factually" linked to others and if I did then I maybe said it in the wrong way. However he was linked to one victim which is more than any of the other suspects.
Anyway, I'm not saying that Joe is the perfect suspect but he, to me, is one of the highest valued suspects. There are many things that I'm still puzzled over with regards to if Joe was the Ripper.
Believe I will never fall into the Cornwall trap. I write fiction, not non-fiction and I would never attempt to write non-fiction as fiction is more fascinating and you can go down any path you want to.
Alan,
The over-worked thing may have been true but that excuse doesn't really do it for me. Maybe they were overworked in those days but I keep thinking of today's police and the "overworked" excuse is used all the time, except in reality it is more "can't be bothered to get up and do anything". I think they probably overworked back then but I also think that a lot of people were probably ignored, I mean look at Mrs Maxwell and Maurice Lewis. They were ignored by police because there statements completely contradicted what the police believed to be true.
Sarah |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 5:19 am: | |
Sarah Long:
"He did have a weak alibi"
Do you know enough about how the lodging house worked, who the police interviewed and what they said to conclude that it was a weak alibi? I don't see it as particularly weak.
"If the police did as much as they could then the killer would have been caught"
That's an awfully large assumption. The only way you could know if they would have caught the killer if they'd done something differently is if you know for a fact who the killer really was and can offer a reasonable suggestion about what the police could have done to catch that person without being psychic.
"and the only reason I am leaning more towards Joe is that he was linked to most of the victims, "
I'm not sure how having lived with one of the victims (and wild, baseless rumors linking him to one or two others of the canonical five) can count as being linked to most of the victims.
Besides, it's rather rare that serial killers of this sort choose victims they know. Linking him to the victims (if someone manages to do it for real) would tend to make him less likely to be the Ripper, not more likely, statistically. (And, yes, there are exceptions, but since this linking argument isn't proof of any crime and merely circumstantial evidence trying to show a probability, the fact that serial killers ending with people they know is very rare goes against the argument.) |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 201
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 10:04 am: | |
Sarah, sorry but the MEPO files on the Mary Kelly murder are so incomplete there is no way of anyone knowing for sure who the police took seriously and who they didn't. Mrs Maxwell testified at the inquest, so plainly the police did not ignore her.
As for Lewis, unless your argument is that Joe managed to get Mary back home from the Horn of Plenty, on her back, kit off, throat cut, mutilated beyond recognition, burned the clothes and allowed the fire to go out (unless your argument is that the clothes were burned before in which case, why?) all within 45 minutes, I'd say ignoring him is a pretty reasonable thing to do. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 176
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:14 am: | |
Dan,
Unless Jack the Ripper was a ghost or an alien or super-human then there was no reason for the police to not catch him other than the fact that the investigative techniques were not up to scratch. If these murders happened today then there is more chance of the police catching the killer and if not, well, there is no real reason other than shoddy detection work.
Alan,
The only reason the police ignored Lewis was because his sighting of her suggested that she wasn't the person who was killed. This was too much trouble for them so they ignored it and I disagree with you saying that "I'd say ignoring him is a pretty reasonable thing to do." The police should never have ignored anyone as it might have been more important than they thought.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 203
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
Sarah, the point is, once again, that there are no extant records of the police investigation into the Mary Kelly murder. You cannot say "the police ignored Lewis because..." when there is absolutely no way of knowing that the police did ignore him. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 179
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Alan,
Could you please explain what this is then:-
"this time is several hours from the time of death, and because of this discrepancy, he was not called to the inquest and virtually ignored by police."
If you think this is wrong then you should take it up with Stephen as he has put it on here.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 974
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 4:38 pm: | |
G'day,
I wouldn't go as far as to say that the police were at fault. Detective proceedures were weak because fingerprinting analysis hadn't even been thought of, photographic proceedures were in their infancy, DNA science hadn't even begun, apparent motiveless murders weren't heard of so they had no past cases to study, phychology wasn't studied,.....will I go on?
