|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 8:11 pm: |       |
I have been a Pro_Barnetter for a while. But, now after reading more by Bruce Paley I am starting to think that JTR's motive being to scare Kelly suggests that he did not relish in the actual killings.
I am beginning to think that although certain aspects of Paley's arguement make very good sense, that MY gut instinct (my humble opinion that is) is that Jack the Ripper actually enjoyed killing each and every prostitute and that that itself was the motive.
In particular, if we are to believe that both murders were committed by JTR on the night of the double event it would suggest that the second murder occurred because Jack did not get his fill and was interrupted.
If Barnett did it, and he was ONLY doing it to scare MAry Kelly, then on the night of the double event it seems more likely that he would have called it quits after such a close call after being interrupted. BUT, instead the killer goes on to find another victim and mutilated her more than any so far. In my opinion, this GREATLY SUGGESTS that he had a need to fulfill, not that it fit within a master plan.
Please let me know if you ladies and gentlemen have any thoughts on this.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 1:16 am: | |
G'day Ripperhistorian,
If Jack the Ripper was Joseph Barnett, his motive was NOT simply to scare Mary Kelly off the streets! His hatred of prostitution steemed deeper than that, and this will all be explained in a book that I am co-writing!
LEANNE |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 2:21 am: | |
Leanne,
Although I am no expert by any means, I would have to say that the passion involved in these murders would have to be an EITHER/OR situation.
In other words, for Barnett to brutally murder these prostitutes he would have had to be doing it EITHER because he wanted to scare MK away from prostitution OR because he hated prostitutes.
It is very unlikely that he would have been out murdering these unfortunates to scare MK and then on the night of the double event, he said, "well I have failed to kill my target that was intended to scare Mary off the streets, but now that I have failed in that endeavor I will look for another victim simply on the basis that I hate prostitutes." VERY UNLIKELY.
The JTR crimes in my opinion were committed for the sake of the killings, an ulterior motive just doesn't seem to mesh.
Although, I can't totally discount Barnett, and I support him as a suspect in many ways, especially since he knew one of the victims, the most brutally murdered victim, personally.
However, i can't buy that when he was interrupted during a murder, a murder whose sole intent was to scare MK off the streets, that he would look for an additional victim immediately. There is simply no motive, and no reason to take such a risk. He had already killed, and that first unmutilated victim would have sufficed to scare MK. The second victim suggests he had a personal urge to fulfill, not a master plan.
You really can't have it both ways, either Barnett was the murderer because he was a psychopath prostitute killer OR he was trying to scare MK, each profile would have different motives as I noted above.
Maybe Barnett would make a better suspect if you downplayed the Mary Kelly obsession, he really might.
Maybe he wasn't that enamored with her, but he was a complete psycho and she just happened to be one of many prostitutes he lived with in his life.
Just some thoughts,
Tim |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 8:32 pm: | |
Ripperhistorian,
On March 15 you started another board entitled ''Barnett Was Not JtR' DESPERATELY trying to start an argument saying that you: 'read Paley's book a few years back...', yet on this one you say: 'now after reading more by Bruce Paley I am starting....'.
Then you finally succeeded in starting an argument over the 'STUTTER/STAMMER' thing, but as you'll notice I butted out! It has so little to do with the case! My case against Barnett has nothing to do with his possible speech impediment! And he wasn't just trying to scare Mary!
I leave for my vacation tomorrow!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on March 27, 2004) |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 12:05 am: | |
Overall, if I was trying to scare my girlfriend out of being a prostitute, I wouldn't really have to go as far as to disembowel the women. I think just killing them would be enough to scare her off the streets. Good point RH, I agree.
Chris 
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 12:48 am: | |
G'day,
I agree, the Ripper must have had a deeper hatred of prostitutes! And Chris the death of prostitutes wasn't enough to keep Mary off the streets, was it?
After killing Elizabeth Stride and almost being caught, his passion to kill worthless women wasn't satisfied.
LEANNE |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 28
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 2:01 am: | |
Leanne,
The disemboweling of women did not get MJK off the streets either.
I would not call these women worthless, down trodden, unfortunate but hardly worthless.
