|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 6:14 pm: |       |
After reading Barnett's testimony I see nothing to indicate that he was inarticulate in any way. In fact in the ULT JTR Comp the coroner states "You have given your evidence very well indeed". The coroner doesn't say this about anybody else's evidence. This doesn't seem to mesh with your speech impediment theory. Where is your evidence that he suffered from this? It looks more like you are trying to overemphasize something to make your case than to ascertain any facts here.
To suggest that he was autistic is ludicrous.
Could you please tell me the proof that you have that shows that Barnett has the speech impediment?
If all you've got is that he repeated some questions at one inquest that's pretty weak. I don't see anything in the police notes about it either.
Thanks,
Tim
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 272
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:27 pm: | |
Hi Tim,
I've made similar points in the past. The evidence is that there are 3 newspaper reports that suggest Barnett "spoke funny". One states that he "stuttered", one that he "stammered", and one that he had the "odd habit of repeating the last word(s?) of every question put to him" (not a direct quote, but something like that).
The coroner's compliment to him could be taken to suggest that Barnett appeared to be very nervous, and the coroner was just "being nice to an obviously distressed witness". I wish to emphasise the "could" in the previous statement because it also "could" mean he did just that. Gave his testimony very well.
Anyway, there is absolutely nothing to support the notion that Barnett was autistic, or schizophrenic, or that he had a "speech impediment" of any kind. All we have are 3 newspapers which, at most, could indicate he was nervous.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:40 am: | |
G'day,
WAKE-UP you two!!! TIM: Do you think a newspaper is going to print words twice if they are said twice, or that they would print the question twice if it was repeated? You'll never find anything wrong with Barnett's speech by reading the testimony, so you can't use that as evidence that he spoke normally!
Because the coroner said "You have given your evidence very well indeed", leads me to believe that maybe he was told beforehand that the testimony may have been harder to give/understand. He nor any other Coroner ever complimented a witness before.
The 'Standard' 13 Nov., and 'THE ILLUSTRATED POLICE NEWS', 17 Nov., and 'The Daily Chronicle' 13 Nov., reported that he stammered. The 'Cardiff Times & South Wales Weekly News' 17 Nov. reported that he began each answer by repeating the last words of EVERY question asked.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 933
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 5:29 am: | |
Leanne,
I completely agree with your post. The coroner may also have said that to him because he did stutter a bit and he wanted to reassure him.
Jeff/Tim,
I know the papers made up some things but only because they were not privy to information but they heard Barnett talk themselves so why make up anything?
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 370
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
1. "He nor any other Coroner ever complimented a witness before. " Excuse me? I suppose you have read every witness from every inquest ever given to back up that statement?
2. "You have given your evidence very well indeed" Don't suppose it's occured to anyone that this might have been said to Barnett because, he was for all intents and purposes the bereaved "spouse" of the most horribly mutilated victime they had ever seen, that he had loved her and having been called to identify her and thereafter discuss it, might have been just a tad stressful? And that he held up well under the strain and therefore the coroner said to him as one would to a surviving victim, "you did good"?
 |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 8:06 am: | |
Ok Ally, I'll excuse you! I was talking about THIS particular case when I said that no Coroner ever complimented a witness before.
Why didn't the Coroner of the inquest compliment Henry Turner (lover of Martha Tabram); Edward Walker (father of Mary Nichols); William Nichols (husband); Edward Stanley (Chapman's 'pensioner'); Michael Kidney; John Kelly or Eliza Gold? I'm sure seeing their relative/lover hacked with a knife, was a difficult experience for them too?
LEANNE
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 373
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
Sigh...are you trying to be deliberately obtuse that you do not understand that the two situations are not comparable at all? The degree of mutilation involved in the other cases was no where near what it was in the Kelly case. The other victims had faces left. The other victims were not identified in situ by their lover. All of the above witnessed did not see their loved one reduced to something not even recognizable as human. Those that identified the victim, did so at the morgue where they were no doubt tastefully covered so that only the face showed.
In addition, we don't know what the coroner did or did not say to Tabram's husband as we don't have a verbatim account. Unless you have one I haven't read?
In addition, Mary Nichols father wasn't on speaking terms with his daughter when she died, he didn't see the body and we don't have a verbatim account of her husband's testimony so we don't know what the coroner did or did not say to him and he had not seen her in 3 years. So the emotional impact would harldy be the same as in the Kelly case.
