|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 164
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 3:31 pm: |       |
Hi Brian,
You wrote: "But the way MJK was killed, the way the body was left open for the world to see doesn't fit how I see a lover, even an angry, jilted one, treating the remains of his love."
Like Zkot, I personally believe that Joe and Mary may not have had a very healthy relationship, at all. The fact that Joe arranged to move in with Mary the day after he met her, would lead me to believe he was really taken with her. Following that line of thought, their arguements could have been the result of his trying to control her behaviour (I'm taking this from Joe's own statements).
In some ways I'm reminded of the murder of Helen Jewett in 1836, likely by her lover Robinson- even though he was acquitted. Robinson smashed an axe into Jewett's head three times, and then set her alight. A quick Google search I did showed some results for killers who mutilated their girlfriends, or wives.
If Joe killed Mary in such a horrible way, it's my belief that he was maybe suffering from some type of psychological disorder. Accounts of his childhood set a plausible stage for this.
Perhaps by the end of their stormy relationship, Joe didn't feel love for Mary anymore.
"And if we remove that motive, we've really got no case against Barnett."
I'll agree with this. It's the motive that intrigues me. |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 71
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi Leanne, Maria, Brian
Leanne, I don't think Marie would have forgiven me if I hadn't included the illustrations.
Marie, Brian I don't normally get involved with the debates about psychological profiling, as I think it is mostly a load of twaddle, but I have to agree with Marie. Now I am relying on my memory for this, but I remember the Dennis Nilson case, and if I remember correctly he murdered and mutilated his gay lovers so they wouldn't leave him. The two cases aren't identical but there are some similarities.
As for Barnett's alibi for when Mary Kelly was murdered. I think he was given a great alibi by Doctor's Bond and Phillips who I think gave the wrong time of death.
All the best
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 5:57 pm: | |
G'day all,
What do we all think about a jilted lover, who had a fit of rage, covered her face when he slit her throat so that he couldn't see her eyes, then took her heart away with him so he could own it?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 7:03 pm: | |
G'day again,
....or do we think that 'Jack the Ripper' had enough humanity to let LOVE contol him?
LEANNE |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 8:44 pm: | |
Leanne,
To quote Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it?"
The whole Barnett-loved-her-so-much-he-killed-her-and-left-her-guts-on-the-nightstand theory is thin at best. And if we toss aside this motive, there's really nothing substantial that points to him.
I don't it get it.
B |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:35 pm: | |
For the most part Brian is correct. In all cases of homicide the detectives start from the inside and work their way outwards. In other words, they start with teh parents, spouse, boy friend, girl friend etc.
Most domestic murders are committed in the heat of the moment. A premeditated domestic murder usually gives itself away by showing a history of financial problems or fedelity issues. Once these two markers appear then the investigation refocuses on the significant other. A large number of premeditated domestic murders involve murder for hire plots. These usually unravel very fast. As i have said time and time again on the boards, to committ murder and get away with it you always act alone, accomplices mean witnesses.
The Hell's Angels motto is "Three can keep a secret if two are dead." Its a very effective motto.
In regards to Kelly and Barnett, the difference everyone is trying to suggest, Barnett the spurned lover, is called Erotamania. And Barnett exhibits no signs or symptoms of this mental state nor does the crimescene exhibit any trait of an Erotamaniac. In fact its the exact opposite. Erotamaniacs still love their victims and do not mutilate them. Kelly's murderer displayed full unadulterated hatred for her. No love at all ever existed between her and her killer. Her murder was about power. IF, and this is amighty big IF, Erotamania was the driving force behind the Kelly murder, then Kelly reminded the killer of someone he once loved and killed. The difference between Kelly and the person she represents is that the killer released all his rage on Kelly because his love was spurned by the same person again. For this to be the case, then Kelly would have to bear a VERY striking resemblence to the other person. Which means that Barnett had a real or imagined affair with someone who looked just like Kelly. In later years, he also would have married or settled down with someone who looked Just like Kelly.
Peace,
Scott |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:44 pm: | |
Two more quick points....
Homosexual domestic murders are often the more bloodier and disgusting.
Also like Brian stated if Barnett loved Kelly he would have covered her before leaving, if not her entire body then her face. This is a common factor found in murders where people kill their significant others. It is a sign of respect for the person. This is one reason why I say that Kelly's killer showed no love for her. It was pure hatred.
