|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 9:59 am: |       |
G'day Caz,
Who's Tim?
I just re-read your post on the 19th and here are the queries I noted:
1. Did Barnett always dislike prostitutes, and if so how did he keep this in check until 1888?
2. Do I think it's odd if there was no sausage?
3. Were Barnett's inquest statements as to his reason for leaving her, contradictory?
Answers:
1. I believe that since his mother deserted her five kids while he was very young, he developed a dislike for prostitution. I believe the fact that he was losing his hold on Mary,(which was made worse by his inability to provide for her towards her end), caused him to flip in 1888.
2. I have no idea what you mean.
3. On the morning her body was discovered, Barnett told Abberline that he left her because he was earning insufficient money for her, and her resorting to prostitution; He told the coroner "Because she had a woman of bad character there.....and I objected. That was the only reason". This seems to me to being taking the blame for her prostitution from himself and his failure as a good provider, and putting it on women of bad character.
It doesn't add up to you that he would be too 'wet' to stand up to Mary and insist they live elsewhere? What makes you think he didn't? According to the testimony of Julia Venturney 'Joe Barnett would not let her go on the streets. Deceased often got drunk.' Do you think that he calmly told her "Ppppplease Mmmmary stay off the sssstreets?" He used to read to her from the papers, of the horrible mess that was happening in the neighbourhood.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 10:46 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Who's Tim??????
The lovely Tim Henman, of course, and he's playing right now at Wimbledon, very close to where I was dragged up, so I'll catch up with ya later. 
By the way, there's not a sausage in your answers that makes me suspect Joe of foul deeds.
Love,
Caz
PS Come on Tim!!!  |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 313
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 5:39 pm: | |
Leanne, each year we hope for a Wimbledon champion - but not a sausage.
Robert |
Brenda Love
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 9:28 pm: | |
I am mostly persuaded that Barnett was Jack but that's just woman's intuition on my part. But why would he kill the others? Sometimes I think we give Jack too much credit for being logical. What makes me even write this is that I was reading about serial killer Carroll Edward Cole, and the author made a statement that made me stop and think.
"Under oath, he (Cole) told a story of childhood abuse inflicted by his sadistic, adulterous mother, giving rise to a morbid obsession with women who betrayed their husbands or lovers. “I think,” he told the jury, “I’ve been killing her through them.”
It just made me think...maybe Jack's problem was the BETRAYAL rather than the PROSTITUTION? Maybe Jack knew each of the women's "main man" as an intimate friend and maybe saw himself as some kind of avenger?
Whoever Jack was, he was off the chain and I don't think he needed much motive to kill any of those women. I don't think his motive would make much sense to us even if we knew the motive. He was just sick.
The author of that Carroll Cole story is Michael Newton, by the way. |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 12:34 pm: | |
Leanne,
Now I think Joe was actually a good guy! You make him sound very nice and the SIMPLE TRUTH is (no pun intended) that he cared for Mary and did whatever he could for her.
If he wanted her to so badly get off the streets, he could gotten a little simpler by another method besides killing. To go brutally murder all these prostitutes’ sounds a little too far fetched. Wouldn't Mary suspect any of this? You know, they lived in a very small room and she probably would have stayed home a lot because you state Joe wanted her OFF the streets. I'm sure she would have seen or heard him come home so late. Remember, she had a good knowledge of the killings.
And where is the evidence that Mary knew all Jacks victims or Jack knew his victims?
-Phil-
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 1:28 am: | |
G'day Brenda,
Why would he kill the others, why would he kill the others?? Maybe he thought: "Well, if MMMARY want's to go down the same path in life as my mother did, then I'll SSSShow how dddirty and dangerous it is for these women to live such a life!"
When he killed Mary Ann Nichols, (who as far as I know had no connections in Dorset Street), this failed so he then killed Annie Chapman, who was a long-time habitue of various Dorset Street doss houses, and who lived at Crossinghams across the street in the months prior to her death.
PHIL: Barnett did try the simpler method of reading to Mary about the earlier deaths from the papers, but that didn't work. And Joseph Flemming kept popping around. The other women meant nothing to him.
Maybe he had met the 'main man' of the other victims, (Elizabeth Stride's Michael Kidney lived at 33 Dorset Street, and Catharine Eddowes' John Kelly frequently worked for a fruit salesman and was a jobbing market porter, which was similar work to his), but it's unlikely that he was playing 'avenger' for them. His main motive was for himself and keeping his 'bit-of-fluff' clinging to him.
Perhaps Mary did suspect Joe...a bit! His excuse for leaving home early in the morning could have been that he was looking for work. As their landlord told the press: '[Kelly's] habbits were irregular and she often came home at night the worse for drink.' But Joe bought her 'meat and other things that his earnings would allow' and we all know he gave her money when he had it.
I found something to link Annie Chapman to Dorset Street: She was seen by watchman John Evans going into Paternoster Row on the night she died. Paternoster Row was a narrow passway that ran between Dorset Street and Spitalfields Market.
