|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 3:33 pm: |       |
Robert,
Yep. That's pretty much my take on it. They would't have released the first good suspect they had with a tangible, understandable motive unless they were convinced that he wasn't their man.
Marie,
I didn't say that forensics would not have helped in the JtR case. :-) I just don't think that forensics would have been necessary to eliminate Joe as a suspect when low tech solutions like checking the alibi were certainly available.
Better technology would certainly have helped, but I don't think it would have been a slam dunk. We've got plenty of SKs operating today in defiance of modern technology. I think he would have been brought down eventually, but the entire run of the crimes was short enough that to have captured him during the run of the murders would have taken an extrodinary stroke of luck even with the methods we have available today.
There is certainly room to doubt his alibi, but we're not really given enough details in regards to the specifics of the confirmations that the police got to make a reasonable determination as to what time frame Joe is actually covered for.
What we're really left with is that for whatever reason, the police (who were in a position to check the details) appeared to dismiss him as a suspect after verifying his alibi.
It is certainly a possibility that his alibi didn't cover the proper times, or that it was improperly verified, or that the police dissmissed him out of hand. But there is no actual evidence to suggest that this was the case. Indeed, given the length of the interview, as well as Barnett's subsequent comments (Thanks to Robert!) "finally finding the account of myself to be correct, (the police) let me go free" (which the police never disputed) it certainly seems that they were diligent in asking questions as well as verifying the answers.
Barring any actual evidence to the contrary I tend to accept the position of the police that Barnett was able to account for his time.
I still agree he should remain on the list of suspects, I just have a problem seeing him as a "good" one based on the facts that we have to work with. And for what it's worth, I'm not trying to convince anyone that he could not have been Jack. I'm just trying to offer another perspective on what seems to me to be one of the more highly speculative suspect cases out there.
Regards,
John |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 3:39 pm: | |
Marie,
I know your reasoning behind keeping Barnett on the list, but I think you are ascribing too much to his motive, and way to much to his means.
The motive we're ascribing to him is all based on our view of what happened between the two of them. We don't really have any idea what kind of relationship dynamic the two had - perhaps throwing lamps and breaking things was her way of arguing. I know I've broken about 5 telephones in arguments with my ex-s, but I've never even so much as hit one of them. Does that make me an automatic candidate for being a killer?
It's always best in a regular murder to look at the people closest around the victim for suspects - quite frequently they are the killers.
But this case isn't an obvious "domestic". It's got all the appearances of a Ripper killing - in my opinion, a sexually motivated homicide.
And I know the argument about staging the crime scene, but I don't think that happened here - staging a crime scene is an act of desperation. And people who stage crime scenes usually make the scene out to be a suicide, not copying the signature of a serial killer down to the minute details of organ removal and manner of death.
When someone decides to stage a crime scene, they're doing it under significant stress - they don't know how much time they have, and they don't know (typically) what a real crime scene looks like. Barnett would have had to have been obsessively following the Ripper murders in order to pull off a successful enough copying of a Ripper crime scene to not only throw off the coroner, the inquest jury, but also Abberline and the police as well. So, in order for him to have killed her and then fake the Ripper crime scene, he'd have to know the details well enough to copy them without making any mistakes (which apparently he didn't), he'd have to be calm enough to actually do it. And he'd have to have no problems eviscerating and planting parts of his former lover all over the flat they lived in together. That's a pretty serious emotional stressor. I don't know if he could do it. From what I've read, he just doesn't strike me as capable of doing it.
Applying my common sense approach to this MJK killing, either a.) The Ripper killed her, which is the simplest solution and therefore in my opinon the right one, or b.) Barnett killed her and fabricated the crime scene, which puts a whole bunch of other variables into play.
So while Barnett may have had a plausible motive - I won't argue that - acting on that motive would have been extremely difficult.
Motive, maybe...
Means, no.
That's why I don't put Barnett on my list of viable, good suspects.
B |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 99
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:37 pm: | |
Hi Marie, Leanne
(I'm doing this post about your idea, Marie, that Barnett killed only Kelly - not the theory that he killed all of the women.)
Leanne, when I had Barnett marching from Bishopsgate, I was responding to Marie's notion that he would have come in and gone berserk, so I was trying to imagine him marching along and getting angrier, building up a head of steam. I know that Bishopsgate wasn't far away - and I wasn't trying to suggest that he would have arrived via Baffinland!
