|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 331
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 10:39 am: |       |
Hi Shannon,
It is indeeed an intriguing story and it all hangs together (I don't dispute his upbringing and experiences, and neither the actions that could evolve from them), apart from the fact that it still is speculation. I have said it once, and I'll say it again, drawing conclusions from such circumstances without factual evidence of some sort is no better than the approach Patricia Cornwell adapted in her disastrous book -- especially as far as scientific credibility is concerned. It is, however, a wonderful script for a movie, and quite thinkable, but not compelling enough to tie someone as a suspect of serial killing.
And by the way, I think it takes some chemical, mental defects as well in order to turn someone into a sociopath or a psychopath. Childhood experiences aren't enough, although they with greatest certainty -- like drug addictions -- could trigger such a mental state and evolve into actions.
I also find it a bit remarkable that we don't seem to have any accounts from anyone in his nearest environment that states him as mentally ill or violent in a greater extent. But it shall indeed be interesting to see what "facts" Leanne & Richard mean to build their conclusions on, besides subjective interpretations of his unbringing and supposed mental state.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 61
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 10:53 am: | |
Glenn: "And by the way, I think it takes some chemical, mental defects as well in order to turn someone into a sociopath or a psychopath. Childhood experiences aren't enough..."
Antisocial personality disorder is a psychiatric condition characterized by chronic behavior that manipulates, exploits, or violates the rights of others. This behavior is often criminal.
Personality disorders are chronic behavioral and relationship patterns that intefere with a person's life over many years. To receive a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, a person must have first had behavior that qualifies for a diagnosis of conduct disorder during childhood.
The cause of antisocial personality disorder is unknown, but genetic factors and child abuse are believed to contribute to the development of this condition. People with an antisocial or alcoholic parent are increased risk.
Now having said that, given your "social conditions" theory, do you believe that Joseph's mother was both a prostitute and an alcoholic in the time after his father died? If so...
Shannon
Reference: Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA. Review provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 333
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 11:13 am: | |
Oh, Shannon, I don't want this thread to be about the controversy between psychological theories on the matter, but I am very well aware of the factual points you presents above regarding antisocial disorders and personalities. But it is questionable if they are just psychiatric conditions -- the fact that psychopathy is uncurable and that these characters doesen't respond to psychiatric treatment shows that, and so does results from experiments with brain-scanning of serial-killers and individuals with these disorders. So some sort of latent brain damage or genetic disfunction I believe should be the base for the possibility to adapt such character features -- unpleasent childhood experiences or certain events only accumulates and triggers these features to come into life. How this appiles to Barnett I think none of us can say. That is my personal opinion, but I believe much psychiatric discussions points in this direction; it is certainly not my own invention.
"Now having said that, given your "social conditions" theory, do you believe that Joseph's mother was both a prostitute and an alcoholic in the time after his father died?"
I have absolutely no idea, Shannon; I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it nevertheless. And I don't quite see what my statements about social conditions on the Stride thread -- where the context was completely different -- has anything to do with it (and it is not a theory...).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 62
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 11:40 am: | |
Glenn: "I have absolutely no idea, Shannon; I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it nevertheless..."
Then how could you reach your conclusion about Kate? Seems you chose who is and who isnt?
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 876
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Hi Shannon
One thing I'd like to ask you is : wouldn't a man who had a deep feeling of rejection concerning his mother - a sort of love-hate relationship with her - be likely to choose as a mate a woman who was a fair bit older than him, as a mother substitute - not a woman who was a bit younger than him?
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 11:52 am: | |
Prostitutes appear to be a popular target for serial killers. There are many possible reasons for this including: availability and anonymity; low risk; hatred or distaste for women in general or prostitutes in particular. I'm sure others can think of more.
But how common is it to find serial killers among the partners of prostitutes? And what are the chances of one remaining unidentified after including his own partner in his series?
Just wondering.
Love,
Caz |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 336
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 11:52 am: | |
I'm sorry, Shannon; of course I don't want it to look like I'm choosing arguments, but I still don't see what that discussion about social condition in a larger society context has to do with Barnett's individual personal upbringing.
