|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 232
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 3:22 pm: |       |
Shannon, that is absolutely not true. The type of print mark you are talking about can easily be made by one thumb being placed on top of the other thumb with fingers over lapped on the other side. That sort of mark is seen in strangulation all the time. It is VERY difficult to strangle someone effectively with only one hand.
Mikey |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 292
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
Shannon,
FACT: The FBI profile that Paley cites as matching Joe was written by John Douglas
FACT: In John Douglas's book "The Cases that Haunt Us", the case of Jack the Ripper is covered.
FACT: In this book, John Douglas specifically examines Joe Barnett as a suspect and rejects him, pointing out that the "match" is only based upon the superficial points (basically, the ones you have listed)
FACT: To claim Joe Barnett matches a profile that specifically excludes him is an error.
FACT: To claim Joe Barnett matches a "general FBI profile" which is not based upon the JtR murders is an error because Joe Barnett is specifically excluded in the specific profile of the specific case.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 775
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
Bias as I may be , I agree with you one hundred percent, I started the thread ' Number one suspect ', when these new boards came into operation, I truely believe that he was involved in these crimes, he had a motive, he possibly had a dislike of jews,notably a possible marriage to one?.He lied to McCarthy by giving his name as kelly, he fumbled his way through interrogation,, there is circumstancial evidence he spat on Mjk, grave, witnessed by two females , that only became known public in 1959., the thirty nine theory fits him perfectly.he resided in the area all of his life, and his inquest behaviour, when appearing presise in his answers, shows a huge attempt to be avoiding suspiscion.
it also can be arqued that he knew most of the victims, by the area, they all resided in, especially as Mary jane, was so well known in the area, and he was her lover.
Untill a suspect comes along that can , match Barnett, I Will consider him Number One...
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 592
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
One of the reasons I cant take Joe seriously as the ripper is Mary Kelly"s alcohol dependence.
Now I have spent years and years with the partners of alcoholics and have studied the subject in great depth.This has given me a number of insights into the condition MJK suffered from which has all the signs of severe alcoholism.These days the partners of alcoholics are termed co-alcoholic or co-dependent.Just as certain unmistakeable signs distinguish an alcoholic from your average heavy drinker so do a number of unmistakeable symptoms indicate the co-alcoholic personality.Both are addictive personalities;However the co-alcoholic is "addicted" to his/her alcoholic partner.The co-alcoholic is a "caretaker" and the alcoholic is their "drug".One is dependent on the bottle the other on the alcoholic.
If this dependency can be broken the alcoholic can often start to "recover"-but that is another story.
The background of Joe Barnett absolutely fits that of a co-alcoholic.He had a chaotic childhood which probably ended when his father died and his mother abandoned him.Fear of abandonment dominates the relationship from the point of view of Joe.Mary on the other hand needed to do as she liked and the alcohol would have given her the feeling she could and not have to pay the consequences etc.In short Joe was a Love Addict and Mary an abandoner[there would never have been any rival for her affections to compare with the drink.
OK you may say but that still doesnt mean he couldnt have been JtR.Well actually it does.
Joe"s whole life would have certainly revolved around Mary.He wouldnt have been remotely interested in going out killing other women who were on the game to bring this "lesson" home to Mary.He would have known only too well that it wouldnt make a tiny scrap of difference.Joe would have long since joined Mary on the Merry-go-round of alcoholism wanting to obey Mary"s every wish[knowing that when he didnt she would do it anyway.She would have controlled and dictated everything he did and when he refused used direct threats and sometimes violence.She would also have had the visionary insights that alcohol brings and KNOWN if he was out ripping up other Women and the neighbours would have heard those rows and known even if Mary herself didnt tell them.Also she would have scuppered every attempt he made to "put her on the right track" as you imply.And he certainly couldnt have fooled her that CERTAIN.Noone would have better understood Joe than Mary and she would have been as slippery as an eel.
