|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 8:58 am: |       |
Some corrections and additions to my post above:
The case referred to where a doctor murdered and terribly mutilated and dismembered his wife AND his house-maid (the latter discovered his crime, so she had to be killed), is the 1935 case of Buck Ruxton in Lancaster. The motive was probably jealousy.
To be honest, there is one problem with this example, though, and it is the fact that he was a skilled physician. But facts remains.
Another interesting example is the one of John Norman Holmes Thorne in 1924, who killed and dismembered his soon-to-be-married girlfriend, since she told him that she was pregnant and he already had become interested in another woman. Thorne had no medical skills.
An even better example is that of 20-year old William Jones, who in 1823 murdered his lover and servant-girl Ann Williams and with a knife cut her throat and mutilated her excessively beyond recognition. The motive was that she told him she was pregnant and that she wanted them to be married. Neither he had medical training and we have no other records of similar offenses on his part.
And then we have the case of Dr. Crippen, who killed and filleted his wife, and the case of James Greenacre - not to mention Adolf Luetgert, the butcher who in 1897 stuffed his wife into a sausage machine.
The list goes on and on. These are just a few.
A couple of the crimes one comes across have been performed by medical men, so not all can necessarily be applied on Barnett, but the majority of them were ordinary husbands or boyfriends (although hey hardly can be considered as normal people in that regards).
None of the above were serial killers either (as far as we know to this date).
Neither of the above characters can in any way prove that Barnett was capable of doing it, but it just shows that it's not impossible for a husband or boyfriend to murder and in an excessive way mutilate and/or dismember his wife or girlfriend for various reasons.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 602
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:02 am: | |
Hi Leanne
There was a dead female there and the dead female was killed indoors, and the serial killer known as JTR had his first chance to kill without time restrictions.
All The Best
Gary |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
How do you mean, Leanne?
Are you talking about the killer's knowledge of the Whitechapel murders and his approach?
Barnett knew obviously about the Whitechapel murders, since he used to read to her about them. It can't be stated exactly how much he knew about the details concerning the nature of the mutilations. Maybe he thought they were more excessive than they really were (note, he hadn't seen any pictures, just written news-paper accounts). There is also a possibility that he over-excessed the mutilation in an naive attempt to make the corpse harder to identify.
Note that I am by no means convinced about the reasoning above. I am just throwing out a fishing line here, to discover other possibilities than Jack the Ripper.
It's not even a theory.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
One thing I think could possibly back up the Joe only killing Mary situation is that, the newspapers tended to exaggerate the extent of the mutilations of the victims and so Joe may have gone so over the top to make it look like a ripper killing how the public thought it would look like. Remember Joe wouldn't have seen the other bodies personally and would only have had the newspaper accounts to go on.
That is of course if he wasn't Jack.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to.  |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 603
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Hi Leanne, Glenn And ALL
Leanne-I have been meaning to ask you how it could be that Mary Kelly was living with Jack The Ripper during the main part of the murder spree, and failed to notice anything unusual.
If you have already spoken to this please forgive me. However, it defies logic that she could have been stupid enough not to notice that his comings and goings correlated exactly with the early murders. Where did he keep his trophies? Where did he hide his blood stained clothes? How could she not notice him arriving back at 13 Millers Court with no signs of the sexual mania, such as heightened mood, anxiety, excitement etc., that the typical serial killer would exhibit after a successful kill?
For your suspect to be plausible he would have to have had separate lodgings. If he could afford such a situation, which I doubt, he would still have been away from Millers Court on each of the mornings of the early kills. Kelly could not have failed to notice this as well.
All The Best
Gary |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
Exactly the kind of thinking I was getting at, Sarah.
It doesen't mean that this is what happened, but that could be a possible explanation. You have read my mind here.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1610
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
A good point, Gary. Absolutely.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 604
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
Hi Sarah
Nice to see you back.
