|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 3:29 am: |       |
Hi Glenn,
I think I am being misunderstood, of course the facts are vital, but I believe they can be interpreted in different ways, it would be foolish to take as gospel every recorded word the press of 88 released.
Take for instance Mrs Cox statement of the carroty man , complete with quart of ale.Question did she see two men that night , because she told her neice a vastly different story, the blotchy faced man , turns into a toff, a fine looking gentleman, with a top hat [not silk] who was pulling her along as if he was impatient.
So what testomony do we believe?.
The one that she told the press at the time, or the discussion with her neice some time afterwards
I personally would go with the latter, but that is of course speculation again
I agree that fundamently we should take the A,B,C
facts, but there is no harm to interpret them , and to come up with possible scenerios,
As far as the thirty nine theory is concerned, there will be a 50/50 opinion on this , people will say pure coincedence, and others will say intresting.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 91
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 7:03 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Yes, facts can be interpreted differently, but that's not what we're dealing with here. In your case there are no facts, at least not based on what you and Leanne so far has managed to show. You are not interpreting or analysing facts -- you're guessing, and you're guesses are based on second-hand information and your own imagination. There is a difference. Most authors -- and most of us here -- has managed to come up with several different and innovating scenarios without realying on guess-work, hearsay and spectacular news-paper articles. To do that in a wider extent is intellectual siucide.
Regarding the carroty man, I honestly don't know; I think it's a choice between plague and colera as far as the sources are concerned. We have seen that most witness statements figurating in the press tends to be exaggerated and a forum for people who just are after public attention -- that was probably the case with Mr Packer (who claimed he sold grapes to Stride and her killer).
On the other hand we have a statement made out of hearsay -- in the discussion with her niece she would probably have less reason to lie, add or exaggerate, but it's hersay and hard to verify nevertheless.
"As far as the thirty nine theory is concerned, there will be a 50/50 opinion on this , people will say pure coincedence, and others will say intresting".
Well Richard, it may be far-fetched, speculative and coincidential, but that necessarily doesn't mean that it isn't interesting -- as a reading experience.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 7:28 am: | |
G'day Glenn, Richard,
No dates have been set for completion or publication of this book. Neither of us have written a book before. I emailed Richard about 3 months ago and said: "Hey do you want to write a book with me?" We have been working flat-out on it ever since.
A newspaper report, told of a suspicious man that was spotted by 'two sources', while wiping his hands on a doorstep between Berner Street and Dorset Street. If this was the killer or not, on that morning he had to worry about being seen not only by the policemen, but the general public!
I haven't written anything about that clay pipe, so lets forget about it!
GLENN: The 'proof' that Barnett's interrigation went for four hours, comes from one newspaper report. Another said it went for two and a half hours, so can we eliminate that? Nobody wrote a report about that interview, so can we assume it never took place?
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 93
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
"No dates have been set for completion or publication of this book. Neither of us have written a book before"
Ah, well I see. You let us know, then? It takes much longer than one believes to write a book (the writing itself is, in my experience, the part that is less time consuming), so I assume it maybe takes another year or two at least? But it's great fun -- most of the time, and challenging.
I mentioned the pipe because you seemed to make some fuzz about it in the early discussions (before I got involved) and because Dr Walker made a big deal out of it. The discussion here concerned mainly his paper.
"The 'proof' that Barnett's interrigation went for four hours, comes from one newspaper report. Another said it went for two and a half hours, so can we eliminate that?"
Fine by me, I haven't mentioned it lately, unless you required answeers about it. Anyway, it's not impossible at all it took place -- since so much police documents have been lost or destroyed it is hard to know for sure, though. But to me it would be natural that he were questioned by the police regarding Mary Kelly, it would be natural procedure according to the circumstances. The question is, what was said during the interrigation and how long it took (which we can't find out for sure, appearently). I'd mention the interrigation as a probable event that took place, but would also set question marks regarding the details and circumstances around it.
All the best.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 616
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
Of course it would have taken place. It's standard proceedure to interrigate a persons closest 'circle'. Bruce Paley mentioned it, but added that no records have survived. He assumed it took place shortly after he arrived at Miller's Court, the morning her body was discovered. But I think it might have been later, in the afternoon when her body was tidied up at the mortuary. Both were before her inquest, so her most likely time-of-death hadn't been established!