There is much more but maybe you get the gist of what I am trying to say and why I dont think Joe could have been the ripper.I dont say he couldnt have killed Mary in an exasperated rage and then tried to cover it up by A "copycat" mutilation.But I think Joe would then either have confessed or broken under questioning.He is of a specific type Joe and that type would not be into serial killing.
Natalie
med Co-alcoholic or Co-dependent. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 293
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Let's have a look at these "facts".
FACT - Joe lived with the last victim
Strictly, Joe "previously" lived with the last victim. If indeed MJK was truly the last victim of JtR. And, Kidney lived with Stride, Kelly lived with Eddowes. Three of the five canoncial victims had boyfriends/lovers. Why does the fact that MJK have a boyfriend necessarily mean her boyfriend is JtR?
FACT - Annie lived across the narrow street less than 30 feet from 13 Miller's Court.
I don't know enough about the living locations and local maps to make any comment on this. Given that 13 Miller's Court was located down an alley though, 30 feet seems awfully close.
FACT - Joe lied numerous times at the inquest into Mary's death about his relationship with her, her drinking habits, and her family
Joe's statements at the inquest are fairly consistent with what he reported to the police. The emphasis changes (as in why he left Mary), but not so much that they are lies. People rarely leave a relationship for one and only one reason. From his various statements, we see different dimentions of why he was leaving. But they are all focused on the common aspect that he was not happy about having to share the room with another person, which occured because he lost his job, and he wasn't pleased that Mary was back on the streets. To say he lied because he didn't say the exact same words each time is a bit much.
Since we know nothing about Mary's family, how are you so sure he lied? How are you so sure Mary didn't tell him false information about her family, and he's just repeating what he's been told without knowing it was false? (as per Stride and the Princess Alice stories?)
FACT - Joe fits extremely well with the description of the last man Kate was seen with only a few moments before her death.
Since the description is of a male, average height, average build, early 30's, with a mustache, well, the description could pretty much match any early 30's male in the area. The description is too vauge to be of any use, whether it matches or not.
FACT - Joe losing his job and his lover were the low points in his life.
Losing his lover was a low point? Based upon what? He doesn't indicate he was overly upset about leaving Mary, rather he seemed more upset that she took someone in making their room too crowded so he left. It's Bruce Paley's book that insists Joe was trying to get back together with Mary, but there's no testimony that indicates he was trying to reconcile with her at all. Only that he sometimes gave her money. Maybe he was now buying her services and didn't really have a dislike of prostitutes at all, and he really didn't want to get back with her (he left her, remember). He lost his job, but he was still looking for other work. Such was life in Whitechappel. He wouldn't have been happy about it, but nowhere is it indicated he was so upset about it that it was a "low point in his life". That claim would have to be backed up by more than an assumption.
FACT - His father died when he was about 6 years old and his mother deserted him shortly after to a life on the streets of the worst slums in the country (and perhaps the world)
A childhood story not uncommon in the area, unfortunately. Also, these points only have relavance if Joe matched the profile (where these points are listed as "characteristics" of JtR). Since, as per my previous post, he does not match the profile, these points are neither here nor there.
FACT - Joe has a lot in common with the profile of modern day serial killers (no it doesn’t make him one, only stating that this is something that needs to be investigated further): 1- absence of a father figure 2- deserted or abandoned at an adolescent age 3- alcohol or drug abuse in the family 4- loss of self worth due to loss of job and/or love relationship.
I've covered this one in my previous post.
Sorry Shannon, I just don't think the case against Barnett really stands up to scrutiny. At least, not the way it is currently presented by those who support him as JtR. I'm not saying he couldn't be, since basically any male in the area could have been, it's just nothing about the evidence strongly points to him unless one spins the interpretation.
Bruce Paley's case is compelling because of the unnecessary descriptors he uses to describe things. Joe's behaviour of giving Mary money is turned into Joe desperately trying to win her back. Maybe Joe gave her money for much more immediate satisfaction, and left her because they didn't get along as a couple. Joe's denial of wanting her to prosititutes is hardly suprisiing since he could have been charged with living off immoral earnings (or something like that). But Paley doesn't consider such things because they tend to make the same evidence point to Barnett being innocent if you spin it different.
