|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 64
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 5:25 pm: |       |
I want to address this notion of a motive for Barnett that involves his wanting to get Kelly off the game, but please indulge me as I begin with a short digression.
Several years back I watched a TV documentary about crop circles and I remember a fellow opining with all seriousness that the circles were an attempt by extraterrestials to communicate with us.
Of course! and I smote my brow with the palm of a hand at my own obvious ignorance not to have realized that such a technologically advanced civilization -- one that can travel across the galaxy -- would long ago have given up all forms of electronic, quantum, photonic (you name it) communication for that of creating patterns within the amber waves of grain. What a perfect method for conveying ideas, crop circles.
So, too, I suppose I am a little dense not to appreciate that of all the ways Barnett might have sought to get Kelly off the game -- you know reasoning with her, taking her to a syphillis ward, trying to bribe her, religious intervention, beating her, and the list can go on and on -- clearly the most efficacious way would be to start killing and slicing up prostitutes at random, all the while putting himself in immediate mortal peril. Greater love hath no man ... nor greater folly.
That Barnett killed just Kelly as a one-time event born of anger is a possibility simply because they had cohabited and with most murder investigations you begin as close to home as you can. I do not think that was the case, but it is at least worthy of consideration. That he committed Jack's other murders in order to show Kelly the error of her ways -- that has to be a non-starter. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 327
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 9:14 pm: | |
Caz, "If he was capable of this ultimate slaughter, why did he not do as much for one of her close friends instead? Now that would have scared Mary witless, and looked like another random and motiveless murder – far more effective, with nowhere near the risk to his own neck."
Caz, while only speculation, it is possible that Joe did just that, if in fact he was 1, the Ripper, and 2, that he is the one who sent the half kidney to George Lusk.
By sending half a kidney to the one who rose up to claim that he could do what the police couldn't by protecting the citizens of Whitechapel, the killer struck at the heart of the matter. He rubbed everyone's nose in.
The reasoning (and it may just be me), is because the "Dear Boss" letters and others only claimed to do morbid things, this one demonstrated it.
Shannon |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 289
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 5:15 am: | |
Alan,
To me Joe was a Jame Gumb and in no way a Hannibal Lector. I agree about the others you mentioned being so though.
In my mind Joe was a sort of pathetic man who didn't go about choosing his victims but who maybe lashed out at these women. He didn't plan any of it but because he was so desperately in love with Mary Jane who didn't seem to care much about him, he just lost control upon being accosted by a prostitute. The only one who I think Joe may have planned to kill would have to be Kate as I don't believe she was a prostitute so wouldn't have propositioned him. I have a scenaro in my mind of why Joe would have planned for kill Kate, perhaps Mary Jane came home drunk one night not long before Kate's death and told Joe that this Kate was roaring drunk and saying that she knew Jack the Ripper to which Mary Jane and the others laughed off thinking that she was just drunk. Joe would have taken this seriously whether she knew he was the Ripper or not, he couldn't take the chance. Anyway that is just one scenaro.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 285
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 6:07 am: | |
I should qualify, I am only arguing against clever Joe who plans to scare Mary off the streets with his cunning plan. I have less of a problem with mad Joe who is sublimating his anger by destroying representatives of the object of that anger before finally going into meltdown and destroying the object itself (a scenario with parallels with Ed Kemper). However my main problem with this scenario is that I don't believe that this Joe would be able to function normally afterwards. In fact I think he would either give himself up or commit suicide pretty much straight away. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 290
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 6:40 am: | |
Alan,
What makes you think he would give himself up or kill himself? Is this based on other murderers such as Ed Kemper who did give himself up? If this is the case it is not a strong reason for thinking that Joe would have done that. First of all, the obvious thing, you didn't know Joe, no-one alive today did so no-one alive today can know what he was like or what he would and wouldn't have done. Secondly, to base him on other murderers who turned themselves in or committed suicide is a bit silly. For all we know there may have been people out there who killed their spouses or other close relations who never turned themselves but we can't talk about them because we don't know who they are so we only talk about the ones who turned themselves in. It's like profiling. How can we create a profile on the Ripper when we can only profile killers based on previously caught killers. This killer was never caught, so maybe s/he was different.