Joseph Barnett wasn't 'factually' linked to the other victims, but if he was, then 'Jack the Ripper' wouldn't have been a 'serial killer' would he?
Nowadays we can see that the first victim in a series has the weakest connection with the killer. That's why Richard and I can't write much about Mary Ann Nichols.
The fault in detection, MAY have been because police couldn't find a clear motive to connect the victims. The whole case exploded into a huge hunt, before Joseph Barnett even entered the 'picture'. No don't blame the police!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 8:38 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
Dan said it all for me.
If Mary was part of a series, and I haven’t seen a decent argument for her not being Jack’s ultimate fantasy (and therefore the only one who would have known exactly how to turn this fantasy into reality – was Joe this good a hoaxer?), then we have to take seriously the fact that nearly all serial killings are of strangers by strangers.
This, together with the fact that Joe was routinely suspected, questioned and able to satisfy the police, never to be heard of again in connection with their enquiries, despite no one being convicted for any of the Whitechapel murders, makes it less likely, not more, that his close link with Mary indicates his guilt.
Love,
Caz
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 208
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 8:48 am: | |
Sarah
If you think this is wrong then you should take it up with Stephen as he has put it on here.
Ooh, now you know I'm not going to say any bad things about Stephen here! 
But the fact does remain that there is no information in the MEPO files about who or what was or was not investigated. I would say Stephen is interpreting the fact that Lewis was not called to the inquest while Mrs Maxwell was as an indication that his statement was not taken altogether seriously.
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 192
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 9:20 am: | |
Caz,
I don't think Joe killed Mary as a one off here.
Also, what do you mean by This, together with the fact that Joe was routinely suspected. If it was a routine to suspect the victim's partner then why wasn't it ever mentioned that John Kelly was suspected in Kate's murder?
Anyway this is all my opinion based on the facts that I have seen. I am not desperate for Joe to be the Ripper, I just see it how it is. Joe is a very likely suspect for various reasons and we can't just ignore that by the fact that the police let him go. If the police were handed Jack on a plate they may have still let him go, especially if he had nothing to do with any of the victims.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:16 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
What has John Kelly got to do with the price of spuds? Joe Barnett was suspected of killing Mary (and there was at least one newspaper report suggesting her murder may be a different kettle of fish from t’others – which suggestion was evidently discounted pretty sharpish), taken in for questioning and nothing fishy – and no trace of recent blood or guts – was found.
If you have seen the same facts as I have, you can’t claim that your own opinion is seeing it ‘how it is’, and that others, who know the facts don’t reach far enough to hook Joe and reel him in, must be seeing it ‘how it isn’t’.
If you’ve been reading all the Barnett posts carefully, you will know that no one could be accused of ‘ignoring’ the various reasons put forward for Joe being a 'very likely' murder suspect, which range from weak to frankly lifeless, just because the police discounted him as one. The reasons for ‘very likely’ have been contested with great gusto and common sense by too many to mention, and they include Joe’s admitted dislike of having to share his woman and their bed with all sorts; his admission to leaving a pipe in her room; and a very tenuous oral tradition concerning a grave-spitting mourner (gives a whole new meaning to Spitalfields).
The reasons for ‘not very likely’ have also been aired ad nauseam by many of us, although our common sense should have told us by now that the message just isn’t getting through. The police were handed Joe on a plate, wriggling at the sight of the fish knife and fork, and he did have plenty to do with the victim with the most horrific mutilations to date. Yet they tossed him back to swim another day (even before Monty got that sinking feeling). Without a scrap more evidence against him now than the police had then, which was precisely nothing, don’t you have to let him go too? What good will constant snapping at him do?
If Mary was killed in the night, the most you should be calling Joe is Jack the Kipper.
And I’m not codding.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 205
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:41 am: | |
Caz,
What has John Kelly got to do with the price of spuds? You said that Joe was routinely suspected. Why? I can only imagine that it was because he Mary's partner. John Kelly was Kate's partner and I don't recall him being suspected for her murder.
