|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 687
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 3:01 pm: |       |
I agree with Mikey here although I understand why Monty and Glenn have said they are not sure about Mary and Elizabeth.
I think he may have started even earlier than Martha Tabram and I was interested in what Monty was saying earlier in the month about looking at the area around the hospital towards Mile End.
That attack on Ada Wilson in Burdett Road Mile End may have been the start of it with each subsequent attack/murder getting nearer to his objective---until he reached Mary Kelly when he let all hell breake loose which may account for the somewhat distorted "signature" he had lost all control and giving vent slightly changed the pattern.
Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 817
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Hi,
first of all, i disagree that the murders , would have continued after kellys demise, that is of course if Barnett was the killer, he would have no reason to continue, once the soul reason for the murders was dead.
By the series ending after Kelly, it points to she being the key to these murders.
As for the reasoning that Barnett could not continue living a life without further violence, I believe he killed kelly to put an end to his madness.
Lets look at a couple of intresting points Barnett was believed to have kept newspaper clippings , which dated back to the murder of Tabram, and stopped at Mckenzie.
It has been stated in the past, that who else but the killer, would have known that Tabram was to have been the start of a series of murders.
To obtain cuttings from backdated copys , would have been expensive, if they were collected at a later date, it would appear that these cuttings were collected , when they were released.
Also according to Barnetts Nephew, he stated that he had heard the actual words from his uncle'I always felt sorry for her killer, for he could never come forward for fear of being topped'.
Was this the reason why joe, attempted to bury the past, Fear...
I believe regardless of other opinions , that when he spat on the grave of the woman. that he felt responsible for his actions, he ceased to be jACK', and time can heal a concious, and fear can be a good reason to hide ones secrets.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 691
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Richard,I have never read that Joe was considered "mad".Who at the time picked this up?
Was it the police? the Press? Who?
If the ripper murders were those of a sexual serial killer [concentrating on acting out his particular fantasy of murder and mutilation mainly of reproductive organs of women and cutting off the breasts of Mary Kelly]then I dont understand how you make the leap from Joe the lover of Mary[presumably he did have a sexual relationship of sorts with Mary]to Joe the sexual serial killer.I dont pick up anything other than fear and hatred of women or to be more precise
fear and hatred of women"s innardsfrom the rippers crimes.It doesn"t seem likely to me that he could have been capable of all this romantic love with Mary AND fantasising about how he could disembowel her and eat her heart and uterus as stated in the"From Hell" letter[well ok it was about C.E. and the kidney but presumably if this letter isnt a hoax this is the fiendish behaviour he was also into.]
This doesn"t sound like the Joe we hear about from the various witnesses or the one whose inquest evidence is recorded.
Richard you have such a lot of fascinating information and far more in depth knowledge of this case than I have.But to make this theory work about Joe it has to be more robust on facts than has so far been the case.
Best Wishes Natalie. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 331
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
To my surprise, we agree on something! ha! I too would like to know what nights Joe and Mary had rows, and when he left. I would also like to know what nights they were together the whole time. Wouldn't it really simplify things if it could be proven that Joe and Mary stayed home the entire night when some or all of the other victims were killed? Then, obviously, Joe could not be the Ripper. Of course, if he was out and about on those nights it would not allow Joe to be ruled out. That wouldn't prove he was the Ripper, but it means he still has oppertunity. Alas, but we do not know this information, and so we can draw no inferences or conclusions by simply making it up one way or the other.
Also, I also find it hard to see Barnett as killing only Mary Kelly, which I would think is clear in my previous posts. It's not impossible, but as I tried to indicate, when I step through that story line it doesn't sit well with me. Now, that may say more about my own biases and lack of expertise, than it does about the actual theory.
Glenn and Monty are correct in that the 3 most similar cases are Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. Stride is quite different, Tabram only less so, and Kelly is very similar with subtle differences. My bias is to group Kelly in with the first 3, but I certainly understand that by doing so I'm making certain assumptions about the sequence of events (the assumptions are that the Ripper approaches the victim as a client, the victim takes the Ripper to the location in which she's killed, and Mary was killed by a client she took into her room). If those assumptions are wrong, her inclusion is less apparent. At the moment, I think the first two are reasonably supported by the evidence. The last one is consistent with the evidence, although there are alternatives which also work.