Edward Stanley was hardly a dear and personal friend. I could continue but...this should do as a summation:
Those that saw the body of everyone but Kelly viewed the body in the morgue. Sheet draped and sterile. Barnett saw a scene of unimaginable brutality, his love one hacked to unrecognizable bits.
They are not comparable situations.
And then just to make it real simple: Kelly had a different coroner. Maybe he was just nicer.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 940
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Ally,
To be fair, I'd have thought that John Kelly would have been quite upset. Ok, so he didn't have to see Kate all messed up in the street but she was still in a mess, even after port mortem stitching.
All the others, I should think, would still have been very upset with the fact that they were dead.
Sarah |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 274
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
Leanne,
Apart from some newspaper reports that don't even agree on what the "oddity" of Barnett's speech was, there is nothing from anywhere that even hints at Barnett having a speech impediment outside of the inquest. Given that the inquest was probably the most stressful situation of his entire life (for reasons Ally points out), without some evidence to suggest Barnett had a speech impediment outside of the inquest, then there is no valid reason to suggest he had one.
- jeff |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 375
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 4:05 pm: | |
Sarah,
I never claimed that Kelly and possibly Kidney might not have been genuinely upset. What I am saying is that Leanne is attempting to make a claim that Barnett had a speech impediment based on the coroner telling him that his testimony was well done and not claiming that for others.
She has made several fallacies here. 1.) by claiming that the grief of long-estranged ex-husbands and casual acquaintences can equal the grief of a current lover, 2.) by failing to recognize that the shock value of viewing a body draped in a morgue compared to seeing it splattered all over a room is not equal in the mind of anyone viewing the situation with an objective eye, 3) saying that no other coroner said that to any of the other victims families which fails to recognize that they were all different coroners so what one does has no bearing on what the others failed to do 4.) by claiming with certainty that the coroners didn't say that when we don't have complete transcripts so we don't actually know what they said.
In other words, the logic all round sucks and can not be used to prove in any way whether Barnett's speech fluency was what was being pointed out by the well done comment.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
G'day Ally,
I am NOT basing my claims on just what the coroner said. I am basing them on what he said, plus what some newspapers said. I have researched stuttering and found that no body without an imparement, stutters under mere stress!
Stop trying to imply that Barnett's speech impediment is MY creation. It's not! I am not the only person who trusts 'the Illustrated Police News'.
At the time of Mary's murder, Barnett and Kelly were no longer together, and the pair were NEVER at any stage married!
I'm going somewhere this weekend, so don't expect a reply for a few days!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 275
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 8:51 pm: | |
Leanne,
If your research suggests that people without a speech impediment under normal circumstances will not show speech pattern errors when public speaking, then I suggest you look for some more reliable sources and start being a bit more critical in your thinking.
- Jeff |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 2:26 am: | |
OOOOOOOHHHHHH
I see, so when the newspapers report something that doesn't mesh with your case they are always regarded as "You know how newspapers are, they distort the truth to make a story" BUT When they help your case they are taken as gospel!
NO, I don't think that a newspaper would quote somebody if they said everything twice, BUT I SURE THINK THAT AN INQUEST WOULD.
Have you ever been to a court proceeding before??????
THE ONLY JOB OF A COURT STENOGRAPHER IS TO REPORT "EXACTLY" EXACTLY" EXACTLY" EXACTLY" WHAT WAS SAID BY EVERY WITNESS.
LOOK AT BARNETT's TESTIMONY!!!!!!!!!! There is no repeating of a anything. He gives an extremely lucid, concise, and articulate description of himself, his job, and his relationship with Mary Kelly. There is no indication of him repeating any question.
The foundation for which you are building your case for the speech impediment is
EXTRAORDINARILY WEAK!!!!
The real place to look for evidence of Barnett having a speech impediment would be in the police reports or court proceedings. There is no evidence of it there.
That is interesting that you should use two examples, both of which describe a different speech impediment.
One says he stammered and the other said that he repeated every question asked. So which is it? Or did he have two speech impediments?
It looks to me like you will use anything you can to make him match an FBI profile for a speech impediment.
IN FACT according to the evidence that you posted sometimes he stammers and sometimes he repeats. So if Barnett repeats EVERY question that was asked of him WHY DID HE STAMMER WHEN SPEAKING TO THE DAILY CHRONICLE INSTEAD OF REPEATING EVERY QUESTION???????????? I thought he had a speech impediment that FORCED HIM to REPEAT EVERY QUESTION. A little contradictory if you ask me. Maybe you should be a bit more objective.
