|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 10:35 am: |       |
Jeff,
You mentioned that the man incarcerated for the Boston stranglings, Albert De Salvo, might not have commited the murders, or at least not commited some of them. The fact remains that after the arrest of De Salvo the stranglings ceased.
Could this mean that the person responsible for the murders (or some of them)took advantage of the fact that De Salvo had been blamed for the murders, and stopped murdering?
We are told that serial murderers will not stop murdering until they are either caught , die, or are incarcerated, need this be necessarily be true?
Could the police in their routine investigations have interviewed the Ripper shortly after the Kelly murder, and he thinking that that the police were onto him have stopped murdering?
|
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 40
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 4:28 pm: | |
Hi Tommy,
I don't want to get sidetracked by the Strangler on this thread, but the basic summary of the "not Albert" case is that Albert met the real strangler in prison. Albert was going away for life as the "Measuring Man" anyway, so he got the details of the killings, confessed to them (in a way that couldn't be used against him), which convinced the police not to keep looking. The real strangler goes free as a result. If he then killed again, he may just have changed how he did things; the most obvious would be just not to tie the "strangler's knot", and to travel more - make sure they aren't connected by location. Check the "Crime Library" for some rough details. Beware, though, I think the articles often are a bit error prone in some details.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 41
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 4:50 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
The problem with Barnett is that we just don't know enough about him to determine if he had any disorder. He may have had a speech impediment (but this is only recorded in one newspaper so we have no idea if it's accurate), And even if he did repeat things during testimony, we don't know if he did under any other circumstance - he may just have been really nervous and upset.
Nobody reports him as being violent, or prone to anger. In fact, as you point out, he seems to avoid confrontation. His desire to keep her off the streets, rather than to encourage her to go out and make more money, could suggest affection for her (ruling out psychopath) or could suggest desire to control her. The later, however, doesn't fit with his avoidance of confrontation though, so we would have to lean towards a real affection. This also explains why he might continue to visit later and why he sometimes gives her money (if, of course, he's not lieing). He keeps himself well dressed, he works, and his testimony is coherent, sensible, not rambling, doesn't go off on strange tangents, so he's probably not schizophrenic (any type).
Sociopaths, of course, are harder to spot. Many are not even violent. Basically, sociopaths don't care about other people at all, so they can end up being what is referred to as "cut throat business people" (hmmm, bad analyogy in this case), nasty controlling bosses, etc. Basically, people who don't seem to care about anyone else and will walk over others to get what they want. When they are violent, they are very dangerous. But in general, they appear normal.
Problem is, we can't assume Barnett is a sociopath just because he appears normal. Without a lot more information about Barnett's behaviour towards other people, we can't say much other than he seems normal. In fact, from what little we do know about him (what appears to be empathy towards Mary Kelly; i.e. giving her money when he had very little for himself), even points away from sociopath.
So, I don't see Barnett fitting any of these diagnosis to be honest.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 102
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 5:28 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Yes I know about the new developments in the De Salvo case, but I just mentioned him as one example. Whether De Salvo was The Boston Strangler or not (which indeed is a good question), he either showed signs of MPD or faked it.
Now, I'm no expert on psychology at all, but I totally disagree with you regarding the possible diagnosis of Jack the Ripper! OK, I could buy the paranoid type, that would do as well -- I even considered it when I wrote my message but for some reason I didn't put it in. Most possible!
But! In no way I see JtR as a real psycopath/sociopath, as in the form we mostly know them. And that is what I meant by, that it all depends on how one looks at the nature of the crimes. A psycopath -- roughly speaking -- is manipulative, charming, social on occations he or she need to be, and for the most part highly intelligent above average. They also perform their act in a calculated and cúnning manner.
I hate being the one, claiming to be sure of anything -- those who've followed my debates, know that I'm not certain of anything, although I do have personal opinions. But never in a million years can I make myself to see signs of this kind of psycothic disorder when I look at the morgue pictures (or Kelly picture). Your preferred assumption on a possible psycopath is based on the common belief that Jack the Ripper was highly social in his contact with the women. There is absolutely no indications on that! I don't believe for a minute that it would be necessary for him to act in a persuasive manner. Most of the crimes show signs of a "blitz" attack, that didn't allow them to be able to scream. The choice of victim and location was in my belief only a matter of instinct and opportunity and since the women's living circumstances were as they were, they had to take most clents they could get (in spite of the danger). There's no ned for social interaction, and no clear indication there were.