The only person I can think of, other than JtR, who might kill Mary in such a manner is Joe. But since I also believe it's unlikely Joe killed only Mary (as I've suggested above), then either Joe is JtR or someone else is JtR and they killed Mary. Either way, that means JtR killed Mary, and this is also part of my reasoning (or bias?) to include Mary as a victim of JtR.
Note, however, this is not the forensic data, it's not even data, it's a theory. And theories can be wrong.
- Jeff |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 296
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
Natalie,
I totally agree. If Barnett was so in love with Mary Kelly, and had an obvious relationship that one would believe was sexual as well, how could he then kill her in the way that he did. Also, how could he kill the others before her and her not suspect anything. And then to totally move on with life as if nothing had happened. In my experience and what we have learned from the interviews with serial killers, they never stop killing.
Mikey |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
G'day CB,
'I don't think Hutchinson would have misidentified the man he saw with Kelly. I feel he would have known Joe.'
Hutchinsons police statement was: '...they both came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down to look him in the face and he looked at me stern.'
Doesn't that sound to you as if he didn't want to be recognized? Maybe he was disguised, which is why Hutchinson said he didn't see him leave. Or he probably waited until Hutchinson left.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
G'day,
The chances that there was more than one serial killer in the same small part of the earth at the exact same time on history, are smaller than the chances of Mary Kelly escaping and moving to another country!
The fact that Mary Kelly's killer missed a dozen opportunities to make her murder appear like a Ripper murder, make the chances very slim that her's was just a copycat kill.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
G'day Natalie,
Read up about a killer's 'Mask of Sanity'. The good-guy image that they use to hide behind. Haven't you ever read comments where people say: "He was the last person I thought would be a killer"?
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 692
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,well there was Chapman living round the corner from George Yard and he was of a different MO but still a serial killer.
Best Natalie |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Richard,
Hi, first of all, i disagree that the murders , would have continued after kellys demise, that is of course if Barnett was the killer, he would have no reason to continue, once the soul reason for the murders was dead.
This, in and of itself, doesn't make any sense. How could ANY man kill someone the way he killed those women, and simply stop? We're not dealing with an Edmund Kemper here - Barnett spent the rest of his life without ever even jaywalking again. You guys are arguing that a guy that this guy killed at least 5 women in the most hideous way imaginable, and then spent the rest of his life as a law abiding citizen?
By the series ending after Kelly, it points to she being the key to these murders.
Perhaps. But we cannot be sure that Kelly was the last one, and we have no idea what actually happened to the Ripper after MJK (assuming she was the last one).
As for the reasoning that Barnett could not continue living a life without further violence, I believe he killed kelly to put an end to his madness.
Do we have any examples of this happening with any other killer? Not that I know of.
Lets look at a couple of intresting points Barnett was believed to have kept newspaper clippings , which dated back to the murder of Tabram, and stopped at Mckenzie.
How do we know this? And with what money was he buying newspapers to clip them from?
It has been stated in the past, that who else but the killer, would have known that Tabram was to have been the start of a series of murders.
To obtain cuttings from backdated copys , would have been expensive, if they were collected at a later date, it would appear that these cuttings were collected , when they were released.
Again, you're talking about something that we've got no proof ever even existed. Where are you getting this from?
Also according to Barnetts Nephew, he stated that he had heard the actual words from his uncle'I always felt sorry for her killer, for he could never come forward for fear of being topped'.
First of all, this is hearsay. Second of all, what does it mean?
Was this the reason why joe, attempted to bury the past, Fear...
Fear of what? The guy committed a string of grusome murders under the nose of the police and never got caught. That'd be enough to convince me that I'm invincible.
I believe regardless of other opinions , that when he spat on the grave of the woman. that he felt responsible for his actions, he ceased to be jACK', and time can heal a concious, and fear can be a good reason to hide ones secrets.
There is no way that the person who committed these crimes was not mentally ill in some capacity. And there's no way that someone starts as a serial killer and then just stops and cleans himself up. There are NO examples of this in history.
I hate arguing this over and over and over again, but the Barnett argument is just riddled with speculation, conclusions based on little or no solid factual evidence, facts based on unconfirmed witness reports, etc. I just don't understand how you guys can keep bringing this up without ever answering your critics questions.
