|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 708
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 4:38 am: |       |
Jeff,Thanks for the above.I wonder if you would mind addressing his "needs" viz a viz his taking of trophies.So far the concentration has been on sequence matching which is valuable but isnt the whole story.I understand not all serial killers take trophies.The ripper did.So the question that also needs to be addressed is what significance this has to his entire MO. How this marries up with any present day information we have on the taking of "trophies" ie where they seem to fit in with the totality of the crime.It doesnt seem to me for example that he went off on a tangent here
or did so as an "afterthought".In fact it seems its all part and parcel of a pattern that emerges in other "sexual" serial killer behaviour.
Therefore if you believe as I do that the ripper
"planned,stalked[some at least],and killed from a sexual motive---which I know is often disputed then the taking of trophies could be highly significant from this angle ie of a sexual serial killer who got his kicks from what he did to Polly and Annie ,Catherine and Mary.
Finally how well does this then fit with what we know of Joseph Barnett,Mary"s lover of some 18 months?
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 709
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 4:56 am: | |
Gary,thanks for seeing the relevance of what I was getting at above.
Can you tell me though whether there is such a medical definition of "psycopathic sexual serial killer"-it has been bugging me for a while.I understood that a psychopath usually kills for gain or to avoid detection and not because s/he would want to be "frying and eating" body parts. In fact I have never heard of such.
When murderous personalities get up to this sort of thing they are surely "delusional" to say the least or better perhaps,their fantasies have become so real to them that they cant separate them from reality which after all is one definition of madness.
If Joe was "delusional" in this way Mary would surely have cottoned on to something queer going on with regards to Joe and would have left him in the first few months?
But that gets us back to the contradiction pointed out earlier in the week by Dan
Was it a domestic or a serial killer?
If he was a serial killer the above questions need some kind of plausible answer-particularly with regard to the taking of the "trophies".
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
If you look at some news-paper reports, you'll see that the mutilations often were exaggerated. This is not uncommon. Besides, I think you give the general public too much credit in knowing details of the murders.
And regarding the possibility of Barnett being a serial killer, while living with Mary: it doesne't matter how much they were away from each other. He would still need to dispose or keep the body parts somewhere, and I do think that Mary at some point would find blood stains on clothes or linen. As Gary says, they lived in a totally crammed room - he might have pulled such a thing off for a week or two, but hardly for several months.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Yes, the good things with discussions like these, is that they - regardless if they are leading somewhere or not - is forcing ourselves to elaborate our thinking.
I can't say I agree with you on the nose thing and the organs, though. Everything on Kelly's face is practically gone, except for the eyes. I don't see any link whatsoever to Eddowes' nose in that regards. However, the whole facial mutilation on Eddowes - including the cuts - has generally been connected to the excessive carving on Kelly's face, as a stage in a progression in the mutilation signature. That is still possible, but to focus on a lost nose (linking it to Eddowes) in Kelly's totally destroyed face seems somewhat constructed to me. But if we accept the evolutionary aspect of the mutilation process, it is quite correct that Kelly could be a natural new stage in the increasing violence in the Ripper's technique. That can never be ruled out.
On the other hand, it would be also be convenient to speculate, that the excessive facial mutilation on Eddowes' simply could be a mistake on the Killer's part, having read about the ones done on Eddowes and thought they were more extreme than they were (not that they weren't gruesome enough, though ...). So the as far as I am concerned we have two options here:
- the facial mutilations on Kelly was a serious mistake and taken to unnecessary excess, due to failing knowledge about the nature of the ones done on Eddowes
- that they represent a new stage in the killer's mutilation process, with increasing violence - indicating a serial killer.
Regarding the organs; yes, other parts were taken as well from the other victims but the womb or uterus is the link that goes through the whole thing. If we are to believe psychological forensic studies, then the mutilations and the trophies would be centred to the items and the parts of the body that is of sexually meaning. And the womb/uterus was indeed something the murderer seem to have focused on in the case of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. We can't disregard that, even though other parts were taken as well. And in the Kelly case this doesen't fit. To me that could indicate someone who knew about the trophies but didn't understand the underlying meaning of them for the killer (and why should he?). We can't expect Barnett or anyone else of the general public to know or fully understand these things, especially not in 1888.
