|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
confused
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 9:01 am: |       |
who were the actual main suspects? on the casebook the public have voted walter sickert but i believe some people on here disagree that he should be top suspect. Please help!  |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 9:43 pm: | |
Confused,
You need to define who's main suspects you want to know. Our main suspects? Meaning Casebook readers? Or the 1888 Metropolitan and City Police main suspects?
If you mean the police, I'd say that their three main suspects were Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog.
As for Casebook readers, you'll get a number of them, including Tumblety, D'Onston, Barnett, Anderson and a slew of others too numerous to mention.
B |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 7:31 am: | |
G'day Confused,
The main 'Casebook' is available to the General Public, who love to believe the latest book written on the subject. The Public is so gullable and love 'Conspiracy' or anything that 'proves' that a celebrity butchered five women in 1888.
On these 'message boards' we have people who spent alot of time studying the whole case, and we realize how silly it is to believe that Walter Sickert did it!
For a start, it was and is believed that all bar one or two of the letters where authentically from the killer. 'Ripper'-letter-hoaxing was a popular pastime. Someone said in a book a while ago that Walter Sickert was so intrigued by the murders, that he often had 'Ripper Periods', where he'd dress up. Impressionist artists were like that! He may have hoaxed one or two letters.
LEANNE |
Priscilla M Steele
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
As I've been reading throughout the various message boards, I realize there are many "experts" and people that are well educated on the entire "Jack the Ripper" events on these posts. Can anyone tell me if there is any one suspect that the Casebook readers agree on most?.... Without going by the voting totals. ?? |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 6:39 am: | |
G'day Priscilla,
At the moment we are looking closely at the ex-boyfriend/husband of the last victim! - Joseph Barnett, who had a lot of hidden-motive!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 2:11 pm: | |
HI everyone,
I second Leanne, on that point.
Barnett has to be the prime suspect for at least the Kelly murder.
Points why.
1] He had a basic motive, it is clear that Kellys thoughts at the time were that although Barnet was good to her, she could not stand the man, we can draw conclusions from this.
a]she saw him as no financial use to her, since he left his well paid job.
b]his apparent desire for her to stop her ways of obtaining money via prostitution.
c]Although he attempted to give her any spare money he could, this was not a regular income.
Basically, Here was a man that moved in with kelly in 1887, that at the time had a well paid job, unfortunetly in july -aug 88 , he lost that job[ questions arising] and from then on her lifestyle mediocure as that may have been failed to exist.
Barnett through his own omissions,wanted her to attempt to life a decent life , and indeed attend mass more frequently, he read the newspapers to her, regarding the murders to try and scare her off her prostitution ways, ther is also the possibility that Kelly had a child , a boy aged six+ , that she was responsible for, it could well be that all the time Barnett was earning a decent wage , this son was cared for.
Barnett seemed to know about her child, as he stated in the star newspaper that she had a boy aged 6 or 7 living with her . there are also reports that she resulted in having to send this boy out on the streets begging in order to survive.
Now just imagine if Barnett was unaware that Kelly was infact giving part of Barnetts earnings to someone looking after the lad for her, how he would have felt , especially as I have brought up recently, he himself may have left his family to move in with Kelly.
To sum up Barnett fits in with the 39 theory which has been well documented on these boards, he had the obvious motive,we have evidence albeit circumstancial, that he may have spat on her grave,he was seen according to Maurice Lewis to be having a beer with her at 10am on the morning of the 9th , Taking the evidence also of Mrs Maxwell, plus the tailoress named Mrs Goode, I put it to every serious member of these boards, and as I started the original heading Joseph Barnett Number one suspect, I feel no reason to retract that.
Regards Richard. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 4:33 pm: | |
Guys,
Barnett isn't a prime suspect of anything.
As I've stated before, motive doesn't equal "likely suspect". It doesn't even always matter - and most of the motive you guys are giving to Barnett is based on your own theories, and not on anything solid.
You've got no evidence to accuse him of anything. Even calling him a suspect is a stretch - there's absolutely no evidence to support that he had even been near Miller's Court the day she was killed.
