|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 06 June 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through 06 June 2001
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 10:17 pm |        | | Wolf--Hello. You could be right, of course. The authors of the A-Z given an alternative speculation that Maria Harvey was with Kelly at 7:30 P.M., left when Barnett arrived, and then Lizzie showed up shortly thereafter. But this is neither here nor there with me. I think you make a good point about Harvey` being a confusing witness. My only point was to suggest that Harvey had ample opportunity to discredit Barnett when with the police, but did not. Other friends & neighbors of Kelly seem to paint a relatively placid picture of Barnett as well. Cheers, RP |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 02 May 2001 - 10:40 pm | | G'day Wolf,
Maria Harvey told 'THE PRESS' that she and Kelly were drinking in MARIA'S room until around 7:30.
In her inquest statement, the story changed to KELLY'S room. Maybe the PRESS got the details confused and maybe they spent time in both. Why do you call this an "ever-changing" story? It only changed once!
Lizzie Albrook told THE PRESS that she dropped in for a visit on Thursday night and left "about 8:00", when she left her in the room with Joe Barnett. Lizzie didn't have to state that under oath! What makes you choose Miss Albrook's story to be the truth?
Leanne! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 11:46 pm | | Leanne, please excuse the delay in responding to your post of last Wednesday.
Maria Harvey spoke to the police, the newspapers and to the Coroners Court and never told exactly the same story twice, this is why I said it was an ever changing story. It is not quite correct to state that confusion seems to stem from where the two women were supposed to have been drinking, whether Harvey's room or Kelly's. The inference is that some journalistic slip of the pen might explain the matter, but, the story she told the newsmen is very different from what she told the police.
According to the reports in both the Times and the Daily Telegraph, 10 November (Harvey would have been interviewed on the 9th), Harvey stated that Kelly had visited her at her address, 3 New-court Dorset street, on Thursday night and that they had parted at around 7:30, at which time Kelly went off in the direction of Leman street. There is no mention of Joe Barnett in this statement.
According to Harvey's written statement, given to the police on the 9 November, "I saw her last about five minutes to seven last night, Thursday, in her own room, when Barnett called, I then left..." As you can see, Harvey is now stating that she saw Kelly in Kelly's room and that she left her at 6:55 in the evening, not 7:30 as in the newspaper reports. Barnett is now mentioned and she adds the fact that she left when he arrived. However, Barnett stated at the inquest that he visited Kelly between 7.30 & 7.45, more in keeping with her press interview. Gone is the details of her parting with Kelly and Kelly's going off towards Leman street.
According to Harvey's inquest testimony, "We were together all the afternoon on Thursday,... I was in the room when Joe Barnett called..." Again Harvey is in Kelly's room and Harvey left when Barnett arrived but we are given the new information that Harvey and Kelly had been together all afternoon. This would seem to go against what Harvey had said to the press, that Kelly had only come to visit her on Thursday night.
Lizzie Albrook, as far as is known, told only one story, and that to the Western Mail, that she had been visiting with Mary Kelly when Barnett had arrived and that she left at around 8:00 on the evening of the 8th. Barnett stated that he had visited Kelly between 7.30 & 7.45 that night and that he only stayed for about 15 minutes. In other words he left at around 8:00 p.m. thus corroborating Lizzie Albrook while casting doubt on Maria Harvey's 6:55 to 7:30 p.m. time line. Also, Barnett stated that "There was a female with us on Thursday evening when we were together she left first and I left shortly afterwards,..", indicating that the woman left close to 8:00, again this indicates Albrook rather than Harvey. Finally, Barnett stated that the woman "lives in the court.", which Harvey didn't while Albrook did.
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 02:44 am | | G'day Wolf,
Reading this inquest report in Abberlines own handwriting Joseph Barnett stated: "I last saw her alive between 7:30 & 7:45 , (a quarter of an hour), the night of Thursday before she was found. I was with her about one hour, we were on friendly terms".
Maria Harvey stated: "...I was in the room when Joe Barnett called I went away I left my bonnet there." To me this means she left as soon as he arrived, which could have been at 7:30 p.m. or if he did stay a whole hour, it could have been about 6:45 p.m.
Now reading from the police reports that were anonymously returned to the New Scotland Yard in 1987:....... |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 02:55 am | | ......Joe Barnett told police: 'On Thursday night he visited her between half-past seven and eight, (that's a half an hour), and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her.'
If we believe that Joe Barnett stayed a whole hour and Maria Harvey left as soon as he arrived at 6:45, there was still plenty of time for Lizzie Albrook to arrive and leave close to 8:00 p.m.
