|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through October 05, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Simplicity - Occams Razor:
Archive through October 05, 2000
Author: Jon
Monday, 02 October 2000 - 10:06 pm |        | Hi W. P.
To try to explain my point a little clearer.....
I am suggesting that any miscreant who took it upon himself to remove organs out on the street for money, is more involved in crime than sexual perversion, jealousy, hatred or revenge.
All the classic motives applied to most suspects are irrelevent.
The drive that makes a serial killer lust after the emotional involvement that come with the act of murder and mutilation is not applicable in the above scenario either.
My objections to Barnett being Jack the Ripper have been pointed out clearly enough......he had no reason to kill the other victims, if we are to believe both Harrison & Paley's motive as applied to Barnett.
However, I also said that the only practical reasoning to suspect Barnett in the death of MJK was the fact he was the 'spouse', and as such is almost always the first on the suspect list.
When you've said that, you've said it all.
Much of the case brought up by Harrison & Paley is smoke & mirrors. They take the most negative view of any unknown situation and extrapolate it towards their own conclusion.
This is not research, it's plainly "building a case aginst a man for no other reason than to sell a book".
There is absolutely nothing in Barnetts life that we can point to that puts him on the suspect list beyond being the 'spouse'.
- He has no known knife skills.
- He has no known anatomy skills.
- He has not been known to be confrontational.
- Not known to be violent.
- Not known to hate prostitutes.
- No known criminal record.
- No known mental instability.
Anything contrary to the above, brought up by the authors, is all assumption & conjecture.
And you can label anyone as Jack if thats all you intend to do.
I know L.A. (Jack) hates me ragging on the speculation aspect to the case. But speculating as to method & motive is fine, but once you start naming names I believe you have crossed the line. You should only speculate as a means towards direction in research, from then on if you cannot find plausible links you should drop it. Neither should you publish a work, naming someone as Jack the Ripper, when all you have is 'if's', but's' & maybe's'.
Regards, Jon
Actually, I like Paley's book, but for the news quotes & background info only. I just whole heartedly disagree with his choice of suspect. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 12:32 am | | I've developed a good deal of respect for Jon's thinking in the above. To my mind, he is choosing an epistemological center for himself--the notion that the Ripper killed to get organs for resale--and doggedly sticking with it, with the objective evidence of the case firmly in hand. Jon has learned to cook every chance in his one pot, and knows better than to go around cooking every chance in every pot, like most do. It is a sign of advancement in Ripperology.
David |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 03:27 am | | Hi Keith- I've already included ALL the blue blocks (also the ones of South-Whitechapel) in picture 1 in the previous calculation: but I had no other way than to count them than within the Whitechapel area (thus under the figure of 1200 prostitutes), except those from the other districts.
Viper- The problem isn't that the sample is so little, the problem were the base figures of the number of prostitutes, as you have pointed out. I have mentioned this problem from the start myself, even before calculating. Keith and I agreed on a percentage, and noone else objected to the figures or method at getting at the figures at the moment, so I went ahead and calculated the significance with very, very raw figures. But it seems that Keith didn't understand which blocks I was referring to from the beginning (All of them on map1: exactly the same at map 2 except some houses in Whitechapel North I ignored, and which I mentioned for map 1).
Keith - The only changes I've made two map2: put on the red circle, put on extra red blocks, and put on the previously ignored houses of northern Whitechapel, and visualised the district borders.
"If he kills 4 prostitutes and all are from there, then he has beat the odds four times in a row - fantastic odds! " No they aren't fantastic: again it will be probably between 56-66%.
Because with these little sample numbers the odds are within range of chance. Remember the example of voting: although a racist party can have 25% in a town, of the group consisting of 13 people. Against all 'odds' - namely 25%, or at least 3 people - it is possible, and very real to, that not one of this group voted for this party.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Keith Rogan
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 04:02 am | | Warwick,
The problem I have with Barnett is exactly as stated above by Jon and David.
Barnett MAY have been the Ripper but certainly not for the motives I've seen put forth. One doesn't go out and start gutting prostitutes to scare your girlfriend. Nor is it plausible he was killing people to steal the odd organ or two. You could rob a grave for that.
I also have problems with the "Medical Knowledge" theory put forth by the coroners and kicked around on this board.