Please, please, please - especially when you are talking to people who are new to the case, be responsible and explain this to them.
Barnett is not a prime suspect for being Jack the Ripper.
B |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 5:02 pm: | |
My Dear Brian,
I respect your views, as I Have said before.But I must disagree that we are being irresponsible, especially to newcomers, of course Barnett is a suspect in the Kelly murder, can you name someone who is a more likely candidate?.
Let me make this clear to all people , regulars, and people viewing for the first time ,I nor anybody else on these boards knows the identity of Jack The Ripper' but I for one am trying to analyze every aspect in this case, and come to conclusions that may or not be accurate, but at least we can discuss the possibilitys , and hopefully solve this mystery in our lifetime.
Richard. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 6:12 pm: | |
Richard,
The killer of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes is the most likely candidate.
B |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 10:48 pm: | |
"As for Casebook readers, you'll get a number of them, including Tumblety, D'Onston, Barnett, Anderson "
Dear Boss,
I swear I had nuthin' to do with this caper.
Sir Robert
|
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 11:15 pm: | |
Your killer is someone who knew the area because he lived and worked in the area. He is someone who could gain the complete trust of the victims and walk the streets without arousing suspicion. He is someone who had a regular job that took him to the various areas of the East End. It was someone who lived in a home occupied by other people who may or may not have known of his secret. He had some money and was of an economic class (this does not mean social) above the victims. He could afford some luxuries. He owned a dark coat, to include a full length coat, and gloves. He owned a billycock hat and possibly a wide awake hat. He quite possibly kept his fingernails cut close. He had above average manual dexterity. He weilded the knife with his left hand, however; this is not to say that he was left handed. He was five feet four inches to five feet six inches in height in shoes. He had at least an average education. He could read, write and perform simple to average mathematical equations. He was quiet and unassuming. At work he was in charge of other people and would be considered a micro-manager. He was a social drinker at most. He never killed while under the influence of alcohol. He exhibited a certain coolness, grace under pressure, and maintained control of the event. He would have injected himself into the police investigations or would have had knowledge of police activities in the East End. He did not have a speech impediment or any other physical abnormality. He killed Martha Tabram, Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Katherine Eddowes, Mary Kelly and at least one other person after Kelly. At this point in time and in my research, there is not enough evidence to point one way or the other to assigning Elizabeth Stride to his body count.
Peace,
Scott |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 3:04 am: | |
Scott
Why do you think he killed "at least one other person after Kelly"?
Chris Phillips
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 276
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 4:08 am: | |
G'day,
RICHARD: Where does it say that Barnett regularly attended mass? He grew up without parents! Mary Kelly was Catholic though, so he may have told one newspaper that he tried to tame her in that way! - To gain public sympathy! We all know how much to trust the newspapers!
All the statements that the couple lived together harmoniousy, came from his lips.
Mary's friend, Julia, claimed that Barnett was good to her and gave her money, but she was also the one who said she preferred another Joe (Fleming). I think Mary just loved two men trying to buy her love!
If Barnett fits your 39 theory, that's interesting because author Pamela Ball, in her book: 'Jack the Ripper, A Psychic Investigation', uses sceances with all the victims to concluded that Joseph Barnett killed them!
BRIAN: I am basing my beliefs on actual witness statements, birth certificates, Billingsgate Porters Licences, statements found by Richard concerning his actions at Kelly's gravesite, etc!
Fingerprinting didn't exist in 1888, policing and detection was in it's infancy, and apparent motiveless murders were non-existent!
As for the other victims, the path back to Joseph Barnett gets thinner and thinner, but did you know that the masculine looking 'Pearly Poll', lived across the road from Barnett and Kelly? Martha Tabram herself, lived on George Street, which was the first street Barnett and Kelly lived on!
Mary Ann Nichols is a difficult one, but Annie Chapman was a long time habitue of various Dorsett Street doss houses and lived across the road at 'Crossinghams' in the months leading up to her death.