Peace,
Scott |
Zkot
Police Constable
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 12:59 am: | |
Hi Scott,
Your professional insight is greatly appreciated, as always, but sometimes you tend to contradict your claim to have no favourite suspect due to your having an open mind. Personally, I don't believe that any one of my favourite suspects definitely committed the Whitechapel muders, but rather that they could have done so. In the case of Barnett, I am intrigued solely by the possibility of a strong motive. Sexual serial killer profiling is a wonderful tool indeed, but it is a modern tool, and may not always apply, without variation, to contemporary crimes. Not everything is textbook. Not everything is cut and dry. Crime is chameleonic, my friend. And I believe evolution occurs even in the hearts of dark.
You wrote: "As i have said time and time again on the boards, to committ murder and get away with it you always act alone, accomplices mean witnesses.
The Hell's Angels motto is "Three can keep a secret if two are dead." Its a very effective motto."
Possibly. However, I wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with always.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z)
Northvegr - The Poetic Edda:
To question and answer must all be ready
Who wish to be known as wise;
Tell one thy thoughts, but beware of two,
All know what is known to three.
|
Zkot
Police Constable
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 1:15 am: | |
Hi Scott,
You wrote: "In regards to Kelly and Barnett, the difference everyone is trying to suggest, Barnett the spurned lover, is called Erotamania. And Barnett exhibits no signs or symptoms of this mental state nor does the crimescene exhibit any trait of an Erotamaniac. In fact its the exact opposite. Erotamaniacs still love their victims and do not mutilate them..."
You mean erotomania, right? This application is also not so cut and dry. It has multitudinous a limb and branch and leaf.
Erotomania, sometimes called de Clerambault's syndrome is a condition where a person believes (quite wrongly) that someone else, usually someone who is at a higher social or work level than themselves, is in love with them. It is often more common in women.
e·ro·to·ma·ni·a 1. Excessive sexual desire. 2. (Psychiatry) A delusional, romantic preoccupation with a stranger, often a public figure. ETYMOLOGY: Greek ertomani : ers, ert-, sexual love + -mani, -mania.
And I found the following via Google search:
"Erotomania can be defined as a psychological disorder in which the afflicted relentlessly pursues the notion that the object of his/her affection reciprocates his/her romantic feelings and/or fantasies. This obsession with the desired individual continues long after that individual has asserted that he/she is not interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with the afflicted. Consequently, erotomaniacs tend to stalk their victims. It has been postulated that those who stalk suffer from a basic fault in their capacity to have relationships with others. (Lipson et al., 1998). Though brought to light with the Tarasoff case, erotomania continues to be considerably new in the literature and consequently little research has been done to suggest any consistent hypothesis as to causality. Characteristic of the erotomaniac (generally across the board) are the following: irrationality, a tendancy toward impulsive actions, obsessiveness, paranoia, psychotic tendancies. Typically the erotomaniac shares certain behavioral characteristics consistent with that of a borderline. The erotomaniac tends to begin with simple, subtle expressions of affection to reach the object of his/her desire which later spirals out of control and can lead to expressions of anger, rage, frustration and violence when such gestures go ignored and the victims continues to assert lack of interest. Strangely the erotomaniac fails altogether to see the victim's lack of interest. The erotomaniac attributes lack of positive response to a littany of things."
Anyway, as always, thanks for your keen insight, Scott. I continue to find your posts most intriguing. Keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z)
|
Zkot
Police Constable
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 1:47 am: | |
Also, I do not necessarily believe the killer would've covered Kelly's face and/or body, whether he'd ever loved her or not.
As a sign of respect? Respect??? After savagely mutilating her nearly beyond recognition, where would respect come into play? Just curious.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z) |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 8:14 am: | |
Scott (with a Z),
You'd be surprised. People kill each other for the dumbest reasons.
For example, in the excellent work by David Simon "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets", Simon has examples of random acts of violence - one teenager kills another over an ice cream popsicle; a father kills his son over Thanksgiving Dinner because the son wouldn't let the father carve the bird; man kills his wife, and then calls the police, stands over the body and when they police arrive, they find him still there, with gun in his hand - upon being asked why he did it, he replied "Bitch deserved it. And I'd do it again."
There is ample anecdotal evidence that frequently in killings between people who have had relationships, some effort is made to dehumanize the body - typically not by mutilation, but by covering it up, decapitating it, etc.
