|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 3:12 am: |       |
G'day All,
ROBERT: If an innocent Joseph Barnett wrote a letter to Mary, and Mary told a friend, that would've caused a big wild-goose chase, and police would've waisted more time.
If a guilty Joseph Barnett wrote a letter to Mary, (for a start that's too logical for a sociopath to think of), it would have been like waving a red flag at a bull (the police).
SHANNON: Maybe we should forget about the Ripper trolling the East End looking for prostitutes that closely resembled Joe's mother. I do feel that Joe had a deep down hatred of his mother and her actions, and this is why the first 4 or more victims were aged alot older that Mary Kelly.
GLENN: Yes Barnett wasn't the only one living in the East End during the 19th century under such miserable circumstances, but he was someone who was in a victim's 'inner-circle'. That's what makes him stand out amoungst the crowd. I'm reading a book about what makes a person a serial killer, and emotion abuse in childhood is just one ingredient. Not all orphans are potential serial killers.
Mary Kelly's murder just doesn't fit the established 7 phase pattern that a serial killer follows.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 5:30 am: | |
G'day,
Four of the five cannonical [sic?] Ripper victims were mothers who neglected their children to work in prostitution. Except Mary Kelly! Elizabeth Stride gave birth to a still-born baby girl, and I remember reading something about her dumping a child on someone's doorstep.
SHANNON: I just can't eliminate Stride from the equation, because I don't think there were two mad killers in the East End at the time. I can't see why 'Jack' couldn't have been disturbed before he mutilated her. The 'Yorkshire Ripper' admitted to strangling one victim, because he didn't have his hammer on him at the time!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 200
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
"I'm reading a book about what makes a person a serial killer, and emotion abuse in childhood is just one ingredient."
That is absolutely right, sex abuse can also be included in this, but once again -- do you mean that all of those with such experiences are victims of such are potential serial killers? Even if this is true, it's still superficial characteristics, and they fit too many individuals, so you need more than that. And settle with the fact that Barnett was a part of Mary's inner circle is not good enough. I actually don't feel there is anything that makes Barnett stand out that much in this context. I've read a couple of books about serial killers too and those claim that it's very unusual to perform such overkill and extensive mutilations on someone you love or have a relationship with. Multiple stab wounds on body and face -- yes, but mutilations with ritual features and attempts to destroy the victims identity and looks? Hardly! According to John Douglas, for example, he has never seen any such cases and me neither. Mary Kelly was not murdered by someone from an "inner circle", she was murdered by an outsider who didn't like what she represented -- prostitutes and women in general, and the fact that she was young and quite attractive would only trigger him further.
"Mary Kelly's murder just doesn't fit the established 7 phase pattern that a serial killer follows."
YES, her murder do fit the pattern and signature of a serial killer. I've often claimed, that someone who did this act, has done similar "jobs" before. And the link to Barnett as far as the other women and murders are concerned are unfortunately incredibly thin.
P.S.
I see, though, that we totally agree on that Elisabeth Stride was a Ripper victim and the unlikeliness in that fact that two murderers were on a spree at the same time in East End. Yes, I believe he was interrupted. Always nice to agree on something for a change...
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 205
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Hi Phil,
Well, I don't really agree with you on this point. There are hardly any indications on a more thorough medical or surgical knowledge. I am certainly not a surgeon myself, but as I've said before, some organs were cut in a sloppy manner, and most of the signature ripping also indicates more "slashing" than any skilled performance. Yes, it's true that some of the organs taken out are quite hard to find and remove -- I can admit that -- but I don't see this a s a proof of him being a doctor. I think that assumption belong to the old myths of the case. I don't believe a doctor or surgeon would have peformed the mutialtions in the way the Ripper did, there is no elegance or skill displayed in the ripping whatsoever. You don't have to be a doctor to "know where things are" and most serial killers has in general a great curiousity for the human (read: female) body.
