|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
carl burrows
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 6:54 am: |       |
hello all,
If I may interject in this post and add my 2 pence( well I am English)
I agree with Ronald James above, I've read the shortened Bruce Paley and Paul Harrisons accounts in the Mammoth JTR ,and I dont buy Barnett as JTR.
The pro's are the description,particularly the height from certain witness accounts which seem similar to Barnetts, and also he was in the locale,with a thorough knowledge of the area and also knew at least one victim.
But for me thats about it. I find the motive of wishing to scare Mary off the streets a bit weak!,
Taking into consideration the considerable chances he was taking with the consequences if caught, of a public hanging, surely there would have been easier alternatives.
We are understood to believe it was a common occurance for many unfortunate woman to sell their body's during hard times to benefit the financial situation of both party's in a relationship,so if old Joe was sacked from the Fish market ,through his own incompetance or whatever reason,he cant blame Mary for earning in whatever manner she could,surely it was for his benefit as well until they split up.
He also comes across as a guy probably with low self esteem(stammer etc,and for this reason I cant see him standing up to the post Kelly interogation and subsequant inquest without cracking. I think police would have been on to him.
I think if we are going down the local,blending in to the surroundings type serial killer theory Hutchinson seems a lot more viable and suspicious character in my opinion, based on the information we have available today, he also knew MJk ,was acting suspicious the night she came to grief and who's statement has more holes than a string vest.
I would also add WH Bury in that catorgory, has he has a proven history of violence and similar MO to JTR. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Tim,
In answer to Shannon's paragraph:-
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.
You said:-
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).
I'm sorry Tim, but you are wrong here. It is well known that once Joe had left Mary, he frequently stopped by to see her and to give her money on occasion when he had it. This to me suggests that he really did care about her and her well being and was still trying to get her off the streets, even though he couldn't in the long run.
Joe Barnett was the ex-boyfriend of Mary Jane Kelly. Sorry Shannon, but that's all we have about old Joe Barnett.
We know everything about Joe that Shannon said and so your point 3), as repeated above, is not true. Maybe you need to do some more research in that area.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 946
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
Rob, Vlad,
Rob,
As Glenn mentions, Bang on post mate. Weak attempts to break it. Top notch Sir.
Vlad,
Shannon is right. Hutchinson was no where near Dorset street on that night, around the time Kelly was murdered. I mean, why else would he make that statement ? A statement not verified by anyone....no not Lewis, what were you thinking of ?
More research is needed.
Where as Barnett was there, we know this because..er....erm well he just was, OK ?
Monty
(Message edited by monty on March 29, 2004)
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
Monty,
Thanks for the feedback. Glenn is soon going to blast me on another board, but thats another story.
Shannon - a few responses:
>>"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" ------
He attacked her face, as well as her arms, torso, abdomen, groin, and legs. It would perhaps be more telling to discuss what parts of her body was not attacked. In other words, the killer just went ballistic on her. Besides, other serial killers have attacked the faces of their victims.
>>how do you explain "he knew that she was alone in an apartment hidden down a 3 foot wide entrance to a court" -----
I think the prevailing theory is that MJK brought her attacker back to her place, as she was one of few prostitutes who had her own private lodgings.
>>"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" -----
Again, I think the prevailing idea is that Jack probably WAS from the east end, ie not a stranger to the area. Most prostitution takes place in seedy, crime-ridden areas, but "fear" never stopped other serial killers (Gary Ridgeway, Robert Pickton, etc) from going there to pick them up. But I do not see that this indicates Barnett in any way, except that he was a one of the thousands of men living in the area.
Rob H
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 353
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Tim: "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."
If this were the case he would have taken the others to a more secluded spot to do the killing. As strong as he was he would have been able to knock them out with a single blow or smother them causing them to pass out, at which point he would have found a quiet place to do the mutilations. Remember, two of the murders took place at or near warehouses... The murder selected the site for the killing for a specific reason - that the bodies would be found by either constable or passer-by, and they would be found rather quickly.
Shannon |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 285
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
Shannon,
As with any murder, it's always best to start with people who know the victim. Most murders are committed by someone close to the victim. And guess what? That's just what the police did. The interviewed Joe Barnett for hours. He told them where he was on the night of the murder. They checked out his alibi (I'm going to assume they didn't just take his word for it). It checked out, or they wouldn't have done the next thing which was: They let him go.
They also would have checked his clothes for bloodstains. No, we don't have this recorded in the case of Joe Barnett, but we do know this was their standard procedure with other "suspects" (check hands and clothes for bloodstains). And they would have done this, and if they found any, they wouldn't have let him go.