By the way, as I've said before, when Barnett and Kelly split up Barnett moved to Bishopsgate, not to Crossingham's from where he could have kept a jealous eye on Kelly. He wasn't that possessive!
The candle may not have been very large, but it would have been large enough. I'd be surprised if Barnett would have wanted one at all. If Barnett wasn't a sexual killer, but killed only Kelly, in a writ of fealous jage, why on earth should he have wanted to see what he was doing to Kelly? And if he did want to see, he could have used the candle. Why would he stop the mutilations, go over to the fire and bank it up, then fly into another writ of fealous jage and continue with his gruesome work? And surely a large fire was risking attracting attention?
Re Kelly's friends, prostitutes had slept there several times recently. If I'd been Barnett I'd have reckoned the chances as being at least evens that someone, man or woman, was likely to be with Kelly.
I find the door business totally baffling, and I think it's one of Paley's strongest points. Suppose Barnett did walk off with the key on October 30th : then presumably right up to Kelly's death, the door couldn't be locked. So what I don't understand is, why does Kelly have to put her arm through the window to get into her room? Help!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 6:11 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Exactly, why would he want to see? That's why I think he could have butchered the other women - it wasn't something he was totally unused to seeing!
He wouldn't have marched in and gone berzerk! He would have pleaded with her first, to take him back, as apparently his brother had failed to do!
And as for him not staying at 'Crossinghams', there may have been no available room! It was very popular with East Enders who had no were to sleep. If he wasn't that possessive and didn't expect to be asked back, why on earth did he visit her every day to give her money?
As for the door/key thing: we debated it on the old boards over and over! Kelly either installed a latch, that could be reached via the window from outside, or her lock could be opened from the inside, without a key!
Inspector Abberline found one small piece of candle in a bottle in her room when he searched, and it's size caused them to determine that her killer needed light from a fire to see what he was doing.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 7:01 am: | |
G'day John,
How could they determine that Barnett had a tangible, understandable motive, when they interviewed a stuttering man for 4 hours at the most?
It's standard detective proceedure to speak to the victims 'inner circle', (of husband, boyfriend, and children), first. Then they move to the next 'circle' and speak to friends, regular clients, neighbours etc. Then they move to the next circle, and so on. Barnett may not have been a serious suspect at the time anyway, they knew they had an apparent motiveless madman to go out and catch. And no one knew that they had their hands on him! They would have felt sorry for him only!
I'm not even sure that it was 4 hours, anyway. He may have told the press that they kept him "Ffffffor hours!" They checked his clothes for blood stains, heard his alibi, checked it out briefly and let him go. The victims most probable time-of-death wasn't even known at the time anyway!
I wish someone would describe why they believe Kelly's murder was just 'staged' to look like the Rippers work. Joseph Barnett had read all the newspapers, yet he didn't take her kidney or uterus and merely leave her intestines hanging out!...He took her heart!
LEANNE |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 7:16 am: | |
"checked it out briefly"
The historical record, such as we have, indicates that Inspector Abberline was satisfied that Barnett's alibi was accurate. There is no use of the word "briefly" in any of the accounts; you are editorializing.
"I'm not even sure that it was 4 hours, anyway."
Barnett is quoted as saying he was held for 4 hours.
Sir Robert |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 7:56 am: | |
Where was Barnett in October?
Peace,
Scott |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 4:14 pm: | |
Leanne,
"How could they determine that Barnett had a tangible, understandable motive, when they interviewed a stuttering man for 4 hours at the most?"
An interview with Barnett was hardly necessary for "suspecthood" in his case. He was a lover of the victim who had recently moved out. Indeed, it appears that the result of the interview was to ally their suspicions. All that would be necessary would be a simple verifiable alibi.
"They would have felt sorry for him only!"
That's merely wishful thinking on your part I am afraid. Domestic murder the police understood and they would not have dropped that line of pursuit without a better reason than they "felt sorry" for him.
Personally, I don't think Kelly's murder was staged to look like a Ripper crime so you'd need to ask someone else on that one. Nor do I think Joe Barnett took her heart, but then you knew that.
Regards,
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 103
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 6:34 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
As a newcomer I am simultaneously attracted and repelled by the door and key business. Attracted, because it's so intriguing. Repelled, because it makes my head spin! I can understand if you don't want to go into it, having already done so on the old Boards. It must be a bit like chewing the same piece of gum for too long!