If you can "spin" the evidence both ways, then the evidence is not sufficient to make a conclusion, and therefore no conclusion should be made. We can neither prove Joe Barnett was the Ripper, but we cannot totally clear him as of yet. We're closer to the latter than the former though (the police would have checked out his alibi for the night in question, and maybe even for the nights of the other murders, and found that he was elsewhere; unfortunately, until we know what the police based their dismissal of Joe on, we cannot be sure this is what they did. It's probable, but not proven.)
- Jeff
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 252
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
Jack the Ripper was clearly a serial killer. What is known about psychopath serial killers (as far as I know) is that they don’t have much of a conscience, if any, and that they are egotistical. They don’t care for helping their neighbours if there’s nothing in it for them and they are not interested in doing society a favour. What they do, they do for themselves.
Leanne wrote: “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.”
Judging from what Leanne said about the persuading and assuming Joe Barnett was Jack the Ripper, he most probably would not have been a psychopath. Certainly when we consider, like Sarah wrote in one of her posts above, that he frequently stopped by to see her and to give her money on occasion when he had it”, which seems to suggest that he really did care about her and her well being. This is in line with what Julia Venturney said in her police statement: “…he was very kind to her...”
Judging from the crimes and especially the mutilations themselves I don’t think it’s a leap of logic to say that it’s likely Jack the Ripper hated women. He seems to have wanted to destroy his victims. I don’t think a man – who was not a manipulative psychopath - who hated women as much as he seems to have done, would have been capable of having (or ‘faking’) a normal relationship for any length of time. I doubt if he could handle a woman who had her own (sexual) needs and wants to perhaps feel equal instead of inferior. Mary Jane Kelly seems to have been a fiery woman at times. The fact that he killed roughly between midnight and 6 a.m. supports the idea that Jack the Ripper was single and lived alone, without having to render account for anything to anybody.
Although a number of the facts that you listed in one of your posts above are correct, there’s nothing that we know of that indicates that Joseph Barnett had grown up into either a psychopath or someone suffering from (a mild case of) schizophrenia or something similar. In fact, evidence shows that he was capable of having a relationship and seems to have been a kind man who genuinely cared for Mary Jane Kelly. And that's why I think he wasn't Jack the Ripper.
All the best,
Frank
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 367
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 7:34 pm: | |
Mikey: "The type of print mark you are talking about can easily be made by one thumb being laced on top of the other thumb with fingers over lapped on the other side..."
Mikey, you better check your facts about strangelation again. There in NO way. Even if the killer overlapped his thumbs he would have left MULTIPLE marks on both sides of the throat from his fingers and the indentation from the thumb(s) would have been more centered and a lot deeper.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 368
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 7:39 pm: | |
Jeff, just because one person rejects him as a suspect doesnt mean we all have to. The points I have stated are valid and would be cause for an investigation either today or in 1888. To dismiss him just because he doesnt fit the profile is the same as saying Wayne Williams couldnt have been the Atlanta Child murderer because he was black and there are no black serial killers.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 369
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 7:44 pm: | |
Natalie, where do you arrive at the conclusion that Mary was an alcoholic? A drinking problem, yes, but an alcoholic? Please shed some light on this for me...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 370
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Frank, if the killer hated women so much, why did he kill them quickly and do all the mutilations posty mortem? When a killer hates the victim he makes them to suffer which our killer did not do with any of the victims...
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1413
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 8:02 pm: | |
Jeff,
You make excellent points; nothing more to add, really, you're bang on post.
I don't know what to think about the Kelly murder (although that she was a Ripper victim would be a good bet), but why Barnett should be a better JtR suspect than anyone else, goes beyond me. The notion that he might be a notorious serial killer is totally based on assumptions and very free interpretation of the facts. His personal history and description could fit hundreds if not thousands of male East End residents in their 30s -- the only interesting point about him in connection with Mary Jane Kelly's murder, is the fact that he lived with her for a period of time and that the murder was a domestic one. Apart from that, there is really nothing extraordinary that suggests that he was Jack the Ripper.
