|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 327
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:28 pm: |       |
Hi CB,
Good points concerning Mary's reported state of intoxication. I was thinking more of GH's testimony which doesn't seem to imply she was all that drunk. However, GH is probably not the best witness to go on. Writing from work, however, I was basing things mostly on the recent quotes which suggested she was not drunk to the point of suffering vomiting the next day.
Now, if we take the quotes you've mentioned, well, one could argue that she was drunk enough to be hungover. I suppose I could claim but she may not have been drunk enough...etc, and so on and so on. But, in the end, there is testimony concerning the apparent level of intoxication of Mary of the Evening that could fit with the vomiting Mary of the Morning. So, I'll happily concede the point.
We still have discriptions which don't tally, but as we've all talked about, eye witness descriptions are not very reliable. Still, small and dark haired for a tall, buxom, blond does seem pretty wide of the mark.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 814
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Ally.
we differ, but that is a healthy response.
I have tried to explain why i am convinced, that Barnett, was involved in my many posts on these boards.
I have studied the subject without a doubt since 1964, I have been active since then, and I Will be perfectly honest in saying that Barnett is the most likely killer of mary kelly, therefore , also that of the others.
No other suspect, apart from an unlikely Sickert, comes near.
We may all be wrong , it might have been Mr ? from ?.
But opinions are beneficial to this site, which is a gem,
Richard... |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 682
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Richard, I don"t know why you have begun this stuff about the number thirty nine.It really has begun to sound a bit like a quack.Also implying that Mary was somehow cajoled by her cousin to go into prostitution---Richard ! I doubt it I really do.Mary probably outwitted everyone when it came down to getting what she wanted and all the indications are that what Mary really really wanted was drink!And make no mistake she would get it by fair means or foul....and did.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
It pleases me to see that you actually seem to have an open mind about Barnett's involvement in the Kelly murder only and maybe not the other ones. I must admit I hadn't expected that. Hats off.
Anyway, I can't say such an interpretation represents the truth about what happened, but it's a theory, nothing else, and I find it more and more reasonable the more I look at it.
"What I meant by him regreting the sort of damage he inflicted on Mary was, if it was originally a crime of passion so to speak, he had killed her, without intention of mutilation, and it would have been only when he realized the consequences, that he resorted in such a manner."
Exactly. That is what think could be a possible scenario.
Well, the evidence for him being the Ripper consists, from what I've heard so far, of long-winded theorizing and hearsay. I wouldn't call it evidence or even facts.
There is no reason to believe, apart from personal interpretations of his childhood, that he knew the other women or had an interest in murdering them. I don't see him as a serial killer.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 328
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I think Joe killing only Mary Kelly is problematic for the following reasons. Let me know what you think of my reasoning; I'm presenting an interpretation of events, some of which I can't obviously prove.
First, when the police interviewed Joe, Joe was able to provide an alibi for the night in question (playing whist, and then went to bed). Presumably, the police were able to verify this as they let him go and do not suspect him later. The police, therefore, must have been very satisfied with his alibi. Although we don't know how they verified it, I think it's safe to assume they did based upon their subsequent behaviours.
However, the police believed Mary was killed in the night, which means if Joe kills Mary, she was killed in the morning. There is, of course, some testimony that suggests Mary was alive in the morning. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, which I've presented before, it is not impossible that Mary was killed in the morning. So, if Joe kills Mary, regardless of his killing anyone else, he had to do so after the time which the police believed her to have been killed (outside the time covered by his alibi).
Now, if Joe kills Mary in the morning, which I believe is the only time that allows for Joe to be her killer, then Joe has to wash off any blood, gore, etc, get different clothes (without blood on them), etc. and ensure he's not spotted by anyone who knows him in the area (he used to live there).
Not only that, but a few hours later, he is located by the police, and interviewed. Now, it seems to me that if Joe only kills Mary, even if he was able to avoid being seen by people who knew him, get clothes without blood, discard of the heart, toss the knife, etc, if he's not a cold blooded serial killer, he's going to be nervous, upset, and horrified by what he's just done. Basically, he's going to crack under the pressure of a police interview. I just can't see someone who's never committed a murder before, perform the mutilations on Mary Kelly trying to disguise the murder as a Ripper crime, and then despite this "precaution", he finds out he still get caught by the police and interviewed as a suspect. Under the pressure, both externally from the police, and internally (from the realisation of what he's just done and the horror of doing it), I would think a one time killer would just break down.
