|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 3:24 pm: |       |
I read a post by Leanne regarding Joseph Barnett that stated that he would make the perfect SAFE customer in a time when a a madman was roaming the streets looking for a kill. In my opinion this is excellent circumstantial evidence against Barnett. From all of the books that I have read I got the impression that these prostitiutes were not dainty beauties, but tough, rugged, heavy women accustomed to living on the streets. Therefore, it would be VERY necessary to keep their suspicions at bay. It seems unlikely that they would have let their guard down unless they felt TOTALLY safe.
It seems that several of the prostitutes were used to fighting and capable of defending themselves. This is furter circumstantial evidence that the killer must have gained their trust. It seems unlikely that a stranger would be able to get their guard down. The disability that Barnett had certainly would have given him the air of being weak, safe, harmless, and an easy trick.
IN FACT, I think that one could easily argue that Barnetts disability could have easily been used to put the prostitutes at ease and drop their defenses even if he had never met any of them before, including Mary Kelly. It seems that this "Apparent Feel Safe Tool" that Barnett possessed is a very likely reason why the prostitutes could have been put at ease, where as somebody like a Kosminski, who seems to have odd habits and a strange demeanor would have immediately aroused suspicion.
Ever since I read Paley's book a few years back, Barnett has become my number one suspect.
1) He is the only suspect that was known to have known one of the victims.
2) One of his possessions was at one of the crime scenes.
3) He VERY closes matches the FBI profile.
4) He Very closely matches eyewitness descriptions.
5) Could have easily put prostitutes at ease by being seamingly weak, disabled.
The only question I have is whether there is any information about the "shape" that Barnett was in. In my opinion, JTR, must have been in very good shape to have been able to escape and to make the deep incisions. It is unlikely that it was a fat, sickly man. Barnett was about 30 which means he wouild have been in prime physical shape. Has anybody seen any accounts of Barnett being exceptionally strong, or having been in the military or police. It seems that being a fish porter would have been a tough job, so I imagine that he must have been in better than average shape. Anybody have any evidence to support his physical condition.
Let me know what you think ladies and gentlemen.
Tim |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 345
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:05 pm: | |
Joseph lived in WC his entire life, and worked at Billingsgate market for 10 years as a fish porter. His daily routing would be equal to that of any physical fitness program today. My guess is that he was in exceptional shape for his size.
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 29
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:31 pm: | |
Hey Tim,
1) He is the only suspect that was known to have known one of the victims.
2) One of his possessions was at one of the crime scenes.
I am afraid there is absolutely no "circumstantial evidence" to show that Barnett knew any of the victims besides Mary Kelly of course. He could have possible lived close by them at one point in time, but Whitechapel to me is like a Southern American town-where everybody knows everybody.
If the possession you are speaking of is the pipe, I would definitely not look at that as "circumstantial evidence." Barnett lived with Mary Kelly-he simply forgot it. I don't understand why that is so difficult to swallow.
Even if a pipe was found at any of the other scenes, which I believe one was, it doesn't come close to linking Joe to the killing. Roslyn D'Onston smoked a pipe; does that mean it was he who murdered the woman?
Regarding the physical descriptions, I am sure you can find many men working and living in Whitechapel that have a similar appearance.
Peter
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 848
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
Guys,
Just for show there is a chap Im interested in. Im not going to name him because a) I know someone is working on them and b) I feel it would be unfair to name him as all the evidence is purely circumstantial.
1) He matches eyewitness descriptions in 2 of the canonical 5 cases. Also matches a description within a case 'outside' the canonical 5.
2) There is a circumstantial link between him and Eddowes.
3) His work would dictate that, at some stage, he would had to have been physically very strong.
4) There is a circumstantial link between this man and the murder sites, apart from Chapman and Kelly....but includes, again, another site outside the canonical 5.
5) There is a possible 'Trigger' moment which ties in within the timeline and also is connected to the mutilations of one certain victim.
