|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 2:34 pm: |       |
Hi Everyone,
I am glad that I started the Joseph Barnett number one suspect subject,
However no matter how bias I am , we are so divided on this about 70-30 in not guilty I would say.
I assume that the vast Majority of members and guests would prefer other contempary suspects.
The ripper legend is so complex, and full of hearsay, and most likely misinterputed press reports that we have as about as much to go on as the police at the time of the murders.
I still believe that Barnett has to be suspected of the Kelly murder, albeit a lot of unsubstanciated evidence, but us on these boards want positive proof, and that is something which unless something unforseen occurs, we are unlikely to get.
We over the years have nominated a host of suspects , that in my opinion at least, have less going for them then Barnett, lets face it Jack The Ripper could have been one of thousands of people , that lived strange and desperate lifes,, but if we are going to seriously suspect someone of these atrocious crimes, lets just take the facts we know and interpet them in a logical and realistic way, and not just accuse someone that was in the area [in some cases not even that] that may appear eccentric individuals.
Regards Richard. |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
"we have as about as much to go on as the police at the time of the murders"
Perhaps this is so, but one can never forget that much of the police record is missing. We don't know what they thought, or what they did, in respect to many matters. A modest example would be with respect to Barnett's alibi. We don't know in what fashion they checked it out. Some posters would have you believe that they didn't really subject him to scrutiny because they "felt sorry for him", which simply confounds me. I'm all for casting as wide a net as possible, but not when it requires the suspension of common sense.
Sir Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 1:17 am: | |
G'day Brian,
No one said that all schizophrenics are the same. That would be like saying all human beings are the same! Schizophrenia can affect anyone at any point in their lives and is just more common in those with a family history of it. Most sufferers are not violent, but violent tendancies occur in about 10-20% of patients with paranoid schizophrenia. 40% attempt suicide and only 10% succeed.
Barnett's speech impediment, is common to autistics and may be symptomatic of schizophrenia.
Jack the Ripper lived in a world of his own and probably thought that what he was doing was right. If he did keep watch on the scenes after his work, he would have got a great deal of enjoyment and power-surge. Just reading the newspapers would have been a turn-on! In 1888, they wouldn't have known any of this and just because it's unlikely, does that mean it was impossible?
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 6:33 am: | |
Hi All,
Just catching up since Friday...
First of all, Marie, you wrote:
‘My point in providing the example of many killers who have gotten away with it- is that Joe could fit into that category.’
My point is that this is not a meaningful observation for comparison purposes, since your category is exclusively for those who got away with it at the time but were eventually acknowledged to be killers. There is no way of knowing how many examples there are of men who have done away with their partners - or ex partners - and managed not to have been found out to date. I imagine there would not be too many where the killer was questioned within hours of a brutal murder taking place in the home he and his victim had shared together. Yet this is the category you have been suggesting for Joe.
‘Back to the evidence point again: I'm aware there is no new evidence against Joe, and I think we've exhausted that point. There is no new evidence against any of our suspects.’
Precisely – but neither of us is supporting the case against any of the other suspects. I’m still at a loss to understand what makes the case against Joe any more compelling. What singles this man out for special attention? What is it about his relationship with Mary, or his words and actions following her death, that puts his innocence in doubt? Can you not see him as a truly ordinary man, coping in extraordinary circumstances? If Peter Sutcliffe had not been caught, would they a hundred years from now be looking for one-off killers among the boyfriends of those victims who seemed atypical because of their age or lifestyle, or the mode or location of attack? Perhaps, but it would be nice to think there’d be a little more justification than I see in the case against Joe Barnett.
‘If those crime scenes could have been checked for DNA (and all that other cool stuff they do nowadays), they most likely would have caught their killer.’
I disagree with ‘most likely’. DNA from the crime scene would have been useless if the killer never came to police attention as a possible suspect. And if he didn’t have a history of violence, as you have said is quite possible, or a criminal record of any sort, they could have used DNA to eliminate dodgy characters ‘til the cows come home and still not found a whiff of Jack.