If, however, Joe is not only the killer of Mary, then he's a serial killer, and from what we know of him, he would have to be a psychopathic one rather than psychotic (i.e., no remorse, but not mentally impaired as apposed to schizophrenic, or delusional, etc). This kind of person could get through the interview, but not a "normal person" who's just committed a mutilation murder.
So, I would think that if Joe killed Mary, then Joe would have had to kill at least Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes as well. I find it too unlikely for a one time killer, who tries to "emulate" a mutilation killer, to be able to get through a police interview and to present themselves as well as he did at the inquest.
I realise, of course, I can't prove this. But I would suggest that Joe is highly unlikely to have killed only Mary, and is unlikely to be the Ripper. Neither is impossible, of course, but I see no more of a link between Joe and Mary's actual murder than I do between Joe and the entire series (with or without Stride).
Of course, we may just have different opinions (which is generally pretty rare, and even when we do, we're usually both pretty close to the fence if on opposite sides).
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
G'day Sarah, Brian,
'We have no real proof that George Hutchinson was her pimp or customer at all anyway.'
No, We have no real proof of Jack the Ripper's true identity either, but are we going to let that stop us??? We have to use our brains a bit to try to fill in the gaps, and ask ourselves: "Why this?", "Why that?". I put myself in the persons position and think: "Why am I waiting here for three-quarters of an hour?", "What's in this for me?"
GLENN: 'Doesn't sound like an approach from a man who hates prostitutes to me.'
Well it does to me! Very much so! Think of a hatred for PROSTITUTION, not PROSTITUTES.
Please elaborate on what you mean by 'fictional'.
I haven't got time to read all the other posts. I'll print some out and read them over lunch!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1571
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Good arguments as usual -- I wouldn't expect anything less from you anyway.
"I find it too unlikely for a one time killer, who tries to "emulate" a mutilation killer, to be able to get through a police interview and to present themselves as well as he did at the inquest."
You do have a point here, at least in the latter part of your sentence. The first part "a one time killer, who tries to 'emulate' a mutilation killer", can be argued against since there exists a number of cases of similar character and under similar circumstances.
I agree, though, that the fact that he managed to come forward at the inquest is a problem. Not so much the police interview, though. Firstly; again, this has been done in other cases. Secondly, just because the police let him go and seemed to be satisfied with his account, doesen't mean that he was innocent. It wouldn't be the first time a killer managed to slip out of the hands of the police after an interview (or several) regarding a brutal offense.
We don't know anything about Barnett's personality or what he was capable of, and I think the situation between him and Mary Kelly is an interesting factor to consider here. Barnett had access to the murder room, he had a credible motive, his situation with her had become inflammed just recently before the murder etc. Domestic murders are usually performed by a person close to the victim. OK, here we are talking about a prostitute, so a customer can't be ruled out, but my main ground for letting the Ripper off the hook in Kelly's case is the different approach during the murder. Mary kelly had defense wounds on her arms and she probably was killed directly from a cut throat before mutilated -- probably not strangled. In Mary kelly's case we don't have a focus on the womb as we have in Nichols', Chapman's and Eddowes' case. Here we have a complete mutilation all over the body. Her womb wasn't taken but the heart instead (probably).
So if the Ripper didn't do it, who would? Then my bet would fall on Barnett, because of his interest in the Ripper murders (which he read to her regularly) and his knowledge of both the vicinities and the victim herself, making it easy to get close to her. It is also possible that he would have been in a frustrated state after their quarrel and him being forced to leave the room, since Mary insisted on taking in other residents.
I assume that you see it as a problem, that he was well-known in the court and therefore would be easily recognized. To me it indicates the opposite; as I see it that would suit him perfectly. No one would be that surprised to see in in the court or coming out of Mary Kelly's room, since he was known to visit her frequently. Of course the police would ask him about his whereabouts at the time, him being her closest aquaintance, but they would do it anyway in a situation like this.