These are just my thoughts of course and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Sarah |
help
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:57 pm: | |
G'day,
If Joe had have killed one of Mary's close friends, the investigation would have been brought to his front door sooner, because him and Mary would have been in the victims 'second or third circle'. If he had have been interviewed, his name or Mary's possibly would have been in the official files somewhere and he would have been looked at sooner. It would have been a bad decision.
JASON: Death statistics for Whitechapel for 1887 appear in Bruce Paley's book in photograph form, but you may already know that. On page 71 he says: 'There hadn't been any murders in Whitechapel in 1886 either, out of sixty-eight committed in London, while the reports for 1889 and 1890 each show one murder per year in the district, out of seventy-nine and seventy-four respectively for all of London.' He got these statistics from Joseph Loanes Annual Report on the Sanitary Conditions of Whitechapel (Tower Hamlets Library).
Jason I think the whole 'Jack the Ripper' thing was too elaborate, but that doesn't mean it never happened! Are you looking for a rational explaination? Only a small percentage of men are capable of such brutality to the person they once loved, but I have found examples that would make you sick!
SHANNON: I don't think the Ripper sent Lusk the kidney. I think it was the guy (possibly a medial student) who asked someone for Mr Lusk's address the day before he received the package.
The package didn't have the number before the street, was hand delivered, and this guy wasn't given the number!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 10:26 am: | |
Erm, Leanne, how would the investigation have been brought to Joe’s front door sooner than it was, if he had killed one of Mary’s close friends in the style of Mary’s murder - instead of killing Mary herself?
On the basis that everyone is close to someone, yes, under such circumstances Joe and Mary would very possibly have been interviewed, along with others who knew the deceased well. But unless or until Mary herself was killed there would be absolutely no reason to suspect Joe above any of the others. We know that even after Mary was killed, Joe’s previous movements did not flag up any concerns for the police, so I don’t understand your point at all.
Are you now agreeing with those who think that Joe – and Mary – probably didn’t know any of the previous victims, because you think it would have been ‘a bad decision’ to kill anyone who could be connected with the couple? I thought you were one of those arguing the exact opposite.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 297
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 10:36 am: | |
Caz,
Leanne has made a good point. When someone is killed they look to their close family and friends first so as Leanne says, if one of Mary's close friend's were killed then Mary would have been questioned along with Joe as he was Mary's partner and therefore also probably knew the woman.
Of course the problem with this is that how could they know who was close friends with who?
Having said all that, from the statements made it seems that the police only interviewed witnesses and people who were immediately close to the victim, i.e., the partner.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 7:53 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
Eh? I was merely asking why Leanne was now arguing that Joe would have thought it too risky to butcher anyone of Mary’s acquaintance, in a renewed attempt to scare her off the streets, when, according to her own theory, he thought nothing of inviting the police’s undivided attention by skeletonising (to pinch Robert’s graphic description) Mary herself.
Add to this the previous claims about the victims having close links with Dorset Street, and the conclusion that Joe was targeting women known to Mary so she would fear being next, and you have yourselves a heady mix of contradictions to sort out.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 313
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 9:27 am: | |
Caz,
Well Leanne did explain why he didn't kill her close acquaintances. Although I see the contradictions.
In my mind, he didn't kill any of Mary's close acquaintances but not for any reason just that those particular women happened to be around when JOe was in one of those moods. The only victim Mary may have known was Kate and maybe Joe killed her because she had been shouting her mouth off about knowing who JTR was, or it was just a coincidence. I'm not sure.
I personally don't think Joe would have needed to kill close friends of Marys to scare her. As far as we know, she didn't know Emma Smith and yet that scared her earlier in the year.
You'd have to get Leanne to answer your questions about the contradictions as there are no contradictions with my ideas.
Sarah |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 329
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
Sarah, most likely Mary knew Annie and possibly Kate. Annie lived less than 20 feet away on the opposite side of Dorset street at 35. Whether Kate actually lived in McCarthy's shed from time to time is questionable; but, Kate did live at Cooney's lodging house located at 55 Flower & Dean street, not far to the south of Dorset and the entrance to Miller's court.
Caz, with each murder coming closer to Miller's court (as far as where the victim's lived, not where they died), it would have appeared to Mary that the killer was getting to close for comfort. If you believe what Joe said about reading to her about the murders from the papers, he would have accentuated this fact so that she was well aware of it.