Leanne! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 08 May 2001 - 09:29 pm | | Hi Leanne.
There are a couple of points here that need some clarification. The first thing is that when Joe Barnett states, "I last saw her alive between 7:30 & 7:45...", he is saying that this is the time that he walked in the door, not the time that he walked out of the door. The second thing is that it is important to realize that the court clerk (Inspector Abberline took the written witness statements, he did not transcribe the official Inquest notes), has made a mistake when he transcribed the words, "I was with her about one hour...". What Barnett actually said was, "I was with her about one quarter of an hour...". This is correctly reported in the Daily Telegraph, Tuesday,13 November, and in the East London Advertiser, Saturday, 17 November.
If we now look at Joe Barnett's written statement and inquest testimony, as well as the interview in the Daily Telegraph that you quoted, we see that Barnett arrived at 13 Millers court sometime between 7:30 and 7:45 (closer to 7:45), that he stayed for only one quarter of an hour, and that he left around 8:00. The woman who was there when he arrived, he only mentions the one woman and not two different women coming and going at different times, stayed with Mary Kelly and himself and then left just before Barnett himself did, at 8:00. This is what Lizzie Albrook stated. Maria Harvey, as you agreed, stated that she left as soon as Barnett arrived, which does not jibe with what Barnett said.
Wolf. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 09 May 2001 - 06:06 am | | A very nice piece of close reading and comparison of sources, Wolf.
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 03:53 pm | | A delightful set of boards to read: robust argument without insult and nobody condescending to other contributors. As Bruce Paley is the only published author to contribute, and he maintains a very decent and equable tone in expounding and explicating his work which isunder discussion, perghaps those of us who have printed anything on Maybrick or forgers shuld be kiocked off the boards in the interest of decent debate. (I except Shirley Harrison, who as never, to my knowledge, made an overheated or provocative remark or response, and who has born with exemplary courtesy a great deal of sneering snidery).
Anyway. To Joe Barnett. Back in November 1998 Ron taylor wondered why records he had been checking gave a different birthdate for Barnett from those supplied by both Bruce and Paul Harrison. Leanne, Wrecker and Jon have all briefly touched on this prpoblem of possibly different Barnetts also. I thought that the sort of evidence about licences and the Barnett brothers posted by Peter Birchwood from time to time had resolved this question in favour of Bruce's candidate, although Paul's was supported by the 'mysterious stranger' evidence. I must say it would be awfully nice if Peter's and Keith Skinner's real expertise in this field could be bent to telling us which Joe Barnett was really MJK's. I'd much rather know that than hear any more about maroon diaries or the date when Mike Barrett left his Sphere book with his solicitor.
I've got to break to recue washing from the rain, so fearing some browser glitch, I'll post this now, as is, uncorrected, and return to the topic shortly.
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 04:49 pm | | To continue. In 1998 Peter McKeever evoked a good deal of intelligent agreement when he remarked that John Douglas's FBI profile fitted Barnett as well as Douglas's preferred suspect Kosminski, and regretted that Cosgrove Murer TV had not been able to give Douglas the details of Barnett when they commissioned him to draft the profile. Well, Douglas has now seen the Barnett case, and discusses it thus, after briefly outlining it:
"This theory offers an explanation of why the murders stopped, because they did, with Kelly's death. Proponents of Barnett's candidacy also point out that he was skilled with knives, had some rudimentary knowledge of anatomy, was a local who felt comfortable in the area and could therefore probably approach local hookers without alarming them, and generally fits the eyewitness descriptions. Barnett would, obviously, have easy access to Kelly's room, and it could be more than coincidence that the 'Dear Boss' letter mentions ginger beer bottles and such bottles were found in the room.
"Paley also cites the analysis I did at the time of the 1988 television series, as well as more general research about serial predators that has come out of my unit at Quantico in showing how Barnett fits the profile. This could be true in certain ways - age, race, dysfunctional childhood with no father, comfort zone, triggering emotional event such as the loss of his job, for example - but these are the superficial characteristics, true of a lot of people. They're almost boilerplate for a certain type of offender. You have to get into the specifics to see if it really fits. And I have never seen, nor do I believe someone would, in this manner, brutally kill women he knows, even vaguely, to scare his own partner and 'teach her a lesson'. Particularly, on the night of the Double Event, a guy of this type would have been scared off by the first one. He would never have gone [on] after Liz Stride.
"The motive just doesn't work. Yes, there are sexual sadists who get off by torturing women. But the mutilation here is all post mortem, so that doesn't fit. Also, these are not planned, considered kills; they're frenzied, out-of-control overkills. If the perpetrator were someone with a personal relationship with the victim, we might expect to see some degree of overkill in stabbing or wounds to the face, but not this kind of ritual mutilation. There's no pattern or internal logic to it. No one who has had a relationship with a woman, as Barnett evidently did, could perpetrate this kind of crime."