B |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 334
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Richard,
I'm pretty sure that the Joe Barnett nephew, who reports his uncle had clippings, etc, has been demonstrated to be the nephew of the wrong Joe Barnett. This information comes from a book reviewed on this site, and the review points out that error. I can't recall the name of the book or the author, but I'm sure you have that information. Check out the review.
Also you might want to note that if Mary Kelly was the reason for the murders and there's no reason for them to continue once she's dead (as you indicate in your post), what about that clipping of Alice McKenzie, who was killed after Mary Kelly? The clippings themselves contradict your theory. This should indicate either the clippings, the theory, or both are wrong. I'm suggesting you start by evaluating the reliability of the clippings since that's just a matter of checking out the reliablity of the source.
None of this stuff holds together, but that's not surprising if the clippings are bogus. It doesn't help your case to continue including the completly non-credibile grave spitting story either.
- Jeff |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 297
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Brian,
He spit on her grave, isn't that proof enough? I totally agree with you!
Mikey |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 694
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Yes Leanne Its true.But in Joe"s case he had lived 18 months with Mary during which time they seem to have made love and been quite happy together in various accomodation.So you are asking us to accept that all this time Joe was fantasising about serial killing[while whispering sweet nothings to his lover]and hatching some preposterous plan which involved the extraordinary disemboweling of women with a touch of cannibalism thrown in for good measure, all this you say just in order to teach lessons about prostitution?
I can"t see it somehow.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 695
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
Hi Mikey I learn something new each day on this site! although I have heard it said that serial killers rarely stop/can"t stop I have never heard it from the horse"s mouth before.If its so then we can rule out quite a few suspects.
Best Natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 6:54 pm: | |
G'day Natalie,
Annie Chapman was a long-time user of various Dorset Street doss houses according to the 'Annual Report on the Conditions of Whitechapel' by Joseph Loane, the medical Officer for Health.
Bruce Paley said: 'In the months prior to her death, Chapman had been living in Crossingham's Lodging House', which was across the road from Mary and Joe.
Catharine Eddowes often stayed in the empty shed, which was next door.
Elizabeth Stride lived on and off with Michael Kidney at 33 Dorset Street.
Martha Tabram's friend, Mary Ann Connelly, lived at Crossingham's.
The only victim without a link to Dorset Street was Mary Ann Nichols.
Do you think that domestic murderers never have sex with their partners/victims?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 7:05 pm: | |
G'day,
I don't think we can rule out any suspects on the basis that serial killers can't stop, because we can't be 100% certain that Jack the Ripper never killed after Mary's murder. He may have just changed his M.O., and there were other never-solved murders after Kelly.
The amount of fury involved in the Dorset Street murder could have been enough to 'jolt' a change in the killer's methods, whether it was Barnett or not!
Thinking that it was Barnett, there was no longer a need to fuel the newspapers with 'scare-stories'.
LEANNE |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 21
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Leanne,
"Do you think that domestic murderers never have sex with their partners/victims?"
OK, which is it? Are you arguing serial killer or domestic murderer? Pick one. You can't just keep hopping back and forth between mad serial killer of 4 or more women and domestic killer of ex-girlfriend choosing which features of each you want to talk about as it applies to your suspect and ignoring the rest.
Yes, domestic murderers have sex with their future victims in an ongoing relationship. No, serial killers do not, as a general rule.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 700
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
Hi Leanne,i must admit you have done some astonishing research on the case.Really fascinating.Your book will sell just on account of all the history of social conditions and census information.Yourself,Richard[and ofcourse Chris Scott & others]have made an amazing contribution to this site[even if I can"t agree about Joseph Barnett].
Dan,You have put it so well.That in essence is the contradiction that has to be addressed.
Best Natalie. |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
Hi all
Time after time it is said something like 'it is extremely unlikely there were two serial killers operating in that area at the time'.
Well, there were at least two, unless you credit Jack with the torso murders, and of course there was a third, not practising as yet, in the form of George Chapman.
And what about 'Leather Apron'? Could he have been responsibe for some of the extended series of murders, say Millwood (not killed), Tabram, MacKenzie, Coles, while JtR does Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes, and Stride and Kelly are part of these two series, or even bumped off by their respective partners.