Everything that is known about her history came from Joseph Barnett's mouth, so I assume this interrigation involved asking about that, where he spent that night, and a check of his clothing. They could have gone to Buller's Lodging house to check his clothes for blood stains, and verify that he slept there.
Whether it went for four hours, or two and a half, I don't think it would have been too intense, because they would have had other things on their minds and it was standard proceedure.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 598
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 5:54 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
We don't know what went on at the interrogation, but I think it's equally likely that it was very intense indeed. Here was the partner of the deceased, separated from her after a row. The police were under extreme pressure. Barnett, as you are so fond of pointing out, had a speech impediment of some kind (we don't know how serious it was, but you always make it sound quite serious!) So if he was stammering and stuttering, and repeating the last words of the questions, wouldn't the police take this for possible signs of guilty nervousness, and stalling for time to think up an answer? They may have leant on him quite hard in the hope of cracking him.
Once assured of his non-involvement in the murder, they might well have started to pity him.
I think this scenario is as likely as your one.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 6:22 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
NO! They wouldn't have taken it as anything but grief! In 1888, not much was known about psychiatry, possible signs of schizophreia etc. The word schyzophrenia hadn't been used yet! They wouldn't have leant on him hard at all! More than likely they would have gone easy on him!
They had no reason to be any more suspicious of him, than they were of Michael Kidney, John Kelly or any of the partners of the other victims. They had a foreign looking suspect to track!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 600
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 7:13 pm: | |
Leanne, I think they'd have been willing it to be Barnett, praying for it to be Barnett. They wouldn't have dismissed him just because he wasn't Jewish!
Moreover, it's you who keeps pointing to the supposed close correspondence between Barnett's description and witness descriptions, and also his supposed hand-washing in Dorset Street. If all of that's correct, don't you think they'd have been a tad suspicious of him?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 95
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 7:37 pm: | |
Leanne,
You indeed have a point, that the knowledge of psychology (especially regarding criminal matters) were zero in the late 19th century.
But that has nothing to do with Robert's statement. Yes, of course the interregation did happen as a natural police procedure -- I've never doubted that, as you know.
But I think Barnett's behaviour may very well have been interpreted as suspicious, I can't see what psychatry and schizofrenia has to do with it. The police could most possibly take his speeching problems as a sign of nervousness -- that wouldn't take any knowledge of phsychology, because it has nothing to do with it. So I'll go along with Robert's scenario here. Just beacuse of the fact, that they were ignorant of psychological conditions, they certainly could have seen his "problems" as nervous indications of guilt.
Otherwise I do think you have a point, that they most possibly were after a foreign looking (jewish?) man and could have been blind. However, the nearest male relatives and friends are the first one in such homicide cases to be questioned, and it's hardly likely that Barnett should have come off any easier than any other, especially as he, as you're pointing out, fits some of the witness descriptions of Jack the Ripper.
By the way (not that it's important), I just couldn't help clinging to a line in your message above... "...when her body was tidied up at the mortuary." What was there to tidy up? The poor woman was a pile of flesh...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 618
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 7:47 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: Why do you say that? I think they were just following the standard detective proceedure of interviewing the victims 'inner-circle' first. Anyway they needed Barnett for a formal identification.
GLENN: I remember reading that before 'Schizophrenia' was named, (in the 1920s I think), everyone thought that people with any sort of intellectual disability was a nutcase! Echolalia can be a symptom of Schizophrenia, autism or Turettes [sic] Syndrome. I think police would have thought of him as a weak 'softy'. He probably WAS upset, having to resort to killing his lover, and could have easily made his speech problem more obvious.
* The first description tallying with Barnett's statistics, came from Joseph Lawende who saw Eddowes with a 30 year old, 5' 7" or 8", fair complexioned and fair moustache.
* Then two men who were preparing to work in the nearby orange market saw a man matching Lawende's description. This sighting was reported in the 'Daily Telegraph' and I don't think the police even spoke to them.
* PC William Smith saw Stride with a man about 28, 5'7", carrying a newspaper parcel.