I think you misread ne, though, when you say that I claim him to be a bootmaker or slaughterer. I just pointed out some examples (which I by the way think are valid enough). I think he (due to his interest in the human body) very well could have worked briefly in a hospital or a mortuary (before he became too ill and uncontrolled).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 709
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 1:53 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
If Joe (according to you) can wash his hands after the Double Event at a sink in the road where he lived, and if he can fiendishly mutilate Kelly in the room where he'd recently lived, then I think his daring could have extended to penning the odd anonymous letter. But I don't want to probe you on your book research here.
Re the other victims abandoning their children and thus reminding Joe of his mother, if you're saying that Joe knew these women beforehand, then I think we have to be clear on the mechanics involved. Did Joe follow them from their lodgings? Or arrange appointments with them? Or walk the streets until he bumped into one of them? Or did he know their regular pitches? There has to be a scenario whereby Joe comes into contact with the victim.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 9:23 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
'Do you meant that all of those with such experiences are victims of such are potential serial killers?' That is one thing that the author of this and most books on Serial killer profiling stress - NOT ALL PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY ABUSED CHILDREN, NOR ORPHANS WITHOUT PARENT SUPPORT, ARE POTENTIAL SERIAL KILLERS!
'Many serial killers who have undergone CAT or PET scans experienced some form of significant damage to the limbic region of the brain.'
Phill, Robert, I'll answer both after I do some more reading!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 212
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 4:14 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Yes I know that many serial killers have undergone brain scanning, showing inactivity in the areas controlling emotions and emphaty. And I think that is very interesting experiments, that has taken us a bit further into the understanding the minds of these complexe characters. But I can't figure out what that has to do with my message post...!
"NOT ALL PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY ABUSED CHILDREN, NOR ORPHANS WITHOUT PARENT SUPPORT, ARE POTENTIAL SERIAL KILLERS!"
Exactly. That's what I meant as well, but you obviously draw such conclusion on Barnett. So what is your point then?
By the way, are you aware of that using capitals on the Internet means screaming, and is considered rude Internet manners? Just checking, since you do that a lot. It doesen't look pleasent. Just a tip...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 654
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 5:12 pm: | |
G'day Genn,
Sorry! I just meant to show the importance of that comment.
Hey, I hardly ever type comments in capitals. I can't remember the last comment I used capitals. I use alot of bold text, to make the words I quote from books stand out.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 216
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
G'day Leanne.
"Sorry! I just meant to show the importance of that comment."
OK. It's all right. I just didn't see what that had to do with Barnett, but I may be a bit tired at the moment.
Well, you used a lot of capitals in you're ealier messages (when the waves of the discussions were higher), but you're right, I don't see it that much. Bolds and cursives are OK (as you understand I work with typography for a living), but on the Internet capitals should be avoided, since it looks agressive.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 723
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 6:18 pm: | |
Leanne, the last time you used capitals was probably when you told me "USE YOUR BRAIN"....but it's OK.....as long as I get a complimentary copy of your book.
Glenn, I didn't know that using capitals is aggressive. I occasionally put the odd word in captals. Thanks for the tip.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 6:42 pm: | |
G'day,
Well in this country at least, when someone shouts, they are not always angry at you. It depends on the tone of voice and whether they are smiling or not. It can mean: "FAIR-DINKUM!"
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 724
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 7:00 pm: | |
That's OK, Leanne, I like the Aussies - especially Barry Humphries' creation Sir Les Patterson, Australian cultural attache. Funnier than Dame Edna.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 217
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 - 7:08 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
"Glenn, I didn't know that using capitals is aggressive. I occasionally put the odd word in captals."
Yes, I have done that as well, I must admit, because I was too lazy for using the cursive or bold formatting. But one word could -- according to Internet etiquette rules -- be OK to emphazise something, but a whole meaning is a completely different story. By the way, didn't she write "USE YOUR HEAD"? (or I could be mistaken...)
--------------------------------
Leanne,
"It depends on the tone of voice and whether they are smiling or not."
Well, that's not always easy to grasp on the Internet -- that's why capitals should be avoided, used in that way. On other boards I've been a part of they have actually been forbidden.
That's mostly also why I use the clip-arts a lot; to me they are not just to play with (at least not everytime...), they are excellent to prevent misunderstandings etc.