A schizofenic doesn't have to make a disturbed or confused impression all the time, mostly the condition gets worse in connection with a certain kind of situation, but even if they are anti-social in many ways, they can briefly pass for relatively normal sometimes for those who don't know them. The prostitutes wasn't supposed to have a chat or more thorough conversation with their customers, just doing their job, and they probably had to "do" drunkards and more or less strange individuals as well.
However, looking at some of the witness statements, there are indications of men joking with the women and having some sort of converstaion. But then we're supposing that some of these men actually were Jack the Ripper. I am not so sure about that.
Looking at the nature of the crimes, the only thing that indicates them being a work of a psycopath, is the total lack of empathy and reduced inhibitaions (concerning risk-taking), but the latter could also imply a schizofrenic/paranoid disorder and to me the mutilations and the rage in the killings suggests an uncontrolled and mentally disturbed behaviour -- I can't see any similarities between JtR and a character like Ted Bundy -- not whatsoever! As far as the mutilations goes, it's just slashing, I can't see anything else and certainly nothing proving intelligence or of some sort.
Nice to disagree with you for once, there usually hardly is anything to comment on your messages otherwise, unless it's something positive.
I could go for the paranoid type, though. That could indeed fit him well, based on what we know (and that is not much).
Richard,
Even if your description on JtR could be right, there's no reason to beileve that these characterists would fit Joseph Barnett. There's no material regarding this man that makes it possible to draw such conclusions (unless one believes him to be the Ripper).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 43
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 9:24 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I see your point and you are quite right in pointing out I'm assuming a certain level of social interaction prior to the assaults. If this assumption is wrong, the psychopath type doesn't warrent a preference.
Basically, I was "hedging my bets" a bit. If there was a prolonged social interaction, I lean towards psychopath but you're right that a paranoid schizophrenic could also handle this as well if they are not in a full blown episode. (Actually, any of the sub-types might be able to if the severity is low enough; I'll stick with paranoid though, simply because that group can "pass for normal" under a larger range of severities; at least for the time durations under question.)
Pyschopath, to me, is not ruled out simply because of the extensive mutilations or even the possibility of a blitz attack. Blitz attacks, for example, were Ted Bundy's style and he's one of the classic psychopaths (he kept social interactions as short as possible to help de-personalise his victim; his own account, for what it's worth, is that he never killed any women he spoke to for more than 20 minutes. She became a person then, and he couldn't do it - more likely he was afraid this would link him to the victim). Bundy also engaged in quite a bit of post-mortem mutilations involving decapitation, necrophelia, biting, etc. He tended to use blunt force weapons, like a piece of wood found at the scene, but with this weapon he would club in as much of a frenzy as one could envision Jack did with his knife. The difference on the outcome reflecting the weapon used, rather than how it was used.
One could even suggest that the blitz style was a "cunning necessity" because of the populated areas in which the crimes were carried out! (One could suggest this, but it doesn't make it necessarily true of course).
However, nothing rules out the paranoid schizophrenic either. Especially if the disorder is not in a severe state. Because both of these seem to me reasonable possibilities, I don't want to favour one over the other. There are cases of individuals with both disorders performing blitz style attacks and post-mortum mutilations.
The reason I don't want to favour either, is that then I might starting looking only for suspects who fit one disorder and dismiss those who may fit the other. Of course, I also don't want to insist Jack must have had one or the other either, as even that's not proven.
Anyway, it is nice to see we don't agree on every point. Gets a bit redundant having to say "I agree 100%" all the time!
I should have realised you knew about the Strangler case. I've not heard anything more though. I'm not sure what they are going to do as a result of these findings. Have you heard anything more recent?
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 10:28 pm: | |
G'day,
JEFF: Yes, Joseph Barnett avoided confruntation alright. Julia Venturney, (who was the first prostitute friend Mary invited in), told a 'Star' reporter: 'I have frequently seen her the worse for drink, but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone'. I wonder what nights this was, where he would go, and how he released his frustration! No one is saying that he had no affection towards Mary!
About his speech impediment: The 'Standard', 13 November, 'The Illustrated Police News' 17 November', amoung other newpapers, reported that Barnett stammered. The 'Cardiff Times & South Wales Weekly News' 17 November, reported that he began each of his answers by repeating the last word of every question asked.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 44
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 12:56 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Thanks, I couldn't recall which witness reported Barnett's tendency to avoid confrontation.
