|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 664
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 3:24 am: |       |
G'day Shannon,
There's a message for you from me on the Elizabeth Stride message board!
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2003 - 6:32 am: | |
Shannon, I will admit that I was incorrect in saying there was "no indication" of strangulation in Llewellyn's report, however if you read the police reports they all locate the bruising on the left of the face as being on the victims cheek. I have very big hands and if I place my hands around my neck in the position required for strangulation my fingers do not reach as far as my cheek. Therefore I would say that you are also incorrect in saying that this bruising "clearly indicates" that she was strangled. To me this bruising is much more indicative of the possibility that the Ripper clamped his hand hard over her mouth in order to stifle any cries. |
Shannon Christopher
Police Constable
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 8:43 pm: | |
Leanne, I am not sure what Kate was doing heading in the wrong direction but I can assure you she would have used someplace other than Mitre Square if prostitution were her intention when she met the killer. It was open with no privacy, had the night watchman from the factories nearby, and a constable making his rounds every 12 - 15 minutes. Not a place to work that sort of trade now is it, considering all the other places nearby? Secondly, why come all the way from Bishopsgate police station to the square to look for trade if she were prostituting? It would have been easier for her to head for Comercial Street and the pubs where she knew she would be able to entertain a gentleman or two at that time of night. |
Shannon Christopher
Police Constable
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 10:46 pm: | |
Alan, imagine placing your hands on her cheeks and covering her mouth, now press in hard until she has to gasp for air, and slide your hand down and take hold of her throat and squeeze.
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Police Constable
Username: Ash
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 5:49 am: | |
There was a fenced in yard in the corner of Mitre Square where Eddowes was killed. It was locked, but there is no reason to suspect that Kate or her killer knew that it would be. They may well have been heading there, and finding that they could not get in the Ripper may have decided to kill her there on the open street rather than risk being seen moving on to another location with her. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 795
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:23 am: | |
Hi Alan
Have you found a reference to the yard being locked?
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Police Constable
Username: Ash
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 8:01 am: | |
Robert, sorry that was a "from memory" sort of thing. I'm sure I have seen a reference but I couldn't put my finger on it right now. I'm fairly sure I remember seeing a long discussion of it on here but I don't remember which thread it was in. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 671
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 8:13 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
Before Kate left the police station, she asked what time it was. Maybe she realized that as the pubs would have been closed she had a better chance of earning a quick buck to take home to please John Kelly, if she turned in the other direction.
Perhaps she and her killer chose that dark corner of Mitre Square, entering just after the patrolling constable left, allowing them 12-15 minutes for a 'quickie'!
I'm off to bed now because it's 10p.m. here, and I'll read everyone's response in the morning! Good night!
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 20
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 5:55 am: | |
Richard (from the other message board concerning Miller's Court), Joe Barnett knew every rundown dilapidated place in Whitechapel. He lived there since he was an infant, and on the streets from the time he was seven. I doubt there was a place in the east end he didn't know about.
Shannon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 249
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 7:43 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
This message should really belong to the Stride thread, but since I'm referring to a post you made above, I'll place it here anyway.
You are absolutely wrong concerning the nature of the locations. We've had that discussion now for a couple of months in connection with Elisabeth Stride, and I'm amazed to see that these same old -- and totally wrong -- arguments keep coming back.
Dutfield's Yard or Berner Street wasn't that more risky compared to the other murder sites. Once again, The back yard at Hanbury Street was even more risky; twelve residents were asleep -- some with open windows -- and as the murder occured during sunrise in the early morning, some of the residents' in the house had already got up and started their work. Anyone could have come out of the back yard door any second while the murder took place -- the narrow corridor on the ground floor level was frequentely used! So I'd say this murder site was even more risky and daring than any of the other! Dutfield's Yard was completely dark and the noise and commosion going on in the Working Men's Club also helped to draw attention from the activity in the yard. And you also makes it sound like Berner Street was a highly trafficated street during the time of the murder. That is a complete falacy -- I wouldn't interpret six--seven people during half an hour as the street being a trafficated area. The Stride murder site doesen't differ that much from the other Ripper sites, it's a total exaggeration and a whopping fib.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 2:37 pm: | |
Glenn, your right, it belongs on the Stride board, please see my posting there.