Vlad |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 4:40 am: | |
G'day Vlad, RH,
No, the disembowelling of prostitutes wasn't enough was it? See how frustrating it must have been? And it would have been printed in the papers that he failed to mutilate Stride, so he had to do another!
Stop trying to think of what YOU would have done. The Ripper wasn't your average man!
When I called the victims worthless, I didn't mean that I consider them worthless! I meant to the Ripper they were probably worthless!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on March 28, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1382
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
"G'day!"
Well, I would say Barnett can't be totally disregarded as Mary Jane Kelly's murderer but I find no credible reason to suspect him of killing prostitutes or being Jack the Ripper. The suggestion that he became Jack the Ripper to scare Mary of the streets is constructed and doesen't work. And as RH says, you can't have it both ways.
But it sure will be an interesting read to study the arguments that is supposed to back those theories up.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
When people say it like this: "just to scare Mary", it sounds so weak! But if you think of it as a hatred of prostitution, and a desire to persuade the woman he wanted from following that path, it sounds a bit better. Eventually he knew it was a battle he was losing, so rage lead him to kill his woman and the Jack the Ripper myth ended.
Whether or not he killed after that requires another study, but the 'Jack the Ripper' myth ceased.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
"But if you think of it as a hatred of prostitution, and a desire to persuade the woman he wanted from following that path, it sounds a bit better."
No, it doesen't.
But it will be an interesting read nevertheless. I can't wait. Any date of release yet? Is it going to be self-published or do you have a publisher deal? Just curios.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 4:58 pm: | |
Leanne,
My basic problem with Barnett as a suspect is that the motive seems too rational. To me it is a way to make serial killers seem less threatening, to be able to have a simple and rational explanation for behavior which is very complex and ultimately has no socially credible explanation. With serial killers the motive is generally the surfacing of animalistic, subconscious, sexual and violent urges which are unchecked due to a severely underdeveloped superego. Are you suggesting perhaps that Barnett was deluding himself into believing that he was doing these murders for some altruistic purpose?
Rob H |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1391
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Rob is right on the money here.
Serial killings are usually pure lust murders and also motiveless, or at least free from rational explanations, Leanne. That is what I meant by referring to your suggestion regarding the background to the murders as "constructed". It is too rational and too complicated.
Well, it isn't exactly "Royal Conspiracy" material, but netherveless...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 350
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 9:34 pm: | |
Glenn: "Serial killings are usually pure lust murders and also motiveless, or at least free from rational explanations..."
This is only true if you look at the murders in a rational way, which you can not do if you want to understand the true nature of the crime. The motive for the murders may make no sense what so ever to you, and it isnt intended to. It however does make perfect sense to the killer.
If Joe Barnett is the killer and I truely believe he is, then the motive while making no sense to you (he was killing older prostitutes to scare his lover off the streets) makes perfect sense to him.
By killing a few prostitutes I can scare the other prostitutes and force them to reconsider their life style.
Fact - The other prostitutes were scared to venture out after the murders became public knowledge and prostitution as a whole subsided considerably after the murders.
First part of my mission accomplished. I now have the papers writting about the killings and I can read it to my live in lover who happens to be a prostitute. This should scare her, and if I talk to her I may be able to convince her that once I find another job that we wont need for her to work the streets.
Mission failure, she is back on the streets. So, to up the ante I chose a victim that lives nearby. Annie lives across the street and she is an older prostitute. Now I have murdered a prostitute that lives across the street from her which will have to scare her more than the other one did as this one I mutilated her more than the other.
Mission failure again, she still returns to the street. So, I chose another older prostitute from the immediate area. Kate, she used to frequent the area and on occasion lived in the shed next to the chandler shoppe.
Mission failure once again - only now he realizes that nothing he is going to do will ever keep her off the streets. From there the last murder is a crime of passion...
Hypothetical, yes. But, if you believe that Joe is the killer, it provides a valid motive for the killings.
His hatred of prostitutes makes his crime easier to commit, and subconsiously he has selected women who in some way resemble or remind him of his mother (pure freudian I agree, but it does appear to fit the facts).
