|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 5:20 am: | 
|
Hi Marie,
I feel that once you have read Paleys book you will have a very strong conviction about Barnets guilt.
In my mind he is the most likely person we know of that could be our killer.
Regarding religious matters , we know that he attended mass , and made forlorn attempts to get Kelly to go with him.
Of course attending mass does not make him a killer,but at least it shows religious intrest, and conviction.
The very fact that he took up with Kelly in the first place, knowing her way of life , could suggest a desire to change her ways , and to live a decent life, we do not know a lot about him as a person , but he was described as a good man?..
Back to the graveyard scenerio, the very fact that he was the only man present apart from the priest at the ACTUAL service, and the imformation Farson received from the letter in 1959, stated one man stayed behind . would indicate to me that that person would be Barnet , after all who else would dare risk drawing attention to themselves, but it would be accepted that her common law husband would want a few minutes to say his goodbyes, and I believe he did , but not in the normal fashion...
It is intresting that using the 39 formular, which I have recently debated, Barnet decided to live with Kelly on the 9th april 1887, and left her on the 30th oct 1888 =39.. and she was killed on the 9th nov =39. so infact she died the same day ie. the 9th as he started living with her.
She even died in room 13 house 26 =39
COINCEDENCE?..
To repeat the 39th psalm, would indicate someone in Barnets position, A person who tried to hold his tonque regarding wickedness, but circumstances made it extremly hard, the Whitechapel prostitutes were leading his beloved Mary astray. the fire raged within him , but he could not contain his feelings , even prayer would not help, he may have saw himself as the person in the psalm, and thought I even live at 26, Dorset Street in room 13. and killed the women on dates that added up to that number , and if I am right even used the surnames of the victims to total that number.. stabbing Tabram 39 times was the start of the sequence .
If the above , seems far fetched and it may be so. however nothing is straight foreward in this case, and to my mind Barnet is the number one suspect in this case because a strong motive is in evidence.
Enjoy the book [ when you get it] Marie.
Regards Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 8:41 am: |
|
Hello Richard,
You posted: "The very fact that he took up with Kelly in the first place, knowing her way of life , could suggest a desire to change her ways"
I agree. Not to mention the fact that he decided to move in with Mary, after having met her only the day before. I think this is testament to the fact that he was *extremely* taken with her.
You propose an interesting hypothesis regarding the number 39, and it's religious significance. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, it certainly strikes me as strange.
We should probably move this discussion to the 'Barnett' board. 
I'm *still* waiting for my book. (Sigh). |
Caroline Anne Morris
Police Constable
Username: Caz
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 11:18 am: |
|
Hi All,
I think Bob has a point. If a serial killer couldn’t stop himself, he would surely be caught before he could earn the definition – his hands would find themselves throttling his screen wife for real while playing the role of Norman Bates with a Briefcase in Coronation Street. 
But is the argument that serial killers can’t stop, or that they have no will to stop, and therefore they don’t, unless forced by circumstances outside their control? There must be degrees of hopelessness when it comes to any addiction. Some people find it far harder than others to control or give up harmful urges. Many factors are involved, but the will and motivation to give up has to be stronger than the desire to give in, whether you are biting into a Terry's Chocolate Orange or the neck of a malnourished unfortunate. 
The positive side of giving up the former is easy to see - a slimmer figure and a shorter time spent in the dentist's chair. But what would a serial killer be hoping to gain from giving up his habit (assuming a clearer conscience doesn’t come into it), apart from lessening his chances of being caught and getting a good long stretch, perhaps followed by a very short time in the electric chair?
The fear of prison or execution may be enough to make him pause if he knows he has been taking too many risks, or is already receiving unwelcome attention for behaving suspiciously. And presumably this pause can, in some cases, go on indefinitely, if the situation doesn’t change or gets worse for him. But the thought of capture isn’t going to motivate him into giving up his favourite hobby voluntarily if, ironically, the very worst consequence for him would be – giving up his favourite hobby involuntarily. This makes him a very dangerous animal indeed, because in order to remain active he has to learn fast and become highly adaptable. Risk assessment has to be his constant companion, because each time he kills he increases his chances of being found out and forced into early retirement.
I don’t believe serial killers are unable to stop, it just appears that way because they tend not to stop until one careless or stupid move causes them to be stopped against their will. But in fact, the more murders they succeed in committing, the more likely it is that conscious choices are being made, and the less indicative of a hopeless addiction over which there is no control.
In common with other types of addict, I imagine serial killers would need a powerful reason to kick their habit. It’s generally acknowledged that addicts can be helped, but only if they want to help themselves. That’s the problem with murder addicts - they help themselves to victims and don’t usually seek help to stop.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Caz
much of what you say is, of course, right, but the point I was attempting to put across was that many serial killers actually need to be 'provoked' into killing, rather than 'motivated' as you are perhaps suggesting.
