|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 2:02 pm: |       |
Leanne,
Due to the fact that you are ignoring my previous post, I'm guessing you think I prove a great point and you know that I further show that Barnett can't be the Ripper and because of that, you can't come up with anything to say.
Phil
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 516
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 11:35 pm: | |
Phil,
I wasn't ignoring your last post, I just missed seeing it!!!
Dr Bond also wrote: 'The murderer would NOT necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands and arms must have been covered and parts of his clothing must certainly have been smeared with blood'? How do you see that 'smeared' means 'covered'?
No you don't prove a great point at all! Barnett lived in the East End of London all his life, and must have had some knowledge of the police beats!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 424
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 4:41 am: | |
Hi all
Just re police beats, I'm not sure there was a police beat when it came to Dorset Street at night. Hutchinson didn't report a policeman passing him while he waited there, and no beat PC appeared at the inquest.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 6:43 pm: | |
G'day,
Bruce Paley wrote: 'By 1888 he had lived near all of the murder sites.' His job would have taken him all over Whitechapel, and given him an excuse for being out and about in the early hours!
LEANNE |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:01 pm: | |
Leanne and Robert,
For most of the killings, there were police officers near or around. I have lived in my town for most of my life, but I have no clue about the police officer schedules. Why would Barnett pay any attention to them? When he was younger, I don't think he planned all this to happen. It supposedly happened because of Mary Kelly. Just as a note, the profiling of killers contradicts itself a lot. I'm letting you know because I heard Barnett matches it so well.
Phil
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 7:52 am: | |
G'day Phil,
Nobody said that Barnett planned to murder when he was young. The issue we were discussing was whether he would have observed the actions of the constables on their beats.
He was a male with no father, who's mother had split, living in 'a huge man killing machine', as Jack London described the East End. I think he would have accquired some knowledge!
LEANNE
|
Bobby
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 2:18 pm: | |
Leanne,
I just don't understand why Barnett would go and kill four prostitutes just to "scare" Mary off the streets. The way he scared her was by reading the newspaper to her about the killings, but it seems unlikely and too "out there" that he killed the rest.
Peace |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
G'day Bobby,
But reading the newspapers wasn't working in scaring her off the streets, was it?
By living in the East End his whole life with no parents to guide him, he would have just acquired a knowledge of police beats as a 'survival' instinct. Whether he had ambitions to be a criminal or not!
PHIL: I bet your town is no where near as violent as Whitechapel was then!
LEANNE |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 11:20 pm: | |
Leanne,
You are basing your WHOLE case against Barnett by what Barnett or JACK THE RIPPER said to Inspector Abberline and whoever else! 100 percent of the things you mention and mentioned on these boards is derived from what Barnett said when he was interviewed. I read the Simple Truth and it was convincing, but the tough part is, is that all the evidence against him is held up on what he said!
Inspector Abberline was satisfied with Barnett. I'm not saying just because Abberline let him go means he's innocent, what I'm saying is that then you have to take ever SINGLE person suspicious by the police in 1888 of being the killer back into the suspect list because they were all let go too.
Don’t you have to agree?
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 8:13 pm: | |
G'day Phil,
Believe me the case against Barnett is not solely based on that four interrigation with Inspector Abberline. The book that Richard Nunweek and I are writing on this overlooked suspect, is looking at him from his upbringing as an abandoned child of Irish immigrants, right up to the time when his name disappears from this case. I wonder if the Metropolitan Police had the time and inclination to do all that!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 8:20 pm: | |
G'day Phil,
We don't hope to make heaps of money by claiming that this case is solved and closed. We just hope to keep his name high up on the suspect list, where it should have been in 1888.
LEANNE |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
Leanne,
And also, Jack the Ripper needed knowledge of how to dissect women and Barnett didn't have it.
|
Shannon Christopher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 5:30 am: | |
IN defense of Leanne, Joseph was called to testify first at the hearing, something he didnt expect to happen. To slow things down. give him time to recall what he had told the press and police, as well as make sure his answers were just vague enough to avoid suspission, he repeated what the question; much the same as a school child does in a spelling be, repeat the word, use it in a sentance and then spell it.
As to why he killed the others. Because if you remove Liz from the equation (her attack was completely different), you see that Polly, Annie, and Kate are all similiar in size, stature, physical description, and were at the time either intoxicated, or in Annie's case, ill and unable to defend themselves. My belief is that these woman closely match Catherine Barnett, Joe's mother. His hatred is againt her for abandoning him to the streets after his father died.