However, there would be absolutely no motive for him to kill the other women, and we really have nothing so far showing why he would be a serial killer.
What ties Barnett to the Kelly murder is the dissimilarities in the murderer's approach contra the Ripper and his plausible motive for killing her. Those are points that could (note that I said "could") suggest such a scenario. We have no such points indicating why he should be Jack the Ripper.
But there are problems of course:
1) no real evidence saying this is what happened, only speculation, and our lack of knowledge of he was capable of it, from a psychological personality point of view
2) the time frames and alibis in connection with Barnett's actions and whereabouts (as you quite correctly imply)
3) the great risk involved for him in doing such a deed, knowing that he would be the first one questioned by the coppers.
However, my thoughts go along the lines, that the murderous attack was done in a state of passion and agitation, and when he realized what he had done, he mutilated her in order to make it into a Ripper crime -- a very risky operation, but probably an act born out of a spur of the moment and pure desperation, in fear of being hanged.
Now, this is just speculation and I am not the first to put forward such an opening. Unfortunately we can only guess if Barnett was capable of doing the mutilations -- it is just a theory, nothing else -- but bear in mind that he risked capital punishment, and he must have known it.
But I see no reason to regard him as a serial killer; the details of the crime scene in Miller's Court reveals alternative solutions that may not involve the Ripper, as far as I am concerned.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1572
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:27 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
You sure are picking your literature for lunch... 
Others have already explained why it is no possible deduction in him being together and personally involved with a prostitute if he hated what she represented. It absolutely doesen't add up in my head. Why on Earth would he team up with her if he hated prostitution and prostitutes (the latter has both you and Richard claimed earlier that he did)? It would be more natural to assume that he loathed these women and didn't want to tough them, unless he wished to enjoy their services. But living together with someone who represents what you hate is a completely different matter. Your reasoning here goes beyond me.
"Please elaborate on what you mean by 'fictional'."
Fictional = stories based on imagination, not facts or the actual truth, and containing free elaborations and interpretations of real or imaginary events.
I am naturally referring to the details about Barnett knowing the other women and killing them to get Mary off the streets. It is an even worse scenario than those presented by Stephen Knight and Patricia Cornwell.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 8:40 pm: | |
Correction, since I've passed the stupid editing time limit:
"It would be more natural to assume that he loathed these women and didn't want to touch them..."
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 330
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 9:34 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Indeed, I think I see what you're getting at. And I agree on many points. I don't think it's impossible for someone to kill and mutilate someone in an attempt to copycat an ongoing series for example. My concern lies more in the "post offense behaviour" of someone who does such a thing; so yes we're totally in the realm of theory and story telling here. I thought of a few other aspects to mull over, and thought I should add them here to keep them close to the "post-offense" stuff I mentioned. This has more to do with the lead up to the offence, and preoffense behaviour, etc.
Everyone, when reading this, please note that what I'm going to do is see how well things hang together if I make the assumption that Joe did actually kill Mary (and only Mary); if I then find the evidence and explanations for it start becomming more awkward, I decide my initial assumption isn't working very well and decide that it's unlikely that Joe actually killed Mary in the first place. If, however, things hang together pretty well, then I decide that Joe killing Mary "works" well. In otherwords, I'll try and build a story on the foundation that "Joe kills Mary, and only Mary", then using the evidence as my bricks, see how well my foundation can support my bricks. Remember though, this is theory, this is "story time"; it's not proof and it's not evidence. It's just a way to see how well a story hangs together, it's not proof of anything.
Barnett, by all accounts, was not violent in the past towards Mary. In fact, I believe it's testified that he would be the one to leave when she was in a mood. I think it's reported that it was Mary, for instance, who broke the window during one of their rows, not Joe. So, if there was a tendency for violence in this relationship, it seems to come from Mary rather than Joe. Not that this in anyway prohibits Joe from being able to perform the deed, just that a propensity for violence doesn't seem part of his previous behaviour. Either he's stored up all this anger and it explodes in this one episode, or he didn't do it.