This distinction is terribly important, and the 'provoked' serial killer is a lot commoner than most of us would allow.
It would be my earnest contention that no serial killer gets up in the morning, looks out of his window, and says to himself: 'Oh, what a lovely morning. I think I'll go out and butcher someone.'
Okay, I will allow that many serial killers may well be motivated by a certain victim type and this can indeed be the trigger for a crime, however that is 'motivation' on the move as it were.
I am talking about something that is absolutely different, provocation rather than motivation.
This bizarre form of provocation could be something as simple as a passing stranger saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, as in the case of Peter Kurten.
It could be the simple fact that a lady did not bother to lock her front door, as in the case of Richard Chase.
In the case of Colin Pitchfork - which I do urge every poster on this site to study - it was almost too simple, the girls that he exposed himself to - and there were thousands of them on his own admission - usually walked straight past him and ignored him. Two girls made the mistake of stopping, and then backing away from him in shock at what he was doing. This then cut his pre-planned flight path off and he subsequently murdered and mutilated the two girls.
It is vital to note that there was a two and a half year gap between the two murders where he had continued to expose himself to girls - but they all just walked past him - so they never 'provoked' him into the act of murder.
The point being that if all the girls had acted in a manner acceptable to Colin Pitchfork he would never have killed anyone.
And thus can a serial killer give up killing.
Very easily. |
David Johnson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Ap Wolf -
I shant (to borrow a likely familiar term) argue points, if you've not studied the various accepted terms used to categorize serial murders I don't have the time. People are born different, if not explain siblings or twins that grow in exactly opposite directions despite similar backgrounds, why does alchoholism run in families, etc etc etc. The Boston Strangler was a rapist who killed largely by accident, the serial murderer kills as an act of itself. Bundy was extremely clever, driven and self assured. He escaped major custody in Utah, only to continue his spree. I suggest any number of several works by the University of Lousiville press on Serial murder. I suggest you stay away from a purely academic study, and "rub elbows" with us Americans who deal with this unfortunate crime far to often. What you miss and what is most important, is that the act of hunting, and killing a person for the pleasure of control and torture is an extremely Obsessive Compulsive personality disorder. The perp is driven to action. Bundy described it as his dark side. When sex is added, it often becomes a dynamic force requiring more stimulation to achieve the same level of satisfaction. Bundy generally averaged one victim a month while in Washington State, a little less while in Utah and Colorado, then went haywire in Florida with several victims in a very short time. At the end, he was so caught up in his fantasies, he lost the edge to avoid capture. I assure you had he not been captured he never would have stopped. The same is true for most trully defined serial killers. The only provocation involved is a personal, private violent decision that is a drive the need for combining power, control and lust. The Ripper falls squarely in that area. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 2:32 am: |
|
I think you will find that Bundy was actually driven by a certain victim type, just line the photos up of his victims and you should see what I mean. It has been postulated that the reason Bundy went 'haywire' in Florida was that his victim type was not there, so he just struck out at random, much like a man who goes to the liquor store for his favourite bourbon - sold out - so he buys a six pack of Bud instead.
I have noted your suggestion that I stay away from academic study and will politely ignore it.
Finally I believe your society has in itself become obsessed with the terminology used to discuss this type of case, thereby cutting out a good deal of the imaginative and innovative thought processes needed to fairly and impartially investigate the true art of the serial killer.
Quite frankly I would rather fire my rubber bands at the sun, more chance of hitting it. |
Scott Medine
Police Constable
Username: Sem
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 10:05 am: |
|
I have faith in the 1% theory. In fact, I find myself believing that it is not a theory but a law, but then that only contradicts the basis of the law thus reducing it to theory again. The 1% theory is easy to understand. It states that there is almost nothing in this universe that is 100% accurate. I was introduced to this theory as a student at West Point. There is the 1% that have to be an individual and express their individuality, do things their way, the 1% that have to be different. It is this 1% that makes it hard for the other 99% by inserting a stick in the spoke and forcing people to change their current way of thinking or doing certain tasks. It is this 1% that causes new laws to be written, changes in standard operating procedures and causes people to re-think the order of the universe. For those of us in Georgia, over the last few weeks, we have seen the 1% theory in action with the recent NCAA investigation into the University of Georgia Basketball Program. Tony Cole was the 1%. Jim Harrick Jr. helped out several athletes and the one who felt he got slighted turned on the program. End result, NCAA rules have no gray area, they are black and white, and no coach or member of the athletic department should ever help a student athlete when they need a little assistance. It doesn’t matter if it is a ride across campus because they are running late for class or borrowing a few dollars for a burger at McDonald’s. The 1% have spoken.
