|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 86
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 6:05 pm: | 
|
I thought this account might be of interest.
From the Decatur Daily Republican 13 November 1888.
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 4:12 am: |
|
Interesting article, Chris.
It makes me even more doubtful about the theory that Joe Barnett killed Mary Kelly in the style of the ripper's previous murders yet was able to get on with the rest of his life, neither being seriously suspected by anyone nor turning himself in.
Love,
Caz |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 189
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 9:47 am: |
|
"neither being seriously suspected by anyone nor turning himself in."
Hi Chris, Caz.
Chris, thank you for posting that article.
Caz, you wrote: "...neither being seriously suspected by anyone nor turning himself in."
To be fair, Joe WAS suspected, and interviewed by the police. Sutcliffe was also questioned by the police a number of times, then released.
I don't think we can say that ALL killers turn themselves in, either. Nobody knows why Zodiac suddenly stopped killing, for example.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 5:40 am: |
|
Hi Marie,
Yeah, of course Joe had to be interviewed by the police - and for as long as it took to be as sure as they could be that there was no ascertainable connection between him and Mary's death.
But I don't call that being seriously suspected. I call it the most basic of routine elimination.
Sutcliffe is a very different animal for one rather obvious reason - had his wife or an ex-girlfriend been found dead with a hammer blow to the back of the head, he most certainly would not have been questioned once, then released.
I said nothing about ALL killers turning themselves in, just that it appears to be quite common for men to self-destruct when they have just destroyed the object of their love/hate obsession.
It is just possible that Joe Barnett was such a chameleon that he embarked on his brief murderous career as an emotional wreck who needed to be rid of Mary for his peace of mind, then emerged an ice-cold fish who counted on her being included in the ripper's body count. It's like the moment this woman is out of his life, he can switch off his emotions, Jack-like, and forget what she made him do, concentrating instead on perfecting his new role as the very model of grieving but dignified normality.
I'm sorry, but I need a heck of a lot more convincing on this one.
Love,
Caz |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 197
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 7:55 am: |
|
Caz,
I could post other instances of domestic lust murders, where the victims have been killed and mutilated, and the killers have not self-destructed, or turned themselves in. I've already posted such examples all over the boards, in other threads.
I know you disagree with me. I'm not trying to convince you at all. that's not the point of debate, in my opinion. I debate simply to gain a greater understanding of the case myself, and because I enjoy bouncing ideas off people. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 3:14 am: |
|
Hi Marie,
That's fine. All I'm doing is bouncing your ideas back to you where I'm not convinced they work, attempting to explain why. There is no debate needed where we agree with each other. 
Finding examples of convicted killers who murdered and mutilated someone close to them and went on with their lives as if nothing had happened is fine. Using such examples to argue that Barnett could have done the same thing is also fine, but I'd just prefer it if someone could come up with some evidence that, in this particular case, it was in any way likely that he did.
The problem is that it is logically impossible to come up with an example where the swine who killed and mutilated his loved one was able to live out his own life with no ghost of a lingering suspicion about him.
That, in itself, when applied to Joe Barnett, is a fairly remarkable thing. You'd think that someone who knew him would have started a bit of juicy gossip, whether he was guilty or not. "That Joe, I bet he dun Mary in 'cos she dun 'im wrong".
But not a dickie bird.
We don't know what kind of a man he really was. But OJ Simpson he certainly wasn't.
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 203
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 6:07 am: |
|
Hiya Caz,
You wrote: "That, in itself, when applied to Joe Barnett, is a fairly remarkable thing. You'd think that someone who knew him would have started a bit of juicy gossip, whether he was guilty or not. "That Joe, I bet he dun Mary in 'cos she dun 'im wrong".
My guess is that because Mary's murder appeared to be a 'Ripper' killing. And from reading newspaper accounts at the time, one sees that people mainly suspected Jewish lunatics. Or someone who was possessed by a demon.
The idea of serial killers was a new one to Victorian Whitechapel, and most people weren't aware of the fact that serial killers often look like our neighbours, or our best friends.
If it wasn't Joe Barnett, I think it was someone who seemed equally innocuous, somebody who nobody would have ever suspected.
I know AP will disagree with me here, but that's the joy of these boards!
Anyhow, I don't want to take Chris' thread off track, anymore. I've noticed that Barnett's been popping up all over the boards, and we should probably bring the discussion back to the Barnett board.
Give all the other aspects of the case, and our other suspects some breathing room.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 5:24 am: |
|
Hi Marie,
'...one sees that people mainly suspected Jewish lunatics. Or someone who was possessed by a demon.'
Yes, times change. These days people know to suspect the nice-guy-next-door type who appears perfectly normal. The trouble is, for each one of those who is truly so far from Mr. Average that he can hack his woman to pieces without so much as a by your leave, there are many millions who really are just the normal nice-guy-next-door.
By your own reasoning, there is no way to distinguish between the genuine nice guy who has the shocking and dreadful (but sadly far from unique) experience of finding that a loved one has fallen victim to a serial killer, and the killer himself who, despite appearances to the contrary, is a truly rare breed.
Anyone fancying Barnett as an example of the latter needs evidence beyond a less than perfect love life or childhood, or apparent inconsistences in his testimony, all of which are just as likely to apply to the former.
I agree that the killer may well be someone that nobody would ever have suspected, but of course Barnett was under suspicion for Kelly’s murder. The police obviously found nothing that connected him with this particularly horrific crime, even if they had information which effectively cleared him of a previous murder. Later, when it was looking less likely that any of the murders would be solved, someone would surely have taken another look at Barnett if they thought something may have been missed or ignored first time round.
Catching Kelly's killer alone would have been a big enough feather in anybody's cap, and I find it hard to believe that the police, even in 1888, would have lost the plot on the basis that Barnett didn't look like the type they were expecting.
They had no evidence then, so there was no way they could accuse this man. There is no more evidence against him today, just because he now looks like the type you are expecting.
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 209
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 6:31 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
You know I respect your opinon, and I enjoy debating with you, but....
This is thread is turning into:
1) But Joe was questioned and released
2) There is no evidence against him
REDUX. I think we've been over it in other threads, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I've stated that I think the police were doing a great job, but were NOT infallible, particularly without the benefits of profiling and forensics. I also don't think there's 'evidence' against ANY of our suspects.
all my best,
-M. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