The conception that he knew the other murder victims are baseless, circumstancial and completely unsupported.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 371
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
Glenn, your right in the fact that Mary's murder was domestic, and since Joe was her lover he is the best place to start.
Now, if she was a true Ripper victim then he has to be considered as a suspect in the other killings if you believe he is the one responsible for killing Mary.
That is simple logic IF you believe that he killed Mary which I do.
Like I have said a number of times in the past; Mary's killing fits one of three catagories -
1, that Joe did it and he is the Ripper.
2, that Joe did it and it is a copycat killing
3, that Joe had nothing to do with it what so ever.
If you believe that the murder was domestic in nature, then you eliminate #3 because #1 or #2 have joe doing the killing unless you know of another that she was in any sort of domestic relationship with at the time of her death.
So, take your pick - was he the ripper or not; either way, he is the most likely suspect in MJK's death. Beyond that you have your leap of faith.
If you believe MJK was a true Ripper killing, then you have to consider that Joe was in fact the ripper.
At this point you have to make your decision; was she a Ripper victim or not?
Shannon |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 36
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 9:25 pm: | |
Shannon,
Ah yes, there would be an investigation, and there was. Guess what he was released. Could they have been wrong? Sure they could. But you neglect to mention the Fact that he was questioned, longer than most other suspects, and he was released.
And the way the women were murdered and mutilated shows that he enjoyed what he was doing. What made him stop and live a normal life after the last killing? If it was the last killing.
Richard,
The fact that someone said that they saw a lone man spit on MJK's grave is what? Third hand, maybe? That is hardly a FACT.
Just some thoughts.
Vlad |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 372
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 9:56 pm: | |
Ronald, Yes he was contacted, and questioned. But, had the police had correct information about the time of death I believe the story would have a much different outcome.
1, it was assumed by the police that Mary died at about 04:00 in the morning, which is not true based on the forensic evidence at the crime scene. First, the blood on the floor was not dried which it should have been after 11 hours given that the police didnt enter the room until some time after 1:00 in the afternoon.
2, that Mary had undigested food in her stomach at the time of death which only takes approx 2 - 3 hours to completely digest and had she died at 04:00 in the morning her stomach would have been empty.
3, that there were TWO eye witnesses that saw Mary alive and on the street between 08:00 and 09:00 - also that it was Lord Mayor's day and not likely were mistaken as to the time or place they saw here. Carrie was even cautioned at the inquest about her testimony, but she was able to correctly identify the clothing Mary had at the time.
4, counting backwards from the time her body was discovered at about 11:00, you have undigested food in her stomach, pooled blood, and little in the way of rigor on the body, and you find that the time of death is much closer to 10:00 and not 04:00 as guessed at by Dr Phillips (the same doctor who stated that Annie Chapman died 2 hours before she was last seen alive by Elizabeth Long)
Now, having said that, if the inspectors on the case knew this information and questioned Joe about his movements at 09:00 - 11:00 in the morning, he very possibly (I wont say definately) would have been arrested for her murder.
As far as him enjoying what he did; if that were the case he would have found a way to prolong the enjoyment and not made the kills so swift and complete as he did. Anything you enjoy doing, you try to make last as long as possible to savor the moment...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 373
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 10:26 pm: | |
Jeff: "Let's have a look at these "facts".
...Joe "previously"...
Yes, and he returned nearly every day and night to her place for whatever reason.
Given that 13 Miller's Court was located down an alley though, 30 feet seems awfully close.
#13 was the first room upon entering the court. Annie lived at #35 Dorset which is directly across the narrow street from the entrance to the court.
Joe's statements at the inquest are fairly consistent with what he reported to the police.
While his statements may have been consistant with what he told the police, they were way off the mark from what others who knew her had to say. When it came to her family he was so vague on the answers that not a single one of them could be coroborated.
Since the description is of a male, average height, average build, early 30's, with a mustache, well, the description could pretty much match any early 30's male in the area. The description is too vauge to be of any use, whether it matches or not.
