|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 5:15 pm: |       |
I've spent half my night reading all this and it has not been a waste of time, for what occured to me - and very strongly at that - was that perhaps as much as 99% of the motives and actions of these killers has been invented by firstly the people investigating these crimes and secondly by the people researching these crimes.
The actual killers probably sit in their cells and say 'what the heck is this all about?'
I think it only common sense not to give these people - killers - emotions, motives and reasoning that we as non-murderers do possess.
We musn't forget that murder is chaos and has no order. Surely chaos is chaos.
I think you all too clever by half. |
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 5:36 pm: | |
I agree with you, AP, for the most part, but surely there exist non-murderers who, if devoid of means, yearn to kill but never do, especially if one's victim in mind has been slain by another. Okay, maybe I'm reaching.
Scott (with a Z)
"Some died before I could kill them, robbing me of the pleasure." -From the journal of Henry McCarty
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 171
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 5:39 pm: | |
AP wrote: "I think you all too clever by half."
 |
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 18
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 6:07 pm: | |
I echo those sentiments, Marie.
Good stuff, AP. |
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 19
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 6:15 pm: | |
Scott,
RE: Erotomania
I found the following in relation to Borderline Personality Disorder via Google search. What do you think? 
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 tendencies. 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 a lack of interest. Strangely the erotomaniac fails altogether to see the victim's lack of interest. The erotomaniac attributes the lack of positive response to a littany of things.
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z) |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 71
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 6:43 pm: | |
Entries for name JOSEPH BARNETT in London 1891 Census
A search of the 1891 Census for JOSEPH BARNETT revealed 36 entries.
I have eliminated those who were 20 or younger at time of the census but at this stage have retained an upper age limit to exclude of 60. There is no firm indication in the available evidence as to Barnett's age at the time of the murders and the only representation is a newspaper sketch which is open to interpretation as to age of the subject.
The remaining JBs from the 1891 census are as follows:
1)
Son
Aged 21
Born Bow, London
Living Bromley St Leonard
157 Campbell Road
Engine Fitter
2)
Head
Aged 58
Born Hanover Sq., London
Living Islington
95 Barnsbury St
Waiter in Inn
3)
Head
Aged 38
Born Scotland
Living Islington
7 Cressida Road
Surveyor
4)
Lodger
Aged 22
Born London
Living Lambeth
6 Gladstone Street
General dealer
5)
Lodger
Aged 21
Born Russian Poland
Living Mile End New Town
49 Chicksand Street
Shoe maker
6)
Head
Aged 32
Born Whitechapel, London E
Living Mile End Old Town
50 Mile End Road
Traveller
7)
Head
Aged 24
Born Russia
Living Mile End Old Town
15 Malford Street
Blacksmith
8)
Head
Aged 30
Born Bethnal Green
Living Shoreditch
4 Broke Road
Tinplate worker
9)
Head
Aged 28
Born Russian Poland
Living Spitalfields
64 Booth Street Buildings
Tailor's machinist
10)
Brother in Law
Aged 40
Born St Saviours, London
Living St George the Martyr (Southwark)
7 Cross Street
General labourer
11)
Head
Aged 29
Born Clare Market, London
Living St Giles North
18 Torrington Mews
Carman (Potato merchants)
12)
Father in Law
Aged 60
Born Whitechapel
Living Whitechapel St Mary
15 Nell Street
Tailor
13)
Head
Aged 30
Born Spitalfields
Living Whitechapel St. Mary
8 Brady Street Dwellings
Hawker
14)
Head
Aged 42
Born Poland
Living Woolwich
38 Rectory Place
Tailor
Of these, in my opinion, those that deserve a closer look are numbers 6, 8, 9 and 13.
I will shortly be posting full details per household of these four.
Any observation welcome.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 61
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 7:04 pm: | |
Chris, thanks for putting that up. Why 9 a possible?
Robert |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 74
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 7:11 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Bruce Paley's Joseph Barnett was born 1858 so that would make him 32/33 and he was born in Whitechapel. So number 6 sounds likely although his occupation 'Traveller' bothers me.
Number 13 (sounds ominous) lived at the same address in the 1901 census the details are:
Head
Aged 40
Born Whitechapel
Address 8 Brady Street Dwellings
General Dealer Fruit
Other occupants were:
Flora Barnett
Wife aged 38
Born Whitechapel
David Barnett
Son aged 15
Born Whitechapel
Clerk Commercial
Julia Barnett
Daughter aged 12
Born Whitechapel
Alice Barnett
Daughter aged 10
Born Whitechapel
Mark Barnett
Son aged 7
Born Whitechapel
I think this is the same Joseph Barnett from the 1881 census that was living at Bonwell Road, that I believe you posted a some weeks back.