To go with the notion that Joe does a singular killing, we have to remember that Joe is normally not aggressive based upon the testimony we have. We would have to suggest something like he's stored up the anger and that ends up exploding into this crime of passion. Realising what he's done, he then mutilates her extensively in an attempt to throw the police off, so they will blame the Ripper.
How well does this work? Well, Mary's killed in bed and it does appear she may have defended against a knife attack. So, Joe's anger must have been sparked while she's still in bed. Remember, he's normally not violent. His alibi to the police covers the nighttime, so he must have come over that morning. He enters the room, reaching through the window.
But then we have to suggest this normally passive guy just explodes?
It's possible, but I would think he would need something to trigger such an angry out of character response; the response here is to go over to the bed, get out his knife, and cut Mary's throat.
If they had yet another row when he enters the room I would think this would be heard by those in the court, but we're lacking any evidence to suggest some kind of altercation either that night or the next morning.
I find it hard to see how Joe gets into the state where he attacks Mary, with a knife, while she's in bed given that his prior behaviour is notable for his lack of aggression towards her; notable because domestic abuse was common in the area.
I'm not saying he couldn't have possibly done it, it's just that it seems to me to be so unlike anything he's done before that without Joe and Mary being in a heated row at the time of the initial attack, I don't see where the "passion" comes from that fuels the idea that this one murder is a "crime of passion".
Violence doesn't seem to be Joe's normal way to express anger even during a fight, let alone something he would just come over and do.
Moreover, once this normally non-violent fellow actually does kill Mary, by cutting her throat and not by stabbing her (blood spatter pattern indicates he throat was cut), rather than be shocked and scared by this unusual behaviour, he then has to decide to mutilate, etc. That isn't as big a hurdle as the orignal assault though since now he has to save his own skin from the gallows.
Then we get into the post-offense behaviour, which I covered earlier so won't go into again. I'll just summarise it by saying that Joe's ability to get through the police interview and the inquest so convincingly is not the sort of thing one would predict for a relatively non-violent person who has just murdered and mutilated someone.
I don't know, somehow things start looking odd to me if I start with the assumption that Joe only kills Mary. What little we know about his interactions with Mary, and I admit we know far too little, seem to suggest violence was not part of his personality. It would feel more ... likely I guess is the word ... if there were reports of a fight going on near the time of Mary's death. Not just the cry of "oh murder", which if it's from Mary suggests a sudden/unexpected attack, but some sort of ongoing fight that ends up with Mary getting killed. That would fit with the notion of a domestic quarrel going very bad, and that maybe Joe snapped and let all of his previously withheld anger explode in a sudden onslaught of violence in which he cuts her throat, etc.
Anyway, I'm not saying it's impossible for Joe to have killed Mary. But I do think if he did, then he had to do so in the morning, and he had to do so without them having an initial quarrel, which makes the whole attack very very out of character for him. He also then has to recover from this unusual and disturbing behaviour and be acting in a nonsuspicious manner when later investigated.
Taken together, it just seems to me that things don't add up very well when we consider Joe as having killed Mary, and not the others.
Now, if Joe was JtR (which I also don't believe), many of the above "problems" don't apply. Obviously violence would then be part of his character. Not only that but this particular kind of violence. However, this is true no matter who we assume was JtR because whoever JtR was, he performed this kind of violence on at least Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. So if it wasn't Joe who killed Mary, and I find that idea hard to accept, then Mary was a victim of JtR.
And Joe, like every other male in Whitechappel, might have been JtR simply because someone has to be. Beyond that, however, we have nothing to specifically link Joe to any of the murders.
- Jeff |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 1:23 am: | |
Jeff,
Agreed.
Frankly, I find it as equally implausible that Barnett was MJK's killer alone.
That murder was not the work of a copycat. If you want to see the work of a copycat, look at Alice MacKenzie. That's more what you'd expect - a pale imitation of the original. Not worse. And considering the fact that Barnett never appeared on the police radar screen for so much as a drunk and disorderly until his death is telling. You've murdered someone in the most horrendous way possible and got away with it - clean. Why stop there?