Best
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 606
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:57 am: | |
Thanks Glenn
Back in 1888 it wasn't possible to live with someone and hide what you were doing. It is much easier for todays serial killers to get away with such things because of cars, garages, storage facilities etc.
The Kelly/Barnett living situation just strikes me as a conundrum from which you can't escape.
All The Best
Gary |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:59 am: | |
Glenn,
I thought I had developed a psychic ability of late.
Gary,
Thanks. It's nice to see me back too. LOL
One thing, do you honestly think that the wifes/partners of all other killers out there knew about their husband's murderous ways. I don't think Harold Shipman's wife knew what he was up to and the same goes for all the other wives of murderers.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 607
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
Hi Sarah
I must be psychic I spoke to your question in the post that went up as you were typing. It's a good question I anticipated I would be asked.
Another question about my problem regarding Kelly not realizing she was living with JTR must implicate an accomplice. If Barnett cleaned up and took his trophies to someone elses home who lived alone, (I don't know if any of his brothers lived by themselves) then as I alluded to we have an accomplice after the fact. This is not an impossible scenario, but we are left with a whole new set of questions.
All The Best
Gary |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Gary,
Who needs to type questions up? Just let our minds converse.
What makes you say it would have been so much harder for Joe to hide the fact he was a killer. By the way, I don't mean it was fact he was a killer, just that if he was. Hope that makes sense.
Maybe Joe and Mary were in on it. Obviously doubtful and unlikely but just a thought which I'm sure others have mentioned. That would be a good idea for if it wasn't Mary who was killed as her and Joe could have set it up. Sorry, my mind is drifting into the land of fiction, but would make a good story.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 608
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hi Sarah
Joe shared a 12 by 12 room with MJK. Although they would not always be together, they would have an intimate knowledge of each others comings and goings. For example, if Joe was out all night on the night of Annie Chapman's murder, MJK would have known he did not arrive back until after dawn. We may not know who MJK really was, but we know she was more than capable of putting two and two together. She could read so she had some degree of education and she also was probably very street wise.
Compare that with the wife of the Yorkshire Ripper. She was a poor naive soul, who had some serious psychiatric problems. He was a trucker whose time was his own. He could come and go as he pleased. Any time spent hunting victims could easily be explained by obfuscating about his work schedule.
Mobility and greater leisure time make the modern serial killer more of an enigma to his family and friends as far as his time is concerned.
Just for the sake of argument I am speaking only of those serial killers who have families so that we are dealing with a comparable situation to that of Barnett and MJK. Many serial killers have trouble even talking to women, let alone having a family. This is one reason they consort with, and kill prostitutes.
I hope that makes sense.
All The Best
Gary
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
Gary,
You also have to remember that Mary was working as a prostitute again during this period and so she wouldn't always have known of Joe's whereabouts.
Many serial killers have trouble even talking to women, let alone having a family. This is one reason they consort with, and kill prostitutes.
I'm sure you didn't mean it as it came out but I'm sure not all serial killers only kill prostitutes.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 610
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
Hi Sarah
No-you are correct I did not mean to imply that all serial killers kill only prostitutes. That was why I qualified my statement by saying 'many'
serial killers. But you must admit, a lot of serial killers kill prostitutes.
If you are a killer looking for a victim and you do not want to be caught, you will kill someone who is not likely to be missed for a long time. Someone who does not have close family and friends who will go to the police immediately upon a disappearance. Someone who, sadly enough, is estranged from main stream society by their lifestyle.
As for MJK's time spent working as a prostitute, I recall that she hit the streets after Barnett lost his job. Even if, for the sake of argument, she was working as a prostitute full time for the enire period, she still had to return to a 12' by 12' hovel she shared with the man who is being pointed to as her killer. Once again, where did he hide the trophies, how could he arrive back at 13 Millers Court with blood on himself in the late hours of the evening and remove all traces of his crimes from his person without MJK's taking notice.