I think most people then had some knowledge of anatomy because even city dwellers were accustomed to gutting and cleaning fowl and small pigs or whatever. It doesn't take a surgeon to know where a kidney is.
I live in Alaska and hunt frequently. Every hunter I know is capable of removing a bladder without spilling urine in the body cavity, or tie off the colon so that fecal material doesn't spill out everywhere when removing it. These are things that JtR didn't know - look at the mess he made of Eddowes...
I think he was just fishing around with a sharp knife. I think he recognized the organs he wanted, but I don't think he knew how to get them without for example; cutting the large intestine into several pieces.
JtR was a butcher, but he was certainly no butcher. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 04:36 am | | Hi All,
RJ Palmer wrote on the Barnett board that Paley's theory seemed to have a bit of male chauvinism about it. The very thought of living with a hard-drinking, hot-tempered woman who sells her body and shares the bed with friends is enough to make many of us in the modern civilised world say "God, I'd feel like killing her if that was my wife!"
But Joe knew exactly what Mary did for a living when he first set eyes on her - it's how they met - and actually it was quite common in those days for a man and woman in their circumstances to set up home together shortly after meeting, many couples never marrying but staying together permanently.
Joe, like most other men all over the world from the beginning of time, would have preferred it if he could afford for her to give up the 'night job' but, in common with many hundreds of other couples struggling to survive in Victoria's slums, their options were severely limited.
Jon, (and RJ if you're there),
What are our options if Mary wasn't a ripper victim? You have both been discussing the possibility that the ripper's main motive was obtaining bodily parts for experiment or sale, which kind of rules out Mary. But in that scenario, doesn't Joe (with Jon's list of negatives) become the only viable suspect for Mary's slaughter?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 06:43 am | | G'day,
If Jack's motive for chopping up 5 women, was just to sell and make money with their organs, why did he make such a mess? I believe he did it to add to the terror that he cast over the community; to make the newspaper reports 'sound' grosser; to increase his 'power'!
Joe Barnett wasn't the violent one in his relationship with Mary. She was!
During their last fight, objects were thrown breaking two window panes. (Julia Venturney told Inspector Abberline that Kelly was drunk that night in the 'Coroners Files' and 'The Times' newspaper on the 10th November reported that blows had been struck.)
Julia also said: "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." (Inquest - 'Standard')
Leanne! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 10:46 am | | Leanne, hello. I believe that at the inquest Julia Venturney said the window had been broken 'a few weeks ago'...not during the last fight. It is an an important difference; if the window had been broken only that night, it would have shown Barnett was lying about the lost key and how he & Mary let themselves in. According to A-Z, Lizzie Albrook was the woman in the room when Barnett made his last (?) visit to Kelly.
Personally, I think Barnett is a reasonable suspect for the death of Mary Kelly. (At the very least I think he burned Mrs. Harvey's clothes! ). But I also think he is a deplorable suspect for Jack the Ripper. The "scare Mary off the streets" motive is ridiculous and utterly unrealistic, don't you think?
Hate to re-state the obvious, but someone killed Annie Chapman and cut out the uteris in 'one clean sweep'. Whoever did this must have found some use for it, because 3 weeks later he did the same to Catherine Eddowes. |
Author: LeatherApron
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 12:10 pm | | Jill,
Hligosh! What does your last name mean in English -- "mathematical genius"? This reminds me of a course I once took called Statistics, Probability, and Random Processes or something similar. You've raised the prestige of Ripperologists everywhere. We're not just weirdos but weirdos who have high IQ's.
;-D
The only thing I can say about all of this (like The Viper, I'm a bit overwhelmed) is that if I can read correctly, it looks like the rectangle at the center of the triangle is where Roslyn D'Onston lived.
Keith,
"Conclusion: It wasn't chance. He lived or worked in the immediate neighborhood and CHOSE those women."
In order to have chosen them he would have had to have stalked them. Any thoughts?
Rick,
Ever the Barnettite. You have great fortitude and my respect.
Jon,
I disagree with half your list, but agree with most of your other points. I'm actually here looking for some speculation from you or GreyHunter or whomever else wants to comment. If the Ripper was stealing organs -- where'd he hide them, at his residence? Sold them? If he were Dr. T, did he return to his lodging and box up the ghastly items before fleeing to France? Did physicians typically carry jars of specimens on their sea voyages? I need to read Evans book again.