All the best
Rob
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 62
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 7:27 pm: | |
Hi all
Let's not forget that whatever manias may have been afflicting poor old Joe's mind, when he split with Kelly his actual physical body took itself to Bishopsgate, instead of across the road to Crossingham's, where he could have kept an eye on Kelly.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 72
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 7:40 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I included 9 as a possible purely on age and location
At this stage I am trying to cast as wide a logical net as possible:-)
CS |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 9:10 pm: | |
G'day,
BRIAN: If you don't behave, I'll have to put you on detention!!!
TODAYS LESSON: UNREQUITTED LOVE
Let's go back to the begining: Joe met Mary in April of 1887, in: "Commercial Street." At the time, she was was walkng the streets, like so many other women. But here was a young, attractive, fresh looking female with 'a fine head of hair which reached nearly down to her waist', and who 'dressed pretty well'. Mary was obviously intrigued and attracted to this strange, stammering, yet dignified fish porter, who promised to look after her. Barnett dressed pretty well and looked: "very respectable for one of his class". She may have guessed, correctly it seems, that she would be the dominant half of the relationship. Barnett obviously thought he could change her ways which she learned off her cousin in Cardiff, who was: "the cause of her downfall."
The couple first took lodgings in George Street and appeared to live almost extravagantly at times, with Barnett spoiling Kelly with gifts: "such as meat and other things, as my hard earnings would allow". This meant that she: 'would no longer have to walk the streets - in fact Barnett forbade her to do so. "He said he would not live with her while she led that course of life." (Julia Venturney).
Joe told the jury later at Mary's inquest: "one minute rowing and then for days and weeks always friendly. Often I bought her things coming home and whatever it was she always liked it."
Along with this fear of loosing her to prostitution, Joe had the continued visits of Kelly's former lover, Joseph Fleming, to think about.......... |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 9:15 pm: | |
Z and Marie,
I agree with it except that the obsession continues long after the object has asserted that they are not interested in a romantic relationship.
This is not always the case. In many cases, the object has no idea that they were ever an object of the killer's obsession. Some EMs are not able to approach the object. In the case of the Baton Rouge Serial Killer, the victims were not aware that they were targeted. The authorities know this because in interviews with friends and family no one noticed anyone keeping the victim under surveillance.
For many Ems, all it takes is a "good morning" and then in their minds they feel that the person is madly in love with them and off they go.......
If you are interested in Erotamania there is a good book called Violent Attachments.I do not remember the name of the author but I think is the Chief Medical Examiner in San Diego or Chief of Forensic Psychology or something or another. I know he has something to do with San Diego. I briefly consulted with him over the telephone in reference to the Kassie Federer Homicide. Bill Peters, a close friend of mine, and a retired FBI BSU alum is the foremost expert on Erotamainia.
Marie,
Not all domestic homicides end in a mutilated corpse, those are far and between. I have seen far more murder for hire and murder/suicides among domestic homicides than the cases you cite.
Not all of them have anything to do with sex. Most involve money, abuse and marital infedelity. I am willing to bet you a coke that you will find 10-100 times more of those cases than you will mutliated corpses. I will admit that some of those can get pretty messy, the occassional baseball bat applied repeatedly to the head. The shot gun point blank to the face (in fact if Steven allows it I have a good photo of a woman who was on the receiving end of a 12 gauge mossberg to the face, from her husband, at point blank range. Its far more disgusting than the Mary Jane Kelly photo will ever be). There was one I responded to where the woman took a cane knife to the abusive husband whie he was asleep.
For those of you who do not know what a cane knife is, it is a machette type of cutting tool that is wide at the business end and narrow at the handle, on top of the blade is a small hook. the knife is used to cut sugar cane with during harvesting. The hook is used to snag the cane with. Anyway, She suffered 10 years of physical abuse and eventually had enough. Upon arrival she replied, "He ain't never gonna hit me again." (sorry I don't have pics of that one). She split his head, his chest and stomach and cut his right hand off (its the one he used to hit her with).
I also have pictures of an 18 year old girl who was 9 months pregnant. She was two weeks from delivery and the boyfriend wanted her to have an abortion when she learned she was pregnant. Later he wanted her to put the baby up for adoption and she refused. He lost and his job and fearing child support went off on her. He beat her to death with a golf club and then cut out the bay and bashed its head in against the wall. He left her splayed open on her bed for all to see. He deposited of the baby in a 5 gallon bucket of human waste. The bucket was being used as a toilet since the water company had long ago turned off the water.
