| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 281
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 8:54 am: |       |
Robert, in a way Joe did send Mary the letter.
After he sent the package to Lusk... (from Mary's inquest: [Coroner] "Have you heard her speak of being afraid of any one?" [Joe Barnett] "Yes; several times. I bought newspapers, and I read to her everything about the murders, which she asked me about."
Joe made sure she knew, and this way it didn't appear to come directly from him.
But notice what he says next, this is what caught my attention... [Coroner] "Did she express fear of any particular individual?" [Joe Barnett] "No, sir. Our own quarrels were very soon over."
Look closely at what Joe says. He takes the coroner's questions personally. Freudian slip? Why would he be so defensive unless he had something to hide?
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 282
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 8:57 am: | |
Peter, I agree with you that killing the prostitutes was unnecessary; but, your talking to a rational person here. You have to make that argument with someone who believed that the only way to get his beloved off the streets was to show her graphically the error of her ways.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 283
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:02 am: | |
Peter, "I think the “blowing his lunch” evidence, if you would like to call it that, is just absurd."
You mean to tell me you could walk into a room and see anyone hacked up like Mary was and not lose it? Especially when it was the woman you loved? That scene even troubled police officers with years of experience and had seen dead bodies before...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 284
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:07 am: | |
Dan, if there is one shred of evidence that Martha was a Ripper victim, I would have considered it. There isnt. Not one thing about her case matches any of the others except that she was killed with a knife. The ripper didnt use a bayonet, Martha didnt have her throat slit, nor was she strangled, abdominally mutilated, or left on a city street where she would be found come first light. Please provide any information you have that would link her to any of the other murders. I am always open to new evidence, and if it exists will consider it and if I find that I have made a mistake will admit it...
Shannon |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 240
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:09 am: | |
Shannon,
I personally support the Joe theory but I have to comment on some things here.
Specifically the bit about Joe taking the coroner's questions personally. I don't have the book in front of me at present but his answer to the question "Did she show fear of any particular individual?" was a bit more than what you said. He replied by saying only him but their quarrels were often quickly. So he did explain that she feared him when they argued before saying their quarrels were over quickly.
The bit about him bringing the newspapers home was Mary's doing. She asked him to read them to her.
The scene of Mary's murder doesn't make me feel sick but then I wasn't in love with her. I suppose if you think of it from that point of view then maybe he did feel sick. It was never mentioned whether he was sick or not, that doesn't mean that he wasn't or didn't feel sick.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 223
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:22 am: | |
Sarah, remember that you are only looking at a black and white photograph of the room. Dr Bond committed suicide in 1901 after years of insomnia and nightmares traceable back to what he saw in that room (in todays terminology we would say he was suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). But different people react in different ways. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
Shannon, he might well have been defensive, considering that he'd left his girlfriend after a row, and she'd been found butchered 10 days later. I think Abberline probably gave him a grilling!
Let me see if I've got this straight. Are you saying that Joe made Mary frightened of him when they rowed? If so :
Neighbours didn't report violent rows. When they did row, Joe went off.
Joe obviously didn't frighten her enough to keep her off the streets.
Neighbours didn't report seeing bruises on Kelly, or complaints from Kelly about Joe's violence.
Joe is supposed to have been so ineffective at frightening Kelly, he was forced to disembowel other women as a roundabout route.
Joe frightens Kelly so much, she kicks him out bag and baggage into the street (according to you).
It just doesn't add up!
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 241
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
Alan,
I don't know. I've never been that squeamish except if it's my blood then I cna't even stand up.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:39 am: | |
Just forgetting Barnett for a moment, I believe that at least one woman looked at the body - something I find surprising, but there you go.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 285
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:40 am: | |
Robert, NO, I am not saying Joe frightened Mary during the row or made her afraid of him afterwards. (IMHO) she is the one who tossed him out, and he kept coming back to try and get back into her good graces but she would have no part of it unless he had money. He couldn't intimidate her in a straight on confrontation. Thats why the sneak had to go behind her back like a weasel and strike at her in such a way that would work. When nothing did, he finally he went "postal" on her...
