|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 29
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 5:18 am: |       |
Glenn
And that is why the Barnett theory is totally absurd. Once again, why didn't he kill her directly instead?
I would just refer you back to Edmund Kemper again. Why did he kill six hitchhikers before he could pluck up the courage to kill his mother. The reason is because killing someone that close to you is a very difficult thing to do and he channelled his anger elsewhere until the urge finally became too strong for him to resist. It is entirely conceivable that Barnett could have done the same.
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 5:55 am: | |
Alan,
"In most cases, there is an event known as the "Pre-crime stresser", as discussed by Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas (1990). The pre-crime stresser can be looked at as the reason for why the person turns to killing as a form of release, even if the criminal does not realise the full extent of his motivations or fails to see the reasons behind the stress he feels. A clear example of this can be seen upon the questioning of Berkowitz who denied he had anything against women, nor did he have reason as to why he killed so many. In actually fact, his mother’s rejection was the stresser that ultimately turned him violent. He did not attack his mother directly (few serial killers ever attack the source of their resentment), but the majority of his killings where based on women who had a likeness to his mother."
(IMO) Joseph Barnett had the same resentment against his mother for deserting him after his father died, leaving him to a life on the streets of Whitechapel.
Shannon.
References
Apsche, J. (1993). Probing the mind of a serial killer. International information Associates.
Douglas, J., (1996). MindHunter. Mandarine Publishing
Fox, J.A., & Levin, J., (1994). OverKill - Mass Murder and Serial Killing Exposed. Plenum Press
Hughes, J.M. (Ed.).(1997). Oxford Concise Australian Dictionary (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W. & Douglas, J.E., (1990). Sexual Homicide patterns and Motives. Lexington Books
Wilson, C., & Seamen, D., (1992). The Serial Killer. Carol Publishing’s
Yochelsen, S. & Samenow, S. (1988). The criminal personality. New York Press
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:08 am: | |
G'day,
Hey, all these criminal profiling books say:
'MOST serial killers...',
'MANY have a past record..',
'A VAST AMOUNT of serial killers..',
'A COMMON feature of serial killers..',
but none of them had the guts to say: 'ALL serial killers..' did they?
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:18 am: | |
G'day,
Even if you buy 99.9% of the raffle tickets at the school fete, you still could lose!
Why does 'Jack the Ripper' have to be exactly like all the other serial killers?
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 30
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:24 am: | |
Shannon
I understand the theory and in fact own three of the books you quote as references (not 100% sure where the Concise Australian Dictionary comes in?  ) but I also just cited Edmund Kemper as a case where a serial killer did eventually attack the source of his resentment. This is a rare example, I admit, but not isolated. There is no reason why Barnett could not have done the same. This does not rule his mother out as a factor. His mothers desertion could well have led to fear of rejection which in turn would have resulted in a highly possesive nature. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:32 am: | |
G'day,
If serial killing was a mental deficiency illness/disability that someone could be born with, then we could say:
'All MUST use the same MO at each crime scene under all circumstances,
'All MUST have this feature',
'All MUST always use the same weapon'
Wouldn't that make things easy?
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 309
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:32 am: | |
Hi Alan,
A good point, but it is hard to prove or state for certain when the suspect in question isn't caught, as in the Barnett case. Until that it is only speculation. And I am not saying that he couldn't with certainty be a pre-stresser, I'm just saying that based on what we know his resentment against his mother isn't enough to make him one when we have so liitle evidence. That would be like saying all men who had a resentment against their mother would go out and kill women. That is totally unreasonable.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:43 am: | |
But that is exactly the point Glenn. I am not trying to show that there is enough evidence to say Barnett was the killer, only that there is not enough evidence the other way to rule him out as a suspect. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 310
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:44 am: | |
Uuuups! Talk about activity all of a sudden. I can hardly keep up.
Leanne,
Profiling books uses words like "most of" etc. like any other serious academic books would. It's those who state things for certain and claims to have the ultimate truth that must be taken lightly. Criminal profiling isn't an exact science -- it deals with generalizations of character types!
I believe a serial killer most possibly (hehehe...) has a brain damage of some sort or has a mental disability; just upbringing and childhood experiences doesn't cut it, I think. Then everyone with the same experiences would react in the same way. Experiments with brains of serial killers (we have discussed this earlier), especilly psycopaths, show medical signs of disability in certain areas of the brain. Then we have those who just simply are mentally ill -- we have a bundle of such in Sweden at the moment, although they're not serial killer per ce, just "ordinary" ones.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 311
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:46 am: | |
True Alan, but I think the burden of proof more heavily lay upon those who accuse someone of being a suspect than the other way around.