If you have seen the same facts as I have, you can’t claim that your own opinion is seeing it ‘how it is’, and that others, who know the facts don’t reach far enough to hook Joe and reel him in, must be seeing it ‘how it isn’t’. When I said I see it how it is, I probably worded it wrong. After seeing the facts I see how Joe is probably number one suspect. Sometimes if you're too close to something you can't see it, but take a few steps back and things become clearer. This may be the case here, at the time the police had loads of suspicions coming in from all sorts of people, many people were suspects, even slight ones, but nowadays it may be easier to see.
If you’ve been reading all the Barnett posts carefully, you will know that no one could be accused of ‘ignoring’ the various reasons put forward for Joe being a 'very likely' murder suspect, which range from weak to frankly lifeless Yes people have been ignoring these reasons. You yourself have just said that these reasons are weak, but why? There are many good reasons for Joe being Jack and in my opinion the arguments against this are weak. People just tend to say, well he was questioned by police and they let him go so he must have been innocent as you yourself say here:-
The police were handed Joe on a plate, wriggling at the sight of the fish knife and fork, and he did have plenty to do with the victim with the most horrific mutilations to date. Yet they tossed him back to swim another day
This excuse is old and worn out now. Give another reason why Joe couldn't have been Jack, any reason but this "police let him go" one.
Sarah |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Sarah
I think we can be pretty sure that John Kelly was considered as the possible murderer of Eddowes.
In his report of 6th Nov. 1888 Swanson says:
Eddowes “was living in adultery with a man named John Kelly, respecting whom enquiry was at once made by Metropolitan and City Police, the result of which was to shew clearly that he was not the murderer.” (HO 144/221/A49301C f. 188, or Evans & Skinner’s Ultimate Sourcebook p.186)
Best Wishes
alex
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 216
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 10:45 am: | |
Thanks for that Alex. I'm not saying that Joe shouldn't have been interrogated but I was wondering about John Kelly. I have that book as well, I must be blind or my memory must be going.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 1:43 pm: | |
Aaaargh!! 
Sarah, I say Joe was routinely suspected because he was routinely suspected. I don’t see why it matters whether John Kelly was treated similarly or not, or what factors the police considered in deciding who needed to be questioned or for how long or in what way. We don’t know that police enquiries regarding Joe didn’t in fact result, just as with John Kelly and Kate (thanks Alex), in shewing clearly that Joe was not Mary’s murderer either.
If you don’t doubt they got it right with John Kelly, but doubt they got it right with Joe (presumably because the tiny gap between finding Joe’s account satisfactory and recording that John Kelly was clearly not Kate’s killer allows you just enough room for this doubt), then it’s for you and other members of the Hang the Billingsgate One brigade to explain to those like me, who are standing at the same distance as you are yet can’t see it, how the police could, or indeed why they should, have put Joe in the dock.
Finally, please tell me where I have said that Joe couldn’t have been Jack. All I ask is for those who say he could have been to support their opinions and speculation more strongly than they have done so far.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on December 03, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 225
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:55 am: | |
Caz,
Finally, please tell me where I have said that Joe couldn’t have been Jack
I thought all your posts were basically saying this.
Also, could you explain by what you mean by "routinely suspected". It seems I'm misunderstanding the meaning.
One of the big reasons I see Joe as a good suspect is that he matches the profile for Jack the Ripper almost 100%, so about 95% maybe which is better than any of the others. He had a connection with at least one of the victims, which again is better than any other suspects. His only alibi was that he was asleep, whilst some of the others, such as Montague Druitt were completely accounted for and yet some people still think there is a possibility he did it. He fits the description of Jack the Ripper as put together by the police after taking witness statements more than any other suspect.
I have never said for a fact that Joe did it, I'm just stating my personal opinion and even then I'm not saying my opinion is that he did it, just that he might have. All the things I have mentioned are good reasons for Joe being Jack and I haven't found many (if any) good reasons for him to not have done it.