Shannon |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 243
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:47 am: | |
Robert,
What woman was that? Where does it say that?
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 10:00 am: | |
Shannon, you obviously assess Joe's character differently from me. Brave but stupid, I'd call him.
I agree with Sarah's point - Mary wanted to hear about the crimes. That would be natural. As a woman and a prostitute, her neck was on the line.
Sarah, will look it up and get back to you later.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 470
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 11:46 am: | |
Shannon,
Re Martha.
So you do not believe that Jack evolved his MO ?
Martha was placed in a public spot. She was a victim of a knife attack.
She was found as day is breaking...just like Annie.
By the way, why are you so sure some of the stab wounds were caused by a bayonet ? Kileen states that the sternum wound 'appears' to have been commited by a 'dagger or a bayonet'.
Her location within the murder area indicates a possible link.
The clenched fingers also points to either the contracting of muscles or asphyxiation.
To dismiss Tabram so easily simply because she wasnt mutilated or had a slit throat is something that I would not consider. It would be foolish to do so.
The facts point to a link...however slight.
Monty....who learnt from Peter Kurten |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 516
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 11:46 am: | |
Hi Robert,
And as soon as they found her, Joe’s neck was on the line.
Hi All,
If you are going to argue that Joe really did murder Mary, then surely his unsupported testimony becomes invalid and you must disregard it as totally unreliable. A guilty Joe would have said any old codswallop in order to save his neck. Even an innocent Joe may well have bent the truth where he thought the truth might sound incriminating, especially if no one could actually prove he was bending it.
Yet we constantly see parts of Joe’s own testimony being taken as factual and used as a basis for the various arguments for his guilt.
A worthwhile exercise might be to see how far the evidence takes us for or against Joe if we stop relying on a single unsupported statement he ever made.
Love,
Caz
|
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 50
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 2:01 pm: | |
Amen to that, Caz!
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 3:40 pm: | |
Hi Sarah
That reference : "Daily Telegraph" Nov 10th, Sourcebook chapter 18 (I believe it's on Casebook too) : "Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window."
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 286
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 4:30 pm: | |
Monty, when you stab someone in the heart you penetrate the left lung to reach it. Once the lung is pierced, the victim clinches both fists in pain after which they draw both hands (if free) up to their chest in a crossing pattern before bending over and falling to the ground in a fetal position.
Martha was in a stairwell and not in a public street.
Bayonet or dagger? A dagger is designed to be much wider at the hilt than a bayonet. The wound to Martha's heart was consistant with a small diameter sharp piercing wound. Had it been from a dagger it would have had more of a triaglular shape which would have sliced her heart nearly in two.
Shannon |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 52
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 4:48 pm: | |
Shannon,
I really don't think we should analyze these irrelevant things when it comes to Barnett's ability to stand what he saw. Perhaps he didn't want to embarrass himself or even simpler, he naturally didn't throw up.
Barnett must have chosen another direction for her to get off the streets. You claim he's the number one suspect, yet you don't even know how much anger Barnett felt. You are just assuming he felt mad. Even if he did, it doesn't make enough sense for him to go be put at risk for his own life just for a girl we don't even know he loved for sure. If he loved her enough, they would have gotten married.
Do we know anything for sure when it comes to Barnett?
-Peter-
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:09 pm: | |
Hi Peter,
There is a lot of new ideas that will be revealed if Leanne and myself have the fortune to get our work published, and we will know a lot more about Barnett, believe me Peter, there is a lot of facts that have never been discussed, because we are all guilty of going over the same old material, the trouble has always been that we have all learnt the case from previous publications, which just elaborate on publications before them, which can give an impression in our minds. that is hard to shift.