Joseph Lawende was the only one who spoke to police about a fair complexioned man.
I am not sure why Bruce Paley said that PC Smith's sighting matched Barnett, but I think his sighting was linked with Lawende's.
About Kelly's body being tidied-up:
The 'People' 11 November reported: 'As already stated, the post mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and the surgeons did not quit their work until every organ was accounted for and placed as closely as possible in it's natural position.' Minus the heart of course, but that information was withheld from the papers.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 98
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 9:10 am: | |
G´day Leanne,
Yes it's true that everyone with some sort of disorder was considered a "nutcase". For women the most popular diagosis was "hysteria".
One reason for him being upset -- if we say that he's innocent -- could also be that his woman compaion was stripped to the bone in a ghastly manner and he on top of it all had to be questioned by the coppers. If he had functional disorders they would under such circumstances most likely get worse.
Yes, I know about the witness descriptions -- I commented on that because the similarity between those and Barnett's appearence would be one more likely reason why they would have questioned him more thoroughly.
And YES, I know that they did "tidy" her up as described. I just made a less serious remark about it. Still, one wonders how they did "tidy up" her face, since there wasn't any face left... Barnett could only identify her by the eyes (I can't see them on the photo, though) and the hair.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 603
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 9:23 am: | |
Hi Leanne
You make it sound like a perfunctory examination.
I think they'd have been looking at Barnett very keenly indeed, until they were satisfied about him.
I think they really wanted to catch the Ripper - apart from the anger anyone who looked into that room must have felt, there was also the personal factor - this man had been making fools of them, he'd been responsible for their being lampooned in the Press, teased on the streets.
The police had been obliged to spend hundreds of hours investigating all sorts of people, simply because someone had written a letter pointing the finger at them. I don't think they'd have begrudged the time necessary to properly investigate Barnett.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 6:42 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
That's it! The police would have been tired of spending hundreds of hours investigating all sorts of strange people, that the public pointed a finger at. The public didn't understand intellectual disability and thought it was masking something sinister! They were under pressure to get out and find the Ripper, and stop waisting time! That's why I am against the idea that Anderson was referring to 'Clay Pipe' Alice's pipe!
Do you think they would have heard all the information he knew about the victim's past, asked everyone at Buller's Lodging House if he was there in front of their eyes all night, asked him about his past, about his job, where it took him and let him go free as a completely innocent man?
GLENN: Before her inquest started the jury was taken to view the body, and to view the crime scene. I remember reading in a newspaper that her face was in view before her coffin was lowered. I imagine they would have made it look as best they could, putting her missing ears back and that. That's why I think that the formal identification by Barnett didn't happen until they viewed her body before her inquest.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 608
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 7:16 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
They'd have questioned Barnett, questioned the neighbours, gone to Buller's, probably gone to Billingsgate - and at the end of all that, after the inquest, Barnett disappears from the case.
You are trying to imply that the police would have said to themselves "Poor chap! He's had a terrible shock! Let's not be too hard on him. We won't bother to check him out properly. Besides, everyone knows that the Ripper's Jewish, or a bug-eyed lunatic, or a toff."
I just don't see it that way.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 12:17 am: | |
G'day Robert,
So you must think the real killer was never questioned, never considered, they put everyone through lie detector test, checked everyone's fingerprints (even though fingerprinting had just being discovered)!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 37
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 1:50 am: | |
Leanne,
I'm really at a loss here to follow your reasoning. First you say that the police would interview Barnett because it was routine procedure to interview the "inner circle". You also indicate how much pressure they were under to find the Ripper. You point out how much Joe matches the descriptions of the Ripper. And you have him as a severe stutterer, no sorry schizophrenic with echolalia?
Now, with all of this presented as fact, however, you then decide this clearly indicates the police would only ask him a few questions about Mary's past? What, are they supposed to be bored and impatient and just want to get over this routine interview with the "inner circle guy"?
Has it occured to you why the "inner circle guy" is always investigated first? It's because this is usually where you will find the killer. The "inner circle" are prime suspects from the start for a reason, and yes, guess what, the police of 1888 knew this!