6) There are also other circumstantial links between this man and these crimes which really would give it away.
7) You all know him.
Is this man Jack The Ripper?
I would be extremely surprised if he was.
Monty
|
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:43 am: | |
Peter:
When I said that Barnett was the only suspect to have know one of the victims, Mary Kelly is the only person I was referring to. It is widely accepted that he knew Mary Kelly (and was her lover). That is why I said that he is the only suspect to have known ONE OF THE VICTIMS -- MARY KELLY. Barnett having known Mary Kelly is a very interesting thing. He had a very strange, obsessive relationship with her, and she was the most brutally murdered prostitute of them all. And many argue that after her death the murders stopped. And, she was murdered inside. Very strong circumstantial evidence to show motive and opportunity for Barnett.
As far as the pipe, having his pipe at the crime scene on the fireplace mantle is exactly that. One of his possessions was at the crime scene and it is widely accepted that it belonged to him. No other suspect has one of their possessions at any crime scene.
There are absolutely no other suspects that have any known connections to any of the victims or have any personal items left at any crime scenes with the exception of Burnett. Keep in mind we are looking at this in hindsight. Back then, people would have been much less aware of what was important to look at during a crime scene investigation.
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to point the finger at Barnett. and the interesting thing is that the two main things that point to Barnett are not what ifs or speculation. He definitely knew Mary Kelly and his pipe was definitely at the crime scene. Name me another suspect that can come close to having either of those? |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:54 am: | |
"RipperHistorian" wrote:
"I read a post by Leanne regarding Joseph Barnett that stated that he would make the perfect SAFE customer in a time when a a madman was roaming the streets looking for a kill. In my opinion this is excellent circumstantial evidence against Barnett."
It's also circumstantial evidence against thousands of people... after all, there were lots of prostitutes working and they had lots of johns, all of whom must have set them at enough ease to go make some money.
"IN FACT, I think that one could easily argue that Barnetts disability"
Disability? What disability? If you mean the supposed echolalia, even the people here who were advancing that theory backed away from it.
"1) He is the only suspect that was known to have known one of the victims. "
Why do you think serial killers know their victims?
"2) One of his possessions was at one of the crime scenes. "
If you mean his cheap thowaway pipe in Kelly's room, that's kind of a silly reason. Considering that he used to live there there's every reason in the world for it to be there. You might as well accuse the pawnbroker that gave Eddowes the pawn ticket she had on her or McCarthy because a victim was found on property he owned. Look for suspicious facts, not meaningless ones.
"3) He VERY closes matches the FBI profile."
Not really, no. And what matches there are could fit thousands of men in the area at the time.
"4) He Very closely matches eyewitness descriptions. "
With all the contradictory descriptions, thousands of men could fit them. And since we don't even know if any of them saw the killer it's rather pointless.
"5) Could have easily put prostitutes at ease by being seamingly weak, disabled."
I don't think it's that difficult for a killer to put prostitutes at ease. The ease factor only becomes an issue to me in likely ruling out the more obviously mentally disturbed types, not a psychopathic killer on the hunt. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1248
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
RipperHistorian,
I have to completely agree with Peter and Dan here.
I think you are exaggerating the fact that the prostitutes needed to be talked or lured into security be their clients, even under such extreme circumstances as under the Ripper scare. We have had this debate many times on this site, and I can only -- based on my years of studies of prostitutes in the 19th century -- repeat what I've said earlier. Most of them really hadn't that many options on those occasions they were out of regular work and for example lay behind with the rent. The only client they would have turned down, would be the obvious violent or crazy ones -- the rest they had to deal with nevertheless if they wanted to survive. The women were indeed worried and afraid during the Ripper's height of activity, but it didn't stop them from pursuing their trade anyway and putting themselves in great danger. The options for them (if they had any) were even less tempting, so they really did not have much of a choice, and we have statements from prostitutes at the time, that confirms it. It is a common fallacy to believe that they had to know or trust their clients. They couldn't trust anyone and they knew that. And they had to get their doss money one way or the other.