Shannon |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 284
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:31 am: | |
The problem with these "motives for Joe" is that it's putting the cart before the horse. If we start with the premise that Joe is guilty, then of course we can make up a motive for the killings. But, so what? If we start with the premise that Walter Sickert is guilty, we can create a motive for him too. We can make up a motive for any of the suspects (mind you, Druitt is the only suspect for which I've not seen a well developed motive yet; he's just supposed to be crazy like his Mum).
Anyway, a little imagination and creative thinking is all it takes to fit a motive to an individual as long as you start from the position that the person is guilty.
But just because we can make up convincing stories that sound like motive doesn't mean we've actually proved the person was guilty in the first place. And, if the motive doesn't even have to make sense to us, then this just makes it all the easier to come up with a motive because it doesn't even have to be convincing!
Basically, it's fun to think up "motives", but being able to come up with one doesn't prove the person was guilty. If one wants to play "find the Ripper", then it's more important to establish guilt first, then try and figure out the motive. Going the other way is impossible because it's easy to make up a motive for anyone.
- Jeff |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 351
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 1:29 am: | |
Jeff: "If one wants to play "find the Ripper", then it's more important to establish guilt first, then try and figure out the motive. Going the other way is impossible because it's easy to make up a motive for anyone."
Jeff, before you can prove who the guilty party is you need to have an idea of who they are. Once you have a list of suspects, you have to complete the triangle which is placing both the killer and the victim at the location of the murder at the same time. Once you have that established then you can look at the motives behind the killing. If you can not place the killer at the scene of the crime, it doesnt necessiarily mean they didn't do it, only that you can not prove they did it.
In the case of Joe Barnett, we know that he lived with Mary, that the murder took place in Mary's house, and that while at the time of the murder he may not have been living with her due to the fight that he did frequently return to her house. With the personal nature of the murder, he is the best place to start.
Believing that he murdered Mary, you then have to look at the physical make up of the crime scene. In this case it is drastic in nature but it has the tell-tale signs of being a Ripper murder.
So leap of faith time in that either Joe was the Ripper and murdered her, that he was a copycat of the Ripper going over the top in the hopes that the police would see enough of a resemblence to the other murders to make the claim that it was done by the Ripper, or that another committed the crime and Joe had nothing to do with it.
If the last is true, then how do you explain the personal nature of the crime in that the killer attacked her face which psychologically is reserved for someone that knows the victim, knew that she was alone in an apartment hidden down a 3 foot wide entrance to a court which could have been filled with people and had someone been entering the court would have blocked him in as there is only one entrance/exit to the court?
This for the most part eliminates strangers to the area seeing as it was one of the worst parts of town and strangers would not be prone to go there for fear of their own life and would not have know the court existed unless they had been there as there was little street lighting, and it was on a cold and rainy night.
So now, we are logically down to the first two possibilities, both of which point to Joe. The only difference being in one his is responsible for all the murders, and the other only for the death of MJK.
At this point the trail ends, but it forces one to accept that Joe is the best suspect in the death of MJK, and if you believe that MJK was killed by the Ripper, then you must take the leap of faith and believe that Joe did the others murders. Whatever his motive, he is still one of the best suspects for the murders.
Shannon |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 29
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 5:27 am: | |
Shannon,
I am sorry but Barnett is not the best place to start. Using the logic of being at the place the crime took place at the time of the crime, Hutchinson would be the best place to start as you can place him at the scene of the murder when it happened. If as he said, he knew Mary, then that could explain the personal nature of the crime.
His alibi is thin and his statement is implausible as not to be believed. I would think that he would be a far better place to start than Barnett.
Also for a man that hated prostitutes, as the pro Barnettites believe, he certainly did not hate them enough not to be involved with one. Mary was a prostitute before they met wouldn't he have hated her, or at least not liked her enough to NOT get involved with her?
I am not saying Hutchinson killed MAry, just that he is a far better suspect than JB.
My 2 cents,
Vlad
<edited for spelling>
(Message edited by vladimir on March 29, 2004) |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 352
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
Vlad, that would be the case if in fact George was there that night, and I am willing to bet he was no where around. It was cold, rainy, and at two in the morning I find it hard if not impossible to believe that he was able to make such a bold statement about the description of the man that Mary was supposidly with. I believe that his story is about as legit as the Maybrick Diary.