Leanne, you wrote:
‘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!’
You make it sound like trains going in and out of Clapham Junction. So what’s wrong with Robert’s suggestion that in Joe’s position he wouldn’t have been able to count on being left undisturbed with Mary for whatever time it took him to mutilate her almost beyond recognition and steal her heart away?
And I don't think you can have it both ways when it comes to the ripper's mind. If he was autistic, he would have no concept of other people's thoughts, feelings and reactions. While it might explain why he happily mutilated dead bodies (he would have no awareness of another's pain, therefore any he caused would be incidental and not for his own gratification), he would have given himself away either while leaving the scene (yes, he would have no concept of wrong-doing, but also no way of anticipating the reaction of a passer-by to seeing him covered in blood), or when being questioned (he would be unable to imagine what the police needed to hear in order to satisfy themselves of his innocence). Neither would he be able to visualise the public reaction to his crimes, and it certainly wouldn't occur to an autistic killer to taunt individuals by writing to them about his own deeds or sending a sample through the post to boast or shock.
I think the ripper probably did think what he was doing was right, in the sense that he felt it was justified, despite the law telling him otherwise. He would have been in no doubt about what was in store for him if he put a foot wrong. Therefore all his risks would be calculated ones. He may well have got a thrill out of reading of his exploits and knowing he was tying the police up in knots. But if that's the case, he could not have been autistic. Not to mention that an autistic Joe, unhappy about Mary working the streets, could not have conceived the idea of killing other whores to persuade her to mend her own ways - acting to make her change her mind would be an alien concept, as would reading the papers to her for the express purpose of scaring her.
Hi Robert,
About that key.... I tend to think that once it went missing Mary would have found it an inconvenience rather than a necessity to pull her door to, locking it in the process, every time she went out, considering how little she had of any value, and the risk of cutting her arm to ribbons trying to open the door via the broken window on her return. If there were times when she forgot to leave her door unlocked on leaving she would probably have got Joe to let her back in with his window trick. Once she was inside with the door shut, either alone or entertaining a customer, visitors would need to knock in the normal way. When other women began using the room too, it would have been even more convenient for the last one out to leave the door unlocked for the first one’s return. If Joe had the brains to work out a way of getting in without the key, either on a routine basis or, more likely, just when the door had been pulled to absentmindedly, it would not have been beyond a determined intruder to do the same. So it would have been easier for Mary, and no more of a security risk, to leave the door unlocked on her way out.
I see Jack simply pulling the door to as he left the scene and the police, on finding it locked and no key available, just did the obvious and broke in through the door. I don’t think it’s a huge mystery why they didn’t open it via the broken panes, especially if it was a risky procedure only used in emergencies by a locked out occupant.
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 8:46 am: | |
G'day Caz,
Forget 'AUTISTIC', substitute your argument with 'SCHIZOPHREIC'. I just mentioned that it was common to autistics, to give another example of where echolalia is present in humans. I in no way meant to imply that Joe was autistic!
Considering Kelly's room was only 12x12 square, with one single bed, where did he sleep? And he'd visited Mary hours before her death, when Maria left to go to her new room, so I'd say he had a fair idea she'd be alone.
I've printed out your post and will read the rest of it tomorrow. Good night!
LEANNE |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 10:22 am: | |
"I'd say he had a fair idea she'd be alone"
I am curious as to why you say this, given that she was a working prostitute that brought her johns home.
Sir Robert |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 10:23 am: | |
Leanne,
If you want to know where Barnett slept, or how he was able to, just look at how many people were crammed into 29 Hanbury Street. No one in Whitechapel had any sense of privacy - there just wasn't enough room. It's actually amazing that Kelly had her own one room flat at all. And having a bed is also another luxury that tens of thousands of Whitechapel residents didn't have.
You also said "Jack the Ripper lived in a world of his own and probably thought that what he was doing was right. If he did keep watch on the scenes after his work, he would have got a great deal of enjoyment and power-surge. Just reading the newspapers would have been a turn-on! In 1888, they wouldn't have known any of this and just because it's unlikely, does that mean it was impossible?"