The most he could do to clean himself up would be to wash in a public sink. Besides being hunted and therefore pressed for time while still on the streets, he would show signs on his clothes of the crimes. In addition he would need a cooling off period after the crimes. I am speaking here of a period when he would still be flowing with adrenaline mixed with agitation and excitement after the kill.
Kelly could not have ignored all of the above.
By the way I am not saying he would have been 'drenched' in blood. I believe at least after some experimentation, he would have known how to direct the main flow of blood away from himself.
All The Best
Gary |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 337
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
You make some excellent points with your examples of single kill and mutilate murders. I'm not familiar with most of them, and none of them even very well (I should read up on Bury again). But, it might be important to separate out any mutilations that were performed in order to help dispose of the body.
Cutting up a body in order to stuff it into a trunk, for example, is a very different thing from mutilating the abdomen (which by itself doesn't aid in the disposal and would, in fact, make things more difficult by spreading more blood and stuff around).
Also, in these cases, the killer was someone intimate with the victim and was soon interviewed and caught. Joe, however, was soon interviewed and let go. That's not proof of innocence of course, but the other cases do suggest that even without more modern techniques these cases were solvable when the killer was "the usual suspect".
Just to repeat, though, I personally have never doubted that such a murder could be done in a one off. What I would suspect, however, is that in the cases you've mentioned, there was also an attempt to hide the body after the fact. The victim wasn't left "on display". It's interesting to note that in many of the cases you've listed, the "motive" had to do with the killer wanting out of the relationship. With Joe, the usual argument is that he wanted back in since he was already out by his own choice.
I think these two differences might be considered important for the comparison; with the "body on display" being the more important of the two. I suppose, if we go with singular kill Joe, then he's left with the problem of trying to figure out how to dispose of the body, decides he can't, and so then mutilates her based upon his interpretation of the press reports.
I find it hard to imagine he then successfully gets through the questioning later that day if the above is true. And, based upon the listed cases, we know that the police investigative process was generally successful in such domestic cases. But, that doesn't mean they always get it right.
Hmmm, I think I'm arguing with myself here.
Anyway, as I said before, I don't think it's completely impossible for Joe to have killed only Mary. I do, however, think that the possibility of that situation is very low. Moreover, I think the similarities between MJK's murder and those of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, is very high with the dissimilarites reflecting aspects that differed between the specific victims rather than reflecting aspects of differences between the killers. As such, I consider MJK as being a victim of the same killer as the other 3 listed, which by definition means I consider her a victim of JtR.
That being said, I can't even prove Nichols and Chapman and Eddowes were really killed by the same person. Nichols had cuts to the abdomen, but no visera were removed and no body parts taken. Chapman had her throat cut all the way round and down to the spine, no facial mutilations, at day break in the backyard of a house. Eddowes throat was cut on one side (not all the way round), she had facial mutilations, she was killed in the street, at night time. So, there are differences between each specific case, but I place little importance on these because I see them as reflecting the fact we're talking about 3 different specific events and so they will each show individual differences even if the intention of JtR is to do exactly the same thing each time. The differences I see with Mary Kelly's murder seem to fit into this category.
And, if I'm wrong about considering the differences in this way, then it's wrong for me to link MJK with the others. In other words, I think we weight some of the evidence differently, which of course means we just have different opinions and not different "facts".
Strictly speaking, as I've mentioned, it's a theory that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes all have the same killer. An investigation has to always consider each case individually, and if someone is arrested for one, then they can try and connect that person to the others "suspected of being by the same person".
So, I guess I am of the opinion that "Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly" should be considered as "suspected by the same person". Stride, given the time of her death, I would also include as "worth checking into", but would not be surprised if she could not be positively connected to the series; nor would I be surprised if she could. Tabram would get a look, but I would be less surprised if she could not be connected than if she could (but not hugely surprised). Emma Smith would be a shocker to me, and some of the later murders, like Alice McKenzie, would be looked at but again, not overly surprised if they could not be connected.
So, I guess this is a long way of saying I agree that we have to always consider the possibility some/all the crimes are unrelated, but I would say the most viable "working hypothesis" at the moment is to view at least Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly as the victims of JtR.
- Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1614
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your very full and carefully written response.
I agree; what we are talking about here - as always in the Ripper case - is personal and subjective interpretations of facts.
Well, one thing we've got to remember is, that if Barnett murdered and mutilated Mary Kelly, we can't know exactly why. Most of the details we have concerning their relationship evolves from Joseph Barnett himself. That must never be forgotten.
Furthermore, not all of the examples of killers similar to those in my post above has the murderer "wanting to leave the relationship" as an issue or motive.
And we can't know if that's what Barnett wanted either - maybe he did. After all - he did leave her, because he wasn't satisfied with the circumstances.
Neither are all of them a result to dispose the body. But IF Barnett did kill her (and none of the others) it wouldn't be as a result of a lust murder, but actually to hide the murderer's or the victim's identity. So it fits very well with some of the examples presented. If Barnett killed Mary Kelly, my very personal and speculative guess is that the murder was done in passion, but the mutilation performed in an attempt to avoid capital punishment - maybe even done in desperation.
Then I must question the notion that just because Barnett managed to fulfill an interrogation and was let go of the police, doesen't mean that he is innocent. He wouldn't be the first to achieve that. Some killers have even managed to slip through several interrogations before the police even suspected or succeeded to prove their involvement in the murders. The crime manuals are littered with such examples. We can't know anything about Barnett's psychological state anyway, so that is a real tabula rasa in this context; we can't possibly know what he was capable of doing or not doing - we can only speculate (but I wouldn't even dare to do that).
I would suggest with relative certainty that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were all killed by the same individual (which indeed would be enough to make Jack a serial killer) - in those three we can find the same determination in the mutilations although they vary slightly in degree. The fact that Nichols was not mutilated to such a degree, with her intestines "just" protruding, was probably - as many authors and researchers have suggested - a result of him being disturbed by hearing the first witness approaching (or by something else); I think - although it can't be proven beyond doubt - that we might have seen the same mutilation degree on Nichols as on Chapman if he hadn't been.
I perfectly agree that we probably can find differences in the individual murders, but in my view Kelly's differ in far too many more details and aspects than the other three between them, form a forensic point of view. But that is just my opinion.
Mary kelly could very well be a Ripper victim, but I wouldn't bet on it. I see other openings to examine before that can be finally established.
Always nice and enlightning to discuss with you, Jeff.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 22, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 706
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Hi Gary and Sarah,
Your post covered the difficult area of the ripper avoiding detection in a situation such as the Millers Court set up.
I can go along with what is often pointed out by profilers and the like that the ripper was probably a "quiet man that wouldn" draw attention to himself or by his demeanour didnt appear remarkable in any way.But this doesnt mean as Gary points out that he could avoid the heightened adrenalin induced states after he had killed,that his behaviour didn"t alter and stay altered for some time after the murders and that if the ripper was indeed Joe that Mary Kelly wouldn"t have sensed something was very wrong.
There would have been no hiding place in Millers court as Gary also points out.
I also think that he took the trophies to prolong the thrill.How could he get these out in Millers Court when he "needed" to re-enact the murders? Very frustrating for him surely?
Imagine the scene when he wants to take a look at his prizes and Mary could reappear at any moment and cop sight of him with them!No moments to relish here I shouldn"t think and yet these were surely an important part of his crimes.
I can"t see Sarah"s suggestion as likely either.
Mary Kelly as the rippers accomplice? Too fiery and difficult to control and the ripper was all about control in my view and ofcourse fear of women.If he had wanted a female accomplice to partake of his mad mysogyny he would surely have chosen someone who was as careful not to be caught as himself and someone giving loud drunken renditions of "Violets on my mothers grave" and the likes for several hours around midnight accompanied by Mr Blotchy face and who knows who else wouldnt have fitted his MO to my way of thinking!