You can spin as many fanciful stories that speculate on Barnett's life and times, but in the end, there is nothing that links him to any of the crimes. That's plain fact.
Abberline believed him. The rest of the police believed him. The public believed him. There's no reason why we shouldn't as well.
B |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1297
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 1:38 am: | |
G'day,
RICH & ALLY: I'd say that Joe knew what Mary was doing for a living when they met in Commercial street, and we can only guess under what conditions he agreed to move in with and support her, but I bet it had something to do with her giving up prostitution.
NATALIE: 'I have never seen Joe so far as anything other than a reasonably decent man who thought the world of Mary...'
Tell me, when did you actually meet him?
If he 'understood her thoughts about her friends....', then why did he walk out on her?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 3:05 am: | |
Hi,
It should be clarified, that Barnett was not sought by the police. he infact was on his way to the court, when he was approached by his sister-in law[ or his brothers sister in law] who informed him of a murder in the court.
If Barnett was the killer, it shows strong nerve , and cunning, and confidence that he could come across as a shocked lover of the deseased.
If Barnett was no killer, he was obviously obsessed with kelly, he apparently could not help visiting her, as often as possible.
Yet this man left her, but obviously had no intention of breaking ties with her.
My theory is he left her so that she could openly prostitute herself, and was free to bring whoever back to her room, therefore giving a opportunety to fall into the rippers hands.
If he remained there, he would have been more suspected.
I Believe this murder was planned, and not done on impulse, and he had made provisions not to draw attention to himself in advance.
When kelly died , so did the 'Ripper ' murders, there was no need to continue.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:30 am: | |
G'day,
GLENN: 'However, there would be absolutely no motive for him to kill the other women.'
Thankyou. I believe you have just described a serial murder! (no apparent motive). There was no way to trace his name as a common acquaintance!
If Barnett entertained a hatred for prostitution, the most likely reason is the 'stealing' of his mother sometime after he turned 6. I don't know how she treated him, but he had no father to guide him so he probably had some affection and need for her. To steal a loved one away from prostitution, (Mary Kelly), would have been like a slap on the cheek to the enemy.
JEFF: 'Barnett by all accounts was not violent towards Mary, in fact, I believe it's testified that he would be the one to leave when she was in a mood.'
Let's not forget the testimony of Julia Venturney who said: 'Kelly's frequent drunkeness led to rows with Barnett.' I wonder exactly what nights he went out, where he went and how he released his anger?
If Joe was the killer of Mary only and wanted to make it appear like the work of the Ripper (being someone else), why didn't he try to copy the newspapers by taking her womb or kidney, just mutilate her face enough to make her resemble Eddowes, or simply drape her intestines over her shoulder? No, in my opinion this wasn't a copycat of a Jack the Ripper murder.....It WAS a Jack the Ripper murder!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
Glenn,
I believe Leanne has a point here. A serial killer does usually tend to kill without much of a motive. This of course differs to those who only kill someone they know because of hatred of that person or whatever. A serial killer tends to kill whoever they can get their hands on at the right time and not because they have a reason for wanting that specific person dead.
Leanne,
It really depends on whether you believe everything that Hutchinson said. He may have lied about how well he knew her and may have just had a crush or obsession with her and wanted to pretend that their relationship had been more than it was. This is just one idea of course for which there is no proof, but then where is there any proof that what he said was true?
As I said before, even if he was telling the truth it can still work out that Mary was off the game whilst with Joe and he was working. She was only with him for just over a year before he stopped working. Hutchinson could have known her in the years before and then again when she came back to the "business". Just because she had stopped in the meantime, doesn't mean that he didn't know her still.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to.  |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for your responce. I think in that mess of misspelled words I call a post I metioned that there are Joe supporters who do not believe Maxwell saw Kelly in the morning. I gues you might be one of those supporters.
If we believe Hutchinson and Lewis and Kelly was still alive around 2:30 in the morning. I dont think that Hutchinson would have misidentified the man he saw with Kelly. I feel he would have known Joe. Assumeing that Hutchinson was telling the truth and Mary entertained this man. You have to at least say she spent a have hour with him. Hutchinson said he stayed and watched the place for a while. So it may have been longer. Say the man left around 3:00 or 3:30 in the morning. It is possible that Joe slipped back and killed her around 4:00. There were cries of murder heard by some witnesses around 4:00.