('The Cases That Haunt Us', pp.60-61).
I'll let that stand for others to have their say. I've already put in my sixpenn'orth on Douglas and Olshaker elsewhere.
Simon suggests en passant that a mass killer - was it Gacey? - killed his mother as the most important woman in his life. It wasn't. It was Kemper: a heterosexual serialist unlike the homosexual Gacey.
RJP wonders about the long pause in October and whether it meant the Ripper stopped after the double event and A.N.Other - (Barnett?) - killed MJK. Possible, of course. Two suggestions over the October gap have been made, however: my own conjecture that heavier policing made it increasingly difficult for the Ripper to get safely alone with victims, and Bill Beadle's suggestion that Bury's loss of his cart slowed him down.
Finally Jon doesn't think Barnett a 'better than most' suspect. I don't really agree. leaving out the completely disproved figures like Albert Victor, I'd have thought Barnett obviously more likely than Frank Miles, Walter Sickert, James Maybrick, Donston Stephenson, or anybody else who doesn't rest on police investigations or well-known crime statistics. But for both of us this is a disagreement oover a matter of opinion, so wrangling is unlikely to produce agreement.
I hope I don't introduce any aggro into this board by these observations.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 14 May 2001 - 05:22 pm | | Thanks for the clarification Martin : yes it was Ed Kemper , as studied by Ressler and Douglas , not Gacey.
Simon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 08:18 pm | | G'day Martin,
You say "....nor do I believe someone would in this manner, brutally kill women he knows..." Stop dreaming!!.....
In 1895, Henry Howard Holmes was convicted for murdering over 28 ex-mistresses, fiances and those who denied to become his mistress. He confessed that one had died during a bungled abortion that he performed. He often used a 'dissecting-table' and a 'rack-like' device.
Edmund Kemper was 14 years old when he killed his grandparents and in 1973 he decapitated his mother.
If Joe Barnett wasn't 'skilled' with a nife, he was certainly no stranger to one and he could read books. Whitechapel was his 'comfort zone', and Bruce paley uncovered 10 known Whitechapel addresses for Barnett prior to Millers Court. I saw let's not take our eyes off him!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 09:54 pm | | G'day,
More about Ed Kemper:
In 1973 he approached his mother at her bedside, smashed in her skull, then decapitated her. Post mortem he cut out her larynx and shredded it through the garbage disposal.
In 1974, Harvey Carignan hammered in the skull of his girlfriend Eileen Hunley.
In February 1889, William Henry Bury sliced open his wife's abdomen and ripped out her intestines!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 06:41 am | | G'day,
I had to search hard for these few examples of killers who where related or well-known to the victim. It was not common, but one was in the late nineteenth century and others were in the 1970s.
This shows that it could have happened back then as well as in modern times, and when it did happen the killer used horrific methods to 'dispose' of his victim!
Leanne! |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 07:36 am | | Hi Leanne,
I didn't say it at all. It is part of the direct quotation from John Douglas, and he was referring to the mangling mutilating of the abdomens and the complete cutting up of Mary Jane Kelly. And basing it on his probably incomparable experience of interviewing sadistic killers. Holmes's bungling an abortion is completely different. Judging by the construction of his house of horrors, he killed or at least incapacitated most of his victims there with gas, and used his equipment in the basement to reduce them to suitably sized pieces for incineration. Ed Kemper killed his grandparents quite cleanly and straightforwardly with a shotgun. He cut off his mother's head and - to the great interest of psychological commentators - extracted her larynx which he tried to grind up in the kitchen sink garbage disposal unit. He went in for a good deal of decapitation in his series. And he preserved organs as trophies. But he was not like the Ripper, whose mutilations grew steadily more extensive, and seem to me - (and this is now me firing away with my own impressionistic guesswork) - to include an element of nasty childish curiosity: 'I wonder what's in here and under there?'. Nor does Kemper conflict with Douglas's main point, which is that anyone capable of forming a steady relationship with a woman is unlikely to crudely objectify women's bodies as something to cut up. Kemper never had a relationship with a woman (apart from his rather dreadful relationship with his domineering mother). Holmes, who had several relationships, didn't go in for Ripperesque mutilation or decapitation for fun.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 06:08 am | | Leanne,
You seem to have missed part of the sentence you are quoting from. It reads in full, "And I have never seen, nor do I believe someone would, in this manner, brutally kill women he knows, even vaguely, to scare his own partner and 'teach her a lesson'."