I have problems with certain parts of Paley's theories too, but again - proof, we have none - suspects/motives, we have plenty.
RJ Palmer,
"The "scare Mary off the streets" motive is ridiculous and utterly unrealistic, don't you think?"
You asked Leanne, but I'll answer. No. Anyone who thinks it is just has not put themselves in the suspect's shoes and has probably never experienced jealousy. One of the most powerful emotions is the rage of jealousy after rejection. This could explain the overkill aspect of MJK's mutilations. Unrequited love and rejection has resulted in numerous deaths. There was a Hollywood actress stalker who killed for just this reason.
My best to all,
Jack |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 12:46 pm | | Hello Everybody,
Although an adherent to the maxim that there's "lies, damned lies, and government statistics" I must congratulate you on your efforts, Jill, but admit to being rather baffled by the details. Being colour blind hasn't exactly helped either!
Now I must state that I am not an expert on prostitution or red-light areas. But if we cast our gaze further afield than Whitechapel we may note that circumstance presented victims more than prescience.
If we look at the times of the killings we see that they were all late at night/early morning. We may also state that our killer went abroad of an evening intent on murdering a prostitute. But did he work to a plan, selecting each and every victim?
Other areas of London, notably Pall Mall and probably around the train stations, were designated red-light areas. So why did the killer not operate here? Two reasons. The first being more chance of capture through recognition, potential number of witnesses and having blood stains on his person. The second reason being that these areas were brighter and, quite possibly, very few prostitutes would take a chance on him when the scare began.
In other words JTR worked in an area where he knew desperate women would still be roaming the streets, looking for the price of a bed. If we look at the social conditions we can relate the victims by way of life. Poverty, alcoholism, erratic relationships. It is no surprise, bearing in mind their outlook on life, that so many of the C5 had some connection with Dorset St. and its immediate environs. An area famous throughout London as being semi-criminal, vicious, and housing the unfortunates on the lowest rung of the ladder.
Thanking you and trusting that I'm not being as oblique as usual.
Jim Leen |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 01:59 pm | | | Jon, I have the impression that you are preaching at me. I'm probably getting a little tiresome but I think that my reasons for and thinkings that Barnet could be the man, are as good as yours for not thinking that way. I think a man who decides to kill,-- in the way it was done--for money, then he must be equally as crazy as the man who kills for revenge or out of jealousy. If one can get over it, afterwards, and get on with his life, so can the other. A person who kills more than five times, for whatever reason, is regarded as a serial killer, if it's not for sex, he's just as touched in the head as the sex killer, otherwise he wouldn't be able to kill,---then rummaging about amongst the guts, taking in the sights and smells, would almost prove what I'm saying--he could quite easily get to like it. You gave me a list of not knowns,--no knife skills,--I'd question that. No anatomy skills,--granted. Not confrontational,--we don't know what he was like away from Kelly. Not violent,--same. Relations with pro's--didn't need to hate,-- just dislike. No criminal record,-- doesn't mean he didn't have one unknown to authority. No mental instability,--maybe yes, maybe no, but could possibly have been bordering a nervous breakdown, leading him to consider any solution to his problem with Mary. And yes I agree, it's all guesswork, like most of the problems we have with "Who was JtR", it's all a game. Regarding the question of writing books and naming names, we not only have Paley and Harrison guilty of that, if thats the way to describe it, we also have, Farson, Beadle, Knight and numerous others I would think. I can only think of Philip Sugden who wouldn't commit himself. Like you Jon, the first time I read Bruce Paley's book I thought the historic background was very good, but the rest was piffle, then the more I read it the more it made sense, and the more I believed his theory made sense. Regards WJP. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 02:24 pm | | | Jack, you have mine too, I like your sense of humour, but you don't post often enough. Lets go and have a drink at the Ten Bells and talk about it.\ch{} Rick. |
Author: Keith Rogan
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 02:32 pm | | Jim,
Are you the Rabbi Leen who produced the two dissertations in Casebook? If so, let me congratulate you on the two best works in that area.
I too, have been thinking about how the killer did his work without there being any noise or apparent struggle. A Garrot (sp?) is a very logical solution but I wonder if that is really necessary to explain it?