Elizabeth Stride's lover Michael Kidney, was a Dorset Street dock labourer & Catharine Eddowes had often stayed in the empty shed next door to Barnett & Mary Kelly!
SCOTT: Why do you say that the killer had no speech impediment or disability? The FBI created a 'Psycholical profile of Jack the Ripper', and determined that he would probably have suffered from some sort of physical disability, have had a weak or absentee father, etc
LEANNE |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 8:52 am: | |
Chris and Leanne,
First, this is not a psychological profile. It is a crime scene profile. It does not attempt to look into his mind. It is an analysis of the crime scenes. The only time I hint at the mind frame of the killer is in stating that he exhibited a coolness under fire.
I say that the killer killed after Kelly based on linkage analysis and a possible pattern. Linkage analysis establishes links between crime scene based on motive, signature, level of violence, trace evidence etc.
I have changed my mind on several points over the last few years in regards to the killer. However, I have stood firm on a vast majority of them due to the evidence. One item that I have stood firm on is that the killer did not suffer from any speech impediment or physical abnormality. This is because of the level of control exhibited at the crime scene. The crime scene shows a killer who is clear thinking and has the ability to evolve his MO to more efficiently suit his needs. This and other indicators points to a person with a regular job in which he has some standing, probably a manager or supervising role. This indicates that the killer was self assured and maintained a relative high self esteem. In the Victorian Era this would not usually be seen in people with speech impediments or some physical abnormality.
Peace,
Scott |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 188
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 9:41 am: | |
Hi all,
Brian, you wrote: "As I've stated before, motive doesn't equal "likely suspect". It doesn't even always matter - and most of the motive you guys are giving to Barnett is based on your own theories, and not on anything solid."
I'd have to disagree that Barnett isn't a likely suspect. I think he's as likely as any of the other suspects, plus he's got a motive to boot.
Many of our other suspects aren't even afforded the luxury of a motive.
Motive and means count for a lot, in my opinon.
Scott: fascinating! I can't wait to read more about your theory. When can we know whom you suspect to be the killer? |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 9:59 am: | |
Marie,
I've said this before - show me the "how", the "where", and the "when", and you can usually figure out the "who".
"Why" is just that - a luxury. And, unfortunately, its one that we don't have. There were probably dozens of people who had motives to kill each of these women individually - exhusbands, exboyfriends, people they mistreated, etc.
But there is litle in the Kelly murder that leads me to believe that it is not connected with the other Ripper killings, and Joe Barnett is simply not a credible suspect - in my opinion - for all of them. Thus, he's not credible for Kelly's, motive or otherwise.
Leanne,
Repeat after me: "Witness testimony is not infallible". The statements that Richard found are, again, merely statements. We can't prove that they are accurate. And considering that all of the murders happened within 6 square blocks of the most crowded area of London its expected that the victims may have lived near one another.
Scott's crime scene analysis is dead-on, and agrees with most of what I believe in the case - I only disagree on the Tabram inclusion and the Stride excluson and to the extent that he was able to garner trust in the victims. I think his money earned him the trust, but that does not preclude his having some charm too him, as well.
We need to stop thinking in terms of what is "possible", and think in terms of what is "most likely". Anything is possible, but with the number of variables and events in this case, there are a lot of things we can exclude as being improbable.
Barnett being the killer is one of those possible, yet improbable, things.
B
|
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Marie,
I do not suspect anyone, I just feel that there is a person who should have been questioned on certain aspects. He should have been made to account for his time. I feel if this person is not the killer then he may have been responsible for one aspect of the series of murders.
I have not yet found a motive for this person and he misses a few points in the crime scene profile. However, he had means, the skill, a major pre-crime stressor, the ability to move about the East End at will and without suspicion and he lived and worked in the East End and the only account, albeit a vague account, we have of his whereabouts is during the month of October when it was impossible for him to commit a murder.
Peace,
Scott |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
Hi Leanne ,
Thanks for bringing up Pamela Balls book, it is a truely fascinating read, it is true that she claimed to have reached the victims who claimed Barnett was the perpretrator. Do we believe that, that is up to the individual.