I find it interesting that the contemporary opininions on who killed whom seem to be ignored, perhaps drowned out by all the discussion about the (probably hoax)letters and the McNaughten Memoranda. It is apparent that even as early as the Nicholls murder the locals were apprehensive about a 'series' of muders, and such things were not unknown in Victorian London - see the Ratcliffe Highway murders for an example (if slightly pre-period)
Regards
Pete |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 6:22 am: | |
Hi Brian,
Why dont you think that GH is a credible witness. I think Sarah Lewis gives him credibility.
Hi leanne, thanks for your response. I would reconize my neighbor if he was rolled up in a ball. I dont think that it is logical too think that GHpassed Joe and he did not know who he was.
ALL THE BEST,CB |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 301
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
LEANNE,
Yes, I think that a DOMESTIC murderer would have sex with his victim. I believe that Mary Kelly was the victim of a SERIAL killer. Very different situation.
Mikey |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:50 am: | |
G'day,
Sarah Lewis gave her testimony of seeing a someone across from Millers Court, at Mary Kelly's inquest. George Hutchinson voluntarily went to the police station after the inquest concluded and said he waited across from the court. He didn't mention hearing Lewis's statement and there was no time for them to reach the newspapers, so I assume that he was there at the inquest.
If he had nothing to hide and was conserned for Mary's safety, why didn't he come forward earlier? If he was her killer, why did he come forward at all? Was it to save the police time?
I think GH gives credibility to Sarah Lewis's claim to have seen a man at Crossingham's, but everything that GH said, wasn't verified by another source.
Why did Hutchinson's man bow down his head with his face hidden behind a hat, if GH was someone that he had never seen before?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 5:13 am: | |
Mikey,
Yes but if Joe was Jack then he would still engage in sexual activities with his partner. Other killers out there with partners no doubt still have sex.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to.  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Hi,
Just a note regarding the possibility or non-possibility of Barnett killing and mutilated only Mary Kelly.
The murderer and mutilator Bury is interesting in this context, since he murdered and mutilated his wife in a fashion similar to that of Jack the Ripper. The problem is, that we don't know if he killed others as well (some, accordingly also his own wife, believed him even to be Jack the Ripper). But until that is established, he must be considered as a domestic murderer - like Barnett, if he killed Mary Kelly.
Now, if Bury didn't kill other people, it shows that it is possible for a man without a prior record of similar crimes to do these things to his spouse (he obviously did just because she suspected him of something, not for "lust" reasons).
There are numerous other examples as well. A doctor (I have to look up the names and the date of the incident, I'll get back to it) once killed his girlfriend - who also was his house-maid - and he also mutilated her to an even worse extent to that of Mary Kelly. Her face was carved all the way down to the skull and bone. I have seen the photos - not a nice sight. Obviously he did it, to blame it on another killer (exactly what the motive was, I don't remember). OK, this man was a doctor, but if you look through crime history these things do happen without the perpetrator necessarily need to be a serial killer. There are at least ten other examples of this, so we shouldn't take anything for granted here.
We have not enough information, in order to establish the true psychological status and capability of Joseph Barnett. We have some info on his background and so on, but his real personality we can't pin down, it's just a matter of personal interpretation - nothing else. The fact that he seemed fond of Mary means nothing; it wouldn't be the first time a domestic killer would be perceived in such a way to the people outside the relationship, and we mostly have his words for it anyway, with some exception.
So there is no reason to assume with great certainty that he couldn't have done it and then tried to copy the Ripper's work by mutilated her. Even if he in that case seemed to have gone to excess.
Nothing is impossible. It is of course provocative and controversial, because such an opening would suggest that she was not a Ripper victim after all. But people here have stated (like I have done in the past) that Barnett couldn't have done such a thing out of personal reasons. Which is a fallacy, since we know that such events have occurred in other cases.
Just something to consider.
I am not stating with certainty that Barnett did kill her and copied the Ripper's work, because I simply just don't know. But I just wanted to point out that some of the reasons for excluding him doesne't have to be correct or supported by the facts of crime history.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 8:49 am: | |
G'day,
To think that Joseph Barnett murdered only Mary Kelly and tried to make it look like a Ripper kill, one must have an example of how the scene in 13 Millers Court was made to resemble newspaper reports of the earlier murder scenes. Please give it someone....anyone!
(Besides the obvious fact that there was a dead female there!)
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