Tim |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:16 am: | |
Leanne wrote:
"I have researched stuttering and found that no body without an imparement, stutters under mere stress!"
As I have *already* pointed out to you on these boards, I got a very bad case of stuttering when a college friend died suddenly and I had to tell other friends about it. It's also happened during two or three other highly stressful occasions in my life as well. By your argument, I must always have a speech impediment, except I don't. In fact I made my living for four years in public speaking 8 or more hours a day.
I've also seen other people trip and stammer when under stress. It's quite common. How it effects someone's speech seems to vary from person to person though. Considering the reports about Barnett vary, we can't even be sure how his speech was different from others that day, or if it even was.
"Stop trying to imply that Barnett's speech impediment is MY creation. It's not! I am not the only person who trusts 'the Illustrated Police News'. "
It doesn't say he had a speech impediment, not even close. That's something you created out of thin air based upon a desire to find things wrong with Barnett. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 277
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
Technically, I think the notion that Barnett had a speech impediment is Bruce Paley's suggestion, and therefore he should be given credit for it's "creation". Leanne is just repeating Paley's conclusions without criticism of the evidence upon which the conclusion is based.
I have to agree with Dan's example that people without a speech impediment can often show all of the "speech errors" listed in the reports under circumstances that they find stressful. I have watched many a student give a presentation, covering material they know extremely well. The audience can be large or small, strangers or friends, even people with whom they've discussed the topic during one to one conversations. Put them up in front of everyone and make it a "formal presentation" and suddenly their speech patterns break down. They hesitate a lot (stammer), they will stutter sometimes (Th..The next slide), and during question period they sometimes repeat part of the questions back to themselves. Does everyone do this? No, of course not. I've also seen students give beautifully smooth presentations. What's important is that this is not uncommon at all. The evidence presented is entirely consistent with nothing more than nerves.
If Barnett had a speech impediment, we would need to demonstrate that he showed these speech errors in non-stressful situations. But, no witness every comments on his speech pattern. So, either we make one up for him and claim no one mentioned it (just like my large monkey), or we accept the fact that to conclude Joe Barnett had a speech impediment is to over-evaluate the limited data we have.
But since Barnett doesn't match the profile, then so what? If we decide that the "profile is wrong", then it doesn't matter if Joe matches it or not. Trying to make him match a profile that specifically excludes him seems a bit of a waste of time.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 3:22 am: | |
G'day Jeff, Tim, Dan,
Stuttering is closely linked with stress because those who stutter habitually, suffer stress because of it. (STUTTERING LEADS TO STRESS BUT STRESS DOES NOT CAUSE STUTTERING!)
'There is no evidence that emotional stress causes stuttering.'
http://www.disability.vic.gov.au/dsonline/dsarticles.nsf/Pages/Stuttering?OpenDocument
'There is no reason to believe that emotional trauma causes stuttering in general.'
http://www.geocities.com/staceydt/start.html
"If stress caused stuttering, we'd all be stutterers." - Catherine Montgomery ('The American Institute for Stuttering').
RIPPERHISTORIAN: 'When the newspapers report something that doesn't mesh with your case, they are always regarded with: "You know how newspapers are, they distort the truth to make a story" ' By saying that, I was repeating what other people used to say to me on these boards all the time. I use my brains when determining how much truth to put into a point by asking myself: "Could that have been added to sell more papers?" I don't think by reporting that Barnett stuttered/stammered (same thing), three papers thought they could outsell the others (especially the 'Illustrated Police News'). I do believe that reporting that Kelly had a child, could have been a tactic!
If Barnett repeated words it would have given the official note taker more time to copy what he was saying! As long as he didn't waist time writing those words over again!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 5:10 am: | |
G'day,
'What is the difference between stuttering and stammering? Stuttering and stammering is the same thing. Stuttering is a term used more commonly in American and Australian, while stammering is used more commonly in the UK and Europe.'........'There is no reason to believe that emotional trauma causes stuttering.'
http://www.youthsspeak.com.au/help/faq.htm
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 5:32 am: | |
G'day,
Everyone has a part of their body that they focus tension on. Some people focus on the muscles of their shoulder, their abdominal wall, their face, their hands, their back. Two and a half percent of the world's population focus tension in and around their vocal chords.