If Barnett couldn't find a bed in Crossingham's, or anywhere in Dorset Street, in ten days, then it must have been popular!
After the split, he may have visited her and given her money because he may have felt that he owed her his share of the back rent.
If he pleaded with her, in the middle of the night, to have him back, wouldn't a drunken Kelly have made a bit of a noise? She was quite vocal when in one of her moods. Yet no one heard anything.
As for the fire, we're now onto the "Barnett killed the lot" theory - one idea being that he disembowelled the women to keep Kelly off the streets. I find this plain wacky. Another idea is that Barnett had a down on prostitutes - a more normal sort of Ripper motive.
But the way the argument always seems to me to go, is something like "Barnett disliked prostitutes. So he probably hated prostitutes. So he probably hated them enough to want to kill them. If he wanted to kill them, he'd probably have wanted to disembowel them. And that's what he probably did."
Aren't there too many jumps here?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 10:14 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
I think 'Jack the Ripper' was 'wacky', don't you? Does anyone think he must have had a justifiable motive for these crimes? Because everyone's looking for one!
The door and key business is only a pain because people are trying desperately to find Joseph Barnett innocent! I think it's the 'key' to the mystery!
He visited her everyday to give her money, because he expected to be asked back! If not, why didn't he find someone else?
Kelly wouldn't have screamed at him, if she thought he came back to give her money!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 10:34 pm: | |
G'day Sir Robert,
The only record we have of Barnett's alibi, is what the press reported that he told police: "I was at Buller's Lodging House in New Street and was playing whist there until half past twelve when I went to bed."
Speaking to the 'Star' reporter, Barnett said that the police kept him for two and a half hours. But everyone prefers to believe the newspaper that said they kept him for 4 hours. Why? Isn't that favouring one newspaper over the other? And how did they check his alibi of being in bed all the time?
As for feeling sorry for him: Here was a vocally disabled man who identified the pieces of his former lover by her "hair and eyes", because that's all he could recognize. And you say that that's wishful thinking on my part?
I don't know where he was in October, Scott. There was an eerie fear of hysteria all over the East End, following the 'Double Event' and then George Lusk received a kidney! The East End streets were relatively deserted, so maybe Joe thought he'd done enough to keep Mary. - enforced retirement! But no, prostitutes were starting to come into his home! On or around October 27, Mary invited her prostitute friend, Julia, in to share the couples tiny tiny room! And as soon as she left, in came Mrs. Harvey!
Too right that Kelly's murder wasn't staged!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 1:09 am: | |
G'day,
More about the candle: The London 'Times' of Monday November 12 says: 'they have ascertained that on Wednesday night the dead woman purchased a halfpenny candle at the neighbouring chandlers shop and on the room being searched this candle was barely half consumed.'
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 5:37 am: | |
Hi eveyone,
I have just been reading the Times Nov 10th 88, issue. Mr Mcarthy states that a year ago , the dead woman came to rent a room with a man called Kelly who she claimed to be her husband, he was a coal porter ,I would imagine that M'carthy kept records of his tenants , so that would place their tenancy starting nov 87.
Barnett was adamant that he had stayed at millers court for eight or nine months, which puts the couple taking up residence in feb - March 88.
I would assume from the above remarks that M'carthy was unaware that Barnett was a fish porter, and that Kellys real name was Barnett.
It is also intresting that Mary Jane patch was Aldgate, similar to Eddowes.
The Key mystery is a fascinating one,Bower claims to have tried the door handle, as as he could not gain entry, looked through the keyhole to see if there was a key in the lock room side, on not seeing one , he went round to the window to look inside, obviously was suspicious that Kelly might have been inside, and avoiding him.
The above remarks do not solve the mystery of the key, the only point that could be made is if the lock was a spring lock , I would imagine on leaving the room and shutting the door, or on entering the room and shutting the door the door would lock,you therefore would not leave the key in the lock [room side], as you would only need the key to gain entry. I would imagine you would enter the room with the key in your hand after unlocking the door and automaticaly put the key in your pocket, or on a table. and on leaving the room place the key in the lock turn and leave the room.
But if the lock was a standard one , and you had to lock the door on entering the room, you would then be more likely to leave the key in the lock, and as this is what Bower was looking for, it may well point to the fact that this was a standard lock, and if so the missing key would indicate that the door was locked by the killer on leaving the room,
Imagination time again.