These scenes were bloody and disgusting but they were not the work of a mad person, like Kelly.
Peace,
Scott |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 9:26 pm: | |
.....Then suddenly, after Barnett had been working there for over 10 years, he lost his job at Billingsgate Market. If Mary wanted to continue living extravegantly and support her drinking habit, she would have to return to prostitution. That would have been a terrible blow to Barnett's pride and self-esteem, plus it would cause Mary to ask herself what use did he have for her now.....THE SIMPLE TRUTH!
I don't think covering your own face with a topsheet, is any defence against a knife! Can you see her eyes in that photograph of her body on the bed?
You don't believe that Mary's killer, by leaving her body uncovered, could have possibly cared for her? Tell me, what could her killer have used to cover her with?
If sticking her breast and uterus under her head was not a sign of something, why did he do it?
Mary's table was placed behind her door as when the door was forced open, it banged against it. Maybe her killer plopped her heart and other things on the table as he removed them, then going through them just before he left, he took her heart.
OK, the in-door thing: Mary must have thought she could trust the killer if she brought him back to her room, instead of doing him out on the streets!
CLASS DISMISSED!
LEANNE |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:11 pm: | |
Leanne,
Okay. I still don't get it. Are you saying now that he killed her because he lost his job and she had to go back to prostitution to support herself?
Of course covering herself with the topsheet wasn't a defense. Neither is sticking out your hand and bracing it on the dashboard if you are in a car when the driver slams on the brakes. It's a reflex. And I didn't say she did do that, I'm saying that we don't know who covered her face - her killer or herself.
I don't believe that anything about that crime scene indicates any care for the body. Marie's information from Geberth is good, and I've got his book right here, but everything I've read about criminal profiling and crime scene analysis points to this not being an erotomania crime scene. As for the eyes, I thought I could tell the eyes from the photos Spryder put up before, but I may be wrong. The photo is very grainy.
I have no idea why he stuck her breast, uterus and kidneys under her head. I don't know why he pulled Annie Chapman's intestines out and put them over her shoulder. Of course it must have meant something to him - but I don't consider making a "pillow" out of her innards to be "caring" for the body.
Finally, what does trust have to do with having sex indoors? It's a question of comfort: none of the other victims had access to a private flat, or else I'm sure there'd have been another indoor killing. Where would you rather have sex with a John? In the street back a dark alley or in your own bedroom?
When I was in high school, we had to make out in the car, because I didn't have any privacy. I haven't made out in a car since. Why? Because I don't have to.
To quote Thoreau - simplify, simplify.
B |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:17 pm: | |
AP,
It's a very good point that you make. This is why I have been harping on the "common sense" approach. None of us are cold-blooded murderers, so their world is as foreign to us as the moon.
I'm a firm believer that knowing the "Why" about a murder is unimportant. Motive doesn't matter to me - show me the "how", the "where", and the "what", and you can usually figure out the "who". Many people here would disagree with that.
This case is just desperately crying out for Occam's Razor - I like to take the information we have and try to develop what is the simplest, most logical conclusion or answer to the question. The more variables we can eliminate, the lower our chances for making an error.
Maybe I should start the "quantitative" school of Ripperology. 
B |
John Hacker
Police Constable
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:39 pm: | |
Leanne,
I've always thought that the breasts under the head and foot were meant as a sort of cruel mockery. "Pillows for yer head and feet, milady?"
Regards,
John |
Zkot
Sergeant
Username: Humanvulture
Post Number: 22
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 1:23 am: | |
Hi Scott,
Many thanks for your response to the Erotomania topic. I agree with you that, in many cases, the object has no idea that they were ever an object of the killer's obsession. Most definitely. But I think that particular piece was targeted more toward the cases where the object of one's affection was, in fact, aware of it.
Cane knife... brutal.
You wrote: "These scenes were bloody and disgusting but they were not the work of a mad person, like Kelly."
No? Temporary insanity, perhaps?
Cheers,
Scott (with a Z)
"Anger is a brief madness." -HORACE, Epistles
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 172
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 5:09 am: | |
Hi Scott, Brian,
You wrote: "Not all domestic homicides end in a mutilated corpse, those are far and between. I have seen far more murder for hire and murder/suicides among domestic homicides than the cases you cite"
I agree with you.
My point in citing cases of domestic murder-mutilation, is that it does occasionally happen. The case I quoted was similar in many ways to the injuries inflicted upon Mary, in my opinion.