Wow, this is almost like chatting!
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 312
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:51 am: | |
Leanne,
Just beacuse there is a diagonis doesn't mean that there aren't room for individual differences in between the mental state of criminals. I have many times pointed that out. Once again, it is only generalizations. But then I connect these ground rules with what applies to my common sense and own experiences. But I still can't see why a killer like the Ripper could stop on his own choice. That is highly unlikely.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 7:30 am: | |
G'day,
Glenn, 'Jack the Ripper' was never caught, so does that mean no one can state for certain that he ever existed? Was he just one big speculation?
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 851
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 7:49 am: | |
Hi all
Hope all the serial killers know that they're supposed to go through seven stages, have pre-crime stressors, etc etc. It should make them easier to catch!
Robert |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 12:52 pm: | |
Leanne,
If you examine the times of the Stride killing very carefully, you'll be able to find out that the killer was not interrupted. He was gone by the time Diemshutz came.
It was either Jack or Kidney. If any of them, they both planned to do it.
I think it was Kidney.
Phil |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 704
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 8:50 am: | |
G'day Phil,
Please explain!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 317
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 12:34 pm: | |
Leanne,
I think we have enough evidence showing Jack the Ripper did exist... 
----------------------------------
Yes please, Phil, do explain! What in Earth do you mean??????
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 80
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 5:13 pm: | |
Hi,
Well, if one wanted to be exceptionally pedantic, Jack the Ripper is thought to be one person who killed Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly. Now, if even one of those individuals was killed by a second person, then technically, "Jack the Ripper" does not exist because no one person (in this scenerio) is responsible for all 5 canonical murders. One then has to change the definition of "who Jack the Ripper" was, to now include only 4 (let's say). And again, if even one of those 4, etc, gets us down to 3.
What if it were determined that 2 victims were killed by one person (let's say 1 common killer for Nichols and Chapman, 1 for Eddowes and Kelly, and our third kills Stride). Which one is "Jack", or is the notion of "Jack the Ripper" sort of invalid in this situation?
I'm not saying this division is true, or anything like that, only that because all the murders are unsolved, we must not forget that by saying "Jack the Ripper" doesn't necessarily ensure that we are dealing with one and only one person. "Jack the Ripper" is only a label, whether it labels one, or more, individuals still remains to be definately proven. I lean towards the single killer interpretation, but my indecision over Stride means when referring to the "canonical 5", Jack may be one name for 2 people.
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 860
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 7:58 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Lots of couples row, but they don't like admitting it in public. Nothing sinister.
I'm at ease with the idea of Joe being fired for stealing. He could have been stealing for McCarthy. Doesn't make him a stealer of wombs.
I'm not surprised Joe was annoyed when Kelly moved her chums in - so would I have been.
As you know, I don't like all this relationship analysis etc, but if there is one person here who seems to display sociopathic tendencies, I believe it is Kelly.
And now I'm off to hide from the wrath to come.
Robert
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 11:14 am: | |
Hi All,
Alan, you wrote:
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.
I know you only had one specific type of killer in mind here. So would you concede that Jack could have been the type of killer who would, if prevented from doing his 'thing' to one victim, be forced into finding another as soon as possible, against his better judgement?
Here in Croydon, an 18 year-old is being questioned over the double event of 16 August this year, when a man tried to strangle a prostitute he had been arguing with (I believe he may have refused to give her money), was stopped in the act and had to run off. But he didn't come to his senses and get the hell out of the area while he had the chance - he was determined to stay until he had found another victim to take his frustration out on. The second woman was returning home in the early hours after a short shopping trip to an all-night store. He dragged her into an alleyway and killed her in a frenzied attack that left her barely recognisable, and didn't touch her shopping.
Hi Jeff,
Being pedantic to a fault, I could argue that either Jack the Ripper existed and actually admitted that Stride was among his victims when writing to 'Dear Boss', or the letter was a hoax and Jack the Ripper didn't exist and therefore killed no one.
So yes, if Jack killed anyone, he killed Stride. 
But why Barnett has to be made to walk in Jack's shoes is still beyond me.
Love,
Caz |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 35
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 11:40 am: | |
Caz, I'd have to go you one better. My hypothesis being based only on what I believe Jack would have to have been like if he were Barnett, and myself not believing that he was Barnett, I would have to say that I not only concede the point but think it likely to have been the case. If you follow my logic  |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 84
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 4:43 pm: | |
Caz,
Now, there is a wonderful arguement. In fact, I think I can take it one step further into the land of pedant. I will claim that Jack the Ripper absolutely existed. We know this because "Jack the Ripper" is the author of the Dear Boss letter. Although other people have falsely claimed to be this person in other letters, their false claims do not invalidate the existance of the author of the Dear Boss letter who took the name "Jack the Ripper".
