|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 971
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 3:17 am: |       |
G'day,
PETER: Please explain what you mean.
RICH: Barnett was taken to the station by Abberline. He probably interviewed him, then he could have walked to Buller's lodging house with him to check all of his clothes for bloodstains, and examine his locker. There is no record of Lawende, Schwartz, or Mrs. Long looking at him. Maybe they would have arranged a line-up, if evidence was found.
Even if Lawende was asked to look at him could his opinion have been trusted, considering that he didn't get a good enough look at the man?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 169
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 4:55 am: | |
Hey guys,
Just had a thought. Why exactly would Joe have been questioned so intensely? Was it purely because he was Mary's partner? If this is the case, wasn't John Kelly questioned after Kate's murder? Also, one other man Mary trusted was Joe Fleming. Where was he when all this was going on?
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 5:14 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
All those records must have been lost during the war! 
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 6:20 am: | |
Hi Shannon, All,
1, If Mary was working (or thought that was what she was doing), she’d have done anything her ‘customer’ wanted for the right price, including undressing. When she got as far as her chemise, her ‘customer’ could have become impatient and said “That’s far enough, now lie down.”
2, What do you mean? If Mary was already in bed, in a drunken slumber, door not locked, a stranger who had waited a while after watching a previous customer leave, would have entered and ‘started’ by the bed.
3, Dead to the world through drink, Mary would not necessarily have heard her killer before it was too late. The darkness in the room would not have put off a determined ripper - he would have taken a chance on getting from door to victim without mishap. Once he had killed her he could think about how much light he wanted to work in. The ripper was used to killing his victims quickly and silently in the dark. Having a fire there was another little added luxury for him on this occasion.
4, Joe may not have been ‘welcome’ at all, especially if Mary was working flat out in anticipation of the rent man’s knock that Friday. And a bad hangover never stopped me going to work. 
Mary must have had a string of previous satisfied customers who would have been welcomed in with open – er – arms if she seriously feared eviction before Christmas.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 170
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 7:00 am: | |
Caz,
I agree with you about your point that the darkness of the room wouldn't have stopped the Ripper and I believe that her killer entered her room while it was dark and she was asleep. I think her time of death was later but only by a couple of hours. It was November and it would have been dark still at around 6 and wouldn't have been light until almost 8 in the morning.
Sarah |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 31
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 7:33 am: | |
Leanne,
In 1895, Sudgen and Begg believe that Lawende identified William Grant Grainger as being the man with Eddowes.
-Peter-
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 7:58 am: | |
I can’t go along with that Peter. I saw Paul Begg on Friday at the Tate and he doesn’t look as old as all that!
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.  )
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 174
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
Peter,
Even if that was true, what exactly are you saying this proves or doesn't prove? Sorry I got a bit lost in this thread.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 438
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
Caz,
You beat me to it.....again !
Monty
PS Want to add Fleming and Morganstone to that string ?
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 181
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Monty,
I mentioned Fleming earlier. I kept wondering why no-one seems to see him as someone who could have welcomed into her room. I thought she was fond of him.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 441
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:54 am: | |
Sarah,
I know you did....thats why I mentioned him.
Yes, this guy seems to be missed quite a bit. Why?
I dont know. Morganstone is another who could easily fit into this 'Lovers rage' story.
I guess its because Barnett is the only one we have details about.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 182
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:58 am: | |
Monty,
Must have a look for details for him. Is it me or did Mary seem to have lots of men after her? Could have been anyone at the rate she was going then.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 443
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 12:02 pm: | |
Sarah,
Are you saying that Mary was loose ??
Tsk, tsk !!
Dont forget to check the 'Gent' from up west !!
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 184
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 12:08 pm: | |
Monty,
Me??
It may take a while, I only have two pairs of hands and one small brain.
Should get Chris Scott onto it.
Sarah
(Message edited by sarah on December 01, 2003) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 1:22 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
This blood argument of yours is very interesting. But how did at least three doctors fail to draw the conclusion that you have? Surely they were familar with the properties of blood?