Regarding the noise in Miller's Court, I think - as you imply as well - that such a thing should have been taken in consideration by the killer - REGARDLESS if it was Joe or Jack. As you say, Barnett, who knew the place, should have though about it, unless the crime was done in passion and with no prethinking whatsoever. And at the same time it doesen't fit the approach of Jack the Ripper, who very quickly silenced his victims in order to avoid resistance.
I think the blood splatter is important, simply because it suggests that the victim was attacked in another fashion that we see in the other Ripper crimes. I can only speculate, but I don't think Jack belonged to those sexual sadists that wanted struggle or resistance. That's why I also feel the defense wounds to be significant. But that's just my opinion.
Still, that being said, the alibi and the victim's time of death is indeed a problem for the Barnett theory - that is, if the time of death really has been ascertained for sure. I am not so sure that has been fully established beyond doubt; there is probably a reason for why this particular point is still a matter of large forensic debate here as well as in literature.
But if this would show to be correct, we are down to two things:
-- Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim
-- Barnett didn't do it, but someone else, and not the Ripper.
The latter seems rather far-fetched, but I am not that pleased with the first one either.
A possible way for me to acknowledge this possibility is, if the Ripper broke into the room and surprised her while she was asleep (plus the fact that he must have changed his MO and signature on many points). But that still doesne't explain the other parts that doesne't fit, as I see it.
Well, I could be wrong as well, Jeff.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 6:22 am: | |
Hi Natalie,
If I may address those questions of yours:
That's right, not all serial killers take trophies, although it is fairly common in the case of sexual serial killers or lust murderers. And yes, the Ripper belong to the ones who did.
Now, trophie-taking is a part of the signature of the killer - not the MO. The MO indicates the actual method of killing, while the signature refers to the "need" of the killer, displayed in his actions, the whole purpose with his deed.
This need is often connected with sexual arousment, and usually the trophies both have a sexual symbolic meaning to the killer, while they also makes it possible for him to react and relive the crime through fantasies.
A psychopath does not only kill for gain, he also kills for personal pleasure and because of sexual fantasies. What differs psychopaths from the other categories, is their different choice of approach (among other things); sexual serial killers that are psychopaths usually indulge in torturing the victim and so on (for example), while the disorganized don't - but mostly it all derives from sexual fantasies, needs and compulsion.
But we must remember that this also is generalizations - every killer is an individual of his own and referring at general ground rules to apply on all cases is difficult.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 23, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
Harry,
What makes you say that Joe's alibi was sound? His alibi was that he was asleep in his room alone. No-one to back it up, only people who may have seen him go up to his room. Also, it is still unclear about when Mary was killed, she may have been killed in the morning which, as far as we are aware, Joe has no alibi for.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to.  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 8:53 am: | |
NOTE! Jeff!
Corrections regarding an error in the third passage in my post to you above:
"... that the excessive facial mutilation on Eddowes' ..." should naturally mean Kelly, not Eddowes.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 616
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 11:23 am: | |
Hi Leanne, Natalie, Glenn, Sarah
I'm off to the beach with the family so I will respond to any questions about my concerns about how Joe could have kept Mary in the dark about his activities as JTR when I get back.
Natalie, Glenn gave a pretty comprehensive and well reasoned answer to your question. Thanks Glenn.
It's off to the Atlantic ocean and 85 degree sunshine for us. We are only 75 miles from Myrtle Beach.
Have a great weekend everyone.
All The Best
Gary
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 712
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Thanks for that information Glenn.I really didnt think Psychopathic individuals got into sexual serial killing.Can I ask you to name a couple of them?Was the yorkshire ripper such a killer[psychopathic I mean]?
The other matter of these trophies is this bizarre enjoyment they apparently get from it.
So if Joseph Barnett was indeed Jack the ripper
how then did he satisfy this factor?Where did he go with these trophies to fry them and eat them?
would he have presented them to Mary Kelly to cook?This is a bit revolting to think of but if you follow these attacks from start to finish which is all part of the crime[and not just the crime scene]the matter of the stolen organs is as valid a study as any other area.
This man whoever it was took them for a reason
of his own and presumably did something with them.
If the "from Hell" letter was genuine and not a hoax as many believe, then he actually does claim cannibalism to be part of the crimes.