Now, the question is, did "Jack the Ripper" actually kill anyone?
- Jeff |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 58
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 7:10 pm: | |
Alan, sorry it took so long to get back to you. I completely agree with you about Joseph Barnett being one of the ones who attacked the source of his hatred. Mary Kelly became the “substitute” who would ultimately pay for all the anger and hatred he had against his mother. His mother abandoned him to the streets when he was an adolescent, which had to be very traumatic. Now after he loses his job, and to him the thing that made him important Mary throws him out as well. Hard to imagine the amount of rage that welled within him after that happened.
Shannon
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 7:39 am: | |
Exactly, Shannon. Hard to imagine, and impossible to know.
So how can you possibly talk about Barnett 'being' someone who attacked the source of his hatred, as if you know this is what he did?
Love,
Caz
PS BTW, the Croydon double event suspect has been charged with murder and attempted murder. Turns out he comes from Upper Norwood - where Louis Diemschutz had been selling his jewellery before returning to find Stride's body on the night of the original double event. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 329
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 8:30 am: | |
Well, Shannon.
I agree that it's hard to imagine "the amount of rage that welled within him". Indeed. And I find it just as hard to imagine why he should kill her (as well as a bundle of other prostitutes) for it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 60
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 9:44 am: | |
Glenn,
Joseph's life in a lot of ways is similar to so many others in Whitechapel, so why would he be the one to become the murderer?
His father dies when he is six years old and within in a year his mother deserts him, leaving him and his brothers and sister to fend for themselves on the streets of Whitechapel.
After this he is left to himself while Daniel and Denis find work to support the family. Being left alone at this age and after this type of trauma can (not saying it did) cause the adolescent mind to find a place to go to escape the reality of life on the streets.
If as many believe. Joe had the speech impediment; it would have made life that much harder as he would have received the brunt of taunting by the other boys living in the neighborhood, further isolating him from reality.
Some (not all) living under these conditions with no nurturing contact become a sociopath. No care, no feeling, no sense of right or wrong, only doing what is needed to do to survive, regardless of what it takes. He learns to live on the streets by stealing, lying, anything that lets him survive.
He gets a job at Billingsgate market, and now has the things he needs. Money, job, status everything. In his mind he as won; beaten the streets at their own game, and yes to him it is a game as his adolescent mind sees it that way never having developed into maturity. Even though he is an adult, he still does not know right from wrong.
At the market things are easy for Joe, he doesn’t have to interact with the others, only do his job, collect his check and once out the door, do as he pleases. He answers to no one.
He meets Mary Kelly, and that same adolescent mind that has built his castle in the middle of hell now has a princess. Mary was a whore, plain and simple, and everyone knew it. Everyone but Joe that is. To him, she was "not like the others." She was special, she was young, beautiful, and to Joe, she completed his triumph over the streets.
Problem was, Mary didn't love Joe, she used him, and when he could no longer support her, she told him to go away, she would find another.
Since Joe didn’t have the money to keep her off the streets, he had to find a way so that she wouldn’t "become like the others." With no job, no money, and no chance of getting her back, unless she needed someone to protect her, he set his plan in motion. Its why he bought the papers to read to her every detail of the murders, he wanted to scare the hell out of her, both to keep her from going on the streets, and to make her want to keep him around for protection, only after 3 murders (still don’t believe Liz was a victim) it isn’t working, and all his bantering about her being next is falling on deaf ears to the point where she tells him to pack his things and leave for good, and not to come back.
In killing Mary, he saved her from a life of prostitution. He couldn't accept her living a life on the streets. He could however accept her being dead. If she is dead, she is not on the streets, she isn’t a whore, and he has done as he promised by taking care of her. In his adolescent psyche there is noting wrong with his actions.
You may see Joseph as an adult, and he was physically, only mentally he was still immature, and immature enough not to know the difference about murder.
How could he live a normal life after killing Mary? Again, to a child once a toy have been discarded you find another and if it pleases you, you play with it for the rest of your life. Hard to accept, yes, until you look at some of the deranged killers of our time that have exhibited the same behavioral patterns.
While this doesn't prove he was the killer, it does provide a very viable case for it and at the least proves he should not be excluded from the list of suspects.
Shannon
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