And yes, two papers mentioned something was odd about Barnett's speech. Unfortunately, they don't agree on what that oddity was. I had forgotten about the stammering one. Thanks.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 103
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 7:38 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Well, even though I expressed my opinion quite firmly in my latest message, I can't naturally rule out the psycopath/sociopath suggestion either -- we simply don't know enough to be able to do that.
And you are right about Bundy and his interest in mutilations and post mortem situations. Hoewer, my unwillingness to see this kind of personality in Jack the Ripper, could also partly (but only partly!) come from the fact that I don't want to fall for characterizations about him based on glorified myths. Psycopaths have a tendence to be surrounded with a flair of glorification because of their usuallly strong charisma -- and they are interesting subjects to study, mainly because they are relatively hard to discover; their "disorder" is somewhat of a mystery to us yet today, even though brainscanning studies now seem to point in the directions of an inborn brain damage in the center that controls emotions and empathy.
As we've with this discussion probably slipped off the Barnett thread, we may have to wrap this up, but I just wanted to make clear that I can't rule any possibility out, of course -- that would be stupid. But I've always found it hard to picture ol' Jacky here as a manipulative, charming fellow, performing his acts with a psycopath's precision and planning.
No, Jeff, I haven't heard any fresher news in the De Salvo case either. I'm surprised that it's so quiet on that front since they made that discovery.
I'd love to discuss this further later on, but then we might do it on another thread.
P.S., Jeff! Have you seen add about the coming book "The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs", due to be published in october/november? Seems really interesting, indeed. But as Jennifer Pegg stated: "hardly anything I would place on my coffee table, though...".
---------------------------
As Barnett is concerned, I still can't see (Leanne, Richard) what evidence points in the direction that Barnett should have any of those personality characteristics discussed here.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 47
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 4:40 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yah, we are sort of slipping off the thread here. Anyway, just to wrap up a bit, and maybe try and link this to Barnett in some way, I would like to point out that the "charasmatic psychopath" is really only a description of the ... successful ones? For instance, Bundy was successful (I don't mean as a killer). He was moving up in social circles, doing well with his job, etc. He could be "charming" and had no "guilt" to interfere with it when he had to "fake it". Those psychopaths who don't have those skills, can be angry, rude, basically quite nasty and they don't care. However, as the most famous cases that we hear about tend to be the most "newsworthy" as determined by the media (Charming boy next door is serial killer; ya that sells! That's newsworthy), there is the general perception that these people are all successful and appear really nice. Certainly some are, but it's neither necessary nor ensured.
For example, Code (Nathaniel Code? Can't remember his first name for sure) is a good example of a less well known psychopath, not overly bright, not overly nice, not charming, not successful, etc. Also Richard Ramerez (sp?), not nice, not charming.
It's the lack of respect for social norms (some can fake them when useful to them, they don't really care though), lack of remorse for past actions, and lack of concern about possible future punishment, that really defines the disorder. Mind you, the last part probably goes against Jack as "pscyhopath" unless he stopped because he 1) died 2) left the area 3) went to jail. He wouldn't stop for fear of being caught because he wouldn't think that way.
So, connecting this to Barnett (ahhh, finally here's a way! ha!), Barnett does not display the characteristics of a schizophrenic, his possible echolalia notwithstanding. Psychopathy is hard to determine so, however improbable it may be, he could be one. Or could he?
If Barnett is the Ripper and a psychopath, then he wouldn't care if Kelly prostituted herself. Because by so doing he would have more money available (he would take it from her), he would have insisted she did. Once he left, he would have either ignored and forgotten all about her or he would have tried to get her in trouble, or most likely he would have got her to prostitute herself and give the money to him.
He would not have given her money if he was short himself (as he was). He would most likely be known to the police for various petty crimes (i.e. Bundy was never caught as a peeping Tom or as a cat burgler, but he was lucky; most psychopaths usually are caught for minor crimes -and caught a lot).
In other words, taken as a whole, Barnett does not appear to be a psychopath either. His behaviour reflects concern for Kelly's well being (he continues to come by and try and help with the rent; he tried to treat her with fish, he didn't try and get her to prostitute for more money when they needed it, etc). Also missing is an extensive list of previous crimes; we don't even know for sure if he lost his licence because of theft - that's just one possible reason, for example.
In summary, of the disorders we've discussed, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Barnett suffered from any of them. The only odd thing is one newspaper report suggesting he repeated the last word of every question asked. This has been suggested to reflect "echolalia" associated with schizophrenia. Barnett was clearly not schizophrenic. And from what little we know, he was not psychopathic either.