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 272
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 7:43 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
This is my answer to your post on Sept 25 -- 7:02 pm, on the "Jack the Ripper: From Hell" thread, moved to this one.
"In fact the Crime Classification Manual states that a perpetrator is more likely to perform this kind of over-the-top violence on a person they are closely connected to, particularly in terms of mutilation of the face as psychologically they are trying to stop that person from looking at them."
Yes, that is correct but I think you misread Douglas a bit here -- there is a big psycological difference between destroying the face and eyes during a frenzy for that purpose and, on the other hand, to stay with the body and slice it to pieces during several hours.
In "The Cases That Haunts Us" Douglas & Olshaker discusses the Mary Kelly murder in connection with the Barnett trail. They state the following:
"Yes, there are sexual sadists who get off by torturing women. But the mutialtion here are all postmortem, so that doesen't fit. Also, these are not planned, considered kills; they're frenzied, out-of-control overkills. If the perpetrator were someone with a personal relationship with the victim, we might expect to see some degree of overkill in stabbing or wounds to the face, but not this kind of ritual mutilation. There's no pattern or internal logic to it. No one who has had a relatively normal relationship with a woman, as Barnett evidently did, could perpetrate this kind of crime." (Douglas & Olshaker 2002, p.61)
I'm not saying John Douglas has all the answers, but in my experience his logic seems valid to me and I can't say I disagree with him. I know you're not trying to push Barnett especially as a suspect, Alan, I'm just asking your questions and commenting your replies.
I do agree with you, by the way, when you say that you "don't believe that he would have been able to function normally in society afterwards". I think you're absolutely correct here.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 9:45 pm: | |
G'day,
GLENN:!!!!!! OH Glenn, stop reading those Crime mannuals!!!! Since you stated that that kind of over-the-top violence was impossible for a man who had had a relationship with the victim, I have been digging through true-crime books at the library and book stores, and found cases were men have mutilated their wives and lovers with sickening force! One example was in a book written by John Douglas!
Don't ask me to give examples here because I've written about them in my book.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 71
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 12:06 am: | |
Leanne,
Isn't John Douglas the one who wrote the profile that Paley claims fits Barnett? If this is correct, your book (if it includes Paley's comparison of Barnett with the profile) should point out to the reader that Douglas doesn't agree with Paley's interpretation.
If, however, you disregard Douglas's dismissal of Barnett based upon your true crime readings, then I'm assuming you don't put any weight in Paley's suggestion that Barnett is a match with the profile. I mean obviously, if the profile was generated based upon the crime by someone you think is wrong in their interpretation of the crime, you must also think the profile is itself flawed?
Anyway, even if Douglas didn't write the original profile, his opinion of it should be given. It's part of the evidence that the reader will need to form their own opinion, and all facts, both supportive and non-supportive are needed to form an informed opinion.
Good luck with it. How is it coming?
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 684
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 12:49 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
If you mean the bit about the Ripper being a white male, aged between 28 and 36, who lived and worked in the Whitechapel area, It hasn't even been mentioned!
The book is 10 chapters long already and we are still adding to it!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 73
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 12:57 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Ok. I know Bruce Paley put some stock in the profile. I was wondering if you were planning on presenting the profile, Paley's interpretation along with Douglas's interpretation as well.
It seems to me it's part of the information that has bearing on Barnett as a suspect, even if Douglas's interpretation is "against" rather than for. Probably not worth a chapter or anything, but for completeness, probably worth a mention. I'm sure you're getting all sorts of suggestions on what to include though!
And congratulations! 10 chapters is a lot of work. Sounds like you're getting a good deal done.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 274
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 3:34 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
The only thing I know is that Douglas has discussed Paley's theories and set up Barnett's profile against the Ripper, and that Paley has commented and critized his comments to his findings. Douglas concludes that Barnett very well fits the general serial killer profile when it comes to age, childhood experiences, trade etc. But he sees all this as superifical characteristics that could fit a lot of people, and that other circumstances must be added as well, things that can't be proven regarding Barnett. I don't know what Leanne & Co has come across, naturally, but one such thing is missing data regarding an earlier personal history of violent crimes. Theft just doesen't cut it.
Yes, I do think it would be interesting if a discussion regarding how Barnett fit the FBI serial killer profiles. I think it would be worth mentioned, at least.