If Joseph Barnett focussed the tension of the moment on his vocals chords, he belonged to this two and a half percent of the world's populatuion. This is recognized today as a possible symptom of schizophrenia.
That's all Bruce Paley, and now all I claim it to be: 'a POSSIBLE symptom!'
LEANNE |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 385
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:20 am: | |
Leanne,
You need to take a remedial reading comprehension course. I do not say this cruelly, I say this as a fact. For people who are life long, habitual stutterers, the leading cause of stuttering is not stress. They have fluency disorders, a speech control issue where something went haywire in their language development stage. So for life long stutterers, the cause IS not stress, it is something else.
That does not mean that stress can't cause peope who normally have no speech disfluency to suddenly experience an attack of stammering/stuttering.
The links you posted are talking about people who suffer from a speech disorder and what causes stuttering as relates to that speech disorder not about normal everyday people without one.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
G'day Ally,
What you just said is exactly what I just said: 'STUTTERING LEADS TO STRESS....'(Because people who habitually stutter get stressed because they are harder to understand) '.....BUT STRESS DOES NOT CAUSE STUTTERING!"
Please point out documents that explain to me what you mean!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:53 am: | |
G'day Ally,
'There is no reason to believe that emotional trauma causes stuttering nor that it is phychological or caused by anxiety or stress.'
http://www.youthsspeak.com.au/resources/general.html
To me that says both that stuttering is not caused by stress and stress can not cause stuttering!
LEANNE |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 388
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Okay Leanne, here we go.
You are talking about apples and oranges. There are people who stutter. They are stutterers. The reasons why they develop a disfluency (stuttering) is not known. There are several stages of language/speech development and there are several places a person can experience a disorder. Stuttering is a fluency disorder. Th-th-is is what it sounds like and they do it CONSTANTLY. There can be semantic disorders as well..a person could constantly switch nouns for verbs or something similar. They do this constantly. Everyday. They suffer from a disorder. Stress DOES NOT cause the disorder.
However, every day people who do not have a disorder commonly mix-up nouns and verbs when required to present a formal presentation. Or they stutter. This stuttering or word mix-up is NOT a disorder. This is a normal thing that happens due to nerves or stress.
The articles that you are presenting are all talking about people who suffer from a speech disorder and they refer to it as stuttering rather than saying a fluency disorder that presents itself as stuttering and they are correct--stress does not cause a speech *disorder*. That does not mean that people can't stutter occasionally without having a fluency disorder. If you will read the articles, you will notice that they talk about stuttering beginning in the language acquisition phase which is somewhere around the toddler years.
They are not talking about people without the disorder because simple observation with life would tell you that perfectly spoken people without any trace of a fluency disorder develop one when having to present formally or in highly stressful situations.
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 389
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
And just to add...the reason why all stuttering websites info stress (hah) that stress does not cause stuttering as a fluency disorder is because it is known that people without the disorder DO stutter in stressful situations. So the prevailing theory as to what caused a stuttering disorder was that these people must be nervous or stressed out all the time. Because most normal people only stutter when stressed.
Speech and language research shows this not to be the case so they are now emphasising that even though normal people stutter only because of stress, that is not the case with people suffering from a stuttering disorder.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
G'day Ally,
To repeat what I just said in my last post: 'There is no reason to believe that emotional trauma causes stuttering nor that it is psychological or caused by anxiety or stress.'
So, stress does not cause stuttering in either apples or oranges! Good night!
LEANNE
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 390
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 8:02 am: | |
Leanne,
I am going to try one more time because I believe that you are simply being willfully obtuse and are not impaired in anyway that would make this hard for you to understand.
All people stutter on occasion. In the websites that you use, they use the word stutter interchangeably with fluency disorder. The stuttering that the websites refer to is a "disease". The disease is not caused by stress.
People who do not have the "disease" occasionally stutter just like people who are not sick occasionally sneeze. In people who do not have the disease, the "stuttering" is caused by nerves or stress. In people who do have the disease, the stuttering is not cause by stress, BUT JUST LIKE REGULAR SPEAKERS, STRESS CAN AGGREVATE THE SITUATION.
Regular speakers occasionally experience speech disfluency that presents itself as stuttering when under stress.
Every high school class can show you this, every cute awkward shy boy asking girl out can show you this. This is not rocket science Leanne. Stress causes speech disfluencies in regular speaking people--it is NOT the CAUSE of SPEECH DISORDERS.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