Shannon |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 998
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Vlad,
Yes, we can place Hutchinson there (if he was, as Shannon says) but that doesn't mean he killed her. I'm willing to bet that the actual killer would have made sure that no-one could definitely place him at the scene of the murder.
Jeff,
To me it makes little difference if you find the motive first. You could probably find a motive for a lot of the suspects but I happen to think that Joe's one is the best. Although, the fact that he had a motive obviously doesn't prove that he did it just as with the other suspects, so you still need to look for guilt.
I know some killers kill without motive and these are the harder to find ones and so maybe Jack didn't have a motive but then how can we possibly look for him amongst all the residents of Whitechapel and that's depending on whether he even lived there.
When someone is murdered, the people closest are looked at first and in my mind I haven't cleared Barnett and I think that he could easily be guilty.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1394
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 6:39 am: | |
Shannon wrote:
>This is only true if you look at the murders in a rational way, which you can not do if you want to understand the true nature of the crime. The motive for the murders may make no sense what so ever to you, and it isn't intended to. It however does make perfect sense to the killer.
Oh please, Shannon. Don't give me that. That was not what I meant. Of course every murder can make some kind of sense in the murderer's own mind (although they seldom do), that is not the point. For those who know anything about police work and criminals, it is obvious that "motiveless" here means that the crimes are performed as a result of an urge to kill (and quite often even this urge has a sexual undertone) -- that is why serial killing mostly is referred to lust murders, indicating that there are no rational motive. Rational motive here means a more thought out scheme (like the one you and Leanne&Richard Inc. is suggesting).
I don't want to exclude the possibility that Barnett murdered and mutilated Mary. In domestic murders (also involving mutilations) it is natural to take a look at the man the woman lived with or had the closest relationship with. And I think there could be sufficient motives for Barnett to kill Mary, if one wants to find it.
So, if he murdered Mary Jane Kelly, I am convinced that he mutilated her in order to blame Jack the Ripper. I do think there is a problem, however, that he in such case indulged in such an over-excessive handicraft, more excessive than the Ripper's work, but that is a minor problem, as I see it, since that could have different reasons and we can't really look into his mind anyway.
Faced with a capital punishment it is my belief that husbands and boyfriends can go quite far in their efforts to hide their crimes or make it into the mould of another killer. This has been done several times before throughout crime history by men with no prior convictions or recorded violent outbursts.
But there is no reason to believe that Barnett was Jack the Ripper. The idea that he knew the other women and that he was trying to scare Mary off the street by going on a murder spree is totally far-fetched and doesen't work. He could have solved his problems in a million other ways. And to go around that by saying that he had a "hatred of prostitutes" as well, which is completely unsupported by facts and pure speculations, is just a bit over the top for me.
He may -- just may -- have been Mary Kelly's murderer, but why he should be a serial killer goes beyond me; he certanly was not Jack the Ripper.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 11:21 pm: | |
Leanne,
Why are you accusing me of trying to start an argument? I never tried to start anything, I was simply posting.
I did read Bruce Paley's book a few years back. I really liked it. But, after looking more closely at his case (recently) I have decided against it.
Now, the stutter/stammer thing, that was way out of my hands, there are plenty of people that posted a lot more than me about that issue. I posted very little, besides the first post.
At any rate, you backed up the speech impediment thing for Barnett adamantly, long before I said anything about it. You were posting about that before I even discovered this board existed. If you are going to back up a theory, there are always going to be people who disagree.
And, if you look at the stutter/stammer post, there are plenty of people that disagree with your adamant defense of Paley's theory.
What is the point of your above post anyways?
Tim |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
Hi all,
I think that Scruff and leanne make a good point. We cant relate to the ripper. If anyone could that would be scary. It is hard to say what he was thinking or what his motives were and any motive is possible. I think the way the murders were commited tells us something about the ripper. The overkill tells me that the murders were personal. The murders were commited by a person who had issues with women.