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 707
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
PS I understand that he took Mary"s heart.If he also wrote "From Hell"[letter] then presumably he made off somewhere to "fry and eat" it etc.What else did he take and where did he go to prepare for the "replay"?[as I write I start to think I prefer ordinary detective stories to this].Anyway
i think that given his previous activity he would have needed somewhere to go and "reflect" ---Joe said he was at his lodgings that night -hardly the place to be fondling his trophies!
Its just too illogical.
Natalie |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 612
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:50 pm: | |
Hi Natalie
A very interesting point about Mary being Jack's accomplice. I wonder where Mary would have hidden the body parts Barnett brought home when she invited friends or clients into 13 Millers Court. If Barnett was JTR can anyone present a plausible scenario wherein they worked in collaboration to facilitate the murder of East End prostitutes. What would be the impetus for Mary to take part in such a scheme. If MJK knew Joe was Jack she would have known she lived with a psychopathic serial killer who would eventually see her as a threat to his continued liberty.
This would not auger too well for her continued existence.
All The Best
Gary |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 338
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 7:34 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Indeed, I hope I didn't give the impression that I was arguing that Joe must be innocent because he gets through the interview. That certainly was not what I meant, only that it's suggestive of innocence more than it's suggestive of guilt. This only applies when we're looking at the notion of Joe only killing Mary.
The alternative, where Joe is Jack, would consider his ability to get through the interview as "not surprising" since he would not be burdened with a guilty conscience. Note that since nothing in Joe's background or behaviour indicates he's delusional, I think we would have to assume Joe is a psychopathic type SK rather than a psychotic type SK once we make the assumption Joe is Jack. In order for "Joe as Jack" to get through the interview, he must be cool and cunning, be able to hide his guilt, give out information and explain himself in such a manner to avoid saying anything suspicious. This would be very difficult if Joe were schizophrenic, or some other delusional-type disorder, as I would expect him to come across as "odd and incoherant" when trying to misdirect the police. The delusional thought patterns would mean what he considers a good reply would appear very strange to the police. So, if Joe is Jack, then I think we would have to conclude that Jack was not delusional.
Getting back to the idea that Joe is the killer of Mary Kelly only means that Jack can still be delusional (since Joe is not Jack), and Joe can be "normal" and be cool enough under pressure to convince the police of his innocence. That leads to the curious event of his being nervous as the inquest. His stuttering during the inquest testimony does seem to suggest he was quite nervous and upset. This doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea that he's already gotten passed the police and they seem uninterested in him as a suspect. He's got every reason now to be very confident. If he had been spotted and recognised, the police would have him by now. There's nothing for him to be nervous about, and we need to make the assumption that he's "cool under fire" to get passed the police the first time, so why is he not so "cool" this time when he's almost home free?
I fully admit that none of this proves his innocence. I can think of a few stories myself that could explain away the slight contradictions that are comming up (i.e., I could make yet another assumption that he's worried somebody at the inquest will identify him, etc).
What I worry about, is that once I make the assumption that Joe killed Mary my starting point, I have to make more assumptions to explain the contradictions. If, however, I start with Jack killed Mary, and Joe is not Jack, then Joe's behaviour is consistent with someone who cares about the victim. And, this assumption (his caring) fits pretty well with what we know about Joe and Mary. His innocence explains why he gets through both the police and the inquest, and means he could be nervous at both, not worry about revealing things like "I know how to get into the room without the key" (he's not thinking about the implications because he knows he's not guilty, etc). In other words, if he's innocent, I need to make fewer assumptions, and those few I make capture a lot of the information.
Then, if we look at the other part of this story, Jack kills Mary, the general pattern from the Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes cases seems to generally apply here. Approach as customer, go where she leads, throat cutting to the spine (like Chapman and Nichols), extensive mutilation of abdomin (like Chapman and Eddowes), facial mutilations including removal of the nose (like Eddowes), taking of an interal organ (like Chapman and Eddowes), and the leaving the body on display where she was killed with no attempt to hide it (like Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes).