I need to ask a question to clarify this. Are you saying that Jack knew the difference between right and wrong and determined that killing whores was "right" or are you trying to say that he didn't know what he was doing was "wrong"?
In any event, I think no matter what you actually meant, this is incorrect. If the Ripper believed that killing prostitutes was "good" or "right" for whatever reasons, there would be no need to mutilate them after they were dead. You can cut someones throat and they'll die just the same. You don't need to cut out their uterus or heart to kill. That's just gratuitious. I don't believe that it was symbolic, or else he'd have done it in each case and it would be the same organ each time. Haphazardly removing organs leaves us guessing as to his meaning - which, if he was trying to send us a signal, defeats the purpose.
If the Ripper couldn't tell right from wrong, then there would be no reason for him to flee, to not leave his weapons at the crime scene, or to not spend lots of time with his victims, instead of killing, slicing and running, because he wouldn't care if he was caught.
Because something isn't impossible does not make it probable.
Each murder and each crime scene suggests that the Ripper knew what he was doing, enjoyed it, and knew he needed to get away without leaving things to incriminate himself at the scene. These aren't the behaviors of someone doing something they believe is "right", or not recognizing that what they are doing is "wrong".
B |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Sorry Leanne, I took your remark that 'Jack the Ripper lived in a world of his own...', coming hot on the heels of your reference to speech impediments and autism, to indicate that you believed Joe could have been an autistic ripper - my mistake.
But it would be good to explore what kind of killer you do think Joe was - cool, calm and calculating killing machine, or caught up in an emotional maelstrom he was unable to control, or an odd mixture of both. What happened to Mary put him in a unique position, whether he had any influence in the matter or not.
Hi Brian,
Perhaps it's not so much a case of the ripper believing that 'killing prostitutes was "good" or "right" for whatever reasons', but that he felt justified in doing whatever he fancied with them, and with their corpses, because of what he took them for - worthless articles who had given up any right not to be treated as he saw fit. I'm sure he knew that he was committing a hanging offence each time, but that he would have regarded a law protecting such women from his excesses with the same contempt.
Love,
Caz |
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:45 am: | |
How come Ive missed this thread ?? 
Surely its title ranks up there with Cornwells 'case solved !'
Monty
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
And we've missed you, Monty old sport. 
Leanne,
'If he did keep watch on the scenes after his work, he would have got a great deal of enjoyment and power-surge. Just reading the newspapers would have been a turn-on! In 1888, they wouldn't have known any of this...'
I think you underestimate them - wasn't there a contemporary (French?) play about Jack which was commented on in the press by someone who suggested the killer could have been in the audience to watch himself on stage? Tongue-in-cheek maybe, but the idea of a ripper getting off on his own publicity is there right from the start.
Oh, and didn't another report, immediately after Kelly's murder, suggest that this one was initially thought to be possibly domestic, and not down to the ripper? More evidence that the police would have considered Barnett for both roles - Jack and Jilted Joe - before deciding he wasn't right for either part.
Are you seriously nominating him for an Oscar?
Love,
Caz |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 220
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 3:17 pm: | |
Hi all,
Sorry for the delay in my response, I work part time in arboriculture, and I've been working up at a farm all weekend. I've also managed to injure my wrist, so I'm going to try condense my response to everyone into one post, because the thought of typing many long posts simply infuriates me.
It's funny now that I've been away for a couple of days, and come back to all this debating over the unsolveable intricacies of this rather EPIC thread, it all seems rather repetitive.
It's simple to observe that the same points keep cropping up again, and again.
1) Joe was questioned and released.
2) The case against Joe is based on speculation.
I believe Joe could have been released after questioning, and not have been suspected again. The Victorian police force were not infallible. I believe Joe could have been the Ripper, and YES, I believe he could have done that to his ex.
I've noticed a lot of people writing that we don't know a lot about Joe, or his relationship with Mary. That's why I think it's funny when the same people seem to be saying that they don't think he 'could' have done it. The fact is, we just don't KNOW if he could have.