It was a dual psychosis. his subconsious mind is teliing him it is OK to kill a prostitute to scare Mary from working the streets, it is also telling him which prostitutes to kill, selecting ones that resemble his mother. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 6:51 am: | |
G'day,
I just read through the newspaper reports here, because some new reports have been added. I found this in the 'Manchester Guardian' 10 Nov.: 'Barnett, the man who was acquainted with Kelly, was sent for, and he identified the body, styling the woman "Ginger", as she was called owing to the colour of her hair. Barnett made a statement to the police the puport of which did not transpire.' This report indicates that he did identify her by her "Hair and Eyes" not "Ear and eyes", as some people believe, (unless she had Ginger ears).
And because it says that his statement DID NOT transpire, maybe they had trouble finding someone to verify that he was at Bullers all night. What do ya think?
PHIL: Some people at the time were of the opinion that the Ripper didn't need to have formal knowledge of how to disect a woman!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 679
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 7:16 am: | |
Hi Shannon, Leanne
Shannon, you say that Barnett stalled for time at the inquest. Is this likely? If he was guilty, he'd managed to frame a story good enough to convince Abberline as early as the Friday. Then he'd have had the Saturday and Sunday to work on it. Yet still he's floundering around on the Monday?
How do we know that the other victims resembled Barnett's mother? As far as I can see, they don't even resemble each other all that much.
Leanne, no one's questioning your motives. I hope that you and Richard do make some money from the book.
If Barnett was so desperate to have Kelly off the streets, what simpler than an anonymous letter to her? "YOU'RE NEXT!" Yet this doesn't seem to have happened - surely she'd have mentioned it to her chums?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
G'day Robert, everyone,
Bruce Paley pointed out in his book that Barnett gave Kelly's inquest a different reason for leaving her, to the one he gave Abberline on the 9th. He told Abberline that he left her: "in consequence of not earning sufficient money to keep her, and her resorting to prostitution." At the inquest he said: "because she took in an immoral woman. My being out of work had nothing to do with it." A reporter from the 'Star' tracked him down to a pub and he said: "I should not have left her except for her violent habbits." Abberline was at the inquest, heard this contradiction, yet said nothing!
Richard found a newspaper report in which a friend of Mary Kelly's told the reporter that she did have fears that she would be the Ripper's next victim. You'll have to wait for the book to find out more!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 680
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 9:41 am: | |
OK, Leanne. I promise to buy the book - as long as Richard doesn't price it at thirty-nine pounds!
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
It sounds like a good sum to me, 39x?. However as you may have gathered Leanne and myself,are quite enthusiastic about this subject, and the passion to produce a book that is factual yet entertaining is our honest goal, I can assure everyone that this project is full of intresting finds, and hopefully will make great reading, it will hopefully take the Ripper case into the 21st century, and give amateur, and professional sleuths a new insight in this baffling case.
Regards Richard. |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 7:55 pm: | |
Leanne,
Please inform me how Jack the Ripper showed no medical knowledge in MOST of the killings?
|
Shannon Christopher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 2:39 am: | |
Robert, Abberline was under the assumption from Dr Phillips that the murder had taken place at approx 4:00 in the morning. A time at which Joe would have had no problem proving his wearabouts. If Abberline had been given a more accurate diagnosis by the inept doctor, he would have questioned Joe about the time the murder actually took place, and perhaps solved at least one of the murders.
As for the women looking alike. Take into consideration several factors. First the areas were poorly lit, the women all ranged from 5'0" - 5'2" with each having dark hair cut to about the same length and a similiar build (allowing that some had a large assortment of clothing on at the time they were murdered). The killer would not have been able to determine eye colour until he was directly in front of them at which point it would not have mattered.
About sending Mary a threatening letter. She had lived with Joe for the previous 18 months. Had he done it, she would have easily recognized the hand writting.
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 648
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 5:45 am: | |
G'day Phil,
I am quoting a written report to the Home Office by Dr. Bond: '....8. 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.'
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 188
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 6:35 am: | |
Phil, Leanne,
I must partly agree with Leanne on this point. It would be fair to conclude, that the murderer had some sort of knowledge of how to use a knife (as a shoemaker or bootmaker), but not knowledge in a medical sense. I do however feel that Dr. Boyd exaggerated a bit when he ruled out the work of a butcher or slaughterer.