Shannon |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
I’m glad you see that Leanne’s explanation for Jack not killing women close to Mary makes nonsense of the claim that the victims had links with Dorset Street and that this was somehow a significant pointer to Joe’s guilt.
Obviously whatever Joe was or wasn’t doing, Mary was not scared enough about the ripper to stop earning her gin tokens in the oldest way known to man.
So what motive do you think Joe would have had to kill Mary, and/or the earlier victims, if we agree to set aside his highly improbable scaring Mary scenario?
Love,
Caz
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 291
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 10:52 am: | |
I would agree that if any of the victims knew each other at all it would be Annie and Mary. On account of living on opposite sides of the road as each other, and both frequenting the Brittania (Ringers) Public House, they would almost certainly have been aware of each other's existence by sight. Sort of like the people I see in the other bus queues when I go to catch my bus in the mornings, I am vaguely aware that I see many of the same faces every day but I would not profess to know any of them. I don't see that they could have been on more than nodding acquaintance with each other or surely someone, even if not in the inquest then at some point while the reporters were questioning virtually everybody, would have vaguely said something like "Oh, she was a bit upset when the woman she knew was killed". The fact that there is not the slightest hint in any documentation so far discovered says to me that they had never said more than "Good Morning" to each other. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:05 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
If you think Joe is a murderer, you can’t then believe anything he says. But it does strike me as a tad unlikely that a guilty Joe would volunteer the information that he read all the grisly details of the ripper’s work to his ex. When they asked, “Didn’t this scare the poor girl shi*less?”, I don’t suppose he offered the further information, “Sadly, no, which was why I finally had to opt for the hands-on approach”.
If Joe was innocent, it was obviously an innocent remark, made by a man reflecting sadly on the tragedy that brought the notorious maniac from the newspaper stories right into Mary’s room.
Take your pick, but I would consider it very unlikely that a guilty Joe went out of his way to offer information that could have been used against him.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 314
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:16 am: | |
Caz,
If we forget about him trying to scare Mary off the streets (which I still think is a possibility regardless of whether Mary knew the other victims or not), then I suppose his motive could have been pure anger. You know how someone might take something out on someone else when it's really someone else they were angry at. These are the only two reasons I think if he was JTR.
With regards to his reading of the crimes remark this is going to sound a bit far fetched but, couldn't Joe have said it as a reflection on himself. By this I mean, he was sort of talking to himself and annoyed that the previous murders hadn't stopped Mary. Also, it depends how clever Joe was, maybe he told them this information to emphasize how tragic it was after him reading to her of the murders that she should be murdered by Jack the Ripper. Of course this could also work if Joe only killed Mary. He could mention him reading about the murders to her to suggest that it was JTR who killed her and to make himself look innocent.
I hope that made sense.
Sarah  |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 75
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:38 am: | |
Alan's analysis of the extent to which Kelly may have known any of the victims is bang on. Then factor in the differences in age, antecedants, circumstances and known associates and the likelihood they ever even nodded to each other, even while drinking in the same pub, is small.
On another point, why the assumption that Barnett was reading to Kelly? In the version of the inquest testimony that I have Barnett says: "She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders...." [emphasis added]
For me, that sounds as if Kelly had said "Here, read this! Another woman butchered. Oooooo."
Was not Kelly literate? We are told that she received letters from Ireland that she was presumably able to read. Or did she perhaps only have the Gaelic in terms of literacy?
Don. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 315
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Don,
You may be right, but just because someone asks someone to read to them it doesn't mean that they can't read. I've been read to many times but I can read perfectly well. Also, we are not sure whether she really did receive letters from Ireland. I believe that Mary was a bright woman and if circumstances had been different she would not have the need to sell herself.
But it's true, you can read it two ways, but you have to remember that they spoke differently to the way we do today.
Sarah |
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hello Sarah, Caz, and all,
I've read from many sources that Mary was considered by those who knew her as smarter than your average prostitute, so it seems likley she could read.
Also, I read one of the "Joe Barnett did it" books last year, and in there it said flat out that Mary knew Annie Chapman. Now, I don't remember which one it was, or the title, but i got from a nearby library and could probably find it again.