I've posted comparable examples- you may not agree with me folks, but my examples STILL STAND of women who have had their faces cut off, been eviscerated, and horribly mutilated by their boyfriends/husbands.
Now, coming to the 'speculation' bit. I believe that the case against ANY suspect in Ripperology is based upon speculation. If we had anything better than mere speculation, the case would have been cracked.
Brian, I think we could apply your 'common sense' approach, and cast serious doubt upon every single suspect that has ever been named. That leaves us with a nameless 'lust killer' who was roaming Whitechapel 1888. Once we get a new name for him, we can also start to pick holes in his case- starting with: "there is no evidence that..."
And then we can argue some more about what type of psychological attributes we believe he should have had. After all, we all seem to have our own personal 'profiles' for Saucy Jacky.
So there we have it. I've stated my case against Joe, and I personally think it's a decent one. I quite fancy the case against a couple of others, but at the moment, I fancy Joe a bit better.
That's about the sum of it- I need to let my wrist rest a bit now. Also, I think I'm going to branch off a bit, and hang out on some of the other threads. No offense, but I feel like most of the points here have been exhausted.
All my best,
-M.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 111
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 3:48 pm: | |
Not bad for an injured wrist!
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 4:10 pm: | |
Hi Marie,
Sorry about the wrist..
I agree about the Barnett thread, it has become exhausted, I somehow doubt If we have heard the last of him.[ he proberly thinks thank goodness for that] Guilty or not?.
Join the ' solving the clues thread'.We can not nominate a suspect, but simply mention points that may be relevant in our minds, Harmless discussion that could hopefully get intresting.
Regards Richard.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 112
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
Hi Caz
I have received an e-mail from Bob Hinton re the door, which has prompted me to re-read the relevant section of his book (something I meant to do the last time the door issue came up). I think I understand it now - just! What you say makes sense to me. But I still don't see why McCarthy should have broken down his own door...
I have long had a soft spot for the idea that Kelly was killed by an intruder. But I can't really see a complete stranger deliberately entering her room, not knowing if there was a client or boyfriend there - unless he'd been hanging around and had seen her say goodbye to a client, which might have let him deduce that she was alone.
This is one reason why I think that Barnett may be less likely than most to have been her killer -he actually knew both that Kelly was a prostitute and that she invited female friends for the night.
It seems to me that Bob Hinton's Hutchinson, who was shadowing Kelly, must be a suspect, plus I suppose any lunatic who wandered round the Court and was too disturbed to know where he was going.
On the other hand, just about everyone seems ruled back in if it's possible that the Ripper got the wrong door. Suppose that he was someone trying to get out of the rain and into the shed. He may have taken Kelly's door for a back entrance. "The Daily Telegraph" 10 Nov seems to say that No 26 Dorset Street hadn't been a homeless shelter for the past few weeks, but even if the front was locked, maybe someone tried to get in through the back. The door would have banged against the table, perhaps awakening Kelly and causing her to cry out. Maybe someone like David Cohen or AP's Cutbush panicked, threw the sheet over her face and stabbed her through it?
If the Ripper was a client Kelly had taken home, I just can't imagine him sitting there drumming his fingers while she undressed. I know others can imagine it, but I find it hard. He hadn't killed for forty days, and look what he did to Kelly! Yet he waits for all these petticoats and sub-petticoats etc. I suppose now someone will mention 25 other serial killers who've done exactly this!
Robert
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 114
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 6:25 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I'd like to raise another point about the "Barnett killed the lot" theory :
Even supposing that Barnett was trying to keep Kelly off the streets by butchering prostitutes, I can't see that he went about it very well.
Though Kelly may well have known the other women who were killed, surely, given the age gap, they wouldn't have been her "bosom buddies"? Wouldn't she have had younger and closer friends? Why didn't Barnett kill one of these?
In any case, if Barnett had murdered and mutilated a young prostitute, or an Irish prostitute, or (better still) a young, Irish prostitute, it really would have been brought home to Kelly the risks she was running. And he could have written gloating letters claiming to be down not only on whores, but on Irish whores or Catholic whores. For instance, he could have posed as a mad Evangelical determined to stamp out Popery in England.