At least the signature of the murders indicates an interest in the human body and in anatomy -- or, rather a curiosity for it. But there is nothing to indicate, Phil, that Jack had any more thorough mecial knowledge (although this still is in debate, of course); some of the body parts taken out could be difficult to find and be covered or hidden by tissues, but he just as well could have removed and cut away everything he came across during the slashing. Some organs were removed, some were cut to pieces in a sloppy manner. There is nothing else indicating that the mutilations were done with any large degree of elegance or skill. I think the "medical knowledge" concept is a heritage from the old assumption that the Ripper was a prominent doctor, which was hardly the case.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 189
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 7:07 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
"As to why he killed the others. Because if you remove Liz from the equation (her attack was completely different), you see that Polly, Annie, and Kate are all similiar in size, stature, physical description, and were at the time either intoxicated, or in Annie's case, ill and unable to defend themselves."
Well, that would be a valid description of almost any prostitute in East End, wouldn't it? As Robert says, except from this they don't resembled each other that much. Then, does this mean to suggest that the prostitutes in general were symbols for his mother -- if that is the case, that is hardly an unusual factor in connection with serial killers, but it doesn't link Barnett strong enough to the killings. This could also fit in well with other suspects and others we don't even know of.
"My belief is that these woman closely match Catherine Barnett, Joe's mother. His hatred is againt her for abandoning him to the streets after his father died."
That is, once again, pure ungrounded speculations that has more in common with fiction than valid facts. I think it's OK to speculate and draw up scenarios, but to draw any serious conclusions from such assumptions (that to me mostly seem to be based on attempts to turn imagination into reality) is quite far-fetched, Shannon.
Yes, some of his background could fit a profile for a potential serial killer, but I think we need more than that. He was far from the only one in the 19th century with such personal experiences, and they don't all turn into savage murderes. The other links to him are too vage and uncomfirmed. We have absolutely no proof of that the Ripper victims knew either him or Mary Kelly, and all the other "links" are based on either hear-say or soap-opera intrigues. We don't even know that much about the true nature of Barnett's and Mary Kelly's relationship, and the little we know doesn't indicate a scenario valid enough to make this the center of the events.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 698
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 8:31 am: | |
Hi Shannon
If Joe's mother left him when he was a child, I don't think he'd have had a very clear memory of her height. As far as their general appearance goes, the victims may have looked vaguely like his mother for all I know, but it's a bit slim, isn't it?
Re writing to Kelly, Joe could have disguised his writing, or printed the message. He could have done this, even if he wasn't Jack.If he was Jack, he could have included an organ, maybe without even a covering letter. And wouldn't Joe have tried to kill prostitutes with a closer resemblance to Kelly, the more to frighten her?
He could have killed young ones, or Irish ones, or young Irish ones - and preferably one of her close chums.
Robert |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 5:21 pm: | |
Leanne and Glenn,
Dr. Bond came late into the case. He studied notes about the case from his colleagues and based his conclusions on the notes. I quote Dr. Philips, a doctor I would trust more considering he was actually at each murder and this is what he had to say of Annie Chapman, "I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, (in) under a quarter of an hour."
Dr. Brown said, regarding Eddowes’ murder, is that the killer had to have possessed anatomical knowledge and surgical skill. "It required a great deal of knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed." He stated that the way it was CAREFULLY removed showed skill.
Leanne, why are you agreeing with Dr. Bond? Is it because everything he states supports Barnett?
Glenn, how could you say that regarding the doctor theory that "it's hardly the case"? Dr. Philips said he couldn't even perform those mutilations. And how can a slaughterer or shoemaker or FISH PORTER know how to commit these acts? They are not inflicting cuts on women, but on animals or shoes! How could they possibly know where objects are in a woman? The killer had to know where things were and how to stab in a "non-slash" manner. Dr. Brown said the kidney was CAREFULLY removed, which clearly shows that the killer didn’t use the “slash- and- grab” technique.
And why do you guys trust Dr. Bond when there are better doctors who knew more than him on the case back then?
With the speed and skill that the killer showed in almost pitch dark areas, I think there is enough evidence to point out that Jack the Ripper had medical/anatomical knowledge and skill.
Phil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