- Jeff
P.S. Haven't seen the book you mentioned. Will look for it though. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 9:04 am: | |
Hi All,
Hi Leanne,
You wrote:
'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!'
Yet I thought your argument was that the police missed what was staring them in the face - Joe Barnett with blood literally on his hands until very recently - because they were looking for a lunatic, and saw your intellectually disabled Joe as a weak 'softy', but definitely not the 'nutcase' they and everyone else were so desperately seeking.
I mean, what more could the police have wanted? They had their inner circle chummy, nervously demonstrating 'everyone's' pre-20s idea of a nut job, and fitting certain witness descriptions. It is to their eternal credit that they didn't fit him up and put the rope round his neck, putting his final "I dddddidn't dddddddo it!" down to another symptom of his deluded and deranged state. It won't be to yours if you keep trying to do what the police refrained from doing.
Don't you have to be very careful here, and ask yourself if the reason you need the police to be guilty of an overly hasty dismissal of Joe as merely a weak 'softy' is because you already believe in Joe's guilt, and that therefore the police would have been unable to eliminate him, and you assume from this that they can't have been sufficiently suspicious to check him out thoroughly?
Have you ever tried imagining Joe to be innocent, and the police to have been right to accept his account, to see if this might make as much sense as, or even more sense than, what you and Richard appear to have convinced yourselves about?
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 108
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:19 am: | |
Well, Jeff,
As for psycopaths, people can have psycopathic tendensies without necessarily be psycopaths in the general violent sense; if we study most politicians and some of those who represent the top of the business world, we can se clear indications on those character features. The main issue for psycopaths is to control people in their environment. That's where manipulation comes in -- when that doesen't work, they set up schemes to make things happen their way just the same. However, some get violent, some doesen't -- there can be different degrees of psycopathy, but the main feature is control, lack of empathy and -- as you say -- no concern at all about the consequenses. being obsessive about people or things is another character mark, but that goes hand in hand with the need to control.
I believe you're right in your assumption, that Barnett most possibly can't have a schizofrenic disorder. There are no indications on that.
A psycopath, though, is always harder to reveal and see through, but I think you're bang on target with your points here anyway. He seemed to feel for and be genuinely concerned about Mary Kelly -- a real psycopath is for the most part totally unable to have a functional emotional life; Barnett's efforts to more than once help Kelly out financially, even when they still didn't live together, shows no signs of a psycopath's need to "help" people in order to get benefits of their own. So I agree, he hardly fit into any of the above named disorders. And as I've also stated before, we have no indications showing that he had a criminal record -- and if he had, the police would certainly not had let him get off that easy, especially not as a subject for interregation in connection with a Jack the Ripper event.
P.S., Jeff! The message thread concerning the book I talked about is under "Books Films and Other Media" -- "Non fiction books" -- "The First Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs" (by McLaughlin).
Caz,
I may sound repetitive and predictable, but I couldn't agree with you more in your conclusions. Excellent.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 49
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 5:38 pm: | |
Hi Glen,
With what we know about Barnett, I think it's pretty hard to suggest he had any major psychological disorder. We know so little, of course, that I suppose one could argue "he could have been". I just think from what little we know, that assumption or that line of reasoning, doesn't look promising.
And yes, there are some studies that suggest high power business positions, politicians, lawyers, type jobs have more psychopaths than the general population. These traits can help one climb the ladder because you don't care who you step on to get higher. They don't have to be physically violent, but their lack of concern for others does tend to make them agressive, even if that agression is channeled into social agression. It's a facinating disorder (actually, I've checked up on it and apparently now it's called "anti social personality disorder" instead of psychopath or sociopath; sounds much less nasty).
Thanks for the pointer to the book thread. Will check it out.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 50
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 5:40 pm: | |
Caz,
Couldn't agree with you more. good post as per usual.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 111
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 7:52 pm: | |
Jeff!
By the way, I've always heard before that there should be a slight difference between a psycopath and a sociopath (and now you say it's the same thing), but I never could figure out what or have seen a more thorough explanation regarding this. Is this something you've heard as well or is it just me...?  Yes, it's indeed fascinating.
Typical, What was wrong with "psycopath" or "sociopath"? So now it will probably be referred to with initials: ASPD. Not that practical, I think...
Absolutely, we know too little about Barnett to claim one or the other, that was partly my point as well, that there are no facts supporting he should have any mental-criminal or social disorder whatsoever (if that really corresponds with reality we may never know, though).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 6:20 am: | |
G'day,
JEFF: I don't understand why you mention that: 'He would most likely be known to the police for various petty crimes', then you follow with an example saying that Bundy was never caught. Petty crime was so common in Whitechapel in those days. Couldn't the Ripper have been lucky too?