Not too vague when you consider it was a description of an Irish looking man in the Jewish part of town.
It's Bruce Paley's book that insists Joe was trying to get back together with Mary, but there's no testimony that indicates he was trying to reconcile with her at all. Only that he sometimes gave her money.
Why would he give her money? She had the house, he didnt. She had an "occupation" where she could earn a living, he didnt. The best he could do was part time labor. If the money wasnt to get back in her grace what was it for, her service? Not likely as he would have a hard enough time making ends meet, let alone now having to pay for a service he had been receiving for free... Even you are not that niave...
Sorry Shannon, I just don't think the case against Barnett really stands up to scrutiny.
And, youre not asked to. I am merely stating how I view the facts and the conclusions I come to based upon them. But, until something a lot more concrete come along proving he didnt do it, he is still (IMHO) one of if not the best place to start and since every investigation has to have a starting point why not use him as such.
Shannon
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 294
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 12:19 am: | |
Shannon,
I didn't mean to imply that Barnett should be rejected as a suspect because he does not match the profile, but I wasn't clear about that. Sorry. What I meant is that one should not use the information in the profile as "evidence against Barnett" because the profile specifically rejects him. One cannot pick and choose the parts of the profile that "fit Barnett". If one wishes to reject the profile on the grounds that profiles are not always accurate, that's fine and there are lots of examples to support such a concern. However, if one is going to do that, then one cannot then decide that "these parts that match are right", because one is then using their belief to interpret the data rather than using the data to formulate a belief.
As for Joe choosing to give Mary money for her services when he's hard pressed himself being unlikely, well, not to be crass, but I think it more likely he's going to give her money if he gets something in return than give her money to pay her rent if he can't pay his own on the hope that she takes him back. If he's as calculating as the Barnett in the "Barnett as JTR" theory, then he would know that it would be more effective to leave her in financial trouble unless she takes him back, rather than let her know she can get money for nothing (he'll pay her even without taking him back - not a very smart move for one who is supposed to be so clever in his abilities to manipulate the police, his girlfriend, etc).
As for the descriptions, they don't only fit an Irish man, they fit any 30ish male of relatively light skin tone. Irish, English, German, French, American, Canadian, Polish, etc. And although Whitechappel had a large Jewish population, there was also at least an equally large Gentile population as well.
As for the blood being dried or not, the descriptions of the scene do not indicate either. They indicate "large pool of blood", but do not say it was or was not dried. Even if she was killed in the morning, one would expect the blood to be clotted, and yet it's not described as such. It takes between 5 and 15 minutes for blood to clot. Are we to now believe that the murder occured 5-15 minutes prior to opening the door? Obviously not. The absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. We must with-hold judgement about the state of the blood in terms of it being dried or not. If it was not dry, a morning murder makes more sense (but I suppose one would want to determine how long it takes for a large pool of blood to dry when the temperature is between 4 and 10 degrees Celcius: the average temperature range for Novemeber in London). If it was dry, a murder much earlier makes sense. The rest of the forensic evidence is equivocal, and fits either time frame, so again, we're forced to "not decide". This, I admit, is the frustrating part, but what also makes it fun. Trying to see if we can find something that allows us to make a decision, rather than be forced to guess.
As for the witnesses testifying to seeing Mary on the morning of the murder, we must not forget how Stride was initially identified as a woman's sister. She saw the body, testifie that Stride was her sister, was very forceful in her conviction, and was very wrong as her sister later showed up in court very much alive and well. People can be very convinced of things that are not true.
Since we don't know what the police questioned Barnett about, we can only speculate. I'll do so here, and fully admit any and all of these statements may be wrong.
First, we would expect that the police would ask Barnett about where he was at the time of the murder (meaning at the time they suspected the murder happened). He would have given his "card playing" alibi, that would have been checked out and found to be accurate. So, if the murder occured in the early morning (which the forensic evidence allows for), then Barnett must be innocent. I think most people could agree on that. So, if Barnett killed Mary, the murder must have been in the late morning. And, the forensic evidence we have allows for that time frame too. So Barnett is not in the clear.