Psychiatric disorders were not well understood in 1888. However, everyone knows nervous people stutter. So if Joe's stuttering and stammering and repeating things said to him he looks like a big bag of nerves. The police are going to be suspicious of him because that's just how nervous people act; by your own account he's acting suspicious.
So what would the police have in front of them? A person from the "inner circle", who therefor is a prime suspect, who is acting nervous and apparently looks a lot like descriptions of the fellow who the police are under huge pressure to get. And you're trying to tell me that all they ask this guy are a few things about Mary's past?
From what you've put forward as "evidence" would suggest that during the interview they would be pressing this guy as hard as they could. If they let him go and forgot about him, one has to wonder why! From what you present about Joe and all these "facts", I would be more inclined to accept a tentative conclusion that the police 100% for sure cleared him rather than suggest anything to the contrary.
This "tentative conclusion", of course, would be a speculation but if we take what you present as "facts", it's certainly what those "facts" suggest.
Anyway, I'm always surprised at how we seem to be able to draw the exact opposite conclusion from the same evidence. Clearly, we look at things from entirely different points of view.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 4:27 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
About Barnett's description: It matched one that was given to the police, (PC Smith's). The 2 men in St James Place Orange Market, gave a description to a newspaper reporter! Look at how many other descriptions the police had recorded of foreign looking men! But who's to say anyone saw the real Ripper. Maybe Smith was just lucky.
No one can prove that Joe suffered schizophrenia but if he did, the police could have interviewed his good personality. No one at the time knew that one person could have two personalities.
The 'inner circle' is usually where todays detectives find the killer, but before the Ripper murders motives were clear to detectives.
They would have asked him just enough about Mary's life to 'build' the next 'circle' for them to look at. Like who she saw on a regular basis, what pubs she frequented etc. They would have left everything else, hoping that it would come out at her inquest.
I don't stutter when I'm nervous. I may shake and hesitate when I speak. But never repeat questions! I say "Ahhhhh..."
LEANNE |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 2:32 am: | |
Everyone,
I think I have this whole thing figured out: King David from the Bible is the Ripper! King David wrote Psalm 39, he was Jewish, he had experience cutting throats (he beheaded Goliath after knocking him down with his slingshot), and he had blood on his hands (a comment coming from the Almighty Himself).
If Barnett had been the Ripper, he eventually would have confessed. Most serial killers will buckle easily when they get questioned by police. In my opinion, the Ripper is someone that we've never heard of.
Eric Smith
Dog lover  |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 612
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 9:45 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I'm not suggesting that Barnett must be innocent, because the police didn't charge him - for such a conclusion doesn't follow.
I am saying that the police would have looked at him very closely. The fact that he thenceforth (so far as we know) disappeared from the case, is a factor that we must put on the "Not guilty" side of the scales.
It is up to you and Richard to show that the "Guilty" side of the scales far outweighs the other side.
I really feel that you are tossing a double-headed coin with this talk of "personalities" - Joe has a nice personality, and a nasty personality, a cunning personality, and an impulsive personality......
Eric, are you invoking a time machine here?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 10:03 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Are there any official records of interrigations for any murders in the late nineteenth century that we can read, and so take a guess at what sort of questions he would have been asked?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 613
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
Hi Leanne
I'm the wrong person to ask on that one, but I doubt it - it's only in the last few years that interrogations in Britain have had to be taped, to forestall accusations of police intimidation.
Monty on the Billingsgate thread might know.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
Leanne,
Schizophrenics do not have multiple personalities. The disorder you're thinking of is called "MPD", which is short for "Multiple Personality Disorder". This diagnosis is highly controversial. The extreme skeptics take the view that MPD only arises after it is suggested by the psychiatrist or some other therapist.
Schizophrenia itself has subdivisions, paranoid, catatonic, and disorganised (used to be called hebophrenic). Paranoid Schizophrenia is typified by hallucinations (usually auditory), delusions of grandur (thinking you're Napolean or Jesus Christ are common), or delusions of persecution (the FBI are bugging your telephone for example).
Also they will report being "controlled" by some external force, like I'm controlled by radio waves, or signals from the X-Ray department, etc.