If Barnett had killed Kelly, and was in poccession of the Key, and on leaving the room locked it, like he must have done previous on many occasssions, after he had gained his thoughts realized that he made a serious error, was returning to millers court to unlock the door, when he heard that the body had been discovered, on hearing that he knew it was to late to carry out that task, and through away the key as it be suicide to have the key on his person.
I believe that the door of room 13 was locked from the outside and the only way the police could gain entry was to have the door forced.
I realize that Barnett had said since the window was smashed they used to gain entry by slipping the lock which would imply a spring lock, but this could have been misinterpeted as slipping the latch , for although kelly could not lock the door when leaving the house if the door had a bolt latch then she could have reached through the window before leaving the court and secured the door, and on returning gained entry in the reverse manner.
Just an idea.
Regards Richard, |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 11:10 am: | |
Leanne,
"I think 'Jack the Ripper' was 'wacky', don't you? Does anyone think he must have had a justifiable motive for these crimes? Because everyone's looking for one!"
I don't think he was "wacky". He was certainly suffering from some kind of psychological problem, but he wasn't off-his-rocker crazy. I think his motive was simply that killing these women and mutilating them was sexually gratifying to him. He did it because it got him off. This isn't justifiable, but it does give us an explanation that fits the facts.
"The door and key business is only a pain because people are trying desperately to find Joseph Barnett innocent! I think it's the 'key' to the mystery!"
We're not trying to find him "innocent" - I don't think its possible to find anyone "innocent". But to me he was definitely "not guilty" of the crime. The key business most likely has a simple explanation, one that has nothing to do with the murders.
"He visited her everyday to give her money, because he expected to be asked back! If not, why didn't he find someone else?"
A supposition and a question, both of which we can't answer or can't assume to be true.
"Kelly wouldn't have screamed at him, if she thought he came back to give her money!"
How do we know that?
As for the alibi question that you raised before, Leanne - if he was at Buller's lodging house, there'd have been probably 50-100 other men there, sleeping in the same open room with him, and if only one of them recalled seeing him asleep there, he's got a rock-solid alibi. Those lodging houses were like barracks - rows and rows of beds.
B |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 3:36 pm: | |
Yes Brian,
He would have had a alibi for the night hours, but not for the hours from 9am 0n the 9th onwards , if he was given an alibi for those hours, then clearly he is not our man.
Brian.
With respect I find that you are a critic of the majority of posts on these boards, I would love to hear your views on this subject, are their any suspects that you personally feel are justified?,
if not have you any new ideas?.
It is very easy to reject purposals, on the basis that they are unlikely, but harder to put forward ideas that are ripe for discussion.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 105
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Many thanks for trying to elucidate the door and key mystery. You've given me a tremendous amount to think about here, and my head's still reeling from it! I will try to post something on the issue, just as soon as I've got my thoughts in order.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 106
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 5:32 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Well, I certainly don't think Jack was normal! The trouble is, there's no record of Barnett's displaying any signs of mental instability prior to the murders. If he'd been prowling the East End hurling haddock at passing women, I'd have jumped (and so would they). There was his troubled family background and his echolalia, but surely we can't deduce from those that he was a nutter, either of the cool calculating or the raving variety?
If Kelly was going back on the streets because Barnett had lost his job, why didn't Barnett turn to mugging, or burglary, or some such remunerative occupation? But mass murder and mutilation? It's a very extreme reaction!
It's as though someone were having great trouble crossing a busy road, so stole a car and drove across in that.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 5:37 pm: | |
There is much that I would take umbridge with Brian on these boards, for instance his entrenched view that the crimes of Jack were of a sexual nature, but I personally view his hard critic as a blessed tonic and a valuable yardstick for fair play and good old common sense in a world that could otherwise be easily covered in sludge. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 8:13 pm: | |
Richard,
I don't want to be viewed as a "critic", more as an ombudsman for common sense. 
And I thank AP for complement...it's nice to be able to disagree with someone of her stature.
I honestly don't have a favorite suspect, but I'm leaning towards Scott Medine's - but I'll leave that to him to disclose when he feels ready.
My personal belief is that many of us, including many of the writers on the case, are too willing to take a suspect and try to jam the facts around him, instead of taking the facts and trying to find a suspect based on those.