How would he have kept these items safe?He claims to "pickle" them in spirit.
How does this fit within the context of Mary and Joe"s last months together?
How does the disappearance of her heart and uterus figure?Where did he take them in the short space of time between her "morning" murder[the claim by some]and the bobbies arriving to feel his collar?If as R.Stephenson claimed he hid them under his tie I guess the police would have been a tad surprised to say the least.
I think its worth thinking on the question of his need to take trophies as most places in Whitechapel would have been unsafe houses for such a crime.
I dont think he could have cooked them in Millers Court because it didnt have such facilities.
I suppose he could have thrown them on the fire
----but that begs the question why take them at all?
Natalie |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 617
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Hi Natalie
Just caught your question.
A psychopath can best be described as someone who is egocentric, anti-social and devoid of conscience. They are incapable of feeling empathy for another human being. They are pathological liars, manipulative and controlling. When you have a scenario where they have come to relate sex and violence together, you have a potential serial sexual, psychopathic killer.
The scary thing is they do not walk about the streets drooling and ranting and hearing voices. They pass the test of sanity in that they know what they are doing and they just don't care.
There are all degrees of psychopath in society. We may work for one or know one ourselves. Think about the traits I have mentioned and think of those you may have known in life. They may not be serial killers but they have no feeling for others and cannot relate to suffering in others. All they are concerned with is themselves.
Ted Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy and many others would fit in this category.
As for Jack. You decide based on his actions.
All The Best
Gary
(rushing out of town) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1625
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Gary beat me to it, but his suggestions and descriptions are excellent; and Bundy is probably one of the best examples we have but there are several others. John Reginald Christie could be another.
Regarding the throphies; yes, cannibalism or consuming the body parts or blood from the victim is one existing part of some sexual psychopathic killers. The notion is, if they eat them, the victims will remain as a part of the killer himself, and in some odd way, some killers - I think Jeffrey Dahmer, among others - even in some twisted way regarded it as an act of love.
I am not an expert on modern serial killers, so I might remember incorrectly, but I think it was something like that.
In the Ripper's case, the womb seems to have been the important item he was after as a trophy, even though he took parts of other organs as well. But the womb or uterus is of a special importance to the killer, and represents a subject to his depraved sexual fantasies. The fact that the heart, not the womb, was missing on Kelly I see as one of the problems in the Ripper context, because it doesen't fit the sexual motivation.
Them what he'd do with them is another question. Your guess is as good as mine, Natalie. I agree, that the element of suggested cannibalism in the Lusk letter is very interesting. As far as I am concerned, I haven't made up my mind about that letter. It could very well - for all we know - be genuine.
Maybe he did eat them, maybe he just kept them to relive the crimes. Unfortunately we don't know. But I fail to see Barnett in that serial killer context.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 23, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 713
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
Thankyou Glenn and Gary for the very detailed and helpful replies.I am much clearer now about the description and like you Glenn I will have to think about the Lusk letter some more[not particularly pleasant but it might throw some light on this baffling case.Once again,Many thanks to you both for the help.
Best Natalie |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 6:14 am: | |
Hi all,
If there had been no prior mutilations to a ripper vitims face then you may have an argument but the fact that Eddowes was slashed around the face. I feel that the ripper got more violent with evey murder. If you look at the pictures in the casebook you can see a pattern and the ripper getting more violent with each attack. I feel the same person who killed Eddowes killed Kelly.
Hi Glenn I agree with you It would have been hard to keep the fact that he was the ripper. If joe was the ripper I feel Kelly would have known.
ALL the best CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 11:42 pm: | |
Hi all.
A few odd things about the Kelly murder. We know that the ripper only killed on weekends and I always thought that it was odd that the first reel weekend that the ripper had to kill Kelly after Joe moved out he did. This might suggest that the killing was not as random as we thought.
I dont know how accurate this is but I am throwing it out there anyway. The same day that GH came forward Tumblety was arrested. Just a thought.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi all,
I feel we need to keep it simple rather than getting carried away. It is possible that Joe was Jadck the ripper. Itis possible that he went back over around 4:00 in the morning a killed her. What is more likely that the man that GH and Lewis saw Kelly with about 2:30 killed her or even the man that Cox saw with Kelly killed her or that Joe sliped back over at 4:oo and Killed her? At some point you have to make a logical conclusion. If you dont you will drive your self crazy answering the same questions over and over again. I think it is logical to assume that Kelly was a ripper victim and one of the men seen by witnesses killed her.