Two differences are that Mary seems to have been attacked first with the knife, rather than strangled, and Jack appears to have spent more time alone with Mary before attacking her. The first is not that important because it's the knife that signifies Jack's work. The strangulation was just a way to silence the victim. Being inside may have reduced Jack's concerns about noise; especially if we tend to suspect Jack is delusional and he has poor risk evaluation - ie. Chapman's murder at day break in a back yard. Starting the attack with the knife and omitting the initial strangulation is not enough of a difference, I don't think, and is the kind of variation that does occur within a common series.
The only real "out of character" behaviour is the spending of time prior to the attack. That, I think, is the one bit that seems quite different. And on that, I can see why one might want to view Kelly as "possibly different". That, compared to all the other similarities pointing to a common killer, however, means we have to consider this as either telling us something about the Ripper, or as telling us that someone other than the Ripper killed Mary. The later would suggest Joe as the likely suspect, and then we're back to Joe killing only Mary, which I've already covered.
I'm trying to view things from different starting points, Joe as Jack, Joe as not Jack, and Joe pretending to be Jack, and to see how well those starting points do with the evidence we have. None are completely ruled out, so all must be considered as new evidence comes in. With the evidence we have, I think fewer assumptions have to be made when we start from Joe as not Jack and Jack killed Mary. That means the time Jack seems to have spent with Mary may tell us something about Jack.
Or, and I just thought of this, it may tell us that after GH's man left, and Mary was at the door, Jack was hanging around. He then gets invited in and attacks Mary immediately upon entering, etc. Now there's no change in Jack's behaviour - but there's no evidence for this additional person either so it's just yet another theory (note, if one makes GH the Ripper, then this story works pretty well actually).
But you're correct in that since all of the "Joe stories" are still viable, there is always the possiblity that Joe is somehow involved in Mary's death, and that Joe is not Jack. But, I still maintain that I think if Joe killed Mary then Mary had to have been killed in the morning and not in the 2-4 am time period. Joe's alibi, which the police accept, has to be viewed as clearing him during the early am hours because that is when the police thought she was killed. Joe was dismissed as a suspect based upon the strength of his alibi, and I think we have to go with the assumption that his alibi does clear him for that time period.
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on April 22, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1616
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:17 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
No, you didn't give the impression that you were arguing for his innocence. But the interrogation thing has been put forward quite often by others rather strongly, most recently by Brian, and I think we have sufficient experiences from other cases saying that we can't take such a fact as proof of his innocence.
I must admit you make several excellent and interesting points here.
Let me just say that there is no need to diagnose Barnett as a schizofrenic or delusional in the scenario of him being the killer of Mary Kelly (only!) - on the contrary, many of those similar killers of the character I referred to could actually be described as cunning psychopaths. The murder of Mary Kelly may have - in such a scenario - been done in affect, while the mutilation display a rather tactic and deliberate approach. People who tries to throw the police off their path are seldom delusional, and we have no indications on that Barnett belonged to this character type.
So that fits very well with him pulling off the police interrogation.
Let's not forget that he in such a case may have realised that he was risking capital punishment if he was discovered, and you'd be surprised to know what people are capable of doing to avoid that.
Furthermore, we might also assume that the police was looking for Jack the Ripper, and it is quite reasonable to point out, that Barnett just simply not was the kind of guy they were on the look-out for and therefore wasn't pressed more than then the usual interrogations required.
So there could be a number of explanations for him getting off without arouse suspicion.
I, however, do see somewhat telling dissimilarities in the murderer's approach. To make a connection with the nose on Eddowes is in my view a bit of a stretch, since Mary's whole face was erased. Regarding the taking of the organs, signs from the other murders tell us that Jack the Ripper's crimes were sexually oriented and he was out to get the organs that was connected with it, and in Kelly's case the heart was taken - not the womb. Regarding the extensive mutilation of the abdomin, this is tricky, since she was badly mutilated in a number of places. Another thing that differs is the amount of blood splatter, a detail Jack the Ripper seemed rather keen to avoid.