I'm sure when we watch coverage of the Laci Petersen case, we'll see an FBI profiler climbt the stand and state - as an expert - the reason that Scott allegedly decapitated Laci prior to stuffing her body into the drum was so that he wouldn't have to look at her face while he did so.
Like - I believe it was Caz or Marie - it has been said, it's hard for us to get inside the minds of the killers, because we aren't killers ourselves. They truly do the oddest things.
And like Scott said, I don't see any signs of erotomania in Barnett, and I don't see any signs of a "love" motive being there at all. That's why I discount the poor stuttering man as a suspect.
B |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 8:37 am: | |
It is true that most erotomaniacs are women, but that does not leave men out of the loop. The killer of actress Rebecca Shaffer was one as well as the current serial killer claiming lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In fact, I know the identity of that killer as I have delt with him in the past.
The erotomaniac rarely and I do mean rarely leaves a bloody scene. His kills are fast and to the point (pardon the pun). The use of a gun, as the Baton Rouge killer used in the Kassie Federer homicide in 1999, indicates the typical placing of emotional and physical distance between the killer and his target. The use of the knife, as he did, in the Murray Pace killing indicates that he wants the killing to be more intimate. It is also interesting to note that Murray Pace is the same approximate age as was Kassie Federer, looks amazingly like Kassie and like Kassie, Murray was an LSU co-ed. In typical erotomania fashion, the killer turned his rage on Murray probably because (in his mind) she (Kassie) rejected him twice. I do not know the particulars but I would be willing to bet that Pace’s killing was the messiest and more violent of the five known and 10-12 suspected murders.
Because erotomania was not known of in 1888, does not mean it did not exist. It also does not mean that if it did exist the killer exhibiting those traits would be any different than one today.
Respect for Kelly by her killer would have come in at the same place and time as love, and both are missing.
Peace,
Scott
|
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 8:54 am: | |
Zkot,
As far as an open mind goes, mine is beginning to narrow as I have found a suspect. Someone who has flown under the radar for 114 years and if everything in this case occured today and I were the lead investigator, I and Detective Monty would have to ask this person some very unpleasant questions.
Peace,
Scott |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 165
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 9:08 am: | |
Hi all,
Scott and Brian, I do agree that these types of mutilation murders are not the norm in domestic murders.
But from what I've read in the past, they do happen. A quick Google search I did came up with some cases, including: our own William Bury, who disembowelled his wife. A man in Australia who served 13 yrs for killing and eviscerating his girlfriend, a Richard Little who (when his girlfriend broke up with him) killed her, then cut off her lips and half of her face. A Darrel Springs (a cab driver in Vegas) who killed his girlfriend, mutilated her body, and left her corpse on the railroad tracks to be run over.
I also found this article on 'Domestic Violence Homicides', By Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S.
Former Commander, Bronx Homicide, NYPD.
http://www.practicalhomicide.com/articles/domviolence.htm
I found these extracts to be very interesting:
"The author classifies Domestic Violence murders as Interpersonal Violence Oriented Homicide. They are the most prevalent form of sex related murder. The rationale for classifying domestic violence as sex related is due to the fact that murder serves as the ultimate form of sexual revenge. And, in many instances the homicides will include sexual assault or wound structures manifesting a sexual orientation"
"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LUST MURDERS
It is important to note that the motivation in an interpersonal violence oriented dispute may be obscured by what was done to the body of the victim, or how the crime scene was staged or changed. Originally, what appeared to be a rape-murder, the work of a sexual psychopath, or a lust murder is oftentimes based on interpersonal violence.
CASE HISTORY
I remember supervising the investigation of a case which appeared to have been committed by a lust murderer or a psychotic killer. The partially clad body of a 22 year old black female was discovered in her apartment. She had been savagely beaten on the head with a baseball bat and her throat had been slashed. Next to the body was a blood stained drinking glass. I observed a lip print in blood upon the rim of the glass, suggesting that the glass had been used to drink blood. On the coffee table in the living room were a number of kitchen knives, which had been used to slice the victim's body. All the utensils were lined up on the coffee table like an operating room in a hospital. The victim had been eviscerated and a large soda bottle had been thrust into her abdominal cavity. Her intestines could be observed inside of the clear plastic bottle. There were a number of postmortem slicing to her breasts and chest. In addition, the killer had also carved diagonal wounds into both of the victim's legs. This murder was actually committed in a fit of rage during a domestic dispute by the victim's live-in boyfriend."