I am also inclined to say, that you deeply exaggerate Barnett's "disable" features, and I don't really see what that has got to do with it anyway. Why would they necessarily feel more comfortable with such a man?
And as Dan points out, we can't really depend too much on witness descriptions anyway. They are very loose and unreliable sources of measurement regarding a suspect's credibility, unless we're talking really odd or uncharacteristic features.
Furthermore, we have no indications whatsoever saying that Barnett was violent or was abusing Kelly in any way. It is of course possible that he could have murdered and mutilated Kelly (although the grounds for it would indeed be considered circumstancial and unproven), but Jack the Ripper he was not.
Neither do we have any evidence whatsoever pointing at he knew any of the victims besides Kelly, and even if he did, it would mean nothing. Since when did that become incriminating?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 243
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Hi CrimeHistorian,
And, you have to remember, the whole idea that Barnett had an "obsession" with Kelly, and was abusive to her, is all based upon Paley's presentation not based upon the statements of people who actually knew the couple. From the testimony, some of it Barnett's of course, all we really know is that they generally got on, had rows at times (usually when Kelly had been drinking), according to Barnett he would usually leave during these fights, and that he left when she started sharing their room with other prostitutes.
For some reason, Barnett's decision to leave Kelly seems to indicate to others that he was obsessed with her? I can't follow this reasoning myself. He also visits her, and they seem to get on well enough. Mary has a friend over when Joe arrives, and she leaves and never indicates or even hints at there being any danger to Mary upon Joe's arrival.
In other words, a reading of the descriptions of their interactions paints a picture that was not unusual for the time. They got on, had some fights when drinking, fell behind in their rent, he finds another room, she continues to share her room, he continues to visit and give money when he can, etc. There's nothing "obsessive" about any of these behaviours.
Paley, like many authors, feel it very important to sell "motive". With "means" and "oppertunity", we're left will pretty much any able-bodied male in Whitechappel at the time. So, if you can sell a really good motive, that will hook a lot of people. Problem is, although serial killers of strangers do have a "motive", that motive can often be very personal and unique to the killer's way of thinking. Or, to put it another way, even if they could spell out their reasoning to us it might well make no sense to us as a "motive".
Barnett's behaviour, from what we know of it, appears to be quite normal for the times. That doesn't rule him out, of course, and his link to Kelly makes him worth investigation. His alibi (playing cards with friends and going to bed at the time when the murder was thought to happen), cleared him in the eyes of the police. Until one of two things occurs 1) evidence clearly demonstrates that MJK was killed after the time covered by Barnett's alibi or 2) Joe's alibi is shown to be a lie, then Joe must be considered "cleared".
Proving 2 is unlikely, and so far, the evidence generally supports a time of death of 2-4 am more than it does a 9:30-10:00 am. But, the jury is still out on that issue.
- Jeff |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 169
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
Tim,
Peter, Glenn and Dan have pretty much covered the ground, but I'dd like to add a few observations.
1) You say he had a "strange, obsessive relationship" with Kelly. As I used to put on students' papers: "How know?" From what we do know, it seems to have been what you would call a relatively straight "shack up." He seems to have been more enamored of her than she was of him, but what else is new? The only "evidence" of obsession are the theories retailed by those who want to believe Barnett started slaughtering prostitutes to scare Kelly off the game -- but belief ain't evidence (to the bitter disappointment at one time or another to everyone who has ever posted here.)
2) If you study the murders carefully, you will note each of the victims (with the possible exception of Stride -- another anomaly in her case) were rather desperate to earn a few pence at the time of their deaths. No sweet talking needed by Jack with them as they were ready to accept any client not positively foaming at the mouth (and that might be an argument against his being outwardly presentable that it was the truly desperate who agreed to be with him).