LEANNE |
thomas schachner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 6:38 am: | |
hi l l l l l leanne,
just for the record.
barnett was suffering of echolalia, not of stuttering, stuttering!
"Echolalia is commonly demonstrated by people with autism - some estimates range up to 75% of those individuals with autism who have verbal language. Echolalia is when individuals with autism repeat words and phrases that are spoken to them, either immediately (immediate echolalia), or after a delay of some length (delayed echolalia). Mitigated echolalia is a slightly different form of the phenomenon, where an individual repeats a phrase that has been spoken to them, but changes it slightly to make it more grammatically appropriate to the context. Researchers tend to disagree on the significance of echolalia in general. Some believe that immediate echolalia indicates an inability to understand what has just been said, and has no communicative intent whatsoever. Other researchers have proposed that immediate echolalia is an attempt to agree with the repeated statement, which would definitely suggest the intention to communicate (Prizant, 1983). Delayed echolalia has been the subject of a similar debate. While some evidence suggests that it is simply an automatic repeating of speech that has been heard, other evidence suggests that "due to specific linguistic deficits, autistic persons must often rely on utterances "borrowed" from others in order to express their needs and intentions, even though the internal structure (i.e., semantic-syntactic relationships) of such utterances may not be analyzed or fully comprehended" (Prizant, 1983, p. 299). Regardless of the function of echolalia in autism, its use seems to decrease as other language skills increase with development."
greetings
thomas. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
G'day Thomas,
Thanks for that! Bruce Paley points out that echolalia has also been linked to schizophrenia, by the way. I'm not serious when I use it in my suggested quotes from Barnett.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 6:49 am: | |
G'day,
The 'Standard' newspaper 13 November, when reporting on Kelly's inquest, said: 'witness [Barnett] spoke with a stutter.'
'The South Wales Weekly News' newspapers 17 November, said: 'A curious effect was produced by the witness [Barnett] begining every answer by repeating the last word of every question asked'. 'The Cardiff Times' also noted this habit.
'The Illustrated Police News' 17 November, noted that Barnett 'stammered', as did 'The Daily Chronical' 13 November.
LEANNE
|
thomas schachner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 9:50 am: | |
hi leanne,
and again we see that information written in the papers differ widely and are not the most reliable source.
there's a big difference in stuttering and repeating words in my opinion.
just checked the kelly inquest in the jtr companion again - no note about barnetts funky way to talk.
greetings
thomas. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Well, as I've said before, if Barnett was autistic I think that would just about convince me that he couldn't have killed the women with the intention of scaring Kelly off the streets. An autistic Barnett would have had difficulty imagining how Kelly would react in any given situation, let alone working out what he could do to make her react in the way he wanted her to.
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 481
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 3:58 am: | |
G'day Thomas,
The description of Barnett's speach patterns is not a newspaper-selling myth, like the suggestion that Mary Kelly had a child living with her at the time. We can't dismiss everything that the papers included!
One newspaper said that he 'stuttered', and another said that he 'stammered'. Is that such a wide difference?
Next to nothing was known in 1888 about the psychological possibilities behind echolalia and the name 'schizophrenia' didn't even exist. No wonder the official files ignored it!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 2:55 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
I agree with Leanne, we cannot dismiss newspapers reports as inaccurate, after all they were reporting at the time of the murders , and were getting imformation from imformants that knew the victims,and their characteristics, something which we 115 years later are unable to obtain.
The only facts we can go on are from recorded reports from the period, so we have to accept them as at least 75 per cent accurate.
Regards Richard.
|
thomas schachner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 6:36 pm: | |
hello everybody.
no big difference between "stuttered" and "stammered", but between "stuttered" and "begining every answer by repeating the last word of every question asked" there is for sure!
i didn't mean to forget about everything written in newspapers, but there are also some things we should not rely on. i was speaking in general .-)
well...hey..if we believe everything then the ripper killed in nicaragua and jamaica .-))
greetings from germany.
thomas.
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 289
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 11:06 am: | |
Rich and Leanne,
We may not be able to dismiss all of the reports as inaccurate, but we can dismiss many, and we can cast doubt on many more.
The press simply didn't have the access to the police, the examiners, the crime scenes, the witnesses and the experts the way they do today. Their stories were written to sell papers - similiar to today, but with little or no fact checking.
Go read about the history of the CID - Howard Vincent put out a circular basically saying that any detectives caught talking to the press would get handed their pink slip immediately.
So if they couldn't talk to the police, couldn't get into the crime scenes until after they'd been cleared of anything relating to the crime, didn't know who the official witnesses were, didn't know who the official suspects were, and couldn't get direct knowledge from the coroners (other than at the inquests) where did they get their information?
The same place Jayson Blair got his - they made it up. They sat in the pub and listened to people talk and reported the rumors. They talked to all of the neighbors where the victims lived. They followed the Detectives around and tried to figure out who they were talking to and get interviews.