But -- call me retarded -- it could be that I simply don't understand the question, because I really don't see your point. But please elaborate, if you may.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 63
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 11:53 am: | |
Robert, (IMO) Joseph had the two things he desired in Mary. He wanted someome he could show off to prove he was better than the rest. Mary was younger and more attractive that the others but still had the motherly qualities he desired; she was the one who wore the pants in the relationship so to speak...
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 337
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 11:54 am: | |
All good points, Caz and Robert -- as usual.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Glenn, you decided Kate was a prostitute with no evidence, yet wont make the same assessment of Joseph's mother given that she had five children to raise in Whitechapel, and lived a similiar life to Polly and Annie who were both prostitutes and alcoholics...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:05 pm: | |
CAZ, Again, IMO, Joseph was not a true serial killer, so much as he was a killer with an agenda. A true serial killer is driven by an internal need to kill to acheive pleasure from the kill, who ever killed these women derived no pleasure from the kill as they were all done very swiftly and the additional wounds are done post mortem so the victim didnt suffer. All that is, with the exception of Liz who did suffer, and another reason why I dont believe she died at the same hand...
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 338
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
Ah, now I see it. Sorry Shannon -- bear with me; I'm still not that comfortable in discussing in English. I didn't say that I didn't want to comment on it or that I was intending to avoid the question; it is certainly not fair to assume that.
Well, based on that information and personal history I don't see any reason to exclude the possibility that she indeed was a prostitute. Why wouldn't she be? But what does that prove on Barnett's part? I have never disputed the conditions regarding his upbringing, only the conclusions certain people are willing to draw from it...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 339
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:10 pm: | |
Shannon, I didn't "decide" Kate was a prostitue, I just pointed out that I see no reason to why she shouldn't be -- since you on the other hand "decided" that she wasn't ("with no evidence").
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 340
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Shannon,
"...who ever killed these women derived no pleasure from the kill as they were all done very swiftly and the additional wounds are done post mortem so the victim didnt suffer."
That is because you are grounding your view upon Jack the Ripper as a psychopath. As indicated in your description, The Ripper's MO and signature rather points at a (dare I say it...?) disorganized perpetrator (who seldom enjoys the killing itself but is driven to kill his victims because he have to and hates them) rather than a psychopath. Evidently, that doesen't fit Barnett, though.
"...with the exception of Liz who did suffer".
Interesting. Where did you get that from?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 284
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 12:42 pm: | |
Can I ask the question ?
Do we argee that Annie, Polly and Mary were prostitutes ?
If so what evidence do we have that they were working at the time they were murdered ?
If Kate wasnt on the game how come she ended up in a dark corner with a man (who happened to be her killer)?....at the height of the Ripper scare ? Are we inferring that she knew this man ?
If so then does this tie in with the statement Kate knew who Jack was ?
If so then I refer you to a question that asks why did she go into a dark corner of a secluded spot with a man whom she suspects of being a murderer ? Unless she was...
Shall I stop know ??
Who is the man in the white suit ?
This and much more in the next edition of........
Seriously, give me a reason for Kate to be in the square. And a legit one, none of this carridge or dragged bull.
Mad Monty
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 4:15 pm: | |
Hi Everyone,
The Fact that by Barnetts own statement, he said that he used to read the papers concerning the murders to Kelly, I believe he scared the living daylights out of her, I am tempted to reveal all at this stage, but as it is in our book , my lips are sealed.
I Will however say that matters will come to light regarding their relationship. and a lot of peices of that massive jigsaw will fit much easier.
It is so frustrating to keep quiet about such a matter, but one should never spoil a surprise....
Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 88
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
I think saying there's no evidence that Kate was a prostitute is a bit strong. There is a lot of very suggestive evidence to point in that direction. First, it's reported that she had no money in the morning. Later, however, she's arrested for being intoxicated. She didn't know the whereabouts of family to borrow money from, so she had to get the money for those drinks from somewhere. In Whitechappel at the time, prostitutes often sold themselves for drinks, so given the time and place we're talking about, it's suggestive evidence she was a prostitute.
And second, she's spotted chatting in a fairly intimate conversation with a man. Shortly later, she's found murdered nearby. She, and presumably the fellow she's talking to, seem to have left the open street, walked down an ally, and into a dark and quiet square. Moreover, they go to the darkest corner of that square. This series of events is what a prostitute and a customer would do at the time. Find a dark location where they are unlikely to be spotted in the next few minutes, complete the transaction, and leave.