Sarah |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 10:39 am: | |
Leanne you wrote of detective procedures being weak in 1888, thats true, but the Yorkshire Police had modern technology to hand, and could they catch The Yorkshire Ripper not likely.
It took a great slice of luck and two uniformed P.C.'s using nothing more than their eyes to break the case.
The yorkshire police of course were hampered by the tapes and correspondence sent to them which lead them to believe that the killer was from the North East of England.
Thus only men with a North East Accent were considered to be the ripper. Sutcliffe was of course interviewed on more than one occasion, but was discarded as he didn't have a North East accent.
Could certain high ranking policemen in 1888 have formulated the theory that the killer was a foreigner?(Witness statements point to this fact). Thus any British subjects interviewed were given the benefit of the doubt and released. This is what happened in Sutcliffes case.
Did they on any occasion interview JTR and release him on the strength that he was British.
One things for sure the Met or the City police didn't get the break the Yorkshire force did a hundered years later. JTR led a charmed career. The coppers at the time did everything in their powers to catch the killer. They just didn't get lucky.
Cludgy |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 9:50 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
[something about how only aliens could have gotten away clean]
Even the best detective work often can't find these types of killers. Assuming it was shoddy or else they would have caught him misses the reality of how difficult it is to find a serial killer.
Leanne wrote:
"Joseph Barnett wasn't 'factually' linked to the other victims, but if he was, then 'Jack the Ripper' wouldn't have been a 'serial killer' would he? "
That sentence doesn't make any sense. Being able to link Barnett factually to other victims says nothing about whether Jack was a serial killer, even if you assume Barnett was the killer. Serial killers usually seek out victims that can't be linked to themselves, especially as time goes on and police are paying more attention.
"Nowadays we can see that the first victim in a series has the weakest connection with the killer."
If you are trying to say that the first victim of a serial killer is usually the least connected to the victim, you basically have that completely backwards. Serial killers are more likely to start with people they know than anywhere else in the string. It's virtually unheard of that the last victims would be closest to home.
"That's why Richard and I can't write much about Mary Ann Nichols. "
That not only assumes that she was the first victim but is an amazing rationalization. Now somehow lack of evidence for your theory is being presented by you as evidence for your theory. Marvelous. |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 9:16 am: | |
Sarah, I really can't let your statement of 12/1, posted at 11:31 a.m. pass.
You said, in defence of some argument: "If you think this is wrong then you should take it up with Stephen as he has put it on here."
As this is at least the second time I have seen someone attempt to divert attention from fallacies in their argument to the data which Stephen so generously provides, I must attempt to clear the air.
Stephen is posting period data, not his conjecture or speculation. His sources are either archival records which have been laboriously transcribed or period newspaper accounts. The fact that it is posted is not a recommendation from him as to its accuracy or relevence to the ultimate solution. It simply deals with the killer/killers now known as Jack the Ripper. Stephen is attempting to give us ALL the information possible so we, the interested armchair detectives, can be free to speculate and conjecture.
While Stephen, of all people, does not need me to defend him nor Casebook, I would like it understood that simply because a witness report, newspaper article, or police report is present, it does not represent anyone's opinion but the writer of the report or newspaper article.
As a matter of fact, the only conjecture I have seen in Casebook have been in the Dissertions and here on the Message Board.
I am sure there are several regular contributors who can more eloquently explain what Stephen is hoping to accomplish but, as Stephen's presentation of this information serves as a model for my presentation of facts and opinions relating to the Ft. Phil. Kearney Massacre, I just could not let that comment slide.
Best of wishes,
Billy Markland
bjmarkland@aol.com
P.S Rather than clog up this thread, let's take any further correspondence to either email or the Pub. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 239
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:02 am: | |
Billy,
Please could you point out where I said that it was Stephen's point of view. I was merely using a statement that he had put on here so you may like to get down off your high horse and actually read what I've written more carefully in future. I will not be taking this discussion anywhere as you have clearly misunderstood what I have written so I shall not continue down this path as it is not worth my time or energy.
Sarah |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