Bruce Paley listed the Billingsgate Market Bylaws that gave the reasons why a porter could be dismissed. They included dishonesty (theft) and bad, abusive behaviour both within the market and it's surrounding area. Lesser infringments were delt with by fines.
Why do you keep insisting that only ONE newspaper reported his perculiar speech pattern? Newspaers got their details from other newspapers and most chose to leave out that apparently minor detail. At least 3 didn't. One that did was the 'Illustrated Police News'
CAZ: Police were looking for an obviously violent lunatic, not a 'softy', and they couldn't afford to waist time.
I pointed out before that Barnett matched ONE description given to them, (P.C. Smith's). Two men in St. James Orange Market, gave a description that was identical to Smith's, to a reporter. The police spoke to so many suspects, it's no crime to believe that they were speaking to the real killer at some stage.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 6:34 am: | |
G'day,
I just bought the book: 'Serial Killers, The Growing Menace' and it says: 'Even if the police have questioned the actual murder during the course of the investigation, there is no immediate impetus for the murderer to reveal himself.'
'The police noted that Bundy was a prelaw student, had no prior police record, had been active in local politics and worked for some republican candidates..........He was too normal, they thought, clearly not the type of person who would go on a murder spree....After she, [Liz Kendell], found plaster cast material in Bundy's closet, she called the police again. But the police refused to consider him a suspect. He was just too normal.'
'If the victim has been mutilated, it is important to determine just when the mutilation took place. If the killer had to murder the victim first, then he was afraid to face her alive. If the mutilation took place as a death ritual, then the ritual was an attempt to gain power over the victim.' This is why if a pipe was found in 13 Miller's Court, it would have been important to determine how recently it had been smoked. Whether the actual owner smoked it last or not. The exact condition of it's contents, could have revealed something.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 6:36 am: | |
G'day,
If it wasn't considered an important clue, it should have been!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 6:43 am: | |
G'day,
Here's what I just read about killer Keneth Bianchi, who lead a double life: 'As Kenneth he was a handsome man who was able to form relationships with women and fall in love with a young girl named Laura.
As Steve..he collected magazines and films that featured violent pornography...Steve flourished as Buono's partner and took delight in the slaughter of scores of young women.'
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 112
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 8:18 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
"'The police noted that Bundy was a prelaw student, had no prior police record, had been active in local politics and worked for some republican candidates..........He was too normal, they thought, clearly not the type of person who would go on a murder spree....After she, [Liz Kendell], found plaster cast material in Bundy's closet, she called the police again. But the police refused to consider him a suspect. He was just too normal.'
Exactly. This is typical of a psycopath, and Bundy certainly was one. We just stated above that such individuals are hard to spot, and that they maily are highly intelligent. But does it prove that Barnett was one? Hardly (see the reasons stated in the messages above).
"This is why if a pipe was found in 13 Miller's Court, it would have been important to determine how recently it had been smoked. Whether the actual owner smoked it last or not. The exact condition of it's contents, could have revealed something."
That is true. If the information about the pipe is correct, it naturally should have been handled in a better way. I'm not sure, however, how far the technical development had gone in this respect -- was it possible in 1888 to determine exactly when it was smoked and by whom (the latter would indeed demand a DNA test)? Questionable. The content, however, should have been possible to state, but I don't know if that would have gotten the police of 1888 that far in the investigation.
"'As Kenneth he was a handsome man who was able to form relationships with women and fall in love with a young girl named Laura."
It's true that a lot of psycopathic serial killers are married or have realationships, but that doesen't mean that they are capable of having a normal emotional life. This side of their double life is mostly an "act", and even if they fall in love, their kind of love is mostly a "love" that is based on self-fulfillment and egoism (although they see it as love), where it for example turns into obsession - for the most part their "relationships" doesen't last that long. And if they marry and stay married they usually use this as a facade to hide their other "activities", even if it goes on for twenty or thirty years. A psycopath can't have a normal emotional life as we know it, because that part of their brain is not functional or active, according to some experiments. This is still an ongoing debate, but several brainscannings and test indicates that.
Can we learn anything from this to apply on Barnett? Probably not. After their break-up, Barnett had no real reason to help Mary Kelly out in the way he did (and a psycopath would have nothing to gain by it), and he showed no obsessive signs -- or any other disturbing emotional flaws -- that we know of. There is nothing in the witness statements or any other sources that says we could draw such conclusions about his emotional state.
