|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through June 24, 2003 | Caroline Anne Morris | 25 | 1 | 6-24-03 8:06 am |
| Archive through July 08, 2003 | Caroline Anne Morris | 25 | 1 | 7-08-03 5:35 am |
| Archive through September 06, 2003 | Phil A. | 25 | 1 | 9-06-03 5:21 pm |
| Archive through September 20, 2003 | Lea P | 25 | 1 | 9-20-03 2:46 am |
| Archive through September 26, 2003 | Rodney Gillis | 25 | 1 | 9-26-03 8:52 pm |
| Archive through September 29, 2003 | Alan Sharp | 25 | 1 | 9-29-03 5:11 am |
| Archive through October 01, 2003 | Shannon Christopher | 25 | 1 | 10-01-03 9:44 am |
| Archive through October 02, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 10-02-03 4:45 am |
| Archive through October 03, 2003 | Caroline Anne Morris | 25 | 1 | 10-03-03 10:44 am |
| Archive through October 08, 2003 | Shannon Christopher | 25 | 1 | 10-08-03 5:17 am |
| Archive through November 21, 2003 | Leanne Perry | 25 | 1 | 11-21-03 5:59 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 51
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 6:28 am: |       |
Leanne,
Sorry I must have misunderstood. It was because you wrote "1:00a.m. was too early for the the Ripper to kill" and "Liz was killed with a different knife". However, after re-reading the other comments with it I see that I misunderstood what you were saying.
I agree with the point about the killer not being ready to kill when he killed Liz but if he was out hunting down Kate, then surely he must have been ready in some way. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
G'day,
If he didn't have his knife on him when he killed Liz, but had it on him when he killed Kate, then he must have picked it up somewhere near Mitre Square......THE ORANGE MARKET!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 54
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 7:07 am: | |
But how would he have known there would be a knife ready and waiting for him. He couldn't have done this all the time. I'm sure someone would have noticed. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 7:45 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
'I'm sure someone would have noticed.' No one saw the Ripper use his knife on the victims did they? But he did, and got away with it!
I'm off to bed and will read your posts over breakfast. Good night!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 21, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 55
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 8:41 am: | |
Leanne,
No one saw the Ripper use his knife on the victims did they? But he did, and got away with it!" - I'm confused by this. I meant someone may have noticed if knifes kept going missing or turning up in a different place to where it was left. I would have to say that if Joe was the killer then he had that knife on him all the time. Many people did carry knifes back then so it wouldn't have been too odd. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 935
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
G'day Sarah,
Who's job was it to keep an eye on all the knives, count them, and keep a note of it?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 78
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 5:40 am: | |
Leanne,
I just would have thought it a bit risky. Could you have got to all the murder sites via the market? I would have thought he always carried a knife. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 272
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 8:38 pm: | |
Sarah,
No, the murder sites are out at the edges of the district. If you go to http://www.streetmap.co.uk/ and look up Henriques street it will take you to what was Berner Street. From there you can view the map to see all the other streets; Buck' Row (druward) Hanbury, Mitre Square, and Dorset (now an ally just north of White's Row and to the east of Crispin street and to the south of the market).
As you can see the murder sites are spread all over the area; but, all the victims came from the same 2 block area of Thrawl, Flower and dean, and Dorset street.
Shannon |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 202
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:07 am: | |
How far away was Billingsgate market from Dorset Street then? If all the murder sites were too far away I don't see him picking up a knife at the market every time he went on a killing spree.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 214
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:34 am: | |
Sarah, as you are in England, I heartily recommend that you get down to Whitechapel as soon as poss and walk the streets yourself. It's the only way really to get a feel for the district. In fact the best thing to do is start off by taking the Ripper tour, which used to be run by Donald Rumbelow although I don't know if it still is. That will show you exactly what to look for, and then you can go back the next day and go over the sites again at your leisure. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 211
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:41 am: | |
Alan,
That is exactly what I would like to do, but the problem with the Ripper Tour is that apparently you have to go in a group of a certain size and no-one I know would go with me as the think that taking an interest in the subject is sick.
Also I live about 30 miles away from the West side of London so you can just guess how far away Whitechapel is from me. I will try and go over there at some point though, may have to drag my boyfriend along or one of my friends whether they like it or not.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 459
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 7:55 am: | |
Sarah,
I go along with Alan.
Im due down in the New Year. If you fancy one of Montys private tours then mail me.
Of course, feel free to bring along your old man and buddies.
My fee ?