In other words, we have no physical evidence connecting him to the crime (no blood stains were found, no knife, etc).
And, we have an alibi for the night of the murder (which must have checked out, or they would not have let him go).
And they didn't catch him in any lies (again, they let him go).
And, testimony from other witnesses seem to indicate that Mary was the violent one in their relationship, not Joe. So we're lacking evidence of Joe being violent to Mary in their past relationship.
Testimony from other witnesses that on the night of her murder Mary Kelly was actively soliciting customers. So she was engaged in high risk activities, that put her alone with strangers.
Testimony from other witnesses that on the night of her murder Mary Kelly was intoxicated. So her judgement would be impaired, making her less able to spot a dangerous individual and making her more likely to "take a risk" even if someone seemed a bit odd.
We also know she was behind in her rent and had money problems, making her more prone to take a risk.
Etc.
In other words, what evidence we do have tends to clear Joe. And, Mary's behaviour on the night in question, and her financial situation, also put her at risk to a stranger murder.
Given that the police checked out Joe, and let Joe go, and given that the situation seems a good opportunity for a stranger murder - well, it's hard to see why people are so convinced it must have been Joe.
Yes, Joe is a good suspect. He's worth checking out. So far, however, the evidence clears him and unless something new comes up that changes the evidence set, he's just another boyfriend of a Ripper victim.
- Jeff |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 30
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
Shannon,
Do you know how hard it is to knock someone out with one blow? It is not easy. Also it was most likely the woman that led JTR to the spot they were killed not the other way around. Nichols to a area with few inhabitants and dark, Chapman to a yard that was dark and known to be frequented by prostitutes, Stride, well that one I am unsure of, Eddowes to a dark corner in Mitre Sq. and MJK to her own room. This is where the women took the men to do "business" they were killed by JTR when they got there.
Vlad
PS. Monty was slow to pick up on sarcasm, I must be tired.  |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 354
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 9:12 pm: | |
Ronald: "Do you know how hard it is to knock someone out with one blow? It is
not easy."
Ronald, 30 year old fish porter VS 40's something 5'2" drunken woman - NOT hard at all!
Shannon |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 31
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:45 am: | |
Shannon,
I think you have been watching to many American movies.  Seriously, trying to knock someone out with one blow (it would have to be his hands as I do not think even a drunk woman would follow a guy cary a stick or brick or whatever) is not an easy thing. Think about it, there is a drunk woman in the dark (probably almost pitch black) and you have to hit her just right or she is going to start screaming. Does not sound like Jack. Throttling her from behind or even in front, yes, but not a one shot hit.
Vlad |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 355
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 7:17 am: | |
Vlad, you have never engaged in hand to hand combat. When you attack another human being the adrenaline makes you capable of inhuman strength. Remember, our killer was able to grasp each of these women by the throat and with one hand squeeze her to the point he crushed her throat causing suffocation and loss of consciousness. That very same strength would have generated a punch that could literally crush her skull if need be.
Shannon |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 160
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
OK, Im not a Barnettite but knocking someone out or rendering them senseless with a single shot isnt hard at all. As a former boxer I can tell you its hard with gloves on, (Like getting hit with a hard smelly pillow) but with a bare fist its relatively easy. Ive seen it on the football field too, wearing full pads and a helmet. All that is necessary is to displace the cerebral fluid in the head enough to cause the brain to be compressed, The result is concussion...a blackout or total confusion. There are 7 points on the human head that are easy knockout targets...a furious pummeling by a crazy attacker on an unsuspecting victim should bring on an easy knock out.
|
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 32
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
Brad and Shannon,
Yes, I have engaged in hand to hand combat. And yes it can be done, but it is more likely that you will miss. Of all the hits you have seen to the head, they ALL ended up with a knockout? One hit that is, not a furious pummeling. I have played American football and have had many concussions, but never blacked out. (I found out I had the concussions from the doctor much later) I will grant that she was drunk and that would make it easier, but it would have been terribly dark making the perfect oneshot/first shot harder. Now maybe I am the exception. I have seen many martial arts competitions, (with and without gear) and have rarely seen a one hit/first hit knock out. Remember if the hit connections but does not knock her out or totally disable her, she will be sccreaming bloody murder.
Vlad |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 356
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Vlad, if the first blow didn't knock her out, she would be stunned, disoriented, and wondering what happened. It would take several seconds for her brain to process the information if at all given her intoxicated state...