And wouldn't he have written several anonymous letters to Kelly herself, informing her that he knew what kind of woman she was, and that she might well soon be the next on the list if she didn't behave herself?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 7:12 pm: | |
G'day Caz,
After printng out your post of 'Tuesday the 13th 6:33 am.' and reading it in bed: How can anyone say that Joe Barnett's interrigation happened within hours of her murder?? There is no surviving record that states what time Joe turned up at the scene! I read a newspaper report that implied he officially identified her body at the mortuary, and it wasn't taken there until sometime after 4:30pm. He may have been at Miller's Court before then, to verify the rumours that were told to him. Would police have taken him to the station for an interview before the body was officially identified?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 7:15 pm: | |
G'day Richard,
I'll have a look at that other thread, as soon as I respond to these posts!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 7:17 pm: | |
G'day,
Let's start another thread about Kelly's door!
LEANNE |
SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 1:28 am: | |
"If the Ripper was a client Kelly had taken home, I just can't imagine
him sitting there drumming his fingers while she undressed. "
Robert,
I've said this many times on many threads, so please forgive me when I say it once more:
When the latch closed on Kelly's door, our Jack felt as if he had hit the lottery.
From this, you can derive much.
Sir Robert |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 4:10 am: | |
G'day Brian,
Mary Kelly had a room! She wasn't running a lodging house! The couple had lived in their own room at 3 seperate addresses before Miller's Court. I'd say they were able to afford a private room, because of Barnett's well paying job and his 10 year experience at it.
What I was saying in that paragraph was that the Ripper didn't know right from wrong, as we know it. To him whores meant nothing, so bumping them off was alright. He didn't just bump them off, he mutilated them so he was sending a message to someone!
Mutilation after death, increased in intensity from Nichol's to Kelly's. I think this proves that the killer wasn't merely driven by a mission to kill. He was possessed by anger and wanted to kill over and over again.
You said: 'Each murder and each crime scene suggests...' Be careful there Brian, people don't like it when we suggest things to try and fill in the gaps. They need to see FACTS!
CAZ: If the killer was schizophrenic, couldn't he have been cool and calculated before and after the crimes, yet unable to control his emotion and thoughts while swinging his knife?
Let's look for signs of being clumsy at the death scenes.
Jack probably did sit in the audience of a play about himself. And he probably stared at the side-walk exhibits, near London Hospital.
ROBERT: Why would McCarthy have broken down his own door? Doesn't this suggest to you that the lock on her door was just a simple, inexpensive one? It wasn't a room anyway. It was partitioned off from his shed/warehouse.
Why couldn't Barnett have been shadowing Kelly, just before he went back to plead with her to take him back? Did someone have to see him? I'd love to know why Hutchinson was shadowing Mary Kelly. If he was merely concerned for her safety, did he do it every single night? Why this night? How come there are no records of these vital questions in the records of the great police?
The fact that all of the other victims were twice Kelly's age, doesn't that suggest that the killer of all five could have been trying to convey the message that: "This is what happens to whores when they grow up"?
It's funny how all of the victims (except Nichols), had connections to Dorset Street. Even Martha Tabram.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 5:02 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I agree that we should have a thread on the key ,
For I agree entirely, a simple standard lock was proberly in evidence.
Macarthy would have had no reason to break open the door, if there was another less drastic way of entering the room, clearly that was the only alternative, which in simple terms meant that the door was locked , and the police either had to enter by the window, and try and find the key in the room and open up, or smash their way in, so clearly a key was not visable in the room.
They surely would have looked at the lock through the window and would have noticed a spring device,I would have thought that someone on the scene would have tried to slip the bolt to see if entry could be gained, its not like they were worried about fingerprints...
I would say that its almost 100 percent that the key was missing from a simple locking device and the only way in the room was by forced entry.
Regards Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 221
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 5:51 am: | |
Robert Linford: "Not bad for an injured wrist!"