Never mind, I don't want to be seen as the "police" here on the board, God forbid! (No, I was not class watchman in school!!) -- it was just a friendly tip.
OK. Back to Barnett.
-------------------------------
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 658
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
G'day Phill,
Let me quote what Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown said at the Catharine Eddowes inquest, when he was asked if the killer showed signs of great anatomical skill: "A good deal of KNOWLEDGE as to the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them." Note that he said "Knowledge", shying away from "skill".
Then he was asked: "Would it require a great deal of knowledge as to it's position to remove it?"
Brown replied: "It would require a great deal of knowledge as to it's position to remove it." Still Dr. Brown was avoiding the word "Skill".
Then the Coroner asked: "Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals?"
Brown answered: "Yes!"
Dr. Brown saw the corpse in Mitre Square, so he didn't just read someone elses report.
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 10:47 pm: | |
Leanne, Liz Stride is not (IMHO) a "Ripper" murder victim. She is more a one time deal by a jealous boy friend (Michael Kidney), or a displeased client, who lost her life in a fight. It was not a second serial killer out and about at the same time. If she was a "Ripper" victim why was she not strangled before being knocked to the ground? When on the ground her arms were pinned, one with a knee and the other with the assailant's left hand behind her head. If the killer was our Jack he would have held her with his right hand and used his left to wield the knife in the same manner as before with Polly and Annie or after with Kate less than an hour later by placing it on the throat and slicing in a downward stroke until his hand either impacted the ground or the knife blade struck the spinal cord? Why would the killer who had used the exact same MO in the past now change it, and in less than an hour revert back? Nothing in her murder corresponds to any of the others... |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 661
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 3:10 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
Michael Kidney and Elizabeth Stride had an off-and-on-again relationship, but Liz kept going back to him. If he didn't want her to come back, he could have gotten rid of her other ways, without risking being hung for her murder.
If someone else, but not the Ripper killed her, and had intensions of mutilating her corpse to make it look like the Ripper's work, why did he pick such a risky location?
I think it's easier to believe that the Ripper changed his methods a bit, to suit the occasion. Maybe he didn't plan to murder two women that night but it just turned out that way!
The 'Yorkshire Ripper' changed his MO of hitting a victim with his hammer once to strangulation, because he didn't have his hammer on him at the time! He mustn't have been trolling for a victim that night!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 12:08 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
I think it's a big mistake to exclude Stride as a ripper victim because of what we think the ripper would or would not have done in any given situation. I agree with Leanne on this point.
In the early hours of Saturday 16 August this year, in my neck of the woods, a man and a prostitute started arguing and he tried to strangle her. Her screams alerted passers-by who gave chase but lost her assailant.
Later the same night a woman was battered to death with a wooden beam. The police are certain, from evidence seen in CCTV pictures, that the same man murdered the second woman after going on the prowl, determined to find himself a second victim. The police are also linking these attacks with one from last December, in which a woman was clubbed over the head with an iron bar and sexually assaulted.
(Anyone still drinking in the American Bar at the Liverpool Adelphi that night can safely be eliminated from enquiries, ooh, for at least the next 80 odd years, I would imagine.  )
Why would the killer who had used the exact same MO in the past now change it, and in less than an hour revert back?
I don't know. But sometimes it happens that way, so we can never afford to say never.
Love,
Caz |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - 3:23 pm: | |
Hi,
I believe the killer had every intention of killing two women that night, but had a rush job with Stride, owing to unforseen circumstances, this fits in with his pattern.
This is not my own 39 theory , but praise to Robert, JEWES, has great relevance, for those not familiar with Roberts post, using the alphabet, the number 78 arrives . and dividing that by two [double event =39. Coincedence mayby?.