Anyway, I think it's Kosminski who is described as claiming to be "guided by his instincts". This is a classic example of paranoid schizophrenic type thinking. He feels controled by something other than himself. Since they didn't have radio's and X-Ray departments in the 1888, this other source of control becomes his "insticts". It's still "external" because he's claiming he's guided by something other than "himself".
Catatonics tend to "freeze". They will remain motionless for hours on end, sometimes in odd postures (like half sitting; this must really hurt). This is apparently a way of dealing with a general sense of "overstimulation". Moving makes the world change too much, so they remain perfectly still to try and make things more "constant". However, they can at times be quite violent and excitable.
Disorganised schizophrenics are what you would think of when referring to "raving lunatic". Their speech makes no sense, they are highly excitable, basically, they are "raving loons". They lose all concerns over social norms, personal care, show inappropriate emotional responses, etc.
So, if you are going to talk about Joe being "schizophrenic", you shouldn't talk about him having a "good Joe" and a "bad Joe" personality. That's a popular misconception, schizpohrenia may literally mean "split peronsality", but that's because they have such disorganised thoughts not litterally "multiple persontalities". That, once more, is "mulitple personality disorder", or MPD.
Anyway, just for your information, MPD is a diagnosis that is very very rare to begin with, is not entirely accepted, doesn't show echolalia, and when it is diagnosed, the patient is usually female and has suffered large amounts of abuse (almost alwasy including sexual) since childhood. Joe, although he had a hard life, as far as we know, did not suffer large amounts of abuse since childhood. I wouldn't go with the idea of "good" and "bad" personalities for Joe.
Anyway, the idea of the police only asking Joe a few questions about what pubs she visited and so forth is to be unaware of police interviews. I suggest you talk with some detectives and get an idea about what it is that constitutes police procedure today. Modern procedures are not going to be the exactly the same as 1888, of course, but what you are suggesting is so far off the mark it can be considered "wrong" (in the sense that it is so improbable, it's possibility is not worth further consideration).
The police would have questioned him closely. They would have followed up on what he told them. It appears they were satisfied of his whereabouts at the time they believed the murder took place. If you still want Joe to be the Ripper, then the only real avenue to explore is the possibility that Mary was killed the next morning. If the police were convinced she was killed in the early hours, and Joe could verify where he was at that time, they may have dismissed him because the time of death they were working with was wrong.
Rather than try and present some weak arguement that involves the police ignoring what must have looked to them to be their best suspect to date (ex-lover of victim), why don't you see if you can build a strong case for Mary being killed the next morning? At least there's some evidence to suggest this, and we do know the police believed the time to be much earlier.
It seems to me, if you're going to have any luck connecting Joe to at least Mary's murder, then you're going to have to go with the notion that Mary was killed around 9 or 10 the next day, and not 4 am. Joe may be cleared for 4, you could argue, but that would mean nothing if she was killed later.
- Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 101
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 10:19 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
An absolutely splendid summary of schizophrenic diagnoses. And you're right; MPD is highly controversial and the disorder has sometimes been used as a scam by criminals in order to claim insanity -- one of the Hillside Stranglers did such an attempt and De Salvo ("The Boston Strangler") was also said to have given this diagnosis and therefore was sent to an asylum (although whether he faked it or not, I can't say).
If Jack the Ripper (No, not Barnett...)was insane at all, it would be interesting to study his presumed "diagnosis". It depends on how one interprets the murder sites and the acts itself, of course. If he represented a more calculating, smooth-speaking and manipulative personality type, as some sees hem, he would most certainly be a psycopath. To me he'd more fit into the disorganized schizophrenic category, though.
As Barnett is concerned, we unfortunately have even less factual basis for studying his psychological state, however, since there is no specific actions on his part that displays his personality. We have a newspaper-interview and we have the inquest and maybe some witness statement from other persons that knew him. That is not much.
I totally agree with everything you say regarding the circumstances and reasons for the interregation, Jeff. I've read quite a few interview notes and accounts from homicide cases in Sweden in the late 19th century, and they very well correspond your thoughts on the matter (on most occations, at least), taken their lack of our modern knowledge and methods in consideration.