One English pint at The Market Trader.
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 213
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 9:06 am: | |
I've been wanting to go over to Whitechapel for at least two years now.
It would have been so much more useful if he had his killing spree closer, or in my home town, now that is what I call convenience. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 460
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Sarah,
Sent you a mail.
Monty
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 444
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 1:58 pm: | |
Hi Sarah.
I thoughly recommend a tour of whitechapel. I started back in 1965, and whitechapel looked much more like its old self then, but the place has always held a strange fascination for me, and even with todays glass office blocks, there are still good vibes to be had, Brady street, turning left in Bucks row [Renamed] has a cetain presence, also Hanbury street, although vastly changed, one can sence history. and of course old Dorset street, although one has to use ones imagination, is exciting.
I Remember walking down that road in the mid sixties, it was a saturday afternoon, and it was obviously busy in the high street, but as I walked along from the refuge end, the street was ghostly quiet, really uncanny.
What I am saying is Sarah, plan your excursion, even do a tour , but sence the atmosphere, it may only be in your imagination , but it is rewarding.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 26
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
Sarah,I just noticed your post.There is a walk by Donald Rumbelow next Tuesday night at 7.30.He meets everybody at Tower Hill tube and it costs a fiver.and is excellent.I could also go with you between Christmas and New Year if you like.I live in London and its not far. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 223
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:40 am: | |
Natalie,
I could never make it to Whitechapel by 7.30 on a weekday unfortunately. It would probably take me a good few hours to get over the the East End. I think I've heard of a tour that they do on a Saturday a bit earlier. I'm going to look into it all again anyway.
Oh Monty, I haven't received your e-mail.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 465
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 8:03 am: | |
Sarah,
I sent it to the wrong Sarah.
Hopefully you got it by now.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 237
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 8:54 am: | |
Bet she was surprised.
Well I'll check again in a few minutes as I just checked about a minute ago and it wasn't there.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:42 am: | |
G'day,
On the 'Who Are The Worst 5 Suspects' board, Sergeant David Knott expressed his oppinions why Joseph Barnett is to him not a good suspect. This is my reply to him:
David, do you feel that the Ripper must have had a logical motive? Barnett probably lost his mother to prostitution, (wait until my book is published before you ask why). The 'profession' played a big role in his life, and why would he destroy the woman that he thought he could save, first?
I believe the Ripper took some of his victims organs merely for effect. They served no real purpose and with access to the whole of the East End, why did he have to take them home?
In our book, Richard and I examine Billingsgate Market very closely, quoting descriptions from contemporary eye-witness sources.
How normal, David, do you think Mary and Joes relationship was? Mary told her close friend that she couldn't bear Barnett, despite his kindness (in a material-sense), and Mary was still seeing her former lover, (who wanted her back).
If Thomas Bulling wrote the first 'Dear Boss' letter, to 'add flavour' to the Ripper scare, why did the idiot send it to his real boss and not the police? That was almost like a confession to forging the letter!
LEANNE |
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:26 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Yes, I do feel that the Ripper had a logical motive - logical to him at least. (I await your book with bated breath!)
As you know, the theft of organs is a stumbling block for me. There have been a number of suggestions why the ripper would take these away: -
a) as trophies
b) as they had occult significance
c) re Tumblety - to add to his collection!
None of them would seem to apply to Barnett though. I hear what you say about taking them for effect, but why not just rip them out and scatter them around the body? Walking around the East End with them seems like taking a risk too far.
Re Mary & Joe's relationship, I don't think that situations where the woman stays with a man that she doesn't really like for financial reasons are that unusual.
I would agree that if it was only Mary Kelly that was killed then JB would be prime suspect. However, regarding the earlier murders, the motive doesn't really work for me. I think that it would be unique in the annals of crime - unless you can tell me otherwise, of course.
Finally, re 'Dear Boss', Paley's connection with Barnett is tenuous beyond belief. But regarding Bulling, we have someone who is named as having been suspected of having written the letters, and whose handwriting is totally consistent with the letters (not just my view, also that of professional document examiners) - why send it to his real boss? Well, he was a drinker, wasn't he? Probably wasn't thinking straight, and may have totally underestimated the impact. I would say that it is far more likely that he would do this, than it is that Barnett would have even heard of the Central News Agency.
I do look forward to your book though, and I welcome the fact that you address objections to your theories, as most authors don't bother!