Just because a psycopath is hard to reveal doesen't automatically turns Barnett into one. Based on how little we know, it takes more than that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 113
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 8:33 am: | |
Additionally Leanne,
Have you any evidence stating that Barnett should have been dismissed as porter for "abusive behaviour"? We know about the theft, but what does that say about his personality, in contrast to other poor inhabitants of Whitechapel? Not much. I can't speak for Jeff, but when I talk "earlier crimes" (in relation to criminal psycological disorders), "theft" is not what I'm thinking about.
"Police were looking for an obviously violent lunatic, not a 'softy', and they couldn't afford to waist time."
How do you know that they saw Barnett as a waist of time? That may be your own interpretation...
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 644
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
You seem determined to believe that the police were looking exclusively for a wild-eyed nutter, preferably Jewish - anyone not fitting this description being dismissed by them as a waste of time.
It's a wonder they bothered to even listen to Lawende!
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 4:33 pm: | |
Hi guys,
What it all boils down to, is interpretation, for anti Barnetts, nothing will convince, for pro the evidence, is there albeit, some speculation.
The Barnett thread on these boards speaks volumes, he is the most discussed suspect by far,
Why who else is there that fits more factual , and circumstancial evidence?.
The fact of the matter is, none of us were present, in 1888, it is all a matter of conjecture.
I have heard these debates, not only on the boards, for many years, and it is always opinionated, therefore, all we can do is assume, and trust that one day we can go very near to discovering the perpretrator of these murders, at least we are trying to access the truth .
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 116
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 6:17 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
The fact that Barnett is the most discussed suspect (on this message board) doesen't necessarily make him the most likely one.
Interpretations of actual facts and the use of common sense is one thing, searching for valid links out of constructed scenarios another.
You say: "who else is there that fits more factual , and circumstancial evidence?"
I can think of a few actually, who are more probable and who also fit the profile better (Barnett probably doesen't, based on the little we know of him) -- there are no facts that links Barnett to any of the killings, not even circumstancial.
That being said, I'm not even sure at all that Jack the Ripper was identical with the any of the known suspects. Could really any of us be sure of that?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 8:54 am: | |
G'day,
Let me quote the Billingsgate Market Bylaws that Bruce Paley gave....again!:'If any Porter....shall be guilty of dishonesty [theft], filfy or obusive language, ot otherwise misconduct himself in the market or it's immediate neighbourhood, it shall be lawful for the Committee forthwith to revoke [his license].' Lesser infractions were delt with by fines or suspension. Barnett had worked there since he left school and presented himself as an upright, law abiding citizen at Kelly's inquest, who was against her prostituting and drinking.
He was given a Billingsgaste license back 18 years later. Paley assumed that he lost his license for theiving fish for him and Mary and people argue that that's a bad assumption! I offer the assumption that he lost it for his bad behaviour and no one likes that! It was either one or the other. Take your pick!
ROBERT: I made an error. Barnett matches Lawende's description. P.C. Smith's description of a suspect given and recorded by Donald Swanson included a dark complexion and dark moustache. At Stride's inquest he said that he did not see much of the man's face except that he had no whiskers. Confused? I am!
To give you an idea of what the police were looking for after Kelly's murder:
* After the statement given by Hutchinson, he was taken by the police to search the neighbourhood for his Jewish looking suspect.
* On November 18, police arrested Charles Akehurst for acting strangely in a lodging house.
* On December 7 Metropolitan Police arrested a Polish Jew in connection with the murders.
* On December 10, a newspaper reported that Polish Jew Joseph Isaacs was being inquired into by police.
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 7:52 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
It's been a while. How are you? Still going strong I see. Since I haven't had much time lately I have restricted myself to 'short' messages and so I haven't posted a new one to you (yet), because I can't seem to be able to keep those short. 
Hi Richard,
The only (by name) known man I know of to have acted suspiciously in direct connection with one of the murders was George Hutchinson. At about 2:30 in the morning he was seen by Sarah Lewis while he was standing almost directly opposite the entrance to Miller's Court. He appeared to be looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.
In itself this is not all that suspicious, but what made it more suspicious is that he waited to come forward until the evening after the conclusion of the inquest, which was held almost 3 days after the murder. Also, the statement with which he came foreward was far too detailed to be reliable.
Some writers (like Bob Hinton) argued that he made his statement because he had to after he learned that he had been seen by Sarah Lewis.
So there you have one, other than Barnett...
Good night all,
Frank  |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