In otherwords, Kate's behaviour on the day she was murdered is entirely consistant with the actions of a prostitute. It's far more difficult to reconcile these behaviours with other explanations, although not impossible. So, this is not exactly proof but it certainly is pretty good evidence to suggest that Kate was a prostitute; even if this is the only time she prostituted herself! Far stronger than any evidence we have to suggest she wasn't.
Also, you suggest Mary evicted Joe. Joe's testimony is that he left her and none of Mary's other friends ever gives a contrary explanation to this. Joe is reported as being rather passive actually, he leaves when Mary gets violent. If Joe is filled with the anger you suggest, one would expect some reports of him being violent, or at least having a temper. Nothing like this is reported anywhere so I'm not sure I understand where you've drawn the conclusion that Joe is some bubbling cauldron of anger? Sure his childhood was difficult, but as you point out, it was just like many other people in that area. If Joe's background is as common as you admit it was, what makes Joe so special as a suspect apart from his relationship with one, and only one, of the victims? Remember, there is no report anywhere that any of the victims knew any of the others. At no point did anyone ever report in an inquest or even in the press that "Victim X was so upset when her friend victim Y was killed and now look, she's been murdered by the same person". The only connection between the victims is the fact they were all prosistutes who lived in the Whitechappel area. But thousands of people fit that description. It's unlikely they all knew each other.
Anyway, if Joe was a sociopath, he would not have come by to give Mary money after he moved out. If he wanted her back, he would manipulate her back to him. He would have ensured she needed him by not giving her money until she came back. He most definately would not help her by giving her money while he wasn't living with her. The personality you attribute to Joe does not fit Joe's behaviour. So, if if that personality type fits "Jacks", and you think "Jack" was a sociopath, you might want to find a suspect who's behaviour fits "sociopath" because what we know about Joe's doesn't.
- Jeff |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 66
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 9:15 pm: | |
Jeff,
Kate was with John for over 7 years. If she were working the streets she managed to keep it from him, avoid any social diseases, and was never arrested for it.
The month before the murder she had been out hop picking with John in the country. Why break her back for a few pence when she would have been able to make that money as a prostitute in a few hours? Besides hop picking she also cleaned houses. Sounds to me like she took any job she could as long as it was honest work.
Being friendly with someone for a drink doesn not a whore make. Think of all the times you or someone you know has been entertained for the eveining for the cost of a drink. In a hell hole like Whitechapel, it may be some of the only personal attention some of the patrons of the pub received. If they came on to her wanting more, I am sure there were plenty of other women of the night available to fulfill the need.
John and the lodging house deputy both claimed she never worked the streets. John may have a personal motive; but, what is the deputy's motive for lying to the court?
Mitre Square is in a direct line with Lloyd street from BPS, and the most direct route to Bermondsey. She may not have known where her daughter was, only the general area. Sounds more like a determined woman than a prostitute who if she were looking for trade would have found a place in Comercial Street to do her business instead of walking all the way to Aldgate with a headache from being drunk.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 67
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 9:21 pm: | |
Jeff,
If Joe left on his own, why did he return every day afterwards? If he were the one who decided to leave, you would think he may need to return once or twice to get his things; but, constantly?
About his being angry, yes, and you may have heard of supressed anger. Take any of the United States Postal Workers who went off and killed a number of people at the post office. None of them exhibited any warning signs until the day it was too late.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 68
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 9:24 pm: | |
Jeff,
By giving Mary the money he was allowed to stay. If he had noting he left. Think about the sociopathic implications here. He was doing what he needed to do to get back in her good graces.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 69
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 2:56 am: | |
Glenn, in reference to Liz suffering...
Polly had been choked, her throat slit from her left to right in a downward motion cutting both carotid arteries causing massive blood loss and almost immediate loss of life either from the strangulation or the severing of the arteries. Death came in a matter of seconds. Dr. Llewellyn believed the killer to be left handed.
Annie was also choked prior to the incision being made on her neck which started on her left and continued around to the right and down through all the ligaments and arteries to the backbone. A nearly identical description of the wounds on Polly, and also done with the left hand of the killer. Death was instantaneous.