David
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:38 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Like David, I also object to Barnett's proposed motive. First, such a motive is unprecedented. That in itself would damage the profiling 'evidence' since we'd be dealing with something quite different from other serial killers. Second, the theory is surely chasing its tail - unless there were first some murders to establish a pattern, how would he know the Mary would be frightened by them? These were tough ladies, in danger every night. So where does Barnett take over from the 'other' JtR?
Also unprecedented is the idea of someone mutilating, to the extent done with Kelly, a former lover. Dismembering to conceal the body, yes. Frantic overkill with blunt or sharp instrument, yes. Dismantling the body in that way - no. The whole series of mutilations suggests a 'maniac' - someone who is essentially disorganised, who is working out some problem caused by social or sexual inadequacy or both. Barnett, by all accounts, was not such a man. He could be Bundy, but not Chase.
Actually, arguments on this board have led me to believe that JtR, if he can be compared to any other serial killer, was more like Edgar Cooke, the Night Caller. The victims didn't defend themselves against him not because they trusted him, but because they didn't know he was there until too late.
None of this means it absolutely wasn't Barnett, of course, and I certainly wouldn't put him as the worst suspect - there are many far worse. But do I think it is likely to be him? No.
Regards
Pete |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 841
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
If Joe was a serial killer, wouldn't he have taken the organs simply because he was the kind of serial killer who was into taking organs?
By suggesting Joe was the ripper and that he took the organs for effect, you seem to be implying that he was the kind of serial killer who wasn't really into taking organs, but knew there were other serial killers out there who were, so he imitated one of these as some kind of double bluff.
Nope, doesn't work for me. Where would Joe have got his insight into this type of killer?
IMHO, the ripper was a card-carrying organ-taking serial killer, who wanted to remind himself of what he had just done when he got back to his lair, by himself, until the organ had been tasted, eaten, played with, sent through the post to scare someone, gone off, or been replaced with a new - and fresher - specimen.
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:20 pm: | |
G'DAY,
* If the Ripper wanted body parts he would have started with Mary Nichols. He had no serial killer to copy, so this tells me that he wasn't at that stage into taking organs. There weren't any serial killers out there to copy!
* The Ripper took from Annie Chapman: 'Part of Belly wall including navel; the womb; the upper part of vagina and greater part of bladder.'The rest of her belly was still attached to her body and placed above her shoulder. (I hope no one has just eaten!)
* From Catharine Eddowes he took: 'the left kidney and the uterus.' I have no idea why he took her kidney, except with the intension of making the post mortem report sound gruesome. Taking her uterus could have been a sign of anger towards her ability to reproduce! The parts taken would have rotted quickly and been worthless as trophies. If he wanted a souvineer, he could have taken a bone. If he had intensions of posting something to someone, he could have picked a bone too.
* From Mary Kelly he had his choice of any organ and he took her heart.....a 'broken-heart'?
Maybe another threat about missing organs should be started?
LEANNE
|
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:56 pm: | |
Hi Everybody,
This is just my opinion, but, most of the time it was pretty dark when Jack was "snatching and grabbing" organs and body parts. I dont think there was too much anatomical knowledge there.
Why would you cut out a bladder? I think he just reached inside and grabbed something and just started cutting....except for MJK, which he had a little more time and light to cut her guts out....maybe he brought his anatomy book and studied by firelight. Who knows.
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 843
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Since you now say Joe could not have copied another serial killer, how could he have taken organs for effect?
Presumably the effect you think he wanted was to scare Mary more than if he had just killed the women. So you think he just got the idea from his own imagination, not realising that organ-harvesting would one day be a well-recognised trait of certain types of serial killer?
And how do you know the ripper would not have taken body parts from Nichols if time and his audacity had allowed on that occasion?
I don’t know how you can decide what parts he would or would not have taken or for what specific reason. There doesn’t have to be any more reasoning involved than a desire to take something from the kill to savour later. Any parts would have gone rotten quickly unless ‘prasarved’ somehow, but trophies can still be of great value to such killers, whether the value is fleeting, as with a kidney, or permanent, as with the brass rings.
I think you may have to consider that if Joe was Jack, he took the organs because he wanted them, and not for the effect he hoped it would have on Mary.
Love,
Caz
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 6:39 pm: | |
Leanne wrote:
"If the Ripper wanted body parts he would have started with Mary Nichols."
This assumes that Jack became a fully formed serial killer knowing exactly what he wanted early in the process and also that there was no outside interference with him being able to get the organs in that killing.
As neither one of those assumptions is necessarily true (and the first is highly unlikely) your statement is unsupported. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