In the Kelly murder you have too choose who to believe. I believe Cox but I dont think the man Cox saw her with killed her because of the singing Cox heard from Kelly's room around 1:00 in the morning I dont think that the ripper would have waited in her room with her that long. He would have killed her faster.
I tend to believe GH and Lewis because they support each others story. So I believe Kelly was alive and back out on the streets around 2:30. I am not sure if that is the man who killed her or not. I tend to think that Kelly was killed by this man. Glenn might point out that the man that Hutchinson saw with Kelly doese not match that of my own preferd suspect Dr. Tumblety. So we move on it is possible that Mary went back out and saw another man after GH had left brought him home and he killed her or someone slipped into her room and Killed her. Such as Barnett, Hutchinson or even Tumblety Some do claim to have heard the cry of murder around 4:00.
I feel that Kelly was killed between 2:00 and 4:00 I allow for mistakes regarding the times given by witnesses.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Hi Brian,
Good point. I believe Cox is the most reliable witness because she lived next door to Kelly and probably spoke to her often. I believe Lewis and GH because they seem to have the same story.
I think there are logical reasons for believing Cox,Lewis and Hutchinson and there ar logical reasons not to believe Maxwell and others.
I believe you have to draw a line in the sand and choose who you believe. You have to set some guide lines. It would be easy for me not to believe any witness. A alleged 6'4 giant like Tumblety would be easier to support as the ripper.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 7:46 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I was not even born in 1964 so I can appreciate the time you have put into the study of Barnett. Unlike others I dont theink Barnett is as bad a suspect as Lewis Caroll or Jill the ripper but I do have some problems.
I am going to stay away from the motive because who knows what drives a madman. I am going to stay away from the fact that the murders stoped and there is know reason for Joe just to stop killing if he was the ripper because again who knows what drives a madman. I can get over the fact that the police did not suspect him of the murders and they must have checked him out.
I do have one question that I would like answerd and if you are saveing the answer because it will be in your book I will understand. When did Joe kill Kelly?
We know Cox saw her around midnight. I believe Cox because she Knew Kelly and in my oppinion she would have known Joe. So the man Cox saw Kelly with was obviously not Joe. Cox said she could here Mary singing untill 1:15 so we know she was alive and well. Since Cox made no mention of hearing anyone leave we may assume that Kelly was still entertaining her client. Cox said when she returned around 3:00 Kelly's room was dark.
GH and Sarah Lewis are the other witnesses that I believe because they callaberate each others story. Lewis doese not identifiy Kelly as the woman she sees but she doese state that she sees a man across from the court and further down she sees a man and a woman talking the woman was drunk. This would seem to collaberate Hutchinson's story. I believe that Hutchinson would have known Barnett and if the man he saw with Kelly was Barnett then he would have identified him. This puts the time around 2:30 and again Kelly was seen with another man other then Barnett. Hutchinson stays for three quarters of an hour. He satisfies himself nothing is going to happen and that Kelly is done for the night and he goes away. This puts the time around three AM Suppose the man Kelly is with was not the ripper and he doese not go right away. When did Joe kill her?
Joe would have been takeing a chance if he just went to kill Kelly. He would have no idea if Kelly would be alone or not unless he was watching Kelly that night as well but then that could conflict with his alibi.
One thought on the copycat theory. Kelly was in a dangerous profesion. He could have just cut her throat if he wanted to kill her. He had already gone through the trouble of obtaining an alibi. There woul of been no reason to make it look like a ripper killing.
All the best,CB |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 684
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Hi Leanne,Well ofcourse you are right-none of us has ever met any of the cast.When I think about a subject who is under scrutiny for being the ripper I try to weave together whatever was recorded as said about them or as in this case about Mary Kelly and Joe Barnett and their relationship.The picture that then forms in my mind is what I "see".So far I see someone who thought it was his role to caretake Mary regarding
her way of life and in particular her way of obtaining money when he had no work-which is what had happened -he had lost his job.