I feel in order to have a viable ripper suspect you must at least have two qualities.
1. He must have lived in London at the time of the murders.
2. He must have had sometrhing happend to him to make him stop killing.
Here is were you have another decision to make. Who do you think was Jack the rippers last victim. Do you believe that it was Kelly or do you think that the ripper killed untill 1891 If you believe that Kelly was the last ripper victim then something had to happen to the ripper on November 9th or soon after So what happend tht night well we know he was seen by at least one maybe two people GH accurate description may have been more valuable then some have suggested.
All the best,CB |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 715
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Some good points there CB.I must admit I hadnt really thought about it being the first proper weekend since Joe moved out but i have always thought Mary was stalked.I mean she was off out parading again a lively[by various accounts]buxom blond of 5ft 7ins.
If the ripper saw her around Spitalfields he may have followed her into pubs---he may even have been her client the previous weekend and noticed her performance with the door/window.
He would no doubt have noticed too that she drank[a factor to consider about all the victims]
and was therefore likely to be a bit of a push-over when he went for the kill.
But this man had an agenda which I still think was planned to the last detail-despite the possible "slip-ups" in Hanbury Street and Berner street.He didnt get caught and its possible that noone except the victims ever saw him.
Natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
G'day Natalie,
These are just this mornings thoughts. I'm not serious here, but this scenario would be good for anyone writing a fiction novel:
'Where did he [Barnett] go with these trophies to fry them and eat them?'
Joseph barnett used to bring home gifts of "meat and other things". Perhaps he brought home kidneys once: "Mary dearest, look what I brought home from the butchers on the way home.....KIDNEYS!!" Mary could have chopped them in half, pickled them in spirit, all the time unaware that one was human.
But I'm not convinced that the Lusk letter was authentic!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on April 23, 2004) |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 716
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,I enjoyed that!Still if he was a psychopath he wouldnt have given a damn I presume.
Anything is possible!
Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 340
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yes, the removal of Mary's nose could simply reflect the fact that her face was extensively mutilated. Facial mutilations did not start to appear until Eddowes, which makes that aspect different between Eddowes and the previous. I don't see this as a reason to separate Eddowes from the others, however, as it does fit with the idea of a progression. The increase in the facial attacks with Kelly also fits with this progression. I guess it's the fact that to remove the nose, this requires a deliberate focused attack on it (place the knife under the nostrils, and cut upwards; specifically targeting this feature of the face). With both victims having this common deliberate attack, with admittedly more random attacks in the case of Mary, seems to point towards a common killer. But then, as you say, if we're dealing with a copycat then replicating this nose removal could reflect what was publically known. And, I can't think of an alternative way to remove a nose with a knife, so the similar looking "method" could simply reflect the fact that it's the only obvious way to do that particular thing.
As for targeting the womb, however, I would hesitate to include Nichols in that list. Her womb was not taken, and I agree with your suggestion that this crime may have been interrupted as well. Because it may have been interrupted, though, doesn't mean we should conclude that the womb would have been taken. It might not have occurred to her killer to take a trophy on that occasion. This may only have started with Chapman even if Jack had more time to spend with Nichols.
In other words, we only have 2 cases where the womb/uterus was taken. One where a kidney was also taken, and one where parts of the skin was taken. With Mary, we have the heart missing. The numbers are a bit small, I think, to put the "targeting the uterus specifically" as a conclusion. It's possible that he was, it's also possible that he was just taking things that were small enough for him to carry in his pocket, and that were in the vicinity of the mutilations. Also, I'm not sure how well the common person would understand anatomy to realise that what they took was, in fact, the uterus in the first place.
No, I'm not suggesting medical knowledge here, but the reverse, our medical knowledge and our understanding of the functions of the organs taken do not mean the killer had the same knowledge. We have to be sure we're not imparting onto Jack our knowledge. If he has no idea what it is he's taken, then it's possible that the "trophies" are just to foster his fantasies later. To relive the experience. And, if the Lusk Letter is "real", it may be that the perpose was to canabalise his victims, to "own them by ingesting them". The uterus may not have been very good to eat, hence he takes something else the 2nd time he gets the chance (the kidney), and something else again the 3rd time (the heart). Basing anything on the letters, however, is always a risk of course, so this is just something more to ponder and consider.