Kate's throat was cut in similar fashion and she died quickly from massive blood loss just as the other two had. The killer in each case struck with great speed and force, making a quick kill to all three victims.
Liz's killer only cut one on the arteries in her neck and did so in a different fashion as to the others murders. Since it would have taken more than a minute for Liz to bleed to death, and the killer made no attempt to cut her throat a second time (no additional mark on the neck or defensive wound on the body attempting to prevent another cut) is a strong indication he meant for her to suffer as she died. Fact that her hands were prevented from reaching the wound until she bleed to death confirms this.
Question is why kill 3 in a sudden strike, mutilate the abdominal area and leave the bodies on display? Then, in the middle of the killings change MO to where he allowed one to suffer, did no abdominal mutilation, and remained with the victim until dead when he could have made the death quicker and exited the area before risking the possibility of detection?
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 881
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 4:05 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Hop picking wasn't just a source of income, it was a kind of holiday for the poor - a chance to enjoy a bit of the countryside, breathe clean air, and see a land that used to be their home before they were forced off it by Enclosure Acts.
Joe may have visited Mary because he felt he owed his share of the back rent. He may also have pitied her - the only direction she was going in was down.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 341
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 4:23 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
Regarding Kate:
"Why break her back for a few pence when she would have been able to make that money as a prostitute in a few hours? Besides hop picking she also cleaned houses. Sounds to me like she took any job she could as long as it was honest work."
This is an incredible statement. If they had any possibilities to earn their money in another way than working as prostitutes, they would take it, even though the wages were low. It was very common indeed among those women to have occasional jobs on the side whenever these came up. The money made through prostitution maybe were fast erned, but they weren't that good. And look at the conditions surrounding the occupation, Shannon, with personal high-risk situations, veneral deseases (with a very high risk of getting syphilis), the possibibilty of getting fetched by the police, the alcoholism etc. So if Kate had a possibility to hop-pick or (like many others) take a job in the textile factories or get some private seamstress commissions, she wouldn't hesitate to take it. That is one of the reasons why prostitutes sometimes called themselves "seamstress" or disguised their occupation with other trade names, namely because they actually occasinally took such jobs. I think it is fair to assume that Kate did prostitute herself, but I don't necessarily think she did it full-time -- very few did if they were fortunate enough to be able to choose (and I think especially during the Ripper scare).
And why do you assume that Joe really didn't know about it? Because he said so? And what did the lodging house deputy know? Did he follow her around in the streets? Maybe the lodging house didn't wanted it to be read in black and white that they had psostitutes as lodgers (although everyone knew that was the case unofficially). And as long as they got the money they claimed for the beds...
The fact that she didn't get a veneral desease, doesen't prove that she didn't do it -- not all prostitutes were unfortunate enough to catch syphilis, although the risk was high. But if all the women carried this desease noone would likely ask for their services in the long run. And I myself have in my studies come across the fact that these women were very good in not being captured by the police, something they made into an art -- it was an ability that was necessary to be able to survive in the trade. And if the police did get hold of them the women used faked names, and since they seldom were photographed they could walk in and out of the police quarters without even once being registred correctly, since the information they gave were very seldom checked. Kate was arrested for drunkedness the night of the murder; I have a feeling that wasn't the first time...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 342
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 4:27 am: | |
Hi Robert,
It is absolutely correct that hop-picking in addition also acted like some form of "holiday for the poor" and an opportunity for people to breath fresh air. I forgot that point, which is a very valid one indeed. Thank you.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 343
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 4:45 am: | |
Shannon,
"Mitre Square is in a direct line with Lloyd street from BPS, and the most direct route to Bermondsey. She may not have known where her daughter was, only the general area. Sounds more like a determined woman than a prostitute who if she were looking for trade would have found a place in Comercial Street to do her business instead of walking all the way to Aldgate with a headache from being drunk."
Once again, the trip she did to search for her daughter did, as far as I know, take place before she got arrested by the police, and since it was late in the evening and Kelly probably waited at home it's not very likely she would continue that search that very same night. It doesen't add up.
So why didn't she choose Commercial Street or a similar territory? Well, who knows? Maybe she didn't wanted to run into Kelly or someone who knew her (or him), by doing it in the known, usual districts, and being caught in the act...?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