The police would have checked his hands and clothing for signs of blood (as they did with other suspects). They must not have found any because none of his current jobs would explain blood stains and they let him go. If the murder was in the late morning (the only time that Barnett could have done it), then he would have had to leave Millers Court, wash himself, and his clothes, of blood. He's got her heart with him, which may have been hidden in a pocket, but then those clothes get bloodstained, even if it's wrapped up, so they need washing. It's never been clear to me exactly what time Barnett is questioned by the police, but by 1 o'clock he's had a few hours to do all this washing up, so we can't be sure he did not do all this. Of course, if he didn't kill Mary, there's no reason for any of this washing to have occured. Whether or not the police would find it suspicious to find the ex-lover of the most recent Ripper victim with newly washed clothes, it's hard to say. They might. But, since there is no mention of such, either he didn't have to (he's innocent), or they didn't find it suspicious (they let him go), or he ditched the clothes he was wearing.
They also didn't find a knife, or her heart, or any of the body parts taken from the various victims. This, of course, could indicate he got rid of them. However, that is an odd behaviour for a serial killer who collects body parts as trophies. The older pieces might have been eaten, or thrown away when they went "off", but the heart was fresh. I would expect this trophy to be kept, especially given the significance it would have to Barnett. But it was never found during the investigation of Barnett. So, either he never had it, or he just got rid of it. (See what I mean by absense of proof is not proof of absence? By being unable to show he had the heart does not mean he never had it, we're always left with two options: never had it or got rid of it. You cannot prove based upon not finding something. If one can prove it was never there, however, then one has "proof of absense", which is different from "absense of proof").
It's also possible they questioned him concerning his location on the nights of the other murders (as they did with Pizer, which is how he was cleared). He may have had a verifiable alibi for at least one of those. Unforunately, we just don't know if this is the case. If so, it's quite likely he's innocent of Mary (barring the "she's the only one by copy-cat Joe" option). If transcripts of his interview ever turn up, that would be a huge find. Until then, we can be reasonably sure they asked him about the other murders, we just can't be sure what his answers were. Maybe his only alibi was for the night of Mary's murder, maybe not.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that we should form our beliefs based upon what we can unequivocally determine from the evidence. I don't believe Joe was the Ripper, but I can't be positive he wasn't. The evidence tends to point away from guilt because nothing is really incriminating. But the evidence does not get us all the way to innocent, leaving the door open for his guilt.
So, yes, I think Joe is worth investigating. No, I don't think the case against him is strong. I follow your reasoning, and if we start with the premise that Joe is guilty I can see that the evidence against him can be explained. What I'm trying to point out is that if we start with the premise that Joe is innocent, the evidence can also be explained. Hence, judgement should be reserved. And, since guilt has to be "established through positive evidence" (meaning something that is actually incriminating must be found to tie him directly to the murder) while innocence simply predicts that nothing will be found, the absense of guilty evidence (although not proof of innocence because guilt could be true) is generally considered as pointing towards innocence, if not proof of innocence.
Hmmmmm, this is much longer than I intended!
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on April 02, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 295
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 12:28 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I too find it hard to accept the notion that any two of the victims knew each other by name. If they did, it's just too much of a stretch for me to believe that nobody ever mentions this. Something like "Oh, and X was so upset when her friend Y was killed just two weeks ago", etc. None of the witnesses at any inquest ever indicate a connection between any two victims. Even the papers a noticable by their silence on such a possibility.
As for MJK being a "copy-cat", I find that equally hard to believe. If Joe killed Mary, he Killed at least Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes as well. Stride, as you know, I still can't make up my mind about. Go figure.
- Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 594
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 1:21 am: | |
Hi Shannon,All
Re Mary and alcoholism
a]she drank to excess and several people who were her neighbours said so
b]she became quarrelsome when drunk
c]her life had become "unmanageable"[rent arrears over a prolonged period/previous rent arrears and eviction
d]loss of self respect[according to friends and
as witnessed in her chosen "profession" which she knew Joe didnt like but which it seems clear she was determined to do.
e]the real "give away" being that she was young and good looking and had had a better "job" in prostitution but couldnt hold it down because of her volatile behaviour.[as cited when she left several lodging places]
Mary by the sound of it had "gone down" in the world so that by the age of 25 she could barely make ends meet.Yet still she could "afford" to get drunk to the point of insobriety the night before she was murdered.
f]she was involved in high risk work even though there had been violent murders within a few minutes walk of where she lived.She was scared but it didnt stop her from going on the streets after midnight to make earn her living --much of it clearly spent on drink.
There are other signs of her alcohol depedence too.She appears to have been given up on by her family which often happens as a result [no family members are recorded at the funeral
most important the job she took to feed the addiction is a classic---!
Despite all the above you are quite right to question whether she was or not Shannon because actually only Mary knew and only Mary had the right to call herself an alcoholic.Not me or any one else.However There are telltale "signs" and it is useful information from the point of view of solving the case through working on the character of Joe and his part in it all.
Best Natalie |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 374
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 1:31 am: | |
Natalie, thank you for the information.
Jeff, of the victims the two that had the best chance of knowing each other are MJK and Annie. Much the same as Carrie and Mary knew each other by "being about in the lodging houses."
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 375
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 2:13 am: | |
Jeff, Your argument for him giving her money for sex makes no sense. If she didnt want him there, she had other clients who would pay for her services. If he moved out as he claimed, he would not be returing to her place only to pay for sex. He would either move back in or find someone else.
As for the descriptions, they don't only fit an Irish man, they fit any 30ish male of relatively light skin tone. Irish, English, German, French, American, Canadian, Polish, etc. And although Whitechappel had a large Jewish population, there was also at least an equally large Gentile population as well.
Yes, but what percentage of that population matching that description was out at 01:30 in the morning in the Jewish part of the city? And of those that were out at that time of the morning, what percentage matching that description lived with one of the victims?
As for the blood being dried or not, the descriptions of the scene do not indicate either. They indicate "large pool of blood"
Pool and Saturated do not describe clotted, coagualted, or dried, they are all present tense and indicate the blood was wet.
As for the witnesses testifying to seeing Mary on the morning of the murder.... People can be very convinced of things that are not true.
One person perhaps; but, two? Not likely as they gave their stories independant of each other. And, they gave them prior to the inept doctor making a time of death pronouncement.
First, we would expect that the police would ask Barnett about where he was at the time of the murder (meaning at the time they suspected the murder happened).
Exactly, he would have been questioned where he was between 03:00 and 05:00. IF the murder did take place then, he would have been able to account for his where-a-bouts. The officers would have been very thorough about this; however, once cleared of the time they thought the murder took place they would not have questioned him further about is activities later in the morning.
So, if Barnett killed Mary, the murder must have been in the late morning. And, the forensic evidence we have allows for that time frame too. So Barnett is not in the clear.
Exactly my point. He can not be cleared!
The police would have checked his hands and clothing for signs of blood (as they did with other suspects). They must not have found any because none of his current jobs would explain blood stains and they let him go. If the murder was in the late morning (the only time that Barnett could have done it), then he would have had to leave Millers Court, wash himself, and his clothes, of blood.
For Joe finding a place to wash up would not have been difficult given his knowledge of the area.
It's also possible they questioned him concerning his location on the nights of the other murders (as they did with Pizer, which is how he was cleared). He may have had a verifiable alibi for at least one of those. Unforunately, we just don't know if this is the case.
With all that had been attributed to JtR by now, no one person would have been charged because even if they had the real killer there were so many false accusations made that even the real killer would have been able to have a concrete alibi for at least one of the acts to be set free. Police of that day did not know that you do not have to place the killer at each and every crime scene. Look at present day serial killers. Malvo is only charged in a couple of the shootings, Williams was only charged with two of the 30 murders, and DeSalvo was never charged with murder, only sexual assault.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that we should form our beliefs based upon what we can unequivocally determine from the evidence....But the evidence does not get us all the way to innocent, leaving the door open for his guilt.