It's all very puzzling.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 263
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Robert, familiar yes, but not to the degree we know today. Remember in 1888 forensics was in it's infancy. The doctors were more concerned with how someone died, then when they died. Same with the MEPO.
The first thing done at a crime scene today is to photograph everything from every angle because we know that for as good as the officers are on the scene, they can't recall every detail. With the photographs you can freeze time at or near the time of death and see things in an entirely different light.
Second, we stick a thermometer in the victim's liver and determine the time of death. A human liver loses heat at the rate of 1.5 degrees per hour, so all you have to do is subtract the difference between 98.5 and the temp of the liver, then divide by 1.5 to know how many hours have lapsed since death.
In 1888, the only thing the officers knew to do at the crime scene was write down as much about the victim as they could, not even that much about the area was noted.
We cant falt them for what they didn't know; but, what we can do is take what we have learned since then, apply it to the case with the known facts, and make a best guess as to what really happened.
This is why I believe that had the doctor known more, the police would have been better informed, and the suspects would have been questioned about their activities at the actual time of the murders.
Since the information the police had to go on was incorrect, the real killer would have passed the inquest with flying colours.
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 32
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 4:45 pm: | |
Sarah,
Yesterday we were questioning if Lawende would have identified Barnett at the police station as being the man with Eddowes.
Then I had mentioned that in 1895 Lawende actually did identify the man being with Eddowes. Then I had mentioned that it is thought that William Grant Grainger was the man he had identified.
-Peter-
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 4:50 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
Well, if the blood argument is valid, then she was murdered in the morning.
We don't know whether the police asked Barnett about his movements for the morning. I imagine he would have been interrogated by Abberline, and that maybe other officers were simultaneously questioning the neighbours. We don't know at what point the police would have heard the stories of the murder cries. I would guess that it would have been good practice for the police to try and fix Barnett's position at all times up to the discovery of the body.
If however they did discount Barnett without checking his movements for the morning, this would have the effect of depriving Joe of his alibi. But I've always felt that the best chance for the Barnett theory was the night time scenario. Everything about the morning scenario is just too bizarre - at least as it relates to Barnett in particular.
All very interesting, though.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 264
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 9:00 pm: | |
In 1888, the police had a number of murders that they believed were committed by the same person. What they didn’t have was a motive. Confounding that was the doctor’s reports about the deaths being inaccurate. Furthering the problem was that at the time, the police were trying to find one person, who committed ALL the murders; which is not the case today.
The Boston Strangler was never charged with murder, only with aggravated sexual assault. The Atlanta child murderer killed over 20 children, but was only charged with 2 murders that the police could confirm he was the killer. John Wayne Gacey would never have been convicted of every murder he committed, neither would Jack.
What you have to do is take the known, and a leap of faith at the unknown. What is known is that MJK was killed by someone who knew her personally. Her killer wanted to prove to her that he was in control of her and that he is the one who would decide when and how she died.
It was done so brutally to show her and the rest of the world who was really in charge. To top it off, the killer burned her clothes. Why take the time to do something so personal, and risk capture unless it mattered to him. Why take her heart unless it mattered to him? Why cut her face to the point where she was unrecognizable unless the killer wanted to make her unattractive to others who shared the same bed with her that he did?
While this murder is off the scale for brutality, it has all the trademarks of a personal attack. Now, what links her to the others? Answer, up to the point where her murder exceeded the others in its violence, it matches the signature of the killer. She had her throat cut, had her abdomen cut open, and had her viscera removed and the organs strewn about the body…
Who else besides Joe had motive, opportunity, and means to commit such a crime?
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 34
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 9:13 pm: | |
Shannon,
You are using assumptions here to name Joseph Barnett as your culprit. You are trying your hardest to prove Barnett as killing Kelly, but you are trying less to prove he killed the rest. I can tell you many discrepancies between the Kelly murder and the rest.
Martha Tabram-thirty-nine stab wounds. Is this not a personal attack?
Eddowes-kidney taken away. Is this not a personal attack?
You can name just every murder out there as a "personal attack."