3) Finally, more has always been made of the pipe than commonsense suggests. Those clay pipes were cheap, but fragile (especially so for one doing manual labor like Joe). Moreover, we know that while Joe was no longer living with Kelly he was a welcome and frequent guest (if only so Mary might get whatever loose change he had). So, he has one pipe at 13 Miller's Court that he can smoke whenever he is there. No worry about putting a still hot pipe in the pocket when he leaves, no worry that it will get broken en route, no worry that he'll forget to bring one when he visits -- it's always there.
Don. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 346
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:42 pm: | |
Jeff: "Proving 2 is unlikely, and so far, the evidence generally supports a time of death of 2-4 am more than it does a 9:30-10:00 am. But, the jury is still out on that issue."
Note to the foreman of the jury -
1 - If the murder had taken place between 2:00 - 4:00 AM the blood on the floor and sheets would have been dried. Blood is a liquid and seeks to move to the lowest point possible; i.e. the sheets under the body and the floor surrounding the bed. It will flow to a uniform depth of approx 1/2 inch and continue to spread rather evenly. Blood dries to the touch in under 3 hours and will completely set in well under the 11 hours between the supposed time of the murder and the time the police enter the room after 1:00 PM regardless temperature and humidity unless it were at or below 0C/32F in which case it would freeze.
2 - The food in her stomach was in a partial state of digestion. Regardless of the amt of alcohol in her system the food would have been completely digested in under 4 hours. This times very well with her sighting by Carrie and Maurice at around 8:30 - 9:00 which is approx 1.5 hours before the time (IMHO) that MJK was murdered.
3 - With the amt of blood loss sustained during the attack, rigor would have set in relatively quickly which it did not appear to have or would have surely been noted in Dr Bond's post mortem report.
Working backwards you see a chain of events that not only fits the facts and eye witness accounts it does not defy the laws of physics. The body is discovered near 11:00 AM, so count backwards from then 1/2 the time it takes the food to digest and 1/2 the time it takes the blood to dry and you find that you are in the time frame of approx 9:00 - 10:00 which is just after the sighting on the street by Carrie and Maurice. It is my firm belief that this chain of events conclusively proves that MJK was alive well after the 2:00 - 4:00 time of death as noted by Phillips (who mind you happens to be the same4 "doctor" who stated that Annie died 2 hours after she was last seen alive by Elizabeth; but that is a different story for another thread)
Shannon
|
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:45 pm: | |
Tim,
I agree with the others that have posted previously.
A couple of things to add.
But if memory serves me correctly, weren't all of the women worse for drink (except possible Stride) when they were killed. This would mean they might not have the same perception or make the best choices in that condition. I know when I have tipped a few to many, I do not always make the best decisions. All this being said, I do not think it would be hard to persuade any of these women, women desperate for money, to go someplace quiet with him. (JTR that is, not Barnett)
In that era, wouldn't a speech impediment be considered something unusual and possible even disturbing? Public awareness to disablities, as you term it, was not very good, and tolerance and understanding even less so.
Something else I would like to bring up, is I disagree with people using FBI profiling to find the identity of JTR. How can the FBI profile someone from over 100 years ago, when they get it wrong today? Case in point, the Washington DC sniper was not even close to thier profile.
Lastly, there are lots of people that knew the victims, not all of them can br JTR. To suppose that Barnett is just on the grounds that he knew MJK and left his pipe where he used to live is flimsy at best. To my thinking GH is a much better suspect, for at least the MJK killing. He as much as admits that he was in the area, following and waiting outside her room. (What would nowadays be called stalking) He even said (if memory serves) that he went into the court and looked in the window. He may have been the last person to see MJK alive or saw her murderer, or possibly even killed her. In my humble opinion, he is a far more compelling suspect than Barnett.
Just some thoughts.
Vlad
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 170
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 8:38 pm: | |
Shannon,
What is the evidence that the blood had not dried? Also, would digestion have stopped or at least slowed after death? And, if you believe that Maxwell saw her, what do you make of Maxwell's story that Mary had just vomited?