I will look it up and post back again when I've found it. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 321
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 4:55 am: | |
Kris,
Thanks. It will be interesting to see how the author established that.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 546
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 5:38 am: | |
Hi All,
If it’s true that Mary knew Annie Chapman, and if Joe knew this, then according to Leanne, he is unlikely to be the killer. Leanne made the reasonable observation that he would not have risked killing anyone who could have brought the police to their door asking questions.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on December 18, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 325
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 6:02 am: | |
Caz,
Yes but we don't know that she knew Annie Chapman for sure. This is the first I've heard of it apart from people saying that she may have known her purely because she lived opposite in a large lodging house.
It has never been mentioned that Mary knew Annie in statements, etc. and if she did I would only have thought she had known her as another prostitute who lived in the same area. If this was the case then Joe may not have known that Mary knew her.
Besides,
I don't think the police went about investigating murders as our police do today. I think they may have questioned those very close to her, such as others living in the lodging house, but Mary may have been only an acquaintance if anything at all to her so the police wouldn't have even of thought to question Mary, let alone Joe.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 11:40 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
All of which brings us nicely back to earth. 
No evidence that the victims knew each other.
No evidence that Mary was killed because she wouldn’t eat the poisoned mushrooms – sorry, wrong story – because she wouldn’t stay off the streets even when others of her kind were being ripped.
No evidence that Joe knew any of ‘em apart from Mary.
No evidence that Joe ever killed anyone.
Any evidence of this anger you think he may have had hidden away inside him?
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 334
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
Caz,
I never said the victims knew each other, you must have me confused with Richard as I believe he thinks they did.
Just because Mary probably didn't know the other victims personally, it doesn't mean that Joe didn't kill them. Why did Joe have to know them to kill them? He didn't.
You may say that there is no evidence to suggest Joe ever killed anyone but there is also no evidence to say that he didn't.
I don't have any evidence that Joe had much anger locked away inside him, but seeing as he loved Mary and she had no use for him anymore, I can tell you that I presume him to have been a heart broken man and that can do funny things to people. If he wasn't a heart broken wreck of a man then someone down the line was lying. It has always come across that Joe worshipped Mary and tried to do his best to keep her happy. When a relationship breaks down people threaten to do things to themselves or others but 9 times out of 10 they never do no matter how much they feel like it. I've had 2 exes threaten to kill themselves and of course they never did.
Anyway I'll leave it there or I lose track of what I was saying.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:29 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
I didn’t say you said anything about the victims knowing each other – I was just summing up where the evidence is at.
No evidence either way, as you appear to be admitting.
And you have given a couple of personal examples of what people threaten to do but ‘of course they never did’, when a relationship is in trouble or breaks down.
We have no idea how angry or cut up Joe really was about Mary. If he cut her up as a result, he would certainly have lied about their relationship to keep out of trouble. But there is no indication that he ever threatened to harm himself or her, and even if there was, by your own argument, threats are common but are rarely carried out.
We’d have an awful lot of ex lovers shivering in fright for every unsolved murder case if the Barnettites were let loose on them!
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 11:54 pm: | |
G'day,
CAZ: What I meant was , if Joe killed a close friend of Mary's BEFORE the couples seperation, there would have been a greater chance of detectives interviewing him and Mary. Why is that a 'ready mix of contradictions'? I don't believe that Mary's eventual murder was part of the larger plan - He just flipped because he was losing her...probably back to Joseph Flemming! He wasn't asked back after Maria Harvey left. Mary may or may not have told him this, because he was still giving her money!
The link that four of the five canonical victims lived on Dorset Street at times, is a link that appears to have been overlooked, but still a link and a good one! Probably the only one, if we ignore their chosen professions. I have never believed that they knew each other intimately. That's what the Royal-conspiracy believers think!
You say Joes previous movements did not flag up any concerns for the police. Maybe they would have if his name was in their books earlier. By the time it was, he was just seen as another victim of a monster that they were looking for with a Jewish appearence.
What Sarah said about Kate shooting her mouth off, is why I think he killed this woman who sometimes lived next door. He destroyed her face in sheer anger. She wasn't a known prostitute, but the Ripper couldn't finish his work in Berner street, so wouldn't have been too particular about who he killed while everyone's attention was on the other side of town. As luck would have it, he ran into a nosey neighbour.
Why am I contradicting myself, Caz? I am not saying that Joe intentionally invited police's undivided attension by skeletonizing Mary. Her murder wasn't part of the big plan. After her death, the 'Jack the Ripper' myth ended. There was no one left to scare!
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