One hand typing! Took me forever. Very irksome, hence I would like to avoid writing LONG posts for a good while.
Re: Hutchinson, I do like the sound of him as a suspect as well.
Richard: thanks for the kind words. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 7:58 am: | |
G'day Richard,
I just started a new thread titled: 'Mary Jane Kelly's Missing Key' on the 'Victims'/'Mary Kelly' board!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 8:08 am: | |
Hi Marie,
Hope your wrist will soon be better. If you branch off, though, I’ve twigged that you’ll be leafing me out on a limb.
I have just one point to make regarding your post, one that I am still having the utmost difficulty getting across. You wrote:
I've posted comparable examples- you may not agree with me folks, but my examples STILL STAND of women who have had their faces cut off, been eviscerated, and horribly mutilated by their boyfriends/husbands.
None of these examples are comparable. Why? For one simple, but enormously important reason – in every single one of your examples proof has emerged that the boyfriend/husband was indeed responsible. And how many of those had the luxury of being officially cleared of all suspicion for well over a century, with no known local rumours about their possible guilt, before being fingered and finally found out? Joe is not a comparable example even then unless or until he gets found out.
Hi Leanne,
‘How can anyone say that Joe Barnett's interrigation happened within hours of her murder?? ‘
My aim was to illustrate that if Joe is an example of a boyfriend/husband who got away with murder, the circumstances make him, in my opinion, a very unusual one. A man who kills his girlfriend/wife and hopes to get away with it has to be extremely careful, methodical and painstaking, or incredibly lucky – almost certainly both. If the murder is planned, he might hire a hit man, stage a burglary or sexual assault, or dispose of the victim and deny all knowledge of her whereabouts. He has time to work out his alibi and what he will tell people. But if he kills on the spur of the moment, leaving the body at the scene, things become much trickier. He has to think on his feet, removing all traces of his own presence, while making the crime appear the work of someone – anyone – other than himself. And that’s before making a clean getaway and coming up with an account of himself that will be believed correct in every detail. Whatever he does, planned or otherwise, he knows he will be under intense scrutiny from the moment his victim is known to be missing or found dead – no two ways about it. Suspicion is very likely to remain strong for as long as the case is officially unsolved, however well he has managed to cover his tracks, however polished his performance under questioning, and whether the victim was very obviously and sensationally murdered, or simply disappeared without trace.
So, Leanne, you tell me then. How long after Mary’s murder, in the home Joe had shared with her, do you think it could have been before the police considered taking him in for questioning? How long could it have been before he was actually questioned? I can’t see that it makes any difference to the basic argument whether it was within 24 hours or 72.
If Joe planned Mary’s murder down to the last detail, with the expectation of not getting caught, then he was one exceptional dude. If he didn’t plan it, but took himself over to Mary’s, felt the knife in his hand and used it, then, if I may steal a phrase from Sir Robert, Joe must have felt he’d hit the lottery to escape with not only his neck but his reputation untouched.
‘What I was saying in that paragraph was that the Ripper didn't know right from wrong…’
‘He didn't just bump them off, he mutilated them so he was sending a message to someone!’
‘He was possessed by anger and wanted to kill over and over again.’
All speculation isn’t it? If the ripper could read the newspapers, he would have known that society and the law regarded what he was doing as wrong, even if he didn’t agree, couldn’t understand why or couldn’t have cared less.
Why must he have been sending a message with the mutilations, apart from the obvious one that says ‘Jack wos ‘ere, pleasing himself’? Why must he have been angry? Why couldn’t he have been just like a kid finding a sweet stall with no adults around? A naughty kid isn’t trying to send a message or possessed by anger when he empties out one jar, smashes another, tries a bit of everything and fills his pockets for later. When he finally feels sick or thinks someone is coming he hops it, leaving teeth marks in toffee bars and a sticky mess everywhere. Millers Court was the equivalent of the chocolate factory.
Love,
Caz
|
Scott Nelson
Police Constable
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 10:00 am: | |
So what did Joe do with Mary's heart between the time of her murder and the time that the police caught up with him? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