Then you make some good points:
I agree that Barnett's alibi is a problem, if the general acceptance regarding the time of death is correct. That can't be disregarded.
I also think it is an interesting and valid point when you say that the Ripper used strangulation mainly as a way to silence the victims, and that this probably wasn't needed in 13 Miller's Court in the same way as in the streets or back alley's. Still, we must remember that the house was hardly especially sound-proof (if we consider the other witness testimonies. Furthermore, there is also a possibility that the strangulation in the Ripper murders was made in order to solve another problem, namely to keep down the amount of blood spurting from the throat wound.
Another thing that bothers me, is that some facts seem to indicate that Mary Kelly knew and felt comfortable with her killer, unless he broke into the room while she was asleep. The first part would clearly point at Barnett or someone else she trusted (since she obviously was scared of Jack the Ripper), the other part could also point at someone like Barnett but could also indicate a possible stranger, maybe even Jack.
So yes - this is tricky indeed.
I do think your arguments are good; I really respect your opinions and I can very well see your points here (as usual you give me a lot to think about). For all we know, Jack may have killed Kelly, Joe could have killed Mary - or both, being one and the same (although I find the latter the least possible option). Especially I find the alibi argument something to really consider and a real nut to crack, if that piece of information is correct.
So yes, there are several possible options to choose from here and it all comes down to interpretation.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 4:58 am: | |
CB made a very interesting statement about the victims circumstances at the time of their deaths.That is,except for their killer, they were alone at that particular time.
Of course they had to be,and on the street he could be sure of that.Not so in Kelly,s case,if in fact the killer entered while she was asleep,and without prior arrangement.
Except that is if he knew of her situation that night,and of her intentions.Only one man could be reasonably sure,and that was the person who entered her room with her at midnight.
It is not known how long he was with her,but certainly long enough to gather some information.Did she intend to go out again?.Was she going to turn in and call it a night?.Was she expecting someone to call?.Small talk that would clearly show her intentions.
We know this person could not have been Barnett.His alibi for that time is sound.
It is quite feasable she would take someone she knew.That the person also had a jug of beer might have been another inducement.
Having satisfied himself that it would be safe to revisit sometime later,and perhaps not at that time satisfied it was a good time to kill,he reappeared later on.
Possible?. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 339
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 12:28 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yes, Joe as "cunning Joe" works fine if he's killed only Mary. I would go so far as to suggest that "Delusional Joe" doesn't work at all well, given the ability to not arouse suspicion during the police investigation and the inquest. A reading of his testimony from the inquest shows no signs of delusional thinking, or any other indications of disturbed thinking patterns. His answers always stay on topic, they are coherant rather than rambling, etc.
I fully agree that without a transcript of his police interview, we can't be sure of how pressing the police were. He indicates they interviewed him for hours, but that just means "for a long time" really. Personally, if I were Joe I would think any such interview would seem to last "for hours"! Regardless, we don't know what the police attitude towards Joe originally was, and if they cleared him for the night time murder and they were wrong in the estimate of the time of death, then once he was inappropriately cleared they may not have checked where he was in the morning. He could have been lucky. Then again, his alibi may also have included where he was in the morning, but the police never repeat this part because they saw it as unimportant (it does not matter to the police if he could also account for his location from 8am until 1pm if the police believe Mary was killed between 2 and 4 am, for example).
This is why I tend to limit Joe's alibi as only clearing him for the night time murder. I think we can safely assume that was verified. Although it's possible he had an alibi for the morning as well, it's possible he didn't. Without knowing what was said, I'm not willing to assume he's cleared for a morning murder.
And yes, given that all of Mary's face was assaulted, the fact that her nose was also cut off may not be surprising. However, the connection with Eddowes is in the fact there were facial mutilations with Eddowes but not Nichols or Chapman. Once facial mutilation appeared, however, it seems to have continued with Kelly (in the same killer line of reasoning). Also, one could "hack and slash" the face, as much of Mary's face seems to have been, without the removal of the nose. The fact that the nose was cut off in both of these cases is indicative of repeating the same thing. The issue is really, is it the same person repeating the action, or someone else repeating what was read in the papers. That's the million dollar question.