Because I happen to see Mary as being alcohol dependent,I then see Joe in the classical "caretaker" role.That is he is the partner of an alcohol dependent person and as such will undoubtedly fall into what is known today as a "co-dependent" ie Mary is "dependent" on alcohol,Joe is "dependent" on Mary.
From everything I have read about Joe that was written about him at that time he fits to an exact match the caretaker partner as described in numbers of books on the subject.
Joe by the time Mary was murdered probably was feeling undermined and outwitted by Mary.She was probably unreasonable when she had had too much to drink and he probably couldnt cope with it all.But I really think from the records that he loved Mary didnt want her to get anymore sick than she already was and in fact tried to help her in every way he could.This is what has been recorded by others at the time as well as himself
and this is what fits the pattern I refer to above.
Joe in my view would have been heart-broken.
This Leanne is what I understand from what has been recorded and therefore in my view Joe can be deleted as a suspect for Jack the Ripper.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 685
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
Leanne,I forgot the give away about Joe is that he was abandoned at an early age by his mother.
The fear of abandonment is the key to Joe"s character.
Psychologically he would have needed to "replay" the trauma of her desertion.Its how the mind and emotions try to "cure" themselves.So instead of finding a partner who is dependable and reasonably straightforward he seeks one out who will give him a repeat experience of life with [and without]Mother.
Natalie. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1578
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
Leanne and Sarah,
Tell me something I don't know! Of course I am aware of that the Ripper killings -- like many other serial killings -- are motiveless. My mistake her was to use the word "motive" when I really should have written "reason".
If Barnett killed Kelly -- I say "if" -- he very well might have felt he had reasons to do so, but not the others. There is no proven link between the other women and Mary Kelly and no link between the other women and Barnett. It is all a complete fairy-tale. No facts to even suggest that Barnett should have been Jack the Ripper.
You may be certain of the "fact" that Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim, Leanne -- I am not.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Guys,
Glenns words in another post on another thread...
..."We can only be absolutely sure about three Ripper victims; Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, considering the forensic evidence. The others, I feel, are up to debate. Call me a purist, I don't mind.
I stand with him on that. Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. When it comes to forensic evidence, all the others are questionable.....and that includes Kelly. The signature and MO aint there for her as they are for the other victims.
BUT, and this is a big but (as you can see), the others cannot be ruled out categorically. Circumstance may have dictated a change, please note the 'may in that sentence.
Its just that when you look at the facts that matter you cannot say for certain they are victims of Jack.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 292
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:28 pm: | |
Monty,
I totally agree with you and Glenn. Those are the only victims that we can say are "definitely" Ripper victims based on the forensic evidence. That being said, I think there are strong cases for Tabram and Kelly being victims. For one thing we do not know what other forensic evidence might have been destroyed by police that just didn't have the knowledge that we have now. For another, as Monty stated, circumstances may have dictated other methods. In my personal opinion Tabram was the first murder victim and I believe there may have been other attacks prior to her. My theory works that Jack went from attacks to murders to complete destruction in the case of Mary Kelly.
Mikey |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
Monty,
An extremely good and open-minded post. You somehow seemed to sum up everything I have wanted to express for the past two weeks in a way that I unfortunately am not always capable of (I always complicate things).
Hats off to you indeed.
And of course you're right; the others can't be ruled out categorically -- maybe except for Emma Smith, in my view.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
No, in my opinion this wasn't a copycat of a Jack the Ripper murder.....It WAS a Jack the Ripper murder!
Leanne,
I agree - which is why there is no way that Barnett was the Ripper.
Throw out the witness testimony, because there's no way to confirm it. Hutchinson is a horrible witness, because he lacks credibility in my opinion. The guys not all there.
I cannot understand how you can believe that Barnett would be able to pull off all of these murders, which have all the appearance of sexually motivated lust murders, before sexually motivated lust murders even had a NAME, with the final goal of completely destroying a woman whom you believe that he loved AND THEN melting back into Whitechapel and living out the rest of his life as if nothing happened.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck.
These were a string of sexually motivated lust murders, and that crosses Barnett off the list immediately. He wasn't a sociopath.
B
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