Al the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 39
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 11:34 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
There's been some recent DNA analysis from one of the "Boston Strangler" cases that seems to clear De Salvo of any involvement. Albert confessed, but later withdrew his confession. Haven't heard much more about it though, so I don't know if it's thought Albert committed none of the crimes, or just not all of them.
As for Jack being schizophrenic, it's hard to say. The severity can vary quite a bit, as with anything. If, however, the scenerio that involves Jack posing as a customer and going to some private location it accurate, "disorganised schizophrenia" might be a hard one to push. There's too much social interaction. I would lean more towards a paranoid. If so, then with hallucinations telling him to kill prostitutes, and probably with some perception of being controlled to do so. I lean this way because paranoid's language skills are not so impaired as the general type, although if you get them talking long enough, it does get a bit strange.
So if Jack was schizophrenic, and I'm not sure he was, my bet would be he was more of the paranoid type, probably with auditory hallucinations, and he felt controlled by some external force. I just realised this fits Kosminski pretty well actually. But as I say, I'm not convinced Jack was schizophrenic, and I'm definately not saying my favorite suspect is Kosminski!
If Jack was not schizophrenic, then psychopath would be my bet as well. In many ways, actually, psychopath is probably more indicated than schizophrenia. Psychopathy, actually sociopathy is used now, includes lack of empathy, reduced inhibitions, normal intellegence (with some showing high intellegence), reduced fear responses, reduced anxiety responses in anticipation of punishment, etc. Basically, these are the "hannibal Lecters", the Ted Bundy's. They can, when violent, perform very horrendous mutilation murders, so I don't think the extensive mutilations performed on the Ripper victims necessarily indicates a thought disorder like schizophrenia. Other aspects of the crime, like the social interaction with the victims and waiting until some level of privacy has been achieved, suggest otherwise.
But, again, the scenerio isn't beyond that of either a sociopath or a paranoid schizophrenic, and really doesn't require Jack to be either. All we can do is suggest some reasonable alternatives, and of the mental disorders discussed I would think we could rule out MPD (too rare especially in males, too contraversial at the moment to be sure it's even real, and although there have been criminals who try and fake it, I'm not sure there have been any documented cases that have been actually put forth as "real" where one of the personalities is actually a serial killer). Paranoid Schizophrenic maybe, sociopath (or psychopath), maybe.
- Jeff
P.S. To be absolutely clear on this, I am speculating on all fronts here! I've assumed one particular scenerio (the posing as client), which may or may not have been how it happened. And since we obviously don't have the Ripper available to actually diagnose in any way, there's no way to examine if he has (had) any of these actual disorders. Hence, just because one diagnosis may fit "Kosminski" this shouldn't be viewed as any kind of evidence to support the "Kosminski as Ripper" conclusion.
Rather it just suggests that Kosminski's apparent schizophrenia should not be held against him. Kosminski is often dismissed because he appeared harmless and non-violent. But one "possibility" to explain the end of the murders is Kosminski's disorder increased in severity and he withdrew more and more into a world of delusion and hallucinations. The initial stages may have induced violence, and as the disorder increased, he then withdraws from interacting with the world.
Is this Proof? No, of course not, it's speculation. But I don't think Kosminski should be dismissed because he later appears non-violent. He's another of the "good suspects". As is Barnett because of his links with Mary Kelly. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 3:51 am: | |
Hi,Guys,
Excellent stuff.
Barnetts character as I see it is the following, mayby you could put him in one of the definitions.
He was a thoughtful man who always tried to do the right thing, but having done so regreted his involvement, and felt bitter to his situation,frustrated and angry at himself and others,He was a moody, and repetative person, and would try and perswaude others to fall into his way of thinking, he had a nervous disposition , and would try not to get involved in a fracass.
he would repeat himself many times when in conversation, trying hard to make his point, and if things did not go his way, if routine was absent, would get very angry, and found this mood was present for some time, he would walk for long periods , proberly talking to himself quite loudly, and when indulging in alcohol , would do so to excess, when in this state, his frustrations would increase, and he would go in a flipped out state, the description ice cold springs to mind, there was also long periods when apart from his nervous character would be normal, and he had the ability to control and release his anger, when the mood depicted.
That is how I see barnett as a person , based on the very little we know of him.
Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