Also, the injuries inflicted upon Mary, are different to the other victims, aren't they? No anatomical skill was apparent, according to Dr Bond.
So, my point is:
1) It's possible Mary was killed by different person than Eddowes.
2) Because these murder-mutilations do sometimes occur in domestic homicides- it's possible that Joe Barnett killed Mary. He had motive.
So, at the moment he's the best suspect for me. Followed by George Hutchinson. And I've not yet read yours, Scott.
Who knows, maybe your suspect will topple Joe off the top of my list.
Zkot: I love all the quotes you post. They're marvellous.  |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 173
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 5:29 am: | |
PS: Scott, I just walked away from my PC to get coffee, but realized that those stories you wrote about in your post were still playing on my mind.
Horribly, horribly sad. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 63
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 6:20 am: | |
Marie, sorry I can't remember now, but was it you who said that you thought that Kelly was killed later in the morning? If the killer was Barnett, he was taking an awful risk - knowing that someone would be calling for the rent, plus he knew that the window could be peered through.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 64
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 7:57 am: | |
Hi all
How do we know that the ghastly collection was designedly placed under Kelly's head? Phillips said the body had been moved, so couldn't the head have simply ended up on top?
Re covering, I suppose the killer could have covered Mary's body with her clothes. If he'd done that, I'd have sat up! On the other hand, though, I don't see what we can deduce, either way, from the mere fact that the body was left UNcovered.
Re copycat, I suppose the killer may have been trying to hide his murder amongst the other ones, by making it look like the work of the Ripper. But doesn't it work the other way, too? A "Ripper" murder was going to receive the police's full attention. A quick bash on the head might have gained the crime a lower profile.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 73
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 8:16 am: | |
As promised in previous post, I have looked at original census images for the 4 Barnetts in my original list I thought warranted more information.
Household details:
No 6 from original list:
50 Mile End Road
Head:
Joseph Barnett aged 32 born Whitechapel
Traveller
Wife:
Julia Barnett aged 32 born Whitechapel
Children:
Louis aged 12
Richard aged 11
Gushow (?) aged 9
Matilda aged 7
Rosetta aged 5
All children born in Spitalfields
(Note of caution: having looked at the original page Joseph's age is ambiguous and could be read as 52. I will be cross checking this with the 1881 census)
No 8 from original list:
4 Broke Road
Head:
Joseph Barnett aged 30 born Bethnal Green, London
Tin plate worker
Wife:
Maria Barnett aged 33 born Northampton
Children:
Joseph aged 7
George M. aged 6
Amy M. aged 4
Amelia A. aged 1
All children born in Shoreditch
No 9 from original list:
64 Booth Street Buildings
Head:
Joseph Barnett aged 28 born Russian Poland
Tailor's machinist
Wife:
Yetta Barnett aged 26 born Russian Poland
Child:
Deborah Barnett aged 5 born New York City, USA
No 13 from original list:
8 Brady Street Dwellings
Head:
Joseph Barnett aged 30 born Spitalfields
Costermonger (deleted) overwritten as HAWK
Wife:
Flora Barnett aged 29 born Whitechapel
Children:
David aged 5 born Spitalfields
Julia aged 2 born Shoreditch
|
Kevin Braun
Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 9:25 am: | |
Hi Scott,
I will remember the name Matthew McLaurin. Your Wednesday, April 30, 2003 12:39 pm post deserves more than five stars. How about the key to the city of Baton Rouge? To be continued. Thanks for the response.
Take care,
Kevin
All, sorry for being off topic. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 1:40 pm: | |
I thank you folks for the kind and positive comments about my late night brandy fuelled post.
Brian, I think you have exactly the right approach to this subject, it will win you few friends, but may win you some kind of truth.
Like you I find it far better to simplify things as they often undress themselves then and save us the trouble of undoing the buttons.
At the moment I have locked horns with a group of interested parties who feel convinced that the positioning of Jack's victims has much to tell us, regarding ritual etc, but I'm adverse to this and see a more simple explanation. When someone dies they don't keep still, they don't hold their limbs together, and when someone is murdered in a brutal fashion then limbs, life and the entire universe is at akimbo.
There maybe a rhyme but there certainly ain't no reason. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
G'day,
Please excuse my ignorance here, but I've forgotten why we're all looking though the census records at all the Barnett's. I haven't been following those posts and I can't find the first one in the archives. Could someone please just refresh my memory, to save me time?
In tracing his Barnett, Bruce Paley also looked in the electrol rolls, (if that's any help to you).
LEANNE |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