If Barnett was the ripper I believe he killed women because of his own personal reasons or perhapes he killed women who remided him of Kelly. Perhapes when ever he got in an argument with Kelly and things were not going so good in the relationship he took out his frustrations on the women of WC or maybe even jelousey. when his frustration with Kelly being with other men built up he took it out on the women of WC.
When Kelly throws him out he snaps and kills her takeing away her hart.
The problem with any theory with Barnett is the killings stoped. I believe after Kelly's death he would have found another women to go crazy over and the pattern would start again much in the same way stalkers do.
I also think that it would have been hard for Kelly to live in such a close space with Barnett and not know he was the ripper. I think if Barnett was the ripper kelly would have known it.
I believe to center the case around Kelly like some do with suspects such as Barnett,Hutchinson and her landlord is flawed.
Hi Shannon,
The picture in your book of Mary is cool. I wonder how accurate it is.
Your friend,CB |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 3:33 am: | |
Shannon,
Shannon said: In the case of Joe Barnett, we know that he lived with Mary, that the murder took place in Mary's house, and that while at the time of the murder he may not have been living with her due to the fight that he did frequently return to her house. With the personal nature of the murder, he is the best place to start.
NO. In the case of what most people believe to be the last murder by Jack the Ripper, we know that the victim had a live in boyfriend for some time. This guys name was Joe Barnett. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE, PERIOD. Everything else that you said is called creative writing (and it is good creative writing). But, you have absolutely nothing to support anything that you have said.
AND .... NO .... the brutal mutilation of MJK does not suggest that the killer knew her more than anybody else. What it suggests is that a man, who obviously enjoyed mutilating women, finally had a chance to "get off" uninterupted. Most people would conclude that since he probably only had a minute or two a the most for all of the other murders, that when left alone with MJK the results of his mutilations would be far more severe.
Shannon said: At this point the trail ends, but it forces one to accept that Joe is the best suspect in the death of MJK, and if you believe that MJK was killed by the Ripper, then you must take the leap of faith and believe that Joe did the others murders. Whatever his motive, he is still one of the best suspects for the murders.
NO .... Nothing has been eliminated and no leaps of faith need to be taken. And, no we are not down to any logical possibilities. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Joe Barnett had anything to do with any murders, anytime, anywhere.
Here are the facts pertaining to this post:
1) It is accepted that five women were murdered by JTR (maybe more maybe less by some).
2) It is accepted that murders increased in brutality as they progressed.
3) Joe Barnett was the ex-boyfriend of Mary Jane Kelly. Sorry Shannon, but that's all we have about old Joe Barnett.
4) There was no more of a personal nature in the murder of MJK than there was of any other murder. She was murdered, gutted, and disfigured which fits the profile of what JTR wanted to do to all prostitutes of any kind.
Tim
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
Hi all,
Most people who believe Joe was Jack tend to want to center the case around Mary Kelly. I believe that the Kelly murder is important because it tells us that something happend to the ripper after the morning of november 9th 1888. I dont think that Kelly was the motive for all the killings and I dont believe that the ripper would just stop killing after the Kelly murder. In my opinion there is only a few reasons why the ripper murders would stop.
1.The ripper dies
2.The ripper is disabled for some reason
3.The ripper is locked up for some reason
4.The ripper moves away because he feels the police are getting to close or his work takes him else were and his new murders are never connected to WC.
I dont believe Joe was the ripper because I dont think he would just stop killing. I will point out that some people think that the ripper murders went on untill 1891 in England.
I will not rule out Joe as the ripper because at least he lived in WC at the time of the murders and he knew at least one of the victims. I will buy Leanne's book and give it a fair shake.
 Your friend,CB |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 5:58 am: | |
Shannono wrote:
"the case of Joe Barnett, we know that he lived with Mary, that the murder took place in Mary's house, and that while at the time of the murder he may not have been living with her due to the fight that he did frequently return to her house. With the personal nature of the murder, he is the best place to start. "
When looking for a serial killer, an ex-lover of a later victim is about the worst place to start. For a domestic murder, yes, for a serial murder heck no.
And what personal nature of the murder? It only becomes personal after you have already decided that Barnett must have done it, there's nothing about the crime scene or the victim to indicate a personal nature at all. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