Don. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 347
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:00 pm: | |
Donald - from the post mortem - [Dr. Bond] "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square..."
SATURATED / POOL - nothing to indicate it was dried
Yes, the digestion would have slowed or stopped; but, it would also mean that she had eaten between 1:00 - 3:00 and the pubs closed approx an hour before that. Hard to imagine that she would have taken fish and chips home with her, then in a drunken state ate something that cold and greasy.
Carrie seeing her vomit makes perfect sense. First it indiactes that MJK had something in her stomach, and that it would have been partially digested. Which is just what the doctor found in the post mortem.
Shannon |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:10 pm: | |
Hi All,
Ive just got a question that im sure has been asked 100 times. Did Hutchinson know what Barnett looked like, since he seemed to know a lot about Mary Jane? If Hutch is to be believed, then the astracan man doesnt remotely sound like Joe Barnett. Im gonna get a lot of heat for this, but, Joseph Barnett is not my favorite choice for being the Ripper.
Paul |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 348
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
Paul, the "astracan man" doesnt exist. George made it up from the accounts in the papers from the other murders in the hopes that it would be close enough to the truth to collect the nice reward. He is a liar and the worst kind; one who looked to proffit from the murder of another.
There is NO ONE who could possibly do what he claims to do - remember EVERY detail of a man he saw once from a distance on a cold rainy night in a town where he neither lives nor belongs at 2:00 in the morning unless he had an ulterior motive for being there...
Shannon |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 248
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:17 pm: | |
Shannon,
I've recently posted on rigor mortis and Kelly. From a bit of reading up on factors that influence the onset and progression of rigor, I found that when the temperature is below 10 degrees C, rigor is unlikely to set in. If, however, the temperature is increased above 10 C, rigor will then follow it's normal course.
Also, in the case of death by asphyxiation (usually hanging though) or when there is severe haemorrhaging just prior to death (I would think throat cutting counts), these actually delay the onset and progression of rigor.
I also looked up the average temperature for London in November, and the average high is only 10 C, and the average low is about 4 C. Note that both the average high and low are such that we would expect rigor to not set in, or at least be greatly slowed in it's progression. And this without factoring in such things as slowing due to sever haemorrhaging just prior to death.
As for a blood soaked mattress being dry after a few hours, I would be surprised. If I take some bed sheets and wash them they take more than one night to fully dry. And it's quite likely, I would think, that the surface of the blood could have dried and "crusted", keeping the rest of the blood in a liquid state. In fact, I would sort of expect this to happen.
Also, describing a large pool of blood, etc, does not really indicate the blood was still liquid any more than it indicates that the blood was fully dried. It just describes what the scene looked liked.
However, since we can't go back and find out, it's not really open to a debate. We simply have evidence that could have come from either estimated time of death.
- Jeff |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:08 pm: | |
Shannon,
I didnt say the astracan man existed. I said
"IF" Hutch is to be believed, and its not that I believe him either...my Question was simply did Hutch know Joe.
Paul |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 349
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:29 am: | |
Paul, know him, probably not, know of him, possibly. Hutch wasnt as they say "from around there" in that he may have frequented the area but didnt live there.
Shannon |
Chris LeQuellec
Police Constable
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 2:43 am: | |
3) He VERY closes matches the FBI profile
Where can i read this profile?
I did some research but didn't find it.
Thank you
Chris |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 501
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 4:49 am: | |
Chris
You can read John Douglas' FBI profile in the book The Cases That Haunt Us by Douglas and Mark Olshaker. The book also gives Douglas' thoughts on a number of other high profile cases, including the Lizzie Borden and JonBenet Ramsay cases, and is well worth a read.