I respect and recognize your arguements- Brian and Scott, and what you're saying is the sound truth. But I think there are exceptions to the 'rule'. To my mind, Joe Barnett remains a viable enough suspect in the murder of Mary Kelly.
|
Kevin Braun
Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 9:49 am: | |
Scott,
I almost fell out of my chair when I read...
The killer of actress Rebecca Shaffer was one as well as the current serial killer claiming lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In fact, I know the identity of that killer as I have delt with him in the past...
Do the police know his identity? If so, why no arrest? Can you go into how your paths crossed?. A neighbor's daughter goes to LSU. She returned to school after the spring break with an Easter present from her parents, a Beretta 92FS.
Is Mr.Lusk the under the radar suspect?
Take care,
Kevin |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 9:52 am: | |
G'day,
BRIAN: Brian, Brian, Brian. No one is saying that: "Barnet-loved-her-so-much-he-killed-her". We are saying that: "Barnett-was-so-unstable-in-the-mind-that-he-killed-her-in-a-fit-of-rage." Unlike many here, I believe that he also killed the others because: "he-hated-prostitutes-so-much-that-they-ment-nothing-to-him!" Now do you get it?
Now, "CLASS BE SEATED!"
In the book: 'The Anatomy Of Motive' - by the great John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, are the lines: 'If the cause of death was stabbing and there were a lot of concentrated knife wounds - what we refer to as "overkill" - particularly around the face, then I know the chances are very good the killer knew the victim well; the crime was a personal cause. And that points us toward motive - toward "why"? If the body is wrapped up in a sheet or blanket say....'
'The wall by the right side of the bed & in line with the neck was marked by blood,' (Mary's killer had Mary's face covered when he made the fatal slice. That's why no blood spurted higher on the wall than her neck.)
Back to that book: '...or obviously cared for after death...'
Mary's heart was absent and taken, (as a souvineer?). Mary's killer placed one of her breasts under her head, like a pillow. And for some obscure reason Mary's killer placed various pieces of her body on her table, (either to show her one last final ounce of respect by being tidy, or perhaps he was adding weight to the table that was blocking her door....there's an idea!
Back to the book again: '...that's going to suggest that the killer had some tender feelings toward the victim, maybe even remorse. On the other hand, if the body is mutilated and/or left in plain sight, or casually dumped by the side of the road, that tells me the killer had contempt for the victim, maybe even a disdain for women in general.'
Mary Kelly was the only victim in the series killed behind doors, and her killer appears to have made attempts to delay the discovery of her body, (the locked door, the weight added to the table).
The other Ripper victims, however, were displayed out in the open for the next passer-by to find. This fact, plus the difference in the age of Mary Kelly, make her murder different to the others and suggests that the Ripper knew Mary Kelly personally!
CLASS DISMISSED!
LEANNE |
Zkot
Police Constable
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:36 am: | |
Hi Brian,
Like I said, I do not necessarily believe the killer would've covered Kelly's face and/or body, whether he'd ever loved her or not. Sure, there have been many cases where killers have covered up the faces and/or bodies of their victims, specifically if their victim had been dear to them at one time or another. My point was simply made to theoretically slice open the general rule of rigid thumb and suggest that perhaps not every killer would feel compelled, out of respect or shame, or even love, to do so. Love can sometimesturn to hate, just as blood can sometimes turn rancid- even in the mouth of a vampire.
"We owe respect to the living; to the dead, we owe only truth." -Voltaire
Funny that you should bring up the Peterson case as an example, Brian, as Scott Peterson is currently awaiting trial in my father's jail cell. My father is the Stanislaus County Sheriff. And my stepmother has worked with District Attorney Jim Brazelton for many, many years. Modesto seems to have become a notorious haven for mayhem and scandal these past couple of years.
BTW, I'm not even a so-called Barnett accuser, nor am I an active accuser of any particular Ripper suspect. I merely find certain suspects more intriguing than others, especially when a potential motive is present.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z)
|
Zkot
Police Constable
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
Hi Scott,
You wrote: "It is true that most erotomaniacs are women, but that does not leave men out of the loop. The killer of actress Rebecca Shaffer was one as well as the current serial killer claiming lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In fact, I know the identity of that killer as I have delt with him in the past."
Nice reference to the Rebecca Shaffer murder, however, I never implied that men should be left out of the erotomania loop, but rather that it was often more common in women. Or so the 'stats' show anyway.