It has often been argued, not just here, whether serial killers can just close up shop and move on to live happy productive lives. In order to form any basis for an argument people have to agree on the definition of Serial Killer. Without that, everyone is simply spinning their wheels in frustration. I s aserial killer anybody who has chalked up a decent body count? In that case, it would include people like John Wesley Hardin, William H. Bonney (aka Billy the Kid), Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, The James Boys, Monster Cody Scott (L.A. Crip Gang Member). Is it people with catchy names and a big body count, in that case Richard Ramirez-The Night Stalker, Richard Trenton Chase-The Vampire Killer, John Wayne Gacy-The Killer Clown, and again we would find William H. Bonney-Billy the Kid. People with a large body count and a mean streak, that includes, again, Richard Ramirez and John Wesley Hardin - - shot a man for snoring to loudly and another because the victim knew Hardin was drunk and “ought not be messin’ with me (Hardin)”. What about people like Hitler, Pol-Pot, Mr. Hussein, Vlad the Impaler and John Gotti they really didn’t kill anyone they just ordered other people to do it and that brings us to people like Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Darius and Xeres, Hannible, Scipio, Eisenhower, McArthur, Rommel, Patton, Montgomery the list goes on and on. This may seem like I’m just being stupid but it is an issue that needs to be addressed, who is deemed a serial killer? Define serial killer in terms that everyone accepts.
Naming off suspects that have killed and stopped for a couple of years and then started up again does not prove that a serial killer (sexual driven predator) has ever stopped or has the ability to stop. It shows that there was merely a lapse between killings.
Based on the 1% theory, there could be, out there somewhere, a serial killer who has killed and decided, for whatever reason, to call it quits. He probably went on to manage a trailer park somewhere.
Peace,
Scott |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Well spoken Scott
I am in 99% agreement with everything you have said, but I too of course must have my 1%, and that is I don't believe serial killers who murder women are necessarily 'sexual driven predators' at all. In fact many of them show a distinct anti-sexual driven motivation or provocation mechanism.
And certainly there are a large number of these killers who have no sexual contact whatsoever with their female victims.
You are probably right with what you say about a killer who gives up for a couple of years has not, of course, stopped killing.
But the point I have been trying to labour and still don't seem to have given successful birth to is that a two and a half year gap is not at all unusual for a killer of the nature of Jack the Ripper.
Plus some killers seem to need to be genuinally 'provoked' into killing, point being that if nobody provokes them then they will not kill anybody and have as a consequence given up killing, and probably are running a trailer park in Nevada.
You make uncommon good sense with your suggestion of a defining basis for our argument but I for one enjoy the fracas and am quite happy for it to continue.
In a polite and gentlemanly fashion of course. |
Vince
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 10:52 am: |
|
Minor correction: Bundy twice escaped custody in Colorado--not Utah. |
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Wolf,
Since I do not know what anyone is basing their definition on, i just used a run of the mill sexual predator/lust murder definition.
It is true that a killer can have a lapse between murders. I think it also depends on the type of murderer we are talking about. Every human being possesses the ability to kill another. If the right buttons are pushed, I feel certain that some will react. For some people the ability to kill another human being may be self preservation, others it may be the sheer thrill of it all, for others it may be a bad day at work, for others it may involve control of narcotics distribution in a certain area and still others it may simply be because they have some form of mental instability. My experience has shown me that the killers primed by what is normally called the seven deadly sins and fueled by criminal intentions eg, theft, rape, possession, sale and distribution of illegal contraband very rarely just quit and move on. They will either be caught or move up the ranks to the point where they call the shots. Point being they can’t stop or at least find it exceedingly hard to stop because so much of their life now depends on their depravity.
Those that do stop are those that were primed by the 7ds and fueled by the heat of the moment.
It is because of this that I am a firm believer that it is not the environment the person is brought up in that makes him a criminal but rather the personal decisions that a person makes that turns them into a criminal.
But then again there is always that damn 1%.
Peace,
Scott |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Yes Scott, nature or nuture, it is a difficult one. I am in agreement with you that personal decision is most often the spark that fuels the type of crimes you discuss here, which in the majority are not of the nature of Jacks; and - you have gently brushed a vital point here - we as people who appear to be able to make and take personal decisions cannot really comment on the behaviour of individuals who are unable to make those basic personal decisions in their life as we are not able to comprehend or understand why they are unable to make those simple decisions.
Perhaps the 1% you talk about are the very 1% incapable of making those important personal decisions.
This is where I personally have a big problem with the whole philosophy and terminology attached to this case. I just don't see a serial killer waking up one morning and making the personal decision that it is a good day to kill someone. In fact I don't think personal decision has anything to do with this type of crime.
I do believe that such killers are much like the small chrome ball in a pin ball wizard in that they are bumped and shoved hither and tither, bouncing and bumping into point gaining and point deletion situations until someone shoves the pin ball machine with their knee and then there is a catastrophic collision.