Richard. |
Shannon Christopher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 6:08 am: | |
Leanne, With Liz the killer was not disturbed as others speculate. First, there was only blood on the back of her right hand, only one artery in her neck had been cut and she bled to death slowly with someone on top of her pinning her down at the time. Had the killer been disturbed and ran off Liz would have been able to reach her wound with her hands and cup her throat leaving the blood on the palms of both hands. The only way this didnt occure is that she was dead when he left. Since the killer only got one artery in her neck it would have taken some time for her to lose enough blood to pass out. This was noted in the coroner's inquest. The doctor also noticed the discolour on her shoulders left from the assailant's knees while he pinned her to the ground. The killer left after she was dead or so close to it she couldn't move. Second, the area is all wrong. Berner street is well lit and had a lot of traffic as evidenced by the number of people questioned about the murder, and police notes about the location of the body in relation to the workingman's club. Why would our killer make so many changes that put him in a greater position of discovery? He wouldn't. Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square are all quiet, dimly lit areas where the killer had the time to commit the crime and walk away. Kate's murder proves there were others out on the streets that provided the oportunity for the killer to strike in his normal fashion, so it makes no sense for him to change both victim and location from what has worked in the past to an open lighted area where he risks easy detection.
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 6:15 am: | |
Leanne
I've been discussing on another thread the possibility of Kidney being Stride's attacker, although only as an exercise to show he "could" have done it and not because I think he did. I think it is quite dangerous to say that this could not have been a Ripper killing simply because of a change in MO.
If you read the FBI Crime Classification manual you will find that in serial sex crime they define two elements, MO and Signature. Signature is what the killer feels he needs to do in order to be satisfied by his crime. In the Ripper's case this was obviously the mutilation. In Stride's case this did not happen, which we theorise (note "theorise") led to his attacking a second time that night, because he had not satisfied that need in the first killing.
MO is what the killer does in order to kill. This does not have to be part of the "ritual" and can change and adapt from killing to killing. It is true that a killer finding something that works well for him will usually stick with it, but he may adopt a different mode of attack should the circumstances require it.
The Ripper had possibly changed his MO before. If one accepts Martha Tabran as a victim, she did not have her throat cut at all. Even without, although some have theorised that Polly Nichols was strangled before her throat was cut, if you read Dr Llewellyn's statements you will not find any indication that this was the case. |
Shannon Christopher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 3:06 am: | |
Richard, The killer didnt rush with Liz. He pinned her to the ground, slit one side of her throat and held her there until she died from blood loss. Where does the idea come from that he was rushed. It would have taken several minutes for her to bleed to death. Had he left at any time before she was deceased she would have moved one of her hands to cup the cut on her throat. One was behind her head on the ground holding a packet, and the other lay across her chest/stomach area (with blood only on the back of it from where she was able to reach around her assailant's knee to try and stop the bleeding).
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 3:14 am: | |
Leanne, You stated earlier that four of the five were prostitutes that neglected their children. This seems to be the accepted belief; but, Catherine Eddowes was never charged with, nor do any of her friends or family know of her "working the streets." Even the deputy of the lodging house stated that he had never seen her with anyone other then John Kelly. Kate may have had a drinking problem, however that does not make her a prostitute. On what is this assumption based?
Shannon |
Lea
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 5:08 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
I believe she raised her right hand, (the hand that was closet to the killer), in a feeble attempt at self defence to prevent the killer from inflicting a second cut.
The killer obviously didn't have his knife on him, and was probably forced to use her knife. Compared with Nichols being killed at about 3:30am, and Chapman at about 5:30am, the time of her death being 1:00am was too early. He was probably not trolling for a victim at that time, and hadn't yet picked up his knife from it's hiding stop.
LEANNE PERRY |
Shannon Christopher
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 4:26 pm: | |
Allan, This is a direct quote from Dr. Llewellen:
"I found it to be that of a female about forty or forty-five years. Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers."
This clearly indicates she was strangeled BEFORE her throat was cut or the blood would have made her throat too slippery to hold on to. |
Lea P
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 2:46 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
If you don't think Kate Eddowes was desperate enough to try to use prostitution that morning, how do you think 'Jack' got her into that dark corner of Mitre Square? It would have been easier if she knew 'Jack' as a one time neighbour, and she used to sleep in the 'Shed' that was located at 26 Dorset Street.
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