If JTR had the women in a position ...oh, where they are bent over in front of him, why couldn't he just reach forward and cut their throats? That is the typical position of the trade (apparently) when being performed in the out of doors. They couldn't see him from that position and so wouldn't be expecting anything and of course theres no chance of them bringing up hands and arms and getting the defensive wounds that are so glaringly missing.
The garrot from behind is also quite logical but there is the fact that the marks and bruises from that instrument are missing. You make a good point that the subsequent throat cutting might obliterate those signs but I think he could have done the same without the strangulation.
Occams Razor again - theres no need for the inclusion of a new instrument to explain how these killings happened.
Submitted respectfully - I don't necessarily agree with you on some of your conclusions, but your logical approach is a cut above many of the other theories created by sticking odd facts together until they've built some swaying edifice that resembles a 10 story house of cards.
I suspect the truth is a lot more mundane (if a bit gritty) than we are willing to accept.
Keith |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 03 October 2000 - 08:23 pm | | David
Well thankyou David, for those few kind words, but I'll keep my euphological emotions suppressed for the time being, if you dont mind.....that is, until I find out what episemological means.
:-)
Keith
You say "Nor is it plausible he was killing people to steal the odd organ or two. You could rob a grave for that."
You think its easier do you?....shifting about a 100 cubic feet of soil to pinch an organ?
R.J.
You say Hate to re-state the obvious, but someone killed Annie Chapman and cut out the uteris in 'one clean sweep'. Whoever did this must have found some use for it, because 3 weeks later he did the same to Catherine Eddowes."
But it wasnt the same though.....that is something we tend to overlook.
Nichols appears to have been an interupted kill, so nothing we can judge from that. But Chapman's was as you describe, he removed the organ in one clean sweep. Then suddenly with Eddowes we see the butchering and mutilations...why?...what was Jack trying to do?.....inbetween do you recall anything happening?
Do you recall the Coroner Baxter pointing the finger at Doctors (on Sept 26th).......did this raise Jack's eyebrows?......the very next time Jack takes a victim, he mutilates her, in order to fit the previous news reports of a madman, a mad Jew, or something, anything to head them off the track. Because Baxter just may have hit the nail on the head, in some way that we are not aware, and Jack had to make a diversion.
Like I already said, "If Jack just removed organs (Chapman) then the authorities would immediately jump to the correct conclusion, and suspect a medical man"
Jack then had to change his style, and mutilate.....?
Jack (L.A.)
You want speculation for organ stealing?
I cant see Jack getting enough money from one organ to make it worth while.
Whoever took the organ took it for personal reasons, or because that organ was specifically requested. I do not want anyone to think that I believe an underground market existed for organs in general. This was a small time, possibly limited market. I only think it is plausable if one person ordered, requested or required it done.
But, I would rather not speculate too much along these lines, not until someone researches the reason why Torso's were found missing limbs & bodies missing organs. If Baxter was close, if Jack did change his method, if Torso & Ripper are connected, then once a solution is found we will think the answer was staring us in the face all along.
W.P.
No, I am not preaching at you or anyone, I think Leanne got that impression too. I did not mean that, in fact I think the Barnett discussion has run its course for now.
I'm gonna end this poste....going on too long.
Regards, Jon
(And I'm still a little interested in John William Smith Sanders, if for nothing else, but to remove him as a suspect, conclusively) |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 03:58 am | | Jack- To satisfy the curiosity:
Jill - means 'sweetheart', and is of the same family as 'Julia', also a well known name from Verona.
Helen - means 'sunray', and was the cause of the Trojan war.
De Schrijver - means 'The Writer'; also in older days an occupation where illiterate people paid for someone to write them their letters when needed.
Any further interpretations in regard to my character or IQ, are your due.
Jim - Thank you, I have tried to be totally unbiased and just calculate the chance of Keiths theory. The result doesn't shoot of his theory, but makes clear that with such small numbers, no relation can really be proven, and is less likely to have existed(even when I cut up the Whitechapel area in Spitalfields, Southern Whitechapel, Whitechapel, North-East Whitechapel, close to the same result will appear), at least 7 victims from the same area are needed to find the relation significant.