As for the removal of the heart, rather than the womb, I'm not sure the specific organ is important. Eddowes was also missing a kidney, while Chapman was not. But Chapman was also missing a piece of belly wall including the bellybutton (I think it's Chapman where this is missing? It's often not talked about the way the organs are though). With both Chapman and Eddowes, given the time constraints, if he's going to take something internal, and at random, then it has to be something he can grab in the abdominal cavity. The liver is too big, the kidneys are harder to find (but he gets them at least once), while the uterus and bladder are pretty much right where he's opening them up. With Kelly, he's also reached up under her rib cage and cut out the heart. This, presumably, he does near the end of the mutilations of the abdominal region. Which means the heart is probably the last thing he takes out.
Obviously, we don't know if the outer body mutilations to the legs, arms, and breasts, are performed before or after the removal of the internal organs. Regardless, the heart probably was the last organ removed. That would mean a "common Jack" is taking the last internal thing removed from each victim, with no particular interest in the womb itself. Of course, if Jack took the first two wombs because he was interested in wombs particularly, then the taking of the heart suggests it's not Jack, but a "pretender" who's basing the mutilations on what he's read in the paper and just getting it wrong.
I have a concern with the latter interpretation. And that is that at the inquest of Chapman, it's even offered that the taking of the womb might be the motive for the murders. I would think a copycat would be more apt to copy this aspect if they are going to take an organ at all (provides a common link through one motive suggested in the press). The "real Jack", however, is operating under his own rules and if the coroner got it wrong and the motive is not to supply some American Doctor with wombs, then there's no need for the real Jack to take only wombs.
And yes, Miller's Court is not particularly sound proof. The lack of strangulation indicates that no matter who killed Mary Kelly, they were not particularly concerned about noise (no attempt to silence her first). Cunning Joe might be expected to have thought of this (if he's planned her murder). Angry Joe would first need to be angry, and there's no evidence of any kind of fight/argument having occured at either proposed time of death (night and/or morning). It was "delusional Jack" I was thinking of, who might not have realised that just because he's inside doesn't mean noise isn't a risk. And, since I've suggested Joe isn't delusional, "Delusional Jack can't be Joe".
And, interesting, if strangulation was not about silence, but about keeping down the blood flow, then the presence of a change of clothes, and being inside where he would have pletty of time to "clean up", may simply have negated Jack's need for this; be Jack Joe or no.
Anyway, I must say, it's been awhile since I've really turned over things like this. I'm enjoying this quite a bit actually. I can't say I'm convinced that Mary is not a victim of Jack, but I do understand where your concerns come from. I admit can't really disprove the other options, but I'm not claiming Mary has to be a victim of Jack, only that the link with the other cases is very strong, and I'm not sure it's necessarily that much weaker than the case for any of the other 3 we've used as "definate Jack's".
Of course, I could be wrong!
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 4:04 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
I think it can be misleading to look for as case that matches the Ripper case exactly. Imagine the shock to Chicago when they found that 'Pogo' the clown who visited childrens hospitals, murdered 40 boys! How many other clowns do we find as murderers?
Let's look at the newspaper reports of the murders, (including the inquest accounts), and see how accurate the details were and how much a mere reader's knowledge of the actual crime scenes could have been.
GARY: The bell to open trade at Billingsgate Market rang at 5a.m. Barnett had to be there, plus later at the fruit markets early in the morning, and being a costermonger would have meant that he was his own boss. He would have had access to many streets in the East End with his job. He didn't need to have seperate lodgings at all!
Remember to that Mary was known to go out drinking with her friends late at night. If Barnett had to be up at about 4:00a.m. to go to work he needed time to sleep, so I'd say the couple didn't enjoy much of a social life together.
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.
|
|
|
|