You all have read me rail on about the Ripper not stalking his victims, not being rich or upper class, etc. I base all of my assumptions or my conclusions on what I know about the case, what I know about the time period, what I know about sexual serial killers (sorry AP), and a good healthy dose of common sense.
Think about it: can you imagine all of the variables that would need to be planned and mapped out if the Ripper had fully planned each of the murders, down the details of where, when, how and why he was going to kill each of those women? It's nearly unfathomable - it would be akin to planning a manned mission to the moon. All of the contingencies - what if it rains, what it the cop is late, what if they don't follow me, etc.
The only rational way that these murders happened, in my mind, was that the Ripper was just plain damn lucky. He may have had some expertise in certain areas that gave him an edge, but overall, he was lucky.
This is apparently a hard thing for some people to swallow - that the greatest killer of his age was probably just some random schmoe who got horny from killing women.
It's just a part of human nature, I suppose, not believing that bad things can happen and they can be attributed to one person or one thing. What major, world-changing event hasn't had a conspiracy theory crop up about it? Pearl Harbor, JFK, Vietnam, Sept. 11. The Ripper is no different.
I don't claim to have all the answers about this case, but what I try to do is make people think about the theories they espouse. So this may look like me harping on people and attacking them, but I'm just trying to keep everyone honest.
I've said this before - this genre of historical research has been filled with shysters and charlatans, and we need to police ourselves because if we don't we'll just be viewed as a big joke. For every Chris Scott, Keith Skinner and Stewart Evans, there's a Stephen Knight or Patricia Cornwell.
So keep on coming up with the theories, and I'll keep letting you know if they are good or not.
B |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 8:55 pm: | |
"He would have had a alibi for the night hours, but not for the hours
from 9am 0n the 9th onwards , if he was given an alibi for those
hours, then clearly he is not our man."
Richard,
In all fairness we don't know what hours his alibi was offered for. Nor do we know in what fashion his alibi was corroborated. We do know, however, that the police would have been aware of the reported sightings of Kelly after she was generally regarded as having been murdered. I believe they would have taken this into account.....perhaps not immediately, but one way or the other. It's too big a loose end for them to have ignored.
Sir Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 5:23 am: | |
G'day,
BRIAN: The Ripper suffered a huge psychological problem that no one could detect just by looking at him or just by being his neighbour - schizophrenia?
Killing didn't have to give him 'sexual gratification', but he sure must have had a huge feeling of power. Over women, over Scotland Yard and over the entire population. And even the Queen of England!
It must have made him feel so important. Which is why I feel he mustn't have had anything else in his life to attract a 'spotlight' to his activities. And without this spotlight on his life, people then and now overlook him.
In my mind, 'definately not guilty' has exactly the same meaning as "innocent".
If you think the case against Barnett is nothing but supposition and all circumstancial, tell me, how can we ever hope to nail the true 'Jack the Ripper'? We are looking for hard evidence, but he never was identified!
Do you think that police interviewed all 50 - 100 souls that lodged at Bullers that night? It would have taken much more than 4 hours to find them! Or would they have just checked that his name was listed and moved on?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 5:49 am: | |
G'day Richard,
Reading all the newspaper reports: some called him 'John Kelly', 'Joseph Barrett', 'Dan', Joseph Kelly', 'James' and even 'Jack'.
Some where in such a hurry, they reported that Mary had a six, seven and even a thirteen year old child living with her, which is why I don't believe she was pregnant. One newspaper claimed she was an accomplished artist!
The 'Daily Telegraph', 10 Nov, said: 'It was supposed that the man with whom she lived was her husband. He was employed about the fish and fruit markets, and when work was plentiful the pair seemed to have paid their way honourably; but earnings were often irregular and then it is to be feared the woman resorted to the streets.' This was after the report told of Mr, McCarthy and went on to tell about the landlord, so I'd say they interviewed him.
Bruce Paley has them living at '8 Brick Lane, Whitechapel' in 1887-8; then at '13 Millers Court' in 1888. His sources were: 'inquest testimony, Press statement and Press reports'.
I remember reading in one report that Bowyer was aware that Kelly had broken a window in a fight, so that's why he went around the side to check. He did look through the keyhole, not necessarily for a key, but I'd say he was checking that no one was coming to open the door.
On the old message boards, someone looked into the history of locks and considered the fact that Kelly's room was partitioned off from McCarthy's shed, plus his inhabitants were of a very poor class and wouldn't have necessitated the latest inventions.