You also wrote: " Erotamaniacs still love their victims and do not mutilate them. Kelly's murderer displayed full unadulterated hatred for her. No love at all ever existed between her and her killer. Her murder was about power."
Fair enough. But we cannot be so sure that no love at all ever existed between her and her killer. I believe it could very well have existed.
"There is danger everywhere, in the blood, in the heart, in the eyes of waiting love." -From the journal of Henry McCarty
"Look for a long time at what pleases you, and longer still at what pains you." -Colette
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z) |
Zkot
Police Constable
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 10
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:59 am: | |
p.s. More power to you regarding your suspect, Scott! Reveal away!
Bon chance, mon ami. 
Scott (with a Z) |
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 11
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 11:23 am: | |
Marie,
Many thanks for providing the practical homicide link, and its interesting extracts. A very nice find indeed.
Leanne,
You sure run a tight classroom! May I go play dodgeball now? That is, so long as you're not the one with the ball. Eek! 
"Crime is the soul of lust. What would pleasure be if it were not accompanied by crime? It is not the object of debauchery that excites us, rather the idea of evil." -le Marquis de Sade 
Hmmm. Kooky.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z)
|
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 12:39 pm: | |
Dear Kevin,
Yesterday, 29 April 2003, I gave the task force the name of the killer. Its up to them to garner physical evidence.
I had my suspicions about the person who is running loose in Baton Rouge. My suspicions were confirmed when a friend emailed me the artist drawing of the suspect. The drawing is a dead on rendition of the person with whom I had dealings.
I ran across the person while working as a private investigator in Baton Rouge. I began investigating the Kassie Federer homicide and the person was the lone witness to the event. He gave a taped statement to the police, that I am not privy to, however; I spoke to his roommate and the property manager, both of whom overheard his statement to the police. Both told me that the witness stated that he heard what sounded like construction work going on in Kassie's apartment. He then went to the window and looked outside and and from approximately 20 yds away saw a man wearing stone washed jeans, Reebok sneakers, a white t-shirt and short cropped blond hair leaving the scene.
When I spoke to him he stated, I heard three shots and walked to the balcony. i saw a man wearing stone washed jeans, reebok sneakers, a white t-shirt and close cropped blond hair leaving the scene. In the same interview I asked him to tell me where he was when he saw the strange man. He stated I heard the three shots and I went to the door and I saw a man wearing stone washed jeans, reebok sneakers, a white t-shirt and a close cropped blond hair leaving the scene. I asked him what was he doing prior to seeing the man. He stated watching TV and stuff.
Kassie's step father was with me and he told our guy that the police said Kassie's back pack was missing. He then asked if he remembered seeing the guy carrying the back pack. The guy, after regaining his composure, stated no.
I then asked him how can he remember seeing stone washed jeans, reebok sneakers and a white t-shirt which shows great astuteness and an eye for detail, which I commended him for, but fail to see a big ass back pack. I then asked him where was he when he saw the strange man, on the balcony at the window or in the doorway? Before he could answer I then asked him to define "and stuff." you were watching and stuff. What is and stuff because I believe that and stuff was the more eventful part of the afternoon. What were you doing watching tv and thinking how much Kassie had hurt you, watching tv and cleaning your blood stained clothes, watching tv and thinking how Kassie deserves to die. What is and stuff.
He became agitated and replied that the police have a taped statement.
Two days later I got a letter from a lawyer stating that any further questions to his client needs to be directed to him. That's fine, I'm not a police officer, I do not have to abide by Miranda, therefore that attorney's letter means squat.
I gathered a ton of evidence against him, but it is all circumstantial. I still have the investigation file which is an inch thick. I gave the police my information and they blew it when they executed a search warrant on the wrong house. Because the lead detective did not like a PI telling him what to do, he searched the address listed on a recent traffic citation. It was an old address that was rental property belonging to the killer's uncle. The killer was actually living with his father, which was the address I gave them. I am sure telephone lines were lighting up after that debacle.
The profile the FBI worked on the Baton Rouge Serial Killer is dead on to the profile I worked for Kassie's killer. The suspect also fits the profile dead on.
If the Baton Rouge killer is not Matthew McLaurin, then I will be very surprised.
Peace,
Scott |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:22 pm: | |
First off, all of the murders were of a personal motive. I believe the killer knew Eddowes and Kelly. That’s about as far as I will go.