Barnett statement that he wanted her to attend mass is a fact, this phrase was either used as a statement in the press or at the inquest, I am sure a member of these boards will jog my memory on this..
To remind everyone briefly concerning the 39 theory and barnetts involvement.
A] He and Kelly decided to live together on the 9th april 87, he left her on the 30th oct 88, 9+ 30 =39 . Killed on the 9th nov left her on the 30th =39 she lived at 26 Dorset street , room 13 =39 , also I have mentioned the 39th psalm, which if interputed to Barnett could explain his feelings, the fact that she was killed on the same day that he moved in with her exactly 18 months earlier ie[the 9th]
The facts are my friends that here we have a person, who fits in with the 39 theory regarding the murder dates 31-8-30-9. 39 stab wounds on Tabram.
The significance of this number as I have said many times is paramount, 39 has a black magic significance 13 x3 , also has religious overtones,
I am not suggesting that Barnett was a member of an occult, but we can not be certain for sure.
Add to the spitting on the grave, incredible clue .Barnett is the number one suspect in these murders , but of course being no1 does not yet prove his guilt..
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 4:58 pm: | |
Hi,
Before somebody states it was infact 19 months not 18, but that is not significant.
Richard |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 6:35 pm: | |
"Barnett is the number one suspect in these murders , but of course being no1 does not
yet prove his guilt.."
Richard,
Barnett may be your #1 suspect, and you are entitled to your opinion. I would certainly agree that he should be on any comprehensive list of suspects, but to represent him as #1 is ludicrous.
Sir Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 4:00 am: | |
Hi Sir Robert,
I disagree that to suggest he is the number one suspect is ludicrous, according To Maurice Lewis he was with Kelly at 10.am on the morning of the 9th, therefore we have a sighting of Barnett with the victim either hours after her murder, or very close to it.
Was Maurice lewis mistaken or lying[ witness testomonys again] he claimed to have known the woman Kelly for some years, surely he did not imagine he saw her? and although he identified the man he saw with her as Dan, he clearly meant the man she lived with.
I have two scenerios here.
A] Barnett, left the pub with Kelly returned to her room , the rest is history.
b] Kelly was not the victim in kellys room, but a unknown young lady who died as a result of a bungled abortion, and Barnett came across the distressed Kelly that morning, and helped her out of a very tricky situation. By identifying the body as Mary Jane , and her clothes on the chair nearby, in all intents and purposes, kelly became the victim of the whitechapel murderer, this suggestion would fit in with Barnetts supposed statement ; I always felt sorry for her killer, for he could never come forward , for fear of being topped'For if he knew that the abortionist had only disfigured the body in order to cover up a tragic circumstance, and remorseful as he may have been, could never admit to the Millers Court mutalation, for fear of being hailed as Jack The Ripper.
Both the above scenes are plausible, but I still favour the former, and I for one accuse Barnett as being the killer of these women.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 6:29 am: | |
Hi Richard,
'...according To Maurice Lewis he was with Kelly at 10.am on the morning of the 9th, therefore we have a sighting of Barnett with the victim either hours after her murder, or very close to it.'
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Sir Robert. It strikes me as ludicrous to use the above to justify Barnett being number one suspect for the ripper series.
Barnett would have been the number one suspect for the Miller's Court murder from the moment he identified the body as Kelly's - no matter what the other circumstances were, and whether there had previously been no similar murders or twenty. He was duly interviewed and eliminated from enquiries, with no lingering suspicions ever attached to his name during his lifetime.
The abortion idea is a corker, if I may say so. It was evidently either so expertly performed or so badly bungled that when the dead woman's uterus was removed and ended up under her head, there were no signs that there had ever been anything inside it to abort, let alone signs of a failed attempt!
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 6:43 am: | |
G'day,
SCOTT: Don't you think that a disability, (not necessarily a speech impediment), would cause all women to feel a little 'safer' in his presence and be a little less on-the-guard?