To repeat an expresssion, I recently used' We are looking at a colour picture , and seeing only black and white'
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 985
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:55 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: 'When they did row, Joe went off.' I take it that 'assumption' was made by analysing Julia Venturney's statement: 'I have frequently seen her the worse for drink, but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone.' (Julia Venturney, inquest 'Standard'.) I wonder exactly which nights this occurred, where he went, and what he did to relieve his anger?
Jack evolved his MO alright!:
1) Polly Nichols had no direct connection with Dorset Street.
2) Mary Ann Nichols lived across the street from Joe and Mary, (but then again so did alot of prostitutes.)
3) Elizabeth Stride lived at 38 Dorset Street with Micheal Kidney.
4) Kate Eddowes lived next door from time to time.
5) Mary Kelly lived in the same room and slept on the same bed!
I'm not sure about Martha Tabram, I haven't written anything about her case into this book....yet! Her friend, the one that she was with that night, lived across the street at Crossingham's too! If Martha was butchered with 2 different knives, I wonder did one man stab her in the heart with a bayonet, put it down, then take out his other knife to give her 38 of the best, or was a second man involved?
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 52
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:06 pm: | |
Shannon,
“Dan, if there is one shred of evidence that Martha was a Ripper victim, I would have considered it. There isnt. Not one thing about her case matches any of the others except that she was killed with a knife.” – this is what you wrote yesterday.
You mentioned somewhere that Martha being killed on a first-floor landing as opposed to in the streets was also a reason for you to say that “Martha is NOT a ripper victim PERIOD!”. However, Annie Chapman wasn’t killed in the street and certainly Mary Kelly wasn’t. So, as I see it we can’t count out Martha Tabram for that reason.
Furthermore, there are several similarities with the others he killed that you seem to want to overlook: her clothing was disarranged and her skirts pushed up, her legs were open, the locality (in fact, she was killed in what can be seen as the epicentre of Jack’s hunting grounds), the victim's age and no noise was heard. Although her throat wasn’t cut, it was stabbed nine times. And on top of that, there are the knife wounds to the lower torso and the one to her genital region.
Can you still honestly say there’s not one thing that matches any of the others?
Frank
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 56
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:11 pm: | |
Leanne,
I just don't understand these connections. You even stated it yourself:
Mary Ann Nichols lived across the street from Joe and Mary, (but then again so did alot of prostitutes.)
But you forgot to mention that Whitechapel was such a small district and the possibility for that to happen would not be that uncommon.
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 986
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:24 pm: | |
G'day Peter,
Whoops! I made an error! I meant to write: '2) Annie Chapman.' Substitute her name there, and then ask your question again...please!
LEANNE |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 58
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 7:57 pm: | |
Sarah:
Sudgen states the info about the identification in his book.
Leanne:
You asked, Do you think that Joseph Lawende set up camp at the police station?
Yes, of course, he worked there. He could have been out on his daily routine and stumbled upon Barnett. He could have also seen him at the funeral-
Alan:
There would not have been enough time for that "second couple" to have gone into the square after Lawende had left and have Eddowes of that "second couple" get mutilated. All this would have taken too much time. We know this by the times from when the initial couple was seen and when the body was discovered.
And on your other point, Lawende saw the victim not too long ago when he was asked to identify her. I think his identification of the victim was accurate.
-Peter-
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 987
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 11:21 pm: | |
G'day Peter,
I'm thought we were talking about: 'Lawende JOSEPH (b. 1847)', whom the 'A-Z' says was a: 'Commercial traveller in the cigarette trade.' Are you saying that he sold cigarettes to the police offers ever day?
Major Henry Smith wrote in his memiors that he regarded Lawende as a reliable witness because he was plainly uninterested in the previous murders, and honestly stated that he doubted whether he would recognise the man again after his brief glance at him.
The 'Jack the Ripper AtoZ' also says under Lawende's name: 'In February 1891 he was called in by police again to see whether he could identitfy Thomas Sadler. In 1895 he may have been called in yet again to try and identify William Grant Grainger.' So he was called in by police on these two occasions. Why are we assuming that he was called in to look at Joseph Barnett, yet no one mentioned it?
LEANNE |