What I'm trying to point out is that if we start with the premise that Joe is innocent, the evidence can also be explained. Hence, judgement should be reserved.
Start with neither guilt or innocence. Start with the facts of the case and see if anyone fits what is known about the case. Dont make the facts fit the case, make the case fit the facts. Joe fits the facts of the case far better than anyone else and is my logical place to start. If you could clear him of the case, I would be the first to drop the investigation and look in another direction, but you cant...
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 776
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 2:33 am: | |
Hi,
After Kellys murder, the statement was isued'Unlike the other murders, there were circumstances, lacking in the others , that make it more likely that in the case of kelly, the murderer may have had a assistant, who if actually did not take part in the crime, may have assisted the perpretrator afterwards' [ not a quote, but similar].
I have always considered that this remark, could imply that the murderer, may have been more likely to have been aided, by another person, or seen by another person, because of the time the murder took place,ie. in daylight hours.
I have a feeling , that the police felt the killer stayed with a living Kelly, throughout the night, and killed her before, he left in the morning, sometime after Maxwells sightings.
So because of this attitude, once Barnett appeared, and was found non bloodstained, and he had a night alibi, he was released.
Regards Richard. |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 37
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 3:52 am: | |
Shannon,
Even if the blood were a pool and not dried, it was hours after the sighting before they went into the room. Shouldn't the blood (As Jeff said) be clotted? Why isn't that mentioned? It was raining that night, wouldn't 100% humidity cause the rate the blood dried to slow? (not to mention the temperature)
Vlad |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 376
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
Vlad, slow somewhat yes, but you also have to remember that the fire in the grate had been burning (according to Inspector Abberline) which would have raised the temp in the (12' X 12') room several degrees and should have caused the blood to dry, especially had the murder and the fire happened in the early morning hours as others have indicated.
The body was sighted at about 11:00 AM and they entered the room between 1:00 - 1:30 PM. Slightly more than 2 hours. Had the murder happened much later in the morning, closer to the time of discovery, as I believe and the fire started at about the same time, there would not have been sufficient time for the blood to dry which it had not.
With the temp being about 8C (approx 46F) and the humidity around 85% (the rain came at night, disipated in the early morning hours and the sun would have been out lowering the humidity as it heated the air) the blood would have slowly flowed to the lowest points - under the torso on the sheets and on the floor beside the bed and table located next to it where it would have pooled as it did and started the drying process at a slow rate which according to the doctor's notes it appears is what happened. Which is why I believe the forensic evidence of the crime scene indicates that the murder took place much later in the morning...
Shannon
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 5:48 am: | |
Shannon wrote:
"Pool and Saturated do not describe clotted, coagualted, or dried, they are all present tense and indicate the blood was wet. "
What makes you think the words wouldn't be used unless the blood was wet? What would you offer up as an obvious substitute word for a "pool" of blood that was now dry? And, if "saturated" implies present tense, what's the past tense form of the word? Saturateded? |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Hi all,
The ripper stoped because he was forced too stop for some reason. Why did Joe stop killing?
I think that people who support Joe as the ripper tend to want to center the case around Kelly. I think to center the ripper murders around Kelly is flawed. If Kelly was the last ripper victim then her murder tells us one thing. Something happend too Jack dureing or soon after the Kelly murder. This is the direction that I choose to take my investigation in and Joe doese not seem to me to be a good canidate. I dont accept the motive that he was commiting the murders too scare Mary of the streets. It is possible that he was crazy and had his own personal reasons for Killing. Either way I dont think that he would stop killing after the Kelly murder.
Hi Ripperhistorian,
I think to doubt Shannon's research is wrong. I read his book and I Know he has spent alot of time investigating the murders. I think in a case that is 115 years old were there is know facts that connect any of the suspects too the murders. You have to speculate a little and draw your own conclusions. Just because we do not agree with Shonnon doese not make him wrong because who knows who Jack was and what he was thinking.
Your Friend,CB |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