And finally, I agree about the noise factor. A rational killer would have to consider this risk. In the "heat of anger", this is often not thought about because the act of murder was not pre-planned but occurs in a violent confrontation. But, nobody reports Mary having a fight without anyone, so that seems to negate the required "pre-murder fight" that is necessary for our "heat of the moment murder". What we do know is that it appears the killer did not worry about noise. Given the lack of evidence for a fight followed by a murder, this points (weakly I admit) towards a less than rational killer. This fits more with a delusional killer, and as I've suggested before, there's little reason to suspect Joe of being delusional (suggesting Mary's killer is not Joe, but Jack).
On the other hand, I suppose the lack of consideration about noise could also point towards someone with less criminal sophistication and/or experience. We know Jack has this experience, so perhaps the lack of "noise control" works against the idea of Jack, and works more for "Joe as killer of Mary only". By itself, yes, but as I tend to think the "Joe as killer of Mary only" story leads to a few problems outlined in my previous posts, then this is not really enough to overcome those problems. Especially since the "Mary is killed by a delusional Jack" also works with this evidence.
Anyway, we've covered a lot of stuff in the past few days. I know this has really helped me organise and review a lot of the evidence, and to closely examine some of the things I've taken for granted. I think my overall opinion is much the same, but I do see how some of the alternatives are not "shut down" and so we have to keep those options open as alternatives. If, for example, new evidence were to turn up, it's important to see how that fits with all viable options. If we close something down too fast, we run the risk of not comming back to it when new data needs to be examined. The new data could very easily take a previously "unlikely" scenerio and turn it into a "much better supported theory".
- Jeff |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 165
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
Hey Everybody,
I dont make too many appearances on the Barnett boards, but, I have to ask my old buddy Glenn one thing.
Glenn, regarding your above post referencing the womb as a trophy like item that he took....
That sounds good, and was probably important to him, but, why didnt he take the womb of Polly Nichols, or MJK(Provided she was a JTR victim...and I know Im in Barnettville)....
But Im not sure I agree with you on your point. Could it have been more of a convenient thing,
because he also took kidneys and bladders from Eddowes and Chapman. Why would anyone want to take someones bladder? My opinion is that he was "rippin and Grabbin" and the womb was fairly easy to rip and grab, for him anyway. It just seems that he would have started with Polly's womb.
Just thought I'd disagree with ya a little. Take Care, Bro!
Im gonna duck now before the Barnettites hit me with one of Joes fish.
Paul
(Message edited by paulj on April 23, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1629
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:13 am: | |
Hey Paul,
I think that fish of Joe would be rather rotten by now, so duck indeed...
Barnettists always makes one wants to duck, doesen't they? 
Regarding the womb not being taken from Nichols, see Jeff's post and my response to him below here.
Nice to hear from you, Alabama man. Take care
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Well, what can I say. Yet another set of good points, I think.
It is a correct interpretation, that just because Polly Nichol's murder possibly may have been interrupted (it was already at the time stated that her death must have occurred just minutes or seconds within the discovery of the body), it's just a matter of speculation what could have been taken or not.
I think it's an extremely good point that the trophy-taking just as well might have started with Chapman, and that certainly can't be disregarded.
Furthermore, I don't want to fall into the same pit as many others do, to see patterns and links to all sorts of things in connection with the Ripper crimes, and I also don't want to get entangled in too much psychological theorised rambling. But nevertheless, besides the above (and besides your very valid point that two cases ain't much to draw conclusions from), fact remains, that the womb is the only link we have between two of the canonical victims, as far as trophy-taking is concerned, regardless of the other parts taken.
The womb or uterus usually have strong sexual meaning to a sexual psychopath killer; it would be natural to suggest that it had to be identified by the killer as a womb in order to be significant in this context, but since he may have found it in the area of the abdomen, which we know is where he focused his need to mutilate, he just simply took the organ connected to that specific sexual area of the body. That could also explain why a part of the bladder was taken from Chapman. The kidney taken from Eddowes might have no significant explanation; here he may have just functioned as a trophy in general or as a piece to use for cannibalism. But she also had her womb taken out nevertheless.