All the best.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 275
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 4:01 am: | |
Dear Leanne!
You make it sound like I've read serial killer profiles until they pour out of my ears and is buying everything they say. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's why I wrote "I'm not saying John Douglas has all the answers". I've only actually read three books on the subject, which is not much compared to the vast amount of litterature in the field.
Actually I prefer to base things on my own experiences in studying crime, which is only about fifteen years -- not exactly a life-time compared to many others, but anyway... And I must say I have never come across such a case (and definetily not in Sweden!!!), and obviously Douglas hasn't either. So it shall really be interesting to read about those "examples".
Now, note that I didn't just say that extreme over-kill and mutilataions wouldn't be possible, because I'm sure they are, and I have seen examples of this myself. What I meant to question was this kind extreme slaughtering of the whole body, with no real purpose.
"Just" destroying the face to unidentify her or chop the body into several parts in order to get rid of it is something else -- that we have seen a number of times. So I don't dispute that.
The kind of mutilation shown on Mary Kelly would take a great deal of time to perform, though, and would be quite difficult psycologically to perform by soemone with a close relationship with the victim (my own logic and common sense says that!), and would also be considered quite a redundant act. The mutilations we see on Eddows and Kelly, for example, are very much, in my view, ritualistic in its approach and this doesen't fit into your Barnett context and the scenario you describe. It would take a lot to convince me of that.
And yes, indeed -- once again, congratulations to the ten chapters. I know from my own experience that writing a book is not as easy as it looks. It's great fun though, when it's not frustrating...
G'day!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 23
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 5:36 am: | |
Glenn (and all)
John Douglas's comments regarding Barnett were based solely on the theory presented to him that Barnett was killing the other prostitutes in order to frighten Mary Kelly off the streets, and that he killed her in a rage when he failed. Douglas didn't put much stock in this for the reasons you have specified. I don't either, in fact I find that theory too ridiculous for words. To do this he would have had to be so sociopathic that he would have been unable to relate to normal society in any way.
The hypothesis I posted on the "From Hell" thread was quite different, and would result in Barnett being a quite different kind of killer. And this is a recognised phenomenon.
In this instance Barnett could and most likely would perform this kind of mutilation on Kelly. This kind of killer is not in control of what he does when he kills. He goes into a kind of trance. Killers of this type have described it as like they had stepped out of their own body and were merely spectators of the action rather than active participants in it.
If Barnett were this type of killer, by the time he killed Kelly who was simultaneously the object of his love and his rage he would have wanted to destroy her utterly, to destroy her in such a way that there was absolutely no recognisably human trait left in her body.
I have a few more points with regard to this hypothesis though.
Firstly, to accept this scenario you would have to take Liz Stride out of the list of Ripper victims. A killer of this type has to build up to the crime, sort of like a pressure cooker, for a considerable time beforehand. This could be days, although that would almost certainly have been noticed, or it could be just hours. Either way, once disturbed the trance would be broken and the build up would have to start again from the beginning. There is no possible way that a killer of this type would strike twice within an hour.
Secondly, one thing that supports the hypothesis is the apron in Goulston Street. This type of killer experiences extreme, almost crippling remorse once the trance is broken. While in his "killer persona" he might well take trophies of his crime but once out of it he would be disgusted by them. He would also likely wander the streets barely aware of who or where he was for some time after each crime as he "came down" from the trance. This explains both why the apron was not found for over an hour, and also assuming that he had wrapped Kate's internal organs in the apron, he may well have thrown them away an hour later where a dog or other animal would have taken them but left the apron.
However, as said before, where the hypothesis falls down is in the aftermath of the Kelly murder. There is no way that this type of killer could have lived a normal life wracked with overwhelming guilt and remorse over this killing. The expected aftermath of this killing would be that either Barnett would take his own life, or else lapse into a catatonic state and spend the rest of his life in an institution. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 277
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
Hi Alan,
Actually, Douglas does not only refer to the theory saying "that Barnett was killing the other prostitutes in order to frighten Mary Kelly off the streets". He does this as well -- on the earlier page, I think -- but in the draft I quoted he seem to refer to the Barnett theory as a whole. He seperates the two arguments.