Also, remember, she isnt expecting to get punched, she is expecting to get paid for her services and therefore would have allowed the "customer" to come easily within arms reach unlike your martial arts competition where the opponent is on guard expecting an attack...
Shannon |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 33
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:37 pm: | |
Shannon,
I will grant you that she would be unsuspected, but why hit her at all. You are taking a chance, why not just throttle her?
Also why do we think Barnett, as you profess, or JTR at all, has any hand to hand combat training? I just think he followed them and when he got the to thier spot, got in close, as you say, and throttled them.
We are arguing minutia, I mean the evidence shows that they were at least partially throttled so, it really means nothing.
Vlad |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 768
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
Hi,
All this punching is confusing me somewhat, surely , all the killer had to do was put a swift hand over the victims mouth , force her to the ground, and cut her throat, a poor defenceless woman, would have soon been despatched.
Richard. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 357
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Vlad,
Throttle her? Not sure what you mean.
As far as hand to hand, you completely missed the point. Anyone growing up in Whitechapel would know how to fight or they wouldn't survive. All our attacker would have had to do is strike quickly and violently to dispatch her.
"Jack" did swiftly dispatch each of his victims by crushing their windpipe, setting them on the ground and slitting their throats within a matter of seconds or they would have been able to cry out for help which none of them did.
Question - why strike so swiftly to incapacate, then kill and leave where they fell rather than take them to a secluded area where he could take his time with the mutilations? After all they were prostitutes who would have welcomed the company to pay for a nights lodging, and would have known of more than one secluded area where they could have worked their trade...
Polly, Annie, and Kate were all murdered and left in places where their bodies would be discovered at or near first light. Polly and Kate were murdered next to warehouses (which were actually owned by the same company if you want to go there) where had the killer wanted privacy to do more to the bodies than he did, he had the opportunity to do so.
He did all that he intended to do to each body. He did it quickly, openly in a public thoroughfare where they would be discovered, and he did it for a reason. He was leaving them there to make a statement to someone.
Question is - Who's attention was he trying to get and for what reason, and why was it important enough for him to take another human life to do so?
Shannon
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 286
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
Hi,
As interesting as all the kung-fu Jack ideas are, I'm curious where the bruises from these one hit wonders are? The post mortems, and inquest testimony, do not show any evidence of bruising that suggest any of the victims were punched, let alone punched hard enough to be knocked out, or with sufficient strength "literally crush their skulls" as Shannon puts it (which begs the question as to why the skulls were not crushed then?).
Or, are we just talking about whether or not it's possible to knock someone out with one hit? Well, yes, it is. Is it something you want to rely on. No, too risky. Did Jack seem to do this? We have no evidence to support such a claim.
Shannon, there is nothing to indicate any of the victims had their windpipes crushed as you state in your last post. The reports only indicate they were cut through by the knife, nothing about them being crushed at all.
- Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 581
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Very interesting Jeff,I too had always thought he knocked them out in a fast punch or else knew how to "Stun" through pressure on a certain neck vein.
However this brings me back to the murder of Frances Coles.Her throat was cut and was found almost immediately by a young police man who thought he saw her killer running off in the distance.It makes me think that she may well have been a victim of JtR.
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 250
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
In my view there were some significant differences in the Coles case. Firstly, the throat wound seemed to have been caused by a sawing action, the blade being drawn across from left to right, then from right to left, and once more from left to right. Secondly, she had an injury to the back of the head, indicating that she must have been thrown down forcibly. And thirdly, she was killed over two years after the last canonical victim and over one and a half after Alice McKenzie. All three don’t seem to fit with Jack the Ripper.
All the best,
Frank
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 358
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Jeff, no our "Jack" didnt strike the women like we are describing. The question was raised why the killer didnt subdue the women and take them to a more secluded spot that where he killed them on the streets.
Vlad seems to be under the impression that the killer didn't because he couldn't which I strongly disagree with. I believe that if the killer had the strength in his hand to grasp her throat and crush her windpipe like he did, he also posessed the strength to strike a blow hard enough to render the victim unconsious.
My argument is that the killer did his work and left the victims where they lay for a reason. He did not intend to do more harm to them, nor did he intend to seek a more secluded spot to have more time with them. Had he desired a more private spot for the mutilation to go beyond what he did, there were plenty of places nearby in the warehouses to do just that. So, why strike such a blow followed immediately by slicing their throat where they were unless you intened for them to die right there, and be discovered there since it was a public thoroughfare?