Inspector Abberline testified: '...and since it has been lost (the key), they have put their hands through the broken window and moved back the catch.'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 6:02 am: | |
G'day Sir Robert,
Forget the alibi for the hours from 9am! They started moveing in Lodging Houses much earlier than that!
I don't think they were concerned about the reported sightings of Kelly after her time-of-death was decided. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Charles Warren had just resigned and there was enough debating over where to hold her inquest!
LEANNE |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 9:34 am: | |
Leanne,
"BRIAN: The Ripper suffered a huge psychological problem that no one could detect just by looking at him or just by being his neighbour - schizophrenia?"
I suppose that this is possible, but having a schizophrenic in the family, I know that not all are violent, and many can't work or completely function in society - two thinks that the circumstantial evidence we have points to with the Ripper. While I won't rule this out, I think it's unlikely.
What's more likely (to me) is that he was simply socialized to find sex and violence interchangeable, and thus, he found that killing sexually excited him. And the rest is history.
"Killing didn't have to give him 'sexual gratification', but he sure must have had a huge feeling of power. Over women, over Scotland Yard and over the entire population. And even the Queen of England!"
That's the point, Leanne - the power is what made it sexually exciting. Most rapists don't "complete" when they rape. It's not about the sex, its about the power. In my opinion, the Ripper went out, killed and mutilated his victims, grabbed his trophy, went home and "enjoyed himself".
David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam", told police that after he killed his victims, he would go to a hiding spot where he could watch the police investigate the crime scene and pleasure himself repeatedly. It's a typical thing with sexual serial killers. If they could have normal sexual relatonships with women, they wouldn't be out killing them.
"It must have made him feel so important. Which is why I feel he mustn't have had anything else in his life to attract a 'spotlight' to his activities. And without this spotlight on his life, people then and now overlook him."
This is a good point, but again, it depends. Sometimes the best place to hide something is in plain view. And we do know that many sexual serial killers will somehow interject themselves into the midst of the police investigation - perhaps the Ripper did that here as well.
"In my mind, 'definately not guilty' has exactly the same meaning as "innocent"."
It doesn't have to. OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" of killing his wife, but we all know he sure as hell wasn't "innocent". These are legal terms.
"If you think the case against Barnett is nothing but supposition and all circumstancial, tell me, how can we ever hope to nail the true 'Jack the Ripper'? We are looking for hard evidence, but he never was identified!"
I know, Leanne. But the difference here is that you can make logical assumptions with evidence, and you can make crazy logical leaps with it as well. Of course, most of the evidence we have here is circumstantial, but some of it is better than others. Assumptions based on the autopsy report - such as "Kelly wasn't pregnant", are better than assumptions based on press reports or witness testimony, because we know them to have been frequently flawed. Like I've said - if you build a house on sand, expect it to fall down. Add mathematical probability into the mix, and many of these "assumptions" about Barnett disappear like a fart in the wind. There are so many variables that would have had to go in to Barnett killing MJK and faking the crime scene that when added up, the chances of that being the actual answer are miniscule.
The simplest answer is usually right: MJK was a Ripper victim, and Barnett had nothing to do with her murder.
"Do you think that police interviewed all 50 - 100 souls that lodged at Bullers that night? It would have taken much more than 4 hours to find them! Or would they have just checked that his name was listed and moved on?"
First of all, you make it seem like they had to do all of their fact checking during the interrogation - this isn't the case. They had months to run down every lead three or four times over, and checking Barnett's alibi is something that could be done at any time. When you've got a case that just won't go down, you end up going over territory you've crossed before, just to make sure you didn't miss anything. There's no reason to believe that the police weren't completely satisfied with Barnett's accounting for himself.
So, as long as they checked the list, and asked a few people, they could cross him off. Inferring that he could have faked the listing in Buller's journal adds one more variable to the mix - one more tiny little detail for the unemployed fishporter to remember in order to pull off the "perfect crime". Just how likely do you think that is?
B |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 11:23 am: | |
"I don't think they were concerned about the reported sightings of
Kelly after her time-of-death was decided. The Metropolitan Police
Commissioner, Charles Warren had just resigned and there was enough
debating over where to hold her inquest!"
Leanne,
Underlying many of your suppositions is a general framework that the police of the day were incompetent, and would have failed at rudimentary policework. I think that makes for a very unstable foundation for theories you may wish to put forth.
Sir Robert
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