Point is, that there are indications on that the womb was of specific importance to him; although he may not have known it was a womb, it derived from the area where he directed his sexual fantasies and mutilations and therefore found it important. I don't think, from a psychological point of view, that it's a coincidence that this specific area - the abdomen - was targeted during his mutilations. We see that in numerous other murders as well, performed by sexually deranged killers.
I must say I am quite impressed by your very thoughtful examination of the "noise factor" in both directions, and I think we really speak the same language here, although you speak it better
Yes, it leads to problems both ways. As you imply, Joe would have been aware of it, but so should the Ripper, who on other occasions were quite thorough in his method to silence the victim and avoid as much struggle as usual.
However - just something to ponder on - I think it is a mistake to assume that a domestic murder must be preceded by a large quarrel.
According to several case accounts and to police handbooks, it is extremely common in Domestic Violence Lust Murders that it all derives from that the murderer (the husband, boyfriend) suddenly - mostly after a lengthy time of frustration and inadequance - falls into a temporary brief psychotic spell during the actual killing incident, and which can occur with sudden escalation and without prior notice to the victim. After the murder is done, the man falls back into a state of normal consciousness. Quite often this episode is preceded by an attempt by the man get sex from the woman, who refuses (it doesen't say that it must be preceded by a large, noisy and lengthy quarrel).
The motive is usually sexual revenge, jealousy, rage and anger etc.
Experts consider this as the most common background to domestic lust murders.
Regardless of the time of death of Mary Kelly, which I think still is very much in dispute and under debate, I can't at this point see Barnett's alibi as that particular bullet-proof. So it remains to be seen. Considering the crime scene evidence, I don't think Kelly was a Ripper victim, and if she wasn't, Barnett would be the number one suspect, until the opposite is proven.
But we'll probably never reach beyond the point of speculation in either direction anyway.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
Hi all,
I agree the murdeers were spread out over a period of time witch may suggest he planned them out carefully He may have walked the area many of nights without intending to kill anyone on those nights. Possible that he became a familiar face to the woman who worked the streets.
I believe that the ripper was seen by witnesses. Again this is a decision that any individual working the case has to come to terms with. If you believe GH and some of his story is collaberated by Sarah Lewis and you dont feel he was the ripper like some do. You might give his description a little more credibility. I feel he may have got a better look at him other then just in passing BUT THAT IS JUST SPECULATION.
I feel the breaking into the house after Mary went to sleep would mean that the ripper was takeing big chance unless like you say he was watching Kelly's actions that night and was sure they would be alone. If the ripper had just stumbled onto Kelly's room or went over there with no prior planning then he would have been takeing a big chance not knowing if Kelly was alone or not or how much time he had to commite his crime. The ammount of mutilation would suggest to me that he knew he was not going to be interupted.
Another problem with the idea that Jack was watching the house is the fact that we know GH was watching Kelly's place untill around 3:00 and he did not claim to see anyone else. Cox claimed to have returned home around 3:00 as well and the lights were out. The spooky thing about this is if you believe GH and he did not see the man depart from Kelly's house then we may assume that the ripper was doing his work when Cox returned home. This would lead me to believe he was commiting the murder in virtual darkness and there was no blazeing inferno.
I dont disregard the alleged cries of murder that were heard but I know that it is easy to misjudge time when you are in slumber. I have closed my eyes for just a second or at least thought it was just a second and missed whole tv programes.
all the best,CB
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 7:10 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for takeing the time too respond to my post. I dont know if I see it as stalking. I think that it is possible that he noticed her on his many trips into WC. Like you said she was a women who stood out from the crowd. She was not the typical over 40 prostitute that the ripper attacked I dont think he was a previous client. I dont think that the ripper would have been interested in Mary's charms and probably would have killed her if he had a prior chance to be alone with her. I feel that maybe she made the fatal mistake of approaching him and arrangeing the meeting in her place.
All the best,CB |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 4:24 am: | |
Sarah,
Iwas commenting on the person who was with Kelly at midnight.I doubt very much that he could be Joe.Joe was supposedly somewhere else at that time.
H.M. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