We can't afford to take what they wrote at face value, even if it has been confirmed in other papers - they frequently ripped each other off as well. You can only go by what is confirmed in the police records, coronors inquests, etc. that have survived. To rely upon anything else is to inject another layer of uncertainty over an already uncertain case.
And I know your response - well, we have to go by something! The Ultimate Companion is full of things that you can go by that are much more credible than the Pall Mall Gazette and the Star.
B |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 9:36 pm: | |
G'day,
THOMAS: You think there's a big difference between 'stuttering' and 'begining ever answer by repeating...', but in 1888 they knew nothing about this speech impairment. Which contemporary British newspaper said that the Ripper killed in Nicaragua and Jamaica?
CAZ: We can dismiss published descriptions if they disagree with our beliefs - Yes! Would such a description be made up by reporters to sell more newspapers? It wasn't a description given at the crime scene, it was in a report of the testimonies given at the inquest! Where they had all te details in front of them!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 7:35 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Eh? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I have no idea whether or not Barnett was to some degree autistic. But if there is reason to think he was, then in my view there would be something very much amiss with a theory that he planned the ripper murders in an attempt to make Kelly react in a certain way. That's all.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 8:26 am: | |
G'day Caz,
I don't think I've ever said that Barnett was autistic, have I?
Bruce Paley says in his book that echolalia is a common symptom to autistics as well as schyzophrenics.
Someone else looked up 'echolalia' on the internet, and found that it was common in autistics, schyzophrenics, as well as sufferers of tourettes syndrome.
LEANNE |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 11:11 pm: | |
Leanne,
Wouldn't some of the witnesses’ that claimed to hear JTR talking noticed some type of odd speech when they were hearing him talking with the women?
Also, I know almost all Barnett supporters claim he matches the physical description of JTR, but witness descriptions can be VERY inaccurate and could give false leads.
Also, I don't believe Barnett being a fish porter can tell you that he can mutilate these women so well with such precision. JTR had so little time to kill these women. And he did do it very accurate.
So, how would a fish porter know how to take ANYTHING from a woman's body? He guts fish, not people!
Am I missing something?
-Phil-
|
thomas schachner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 7:27 am: | |
hi leanne,
it was written in the Mitchell Daily Republican
South Dakota, USA on the 7th February 1889
SIX MORE FOR JACK
The Whitechapel Fiend is Evidently Traveling Westward
.... ....
but it is said that the london police just made it all up.
--> Mitchell Daily Republican South Dakota, USA
13 February 1889
THEY WERE ALL HOAXES
The reported "Jack the Ripper" murders of Jamaica and Nicaragua inventions of London Police
... ........
greetings
thomas. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 7:05 pm: | |
G'day Phil,
You asked 'Am I missing something?'
Have you read Dr. Bond's comment: 'In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.'
Which witnesses claimed to hear JtR talking to a victim? Do you mean Elizabeth Long who heard: "Will you?"
Witnesses who gave descriptions that matched Joseph Barnett's statistics were: Joseph Lawende, Police Constable Smith and 2 men working in the orange market across from Mitre Square. I don't think the police constable's description would have been too inaccurate, and the 2 men in the orange market apparently saw the same man that Lawende saw so that's 3 matching descriptions!
I'd hate for Jack the Ripper to perform surgery on me!
LEANNE |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 10:39 pm: | |
Leanne,
Didn't Dr. Bond claim that JTR would have been covered in blood after he killed his victims? He came into the investigation later and studied the previous happenings from NOTES. It seems that the only reason some people think JTR did not have any knowledge of dissection is because of the Mary Kelly killing. I suggest looking at the previous killings. The MOST Barnett MAYBE did was kill Mary Kelly, and that’s it.
If you choose to listen to Dr. Bond, I think you are going to stumble upon other inaccurate info. Jack the Ripper HAD to have time, precision, and knowledge when he was killing ALL his victims and he had to know the police beat times and other aspects. I think it's inaccurate to think that he leisured himself and took his time while killing Mary Kelly. He had to be very careful.
Why are you agreeing with Dr. Bond specifically, why not some other, more knowledgeable doctor involved in the case like Dr. Phillips who you could trust more? Is it because you truly believe Dr. Bond’s statement or because it fits your suspect?
Phil
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:56 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
You have suggested that Barnett's echolalia could be a sign that he was schizophrenic. Don't you have to concede that it could also be a sign that he was autistic? Are you simply going to ignore the latter possibility because it doesn't fit as well as the former with the theory of Joe as Jack? Or are there sound reasons for believing Joe was schizophrenic but not autistic?
Love,
Caz |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 5:37 pm: | |
G'day Caz,
Yes it could have meant that he was autistic! It could have meant at least three things they didn't know about at the time!
LEANNE
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 5:35 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Phew, we got there in the end!
I'm so glad you agree that yes, Joe's echolalia could mean he was autistic and, if so, the theory that he murdered women because he fondly imagined this might change Mary's habits would almost certainly bite the dust.
I thank you.
Love,
Caz |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