This by no means implicates Barnett. It simply means that the killer knew Eddowes and Kelly. It doesn’t mean he loved them. Also, it does not meant that Kelly and Eddowes knew each other.
Secondly, Just because the killer covered Kelly’s face does not mean it was out of respect. It could aid in silencing the victim, it could aid in controlling blood spray and it could aid in controlling the victim. Likewise the removal of Kelly’s heart does not mean it is a sign of love gone bad. The heart also symbolizes strength, courage and life force. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Part of the ceremony involved the removal of the person’s heart. I am sure this wasn’t because the priest loved the victim.
Finally, hiding the body? The killer had the opportunity to do so by closing the door. With the intellect displayed in the other murders I would expect as much. Ask yourself, how many of the other victims had a room to take her clients?
Peace,
Scott |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:33 pm: | |
Leanne,
(Crack, crack, crack of the knuckles) Ahhh...now we get down to my favorite subject. Profiling.
No one is saying that: "Barnet-loved-her-so-much-he-killed-her". We are saying that: "Barnett-was-so-unstable-in-the-mind-that-he-killed-her-in-a-fit-of-rage." Unlike many here, I believe that he also killed the others because: "he-hated-prostitutes-so-much-that-they-ment-nothing-to-him!" Now do you get it?
Okay....then what does "Couldn't he have been: 'uncontrollable to control those impulses' when he murdered the woman he loved, who wasn't returning that love?" and "What do we all think about a jilted lover, who had a fit of rage, covered her face when he slit her throat so that he couldn't see her eyes, then took her heart away with him so he could own it?" and "....or do we think that 'Jack the Ripper' had enough humanity to let LOVE contol him?" mean?
You said all of those things, which - to me, and maybe I'm reading them wrong - indicate you think Barnett had some kind of unrequited love for Kelly. You were talking about Barnett here, right?
In the book: 'The Anatomy Of Motive' - by the great John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, are the lines: 'If the cause of death was stabbing and there were a lot of concentrated knife wounds - what we refer to as "overkill" - particularly around the face, then I know the chances are very good the killer knew the victim well; the crime was a personal cause. And that points us toward motive - toward "why"? If the body is wrapped up in a sheet or blanket say....'
Right. But here's the rub - multiple deep stab wounds do not equal mutilations. These weren't multiple stab wounds to the throat, chest and abdomen. They were mutilations that occured post-mortem, not peri-mortem. She was dead when he did those things to her. The mutilations weren't "overkill", they were his way of gratifying himself. Of the Ripper killings, in my opinion, only the Tabram murder displayed this kind of "overkill", with the 30+ stab wounds to her chest, neck and abdomen, that were the immediate cause of death. Bond stated that the cause of death in the MJK killing was "loss of blood".
'The wall by the right side of the bed & in line with the neck was marked by blood,' (Mary's killer had Mary's face covered when he made the fatal slice. That's why no blood spurted higher on the wall than her neck.)
There has been much discussion on these boards over how Mary's face was covered. Since the topsheet was cut, we know that it must have been. But whether this was done by the killer, or by Mary herself we don't know. In any event, we know that the killer must have uncovered her face to make the mutilations, and he left it uncovered, which is telling. Notice in the photographs that while the face was hacked to pieces, he didn't touch the eyes. Why? If he wanted to dehumanize her, the eyes are the first things to go.
Back to that book: '...or obviously cared for after death...'
Right. This means that some care was taken in the positioning of the body, or that the killer made some attempts to provide the body with dignity after death. Examples of this would include wrapping it in a sheet (like Douglas said above), burying it, or at least covering it up, and not leaving it in a suggestive pose. Bond's report indicated that they body was moved from the right hand side of the bed to the left, so we know the Ripper did move the body, but instead of giving it some dignity (showing it some "care"), he left the thighs wide apart, the arms at the sides and completely uncovered (except by the remains of her undergarment) in what I believe we all can consider a sexually suggestive pose. Again, not the behavior of someone who cared for this victim.
Mary's heart was absent and taken, (as a souvineer?). Mary's killer placed one of her breasts under her head, like a pillow. And for some obscure reason Mary's killer placed various pieces of her body on her table, (either to show her one last final ounce of respect by being tidy, or perhaps he was adding weight to the table that was blocking her door....there's an idea!
First, I don't think cutting off her breast and sticking it with her uterus and kidneys under her head can be considered "caring" for the body. And there were a lot heavier organs and items in the room than the flaps of skin from her legs and thighs that he placed on the table. He could've blocked the door with the wash basin under the bed, for instance. And I don't think there was anything tidy about that crime scene.