Jeff
We also have an indication from Walter Dew's book I Caught Crippen in which he states that the first policeman to enter the room slipped on the blood and lost his footing. However it is obviously dangerous to rely on details from a memoir written 40 years after the event. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
G'day,
From Paley's book: 'the man who called himself Jack the Ripper was a white male, aged 28-36, who lived or worked in the Whitechapel area, and probably worked at the sort of job in which he could vicariously experience his destructive fantasies, such as a butcher. He would have come from a family with a weak, passive or absentee father, and would probably have suffered from some sort of physical disability, such as a speech impediment. He would have displayed a strong dislike of prostitutes, and during the course of the investigation he would have been interviewed by the authorieies and consequently overlooked or eliminated as a suspect. His ordinary, neat and orderly appearance would not have fitted the prevailing impression of the Ripper as being an odd or somehow ghoulish-looking man.'
LEANNE
(Message edited by leanne on March 10, 2004) |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Hi all
Having had a revelation , it behooves me to bring it up in the context of the idea of the victims 'trusting' the murderer.
I until recently, like most others, assumed that the perpetrator approached like a normal john, trying to obtain sex. However, where is the actual evidence for that?
I think we all pretty much reject the idea of a top-hatted toff lurking in the shadows, but I have become very taken with the idea that JtR is someone used to lurking / shadowing. There are a surprising number of people who do in fact have double lives of this nature, peeping toms for example, but also people who are socially inadequate reather than sexually. And of course the two can overlap. And they sometimes go from (relatively) harmless lurking/prowling/stalking to actual murder.
If we take that scenario then Jack's abilities to disappear don't seem so magical or brilliant, and several anomolies disappear - Stride for example could simply have gone into the alley to hide from her assailant and recover herself, whereopon the guy lurking about seizes his chance. This way the victims don't have to be actually prostituting themselves at the time (and Stride and Chapman may both not have been 'active' when attacked). And it may explain why no money was found - taken in some cases, because he's seen where the victim put it, non-existant in others because there was no business actually going on.
I suppose arguably this helps the Barnettites - if he was such a character it is easier to explain his actions without such an unusual (if not unique) motive.
Regards
Pete
|
Ripperhistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
Well, I can understand where you all are coming from.
But if that's how you feel:
1) Tons of people will fit the supposed description of the killer.
2) The descriptions could be innaccurate.
3) The killer didn't necessarily know any of the victims.
4) Lots of people had similar jobs that would have made it where they lived in the area and were in good shape.
The fact of the matter is: Barnett having been closely associated with one of the victims is far than can be said about any of the other suspects. Of course it could have been some "nobody" that will still fail the above tests you are giving.
My question to you all would be: Why are you here at this site? Every suspect is going to fail all of the tests you have given Barnett. So, why don't you just give it up. You will never be able to solve the case unless you are willing to accept some circumstantial evidence. Unless somebody come up with a time machine. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
RipperHistorian,
The four points are all correctly perceived.
The answer to them all is simply: exactly!
"My question to you all would be: Why are you here at this site? Every suspect is going to fail all of the tests you have given Barnett. So, why don't you just give it up. You will never be able to solve the case unless you are willing to accept some circumstantial evidence. Unless somebody come up with a time machine."
It is an intriguing subject and humanity loves puzzles to indulge in. Call it waste of time, but for me personally (I can only speak on my own behalf here), solving the case isn't the prime reason for me being here. But it's good brain-storming and the mystery itself a(nd the circumstances surrounding it) that draws me to this and other similar cases. Suspect hunts can be valid and interesting and also help with revealing new information, but in itself it must be treated with low expectations in old cases like the Ripper.
There are circumstancial evidence and clues and then there are unfounded theories and fantasies. It is not the same thing. Circumstancial evidence has to have some sort of factual basis or logical elements to it in order to be taken in consideration.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Chris LeQuellec
Police Constable
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Thank you Alan.
In fact i thought it was a "public" profile easy to find.
I'm reading at this moment a very good book in french "Tueurs en série" (Lydia Négrier-Dormont, Ronald Nossintchouk, Dominos-Flamarion 2001).
chris |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