Simple as that. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Police Constable
Username: Caz
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 5:14 am: |
|
Hi AP,
I find your thinking on provocation and the inability to make personal decisions very interesting and am wondering how we can apply it to Jacky boy and his crimes.
It kind of suggests that it wasn't so much the women who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, targeted by a killer who prowled this specific area at night aware that it would provide a rich source of available victims, but rather it was Jack, who just happened to live/work there, going about his daily business, who found himself so provoked in the presence of all these drabs, or perhaps if they looked at him a certain way, or spoke in a certain tone, that he went for his knife.
If you are right, it would be a great help in eliminating or looking more closely at certain suspects. For one thing, if the killer's circumstances changed after November 9th, perhaps having to move house or job to a different area, could this be enough to stop him killing ever again? If the right kind of provocation was no longer under his nose, could - or would - Jack be happy simply to forget about the knife on his person and get on with life in a fresh location? Or might he always be tempted back to Whitechapel, to relive those nights he spent as a serial predator?
Certainly food for thought.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Thank you Caz, you have summed up my muddled thoughts exactly and I am indebted to you.
I have to be careful here because this whole thing about provocation is still only half-formed in my mind, and will be forming the major part of the last chapter of the Myth. It is an awesome concept and deserves a lot of careful thought... and discussion.
But having said that I am absolutely convinced from the widely available evidence that such provocation is indeed required for a killer of the nature of Jack the Ripper. Colin Pitchfork has convinced me of that, as have many other killers. What is interesting in Pitchfork's case is that he felt genuinely aggrieved by women who did not respond to his indecent acts in the manner that he expected. So aggrieved that in fact he killed and mutilated them. But make no mistake, he absolutely felt cheated by women who did not play the game his way, and that way meant no physical contact and definitely no eye contact or recognition of what he was doing.
'Play the game my way or you die.'
Problem is we do not yet know what Jack's game was.
Peter Kurten might bring us a step closer to Jack, for all someone had to do was say 'good morning' to Kurten and he would kill them for that simple politeness.
Your thoughts echo my own as regarding events after November 1888, and I would dearly love to know exactly what happened to Thomas Cutbush after that date, and I believe there are two researchers out there who just might possess that information but they are sitting tight on it and have refused all offers of a fair and co-operative resource base to settle this and many other questions.
Yes, I believe Jack just bounced around the Whitechapel area without a thought of murder in his head until someone recognised him for what he was. The problem being I don't yet know what Jack was.
A lonely young man?
A lonely young man who was beaten half to death as a child by his father and taught by his demented mother and aunt to despise and hate women in the traditional Biblical manner of the late Victorian age?
A lonely young man who was taught by his mad uncle to hate Catholics because they were poisoning the entire family?
I am getting there.
It would also be my contention that Jack would not even remember where he had killed a victim and might possibly have a problem with telling you how many women he had killed.
He was chaos on legs.
And that chaos must have extended into every area of his life.
I think we must first look for that chaos and within that we may find Jack.
Thank you for your kind and positive comments.
|
daniel alquier
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Excusez moi si je parle en français.
Je pense que le livre de Patricia Cornwell est excessif et je pense coupable (guilty) Gull, neamoins que pense que Sickers devait connaitre le coupable.
Madame Cornwell ne fait pas la preuve de la culpabilité de sickert, seulement la preuve qu'il a envoyé les lettres
|
mandie322
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Pour vous répondre en français - je pense que livre de Patricia Cornwell précise d'autres choses au sujet de Sickert précédemment inconnu comme le fait que partout oů il est allé le meurtre a semblé suivre. Parfois trop de coďncidences ne sont pas des coďncidences. |
kish
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 3:43 am: |
|
the most two strong suspects in my mind is walter sickert or james kelly i dont think barnet did . i think he was a goodman to do something this evil. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 213
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 2:15 am: |
|
Kish: On what basis do you accuse Sickert? Patricia Cornwall just spent a large amount of money seeking to prove he did it and failed - indeed, her failure, in my view, proves the opposite. he may have written some letters, but had nothing to do with the murders.
Over to you for the supporting evidence for your view on Sickert please.
Phil
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 583
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 7:24 pm: |
|
But then he very likely didn't write any of the letters either...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
DK
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Hello,
I am not knew to the case, but I know nothing about Walter Sickert or his paintings, and have not read Pat Cornwell's book.I was wondering if someone out there could be of service to me. Has Sickert, in his letters or any of his paintings or drawings, ever mentioned anything to do with the devil, demons or beasts. I mean this in terms of mythology, as most references to these ghouls usually are. If he has some reference at all, could you tell me where to look to find it please?
Thankyou, DK |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page