I will try to send you a grey-version of the map by mail, later on.
Greetings,
Sweetie (aka Jill) :-) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 06:57 am | | G'day RJ,
OK Marys key was lost and the window was broken after the pairs SECOND last fight. Can you see how the key must have disappeared at the time that the window was smashed? Otherwise how would she have entered her room?
Hey, maybe the window was smashed on purpose, from the outside so Mary could get in!
Lizzie Albrook wasn't the only woman in Kelly's room the night that Barnett moved out. Kelly let Julia stay in that tiny room with the couple until she left that night, then Maria Harvey moved in immediately. Harvey said that she and Kelly were drinking in her room until Barnett arrived. I'd say that Julia drank with Kelly also, until Miss Harvey arrived. Lizzie Albrook dropped by later.
R.J: How could you easily believe that Barnett may have killed Kelly through jealousy and the fear of losing her, yet have trouble believing that he killed the others to prevent him losing her to prostitution (other men)??????
People can't accept the chosen motive as it stands. I add the fact that his mother vanished leaving her young kids to fend for themselves. She left no trace of her life or death under the 'Barnett' name.
Leanne |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 10:30 am | | Hi Keith,
"If JTR had the women in a position ...oh, where they are bent over in front of him, why couldn't he just reach forward and cut their throats? " -
Because pathological signs favours the frontal slash method more, besides the strangling. Both Tabram and MJK show possible signs of strangulation besides Chapman. He strangled before cutting the throat (seems logic to me).
Also my thought is: If he cut their throat as you propose, why then lay the victims out on their back, legs drawn up and spread, instead of hunkered like you say?
My humble opinion is that he attacked them even before they stood in any sexual stance for him. I think he even may have distracted his victims by faking a robbery (like Cadoche's testimony implies).
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 10:35 am | | Sorry,
It seems illogic to strangle AFTER cutting the throat.
Also strangulation bruises, or any other bruises related to the attack, also support a frontal attack. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 10:36 am | | Leanne, hello. Killing out of jealousy is the oldest motive in the world (Cain & Abel)
Killing to scare one's girlfriend out of whoredom is unknown.
I would humbly suggest that no Whitechapel prostitute needed a Barnett nor a Jack the Ripper to demonstrate the dangers of the occupation. Just look at the victims: bruises and contusions; teeth broken in fights; the terrible fate of Emma Smith; one prostitute dragged the length of Flower & Dean; drunken and sleazy customers like James Sadler, etc. etc. So where is the motive for Barnett to put on such a remarkable demonstration? (Could a sane person even be psychologically capable of such a stunt?---see Peter Birchwood's post under the Barnett board).
As Lizzie Albrook said of Kelly "I do not believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so to keep herself from starvation". If MJK was going out from necessity, Barnett's reign of terror would have been irrelevent.
I tend to think that Barnett was deeply ashamed at himself that Mary Kelly was a streetwalker. Even after the split, he was very sorry that he had no money for her. He lost his lucrative job, and the rent was 1.50p in arrears. They were on the verge of eviction. Mary had returned to prostitution. Barnett seems a bit delusional and pretensious about MJK, calling her Marie Jeanette and claiming she was sober when with him (which does not appear to be the case). She was quite possibly dumping him; maybe Fleming was looming in the background. Shame. Jealousy. Rejection. Sounds like the makings of a motive.
RJP |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 11:31 am | | Rick,
I'll buy the first pint, mate. ;-) Alas, you'll have to wait until I return to England as I currently reside in the re-United States. Thanks for the invitation. (You're not going to have a blanket party for me, I hope)
Jon,
As always you manifest good reasoning and a scientific approach. My hat off to you. The examination of facts (or alleged facts) to discern the culprit without actually naming a suspect has definite merit in it. If you can get the discussion going again, hopefully, we will gather some sort of consensus on some aspect of the case. As we did a while back with the Goulston Street Graffito which I thought was quite enlightening. Let's try not to quibble about Barnett anymore.
RJP,
You're saying you could see Fleming in the role of spurned lover/sociopath but not Barnett?
Yours Truly,
Jack |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 11:36 am | | Hello Keith,
As one man of taste, discernment and perspicacity to another, aw shucks!.
Thank you indeed.
Jim Leen |
|
|
|
|