Shannon |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 583
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
HiFrank,if what you say is so then probably not
but he may not have had a knife of the same sharpness by then as well as being out of practice.
Best Natalie |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 34
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 6:52 pm: | |
Hello All,
Actually, why Jack did not take them to a more secluded place is that he just followed them to a dark spot where they did "business" and dispatched them while pretending to be a "John". He then mutilated them where they fell. He let the victim choose the place as he knew it would be dark and relatively out of the way.
Vlad |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 287
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 8:00 pm: | |
But none of the reports indicate "crushed windpipes", so where is this super-human strength he's supposed to have?
Since he did not crush the windpipe, how do we know he had the strength to do so?
If we can't be sure he had the strength to do this, how can you be so sure he could do the kung-fu knock out blow that you're arguing for?
All I'm getting at is that all we can be sure of is that Jack was able to overpower and strangle his victims (even the strangulation is a bit contentious) . Strangulation doesn't require super-human strength to achieve unconciousness. After that, he cuts their throats before they "wake up", and so on. He must have had some strength, but we can't say for sure he was exceptionally strong (because he doesn't have to be in order to do what he did; of course, he might have been, he just doesn't have to have been).
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on March 30, 2004) |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 359
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Jeff, yes it does.
[Dr. Llewellyn from Polly Nichols's inquest]: "I found it to be that of a female about forty or forty-five years. Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers."
[Dr. Phillips from Annie Chapman's inquest]: "The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen."
This is an indication that she was strangled with extreme force so as to cause her tongue to swell up and extend slightly from her mouth.
Shannon |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 288
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:10 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
I'm still unable to see "crushed windpipe" anywhere in these. And that is the evidence you've used twice now to support the argument about how strong Jack must have been, and it's the crushed windpipe which is what I'm saying is not there.
Here are copies from your previous posts:
Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 2:56 pm:
"Jack" did swiftly dispatch each of his victims by crushing their windpipe...
and
Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 4:45 pm
I believe that if the killer had the strength in his hand to grasp her throat and crush her windpipe like he did....
But the reports you've presented do not indicate crushed windpipes, although they do indicate bruising patterns that are consistent with manual strangulation.
Strangulation will cause bruising, even if the pressure is not at the level of strength that is required for the "super-human skull crushing blow" that you've been talking about. And, this bruising, swollen tongue, etc, can occur if the person doing the stranguling does not have the strength to "crush a windpipe", or to deliver you're proposed "skull breaker punch".
The swelling of the tongue and it's protrusion is caused by the build up of pressure as the blood is blocked from returning to the heart, like putting a kink in a hose causes pressure to build up behind the bend. The swelling of the tongue doesn't indicate extreme strength though, it just indicates strangulation. Just like the pattern of bruising doesn't indicate extreme strength, it just indicates sufficient strength for strangulation. Often, strangulation will also cause small heamorages in the eyes as well, for the very same reason; the build up of blood pressure causes the small blood vessels to rupture. These are not noted in the reports, so we cannot assume such happened in these cases. If they did not occur, this tends to point away from prolonged strangualation (I think; I'm not sure), as I believe these injuries require a greater length of time during which the blood flow is restricted in order to build up the pressure high enough. I may be wrong about this last point though, so if anyone knows there forensics better than I, please correct me if I'm wrong (or let me know if I'm not wrong so I can be sure in my own mind. Thanks).
With Nichols, some of the bruising could indicate a punch, or pressure from the thumb. If it's a punch, we have no record of "recently broken teeth", or "broken jaw", or anything that indicates a punch or blow of extreme force. Given that there is a corresponding bruise on the other side which suggests pressure from the fingers, however, this ambiguous bruise is more likely to indicate pressure from the thumb during manual strangulation. But notice again, nothing is "crushed".
I'm not doubting the strangulation, especially with Nichols and Chapman. What I'm saying is that none of the injuries indicate we must be looking for someone with above normal strength. Meaning, we can not be sure that Jack had the strength to do the "skull breaker", etc, because the injuries do not require someone to have that level of strength; he may have, he may not have, the evidence does not differentiate for us. So we should not differentiate. A theory which builds upon guessing one option or the other all falls apart if the guess is wrong.
Notice, however, we can probably rule out anyone who is particularly weak (Gull, for example, comes to mind here as his stroke seems to have caused some paralysis in one hand, making him too weak and placing the murders beyond his physical capabilities; but it's not like we need this sort of thing to rule out Gull anyway).
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on March 30, 2004) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