So I know very well what you meant, but I must admit I'm having problems with that killer "type" you present (as you yourself seem to have in the end to some extent). Yes, it is true that he could have acted out his demons during a trance, but would such a person really be able to have normal relationship with someone -- or a social relationship whatsoever -- as late in the progress as right up to the Kelly murder? I find that hard to believe, although it's an intriguing theory.
The central point of the Stride murder is that the murderer was interrupted and didn't managed to fulfill his needs and therefore had to do another one, built up with even more frustration. I don't see, though, how that would contradict your "steam-boiling" killer. If he had built up a steam, as you suggest, and fail to complete the first murder, he very well could have committed another one just to receive the necessary satisfaction he didn't recieve from the first one -- actually, I think it would be absolutely crucial for him to do so!
I know you're raising question marks yourself regarding your own hypothesis, but I'm just spinning further on it just the same, to examine it. However, once again, I think you are right in your assumption regarding the aftermath of the Kelly murder. I believe he fell into a catatonic state and became totally unable to take care of himself and therefore was put away -- regardless of whether the authorities knew he was the Ripper or not.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 685
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 7:25 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
After re-reading what I wrote after just one browse through my local bookshop, and a surf of the internet: It wasn't John Douglas who wrote about: 'the most horrific crime of passion on record', it was Colin Wilson.
There are four of these murders discussed, (the first occuring in 1901 and the last occuring in 1962), and they were found after just one day of searching. I'll have another look on Monday!
We can debate about these examples after the book is published and no doubt you'll be looking for little points in each case that support your argument that Barnett couldn't have mutilated Mary Kelly! I'm looking forward to this!
ALAN: I agree that the case against Barnett falls down in the aftermath of Kelly's murder, but who can say that his life returned to normal? And who can say no other prostitutes were murdered by him? After Mary Kelly's murder, the 'Jack the Ripper' myth died, that's all anyone can say with any remote certainty!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 821
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 7:51 am: | |
Hi all
I hesitate to stumble into the realms of profiling and other murders (about which I am woefully ignorant). But I would just like to advance a tentative suggestion.
One thing that strikes me is that the killer did not injure or destroy the victims' eyes. Now, since he obviously wasn't too squeamish to do this, and since the matter had "come up" for him (he mutilated two faces), I'm wondering whether he got more of a kick by not destroying the person totally.
Perhaps he felt that while the eyes were still there, the victims were still in some sense persons - destroyed persons. But with the eyes gone, they'd have just been destroyed lumps of meat.
If someone hated the Mona Lisa, would he get more of a buzz from ripping a huge gash across the face and leaving it like that, or setting fire to it and destroying it totally? Maybe it depends on individual psychology.
Just a suggestion.
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 24
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 8:22 am: | |
Glenn
Just to clarify, my point about the Stride murder was that once disturbed in the act of killing, the necessity for escape would force the conscious mind to take control again.
This type of killer would go through three distinct phases, the anger phase which I describe as being like a pressure cooker, the killing phase which would be the trance-like state in which he performs the deed itself, and the remorse phase which would follow the deed.
So what I was saying was that having been disturbed, the conscious mind takes control of the person and he would enter the remorse phase. He could not go from there straight back to the killing phase, he would have to begin the cycle all over again.
Leanne
My point is that I don't think Barnett would have felt any need to kill again once the original focus of his anger had been destroyed. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 3:03 pm: | |
Alan,
I dont think Barnett would have felt any need to kill again once the original focus of his anger had been distroyed,
I Agree with you entirely.
In the words of the elderly nun who was interviewed in the nineteen seventys, she was told in 1915, by a nun who was in the dorset street refuge at the time of the murders.' If it was not for the Kelly woman , none of these murders would have happened?.
Richard. |
Rodney Gillis
Police Constable
Username: Srod
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 8:52 pm: | |
Is there any information regardng George Hutchinson and Barnett knowing of one another? Surely the description Hutchinson gave of Kelly's guest is not of Barnett (I realize Barnett could have arrived later on). If Barnett was the killer, Hutchinson proves to be his best friend.
I also wonder that if Barnett is the killer, why does he identify the body so readily. Couldn't he have cast doubt on the entire situation by claiming that the body was so mutilated, he wasn't sure? He had already stated that women stayed with Kelly so the possibility existed that he could believe it was someone else.
Thanks for any responses.
Rod |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