Of course there would still be some who were still a little turned off: "Not tonight, but some other night!" However some would need to be asked nicely: "Will you?", "Yes".
BRIAN: So it's 'How?', 'Where?' and 'When?' you want? OK: My suspect was an out-of-work fish porter, who did odd labour jobs and occasionally sold oranges around the East End. He could have explained his presence on the streets in the early hours!
HOW?: How did he hide his knife, body parts etc? Anywhere he sought work or anywhere he passed to or from work. This didn't have to be the same spot each time either!
WHERE?: Buck's Row, Hanbury Street....
There would have been hundreds, maybe thousands of men who hated prostitution and their 'wives' resorting to it. Many accepted it, because they needed the money. There must have been thousands of potential Jack the Rippers! Where do we start?
'it is expected that the victims may have lived near one another'. The population of the whole of London had exceeded 4 million in the 1870s. Dorset Street alone, housed 1500. There were 149 doss houses in Whitechapel, and that was just the registered ones! Thinking in terms of 'most likely', I'd say it's pretty important that 5 women all had connections to the same street! Why do you say that Barnett being the killer is 'improbable'?
SCOTT: (again) Here's a guess....Michael Kidney?
RICH: I don't own Pamela Balls book, but Julian Rosenthal lent it to me once. Of course it's up to the individual to believe or not. I've never been interested in or understood that sort of thing. I haven't formed an opinion about '39' either. Couldn't that number have just popped up, without the killers seeking it? You know, how some people notice that certain numbers seem to follow them through life!
SIR ROBERT: Have you checked the table on the most popular suspect list yet? Click on 'Suspects', then scroll down to the bottom of the screen.
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 192
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 6:57 am: | |
Hi all,
Brian, you wrote: "Why" is just that - a luxury"
Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. I think 'why' can be very important- as evidenced in the case that I posted of that 22 year old woman who was murdered and eviscerated by her boyfriend in a domestic lust murder.
I'm simply saying, Barnett cannot be so easily dismissed, as you seem to be implying.
I refer back to a 'simple three point test' that Scott wrote on another thread (I hope Scott doesn't mind me quoting him).
"1) Motive (why did he do it)
2) Means ( was he emotionally and physically able to commit the crimes)
3) Oppurtunity ( was the time and victim afforded him)"
Well, Barnett seems to fit all three points well, to my mind.
Perhaps Scott's suspect is a better one, but I really need to read more of his theory before I make up my mind. Until then, I've yet to read one compelling reason why I should dismiss Barnett as my own suspect.
In actuality, I agree with Scott's crime scene profile. The only point is personally feel is debateable, is the 'control', or 'self confidence' aspect. I actually could be convinced of the Tabram and Stride inclusion/exclusion, and I definitely agree with Scott regarding the trust issue.
I'm sorry, but to my mind, Barnett is quite definitely a 'probable' suspect.
Scott: as usual, I agree with much of what you posted. There's a few points I disagree on, but most likely I'll understand your reasoning better, when I read more about your theory.
|
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 8:42 pm: | |
Sorry for the belated reply, I had a day from hell (no pun intended, if that indeed is a pun).
Anyway, yes, Leanne a disability may cause people to feel safe around him, however; in the Victorian era, people with disabilities were not afforded the chances they are today. Usually people with disabilities were treated with little dignity and often looked upon as freaks. This would not bode well for one's self confidence, which is what I believe the killer had a lot of. As for Michael kidney, I am at a lost as to what you are hinting.
Brian is right about motive. Motive, means and oppurtunity is what prosecutors look for and require in prosecuting the case. In most homicides, and I'm guessing about 99.9% of them, you will probably a million people who will have motive to bust a cap on someone. There are people that, God forgive me, I wish would just you know..... Anyway, motive will usually show itself in the course of the investigation. This is not saying that motive is not important, it is just saying that at the beginning of an investigation motive is not as important as TV and movies make it out to be. Don't discount it but don't get obsessed by it.
Peace,
Scott |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