Back to the book again: '...that's going to suggest that the killer had some tender feelings toward the victim, maybe even remorse. On the other hand, if the body is mutilated and/or left in plain sight, or casually dumped by the side of the road, that tells me the killer had contempt for the victim, maybe even a disdain for women in general.'
Bingo. My point.
Mary Kelly was the only victim in the series killed behind doors, and her killer appears to have made attempts to delay the discovery of her body, (the locked door, the weight added to the table).
I'll give you the locked door, but the weight added to the table is pushing it. And again, this goes back to my "common sense" approach. Why was Kelly the only victim killed in-doors? Because she was the only victim who led the Ripper to an in-door location for sex. As I've stated before, I firmly believe that the victims chose their death locations, not the Ripper. The fact that MJK had access to an apartment was coincidence for her, and good luck for her killer.
The other Ripper victims, however, were displayed out in the open for the next passer-by to find. This fact, plus the difference in the age of Mary Kelly, make her murder different to the others and suggests that the Ripper knew Mary Kelly personally!
No - not at all. You are assuming that by locking or closing the door he was trying to keep her from being "on display". If he didn't want her on display he could have done a number of different things, such as wrap the body up, bury it, or at least turn it over so that she wasn't so graphically on display. The location of the body - either indoors or outdoors - is not related at all to whether or not he wanted them on display. They were all on display to whoever found them, inside or not. And as a number of people have pointed out, many of the other victims did not appear as old as they actually were.
As Scott has stated, and I agree, the murder of Mary Jane Kelly does not exhibit what I would expect to see in the murder of someone the killer knew, or cared for. It does show cruelty and an utter lack of remorse.
Now, getting back to poor old Barnett. The old "Barnett-was-so-unstable-in-the-mind-that-he-killed-her-in-a-fit-of-rage." line doesn't add up to me, as he was apparently stable enough of the mind to close the curtains, lock the door behind him and make a getaway somewhere to clean up without being seen or discovered. Had he flew off the handle and killed her in a fit of rage, I'd expect to have found him at the crime scene when it was discovered - or trying to clean the scene up and move the body somewhere. Granted the argument can be made that he simulated the signature of the Ripper to cover this up, but I think if this were the case, the mutilations would be minor and half hearted, like in the MacKenzie murder, not deeper, larger and messier. He would have had to mimic the mature signature of a multiple killer - something not easy to do by someone who probably never killed anyone before.
The we've got your other "he-hated-prostitutes-so-much-that-they-ment-nothing-to-him!"
That's why he meets one and moves in with her the next day? Barnett knew well that she was a prostitute, and didn't like the lifestyle, but he seems to have dealt with her returning to it when he was out of work by moving out, not by killing women. Furthermore, after moving out the last time, he was staying in a common lodging house in Bishopsgate - where did he keep her heart?
Joe Barnett is an easy man to accuse, as he was one of the few with whom any of the victims had a close relationship. But there are just too many unanswered questions to pin Kelly's death to him, and even more to pin them all to him. I think it is more plausible to believe that he was innocent and MJK was a victim of Jack the Ripper.
When's the next lesson?
B |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 168
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:54 pm: | |
But what about the case history I cited by Vernon J. Geberth in my post?
I quote: "The rationale for classifying domestic violence as sex related is due to the fact that murder serves as the ultimate form of sexual revenge. And, in many instances the homicides will include sexual assault or wound structures manifesting a sexual orientation"
and:
"The victim had been eviscerated and a large soda bottle had been thrust into her abdominal cavity. Her intestines could be observed inside of the clear plastic bottle. There were a number of postmortem slicing to her breasts and chest. In addition, the killer had also carved diagonal wounds into both of the victim's legs."
This murder has some definite similarities to Mary's murder, in my opinion. The womans body was HORRIBLY mutilated, by her boyfriend. He showed no remorse, no indication that he had ever loved her.
I also found other examples of men who had mutilated their intimates, and shown NO regard for their corpses after.
So I personally don't think the rule is a definite, at all.
Scott: I really am interested in your suspect, and your book. From the little hints you've been dropping, I'm sure your theory is a winner. But I haven't read it- so I don't know yet.
Until then, I've got to stick with Joe, for all the reasons I posted. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 169
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:57 pm: | |
Zkot: thank you  |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