Almost every white male living in Whitechapel at the time of the murders had the motive, opportunity, and means to commit this crime.
-Peter-
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 265
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 9:59 pm: | |
Peter, those are not assumptions, they are facts of the case. Only assumption is in WHO did it. My personal belief is that Joe did it.
Martha is NOT a ripper victim PERIOD!
Eddowes did have her kidney removed, yes, how is that personal?
White male? Why only white males? Please explain the logic behind this?
Shannon |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 47
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 10:27 pm: | |
Shannon,
"What is known is that MJK was killed by someone who knew her personally."
And just how, pray tell, is that known?
Don.
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 266
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:26 pm: | |
Don, name one time in history where any serial killer had it in for the victim to the point where they did the following and didnt know the victim?
You may have instance of one of the following happening, possibly even two of them; but, never to my knowledge did any serial killer:
1) Mutilate the body to the extent MJK was after she was dead.
AND
2) Slash the face beyond recognition which according to psychologist is the one part of the body that is reserved for a killer with personal connections to the victim.
AND
3) remove the victim's heart.
AND
4) burn all of the victim's clothing, leaving her with literally nothing to wear, even to her own funeral.
AND
5) leave her in a missionary possition on her bed where she made her living, only having had her genital area removed so that anyone looking in to see her would be so horrified at the sight that they would never breath a word about having partaken in her services...
Sorry, this all adds up to one thing; PERSONAL attack on her, her looks, her lifestyle, and it was meant to leave a lasting impression on who ever came to call on her next and would find her in this condition...
A serial killer has an agenda, a motive (though we may not know it), a signature, and for as psychological deranged as they are, they are bound by certain psychotic rules, as hard as that is to understand. For instance, Son of Sam, could only kill the ones that the neighborhood dogs told him to kill; Gacey only killed young men who couldn't escape from his handcuff trick...
There have been a few serial killers who went so far as to eat their victim's internal organs, and there have been some who took part of the body as a momento, but how many of them have gone so far as to completly destroy EVERY aspect of the victim's life? Looks, material things, everything about the victim in an effort to make sure that she not only had nothing left, that no one would want to look upon her ever again???
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 35
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 11:38 pm: | |
Shannon,
Facts of the case?
You have solid proof that the person who killed Mary knew her personally? Like Donald had said, how is this known?
You have solid proof that the "burning of the clothes" was personal?
Yes, SOMEBODY did burn the clothes-that is a fact, and if it was the killer, you are ASSUMING that it may have been personal due to the fact that you think Barnett did it.
"Martha is NOT a ripper victim PERIOD!"
How can you know this for sure?
My only guess can be that since Barnett did not live close to her, you then think she was not a Ripper victim.
You are saying that Mary's murder was similar to the rest, yet Martha's isn't?
Having a heart being removed is personal, but a kidney isn't? I don't understand that.
Based on the witness descriptions, I am stating that in all LIKELIHOOD, the Ripper was a white male. My reason behind this is because this trait would probably the least common thing for a witness to get incorrect.
-Peter-
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 267
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 12:32 am: | |
Peter,
Martha was killed by a piercing blow though the heart from a military bayonet, not by massive blood loss from having her throat slit. No connection other that she died as a result of a knife (of sorts) wound.
Why did the killer burn the clothing? Only 2 reasons exist:
1) he knew her and didn’t want her to have them.
2) he needed light to murder Mary by; sorry, doesn’t work... The candle on the table wasn't lit and if the killer were to start a fire in the grate with Mary's clothing it would have alerted her that something was amiss and she would have sounded the alarm. If he started a fire with something else in the grate, and then killed Mary, why go back and burn the clothing? If all he needed was light for the murder, he had it with whatever it was he set fire to, so no need to destroy the clothing...
Taking a person's heart is physical and symbolic at the same time, the kidney isn’t. Psychologically, removing a heart has significance, removing a kidney while still a body organ, doesn’t.
Witness descriptions: Elizabeth Long (Annie Chapman) described a Jewish gentleman; Eddowes was last seen with a man who fits Joe's description very well...
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.
|
|
|
|