It is not the proposition that someone might be brutally murdered by someone they were close to (That is unfortunately not uncommon. There is a reason the police tend to look at spouses first as murder suspects.) Douglas was questioning the supposed motive that Paley imagines for Barnett. I.E. "to scare his own partner and 'teach her a lesson'."
If you could provide any real world examples of that kind of behavior I would be truly interested.
You might want to pick up a copy of "The Cases that Haunt Us" just for Douglas's little piece on Paley's theory. It's really the highlight of the chapter. I'd wait for the paperback though because his research was pretty shoddy and his conclusions are IMO (With all due deference to Martin) highly suspect.
John Hacker |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 08:14 pm | | G'day Martin & John,
'teach her a lesson'....forget that...forget that! I've never been satisfied with that motive.
I wish we knew what happened to Joseph's mother, Catherine. His father, John Barnett died in July 1864 and Paley says that the last official record of Catherine is as informant on her husbands death certificate. There are no records of her death as 'Catherine Barnett'. Did he loose her to prostitution? (If she returned to her native Ireland, her death would not be recorded in the English records.)
With the fight on Oct 30, Mary needing the support of her prostitute friends in that tiny room and the hovering of Joseph Flemming, Barnett was obviously loosing Mary and I prefer to think that Joe Killed her in a jelous rage, then mutilated her face and body beyond recognition.
In 1912, Bela Kiss strangled his wife and her lover in a jelous rage. He was a Hungarian serial killer who murdered 24 people and stored their entire bodies as 'trophies' in gasoline drums.
Leanne! |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 08:44 pm | | Leanne,
I can see why you wouldn't be satisfied with that motive, it seems pretty silly to me! But if you agreed with the statement, I don't understand why you felt the need to attempt to refute it so many times?
Further information about Joseph's background might be interesting, but I don't think it would add anything to the case. Given the prostitue population of Whitechapel at the time, it wouldn't have been that a rare of a thing at all to have mom walking the streets. In any case, I believe the victims are most likely victims of opportunity and not the result of a bias against prostitutes. (If there was a bias, maybe he hated simply hated drunks!)
I know little of the Bela Kiss case, but from what I remember he was an organized offender that lured women in via newspaper ads and then killed them and sold/pawned their belongings, correct?
That was vastly different that what we saw in Whitechapel. Bela was a much colder fish than Jack. His motive seemed to me to have a fairly strong "profit" motive as opposed to the sexual killings in the Whitechapel murder.
John Hacker
(Snark) |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 03:46 am | | Hi John,
Didn't Leanne think she was refuting a proposition that men wouldn't be so brutal as to killing the women closest to them? (Which would be pretty underinformed!)
All the best,
Martin |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 08:49 am | | Martin,
That is what I had thought initially when I made my first post. But in her reply she brought up yet another example (Bela Kiss), which I don't understand if she was in agreement with the statement. I was wondering if maybe I was misunderstanding the point she was trying to make.
But, I am sure you're probably right.
John Hacker
(Snark) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 09:19 am | | G'day Guys,
Martin, I'm sorry I stuffed up your quotation!
Most murders are solved because of the relationship that the killer has to the victim. However, most 'serial killers' have no such link. They kill with no apparent motive. That's what makes these crimes so difficult.
I had to search hard to find these examples, showing that one 'serial killer' killed his wife as part of his series of murders. Bela Kiss murdered 24 people that answered his lonely heart adds. Finding out that his wife had a lover, he killed her.
I think the Ripper hated prostitutes because 'prostitution' destroyed his life somehow. He mutilated them and left them on public display to show how 'easy' and worthless they were.
I don't think he had any formal medical training and the fact that police thought he may have, just 'fueled' his ego!
Leanne! |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 10:40 am | | No problem, Leanne. Though like John, I've always seen Bela Kiss as more interesting as a serial confidence trickster murderer who vanished into thin air somwhere in the vicinity of Schweik's anabasis than as a wife-killer. (Is John old enough for BK to have encountered him, if John happens to be a Boojum?)
All the best,
Martin |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 12:00 pm | | Leanne,
You might want to look at Henry Lee Lucas. He killed his prostitue mother, served 7 years, and then went on to kill a number of others. (He claimed 100s but he was having fun at the expense of gullible police who wanted to close cases. He'd confess to anything they put before him.)
He eventually got caught for the murder of the 13yr old girl he was passing off as his common law wife.
I still don't see any evidence that Jack had any special grudge against prostitutes. I always thought of him as a "poor boy doing the best he could".
Assuming he was a Whitechapel resident he was unlikely to have any private place to lure them home to. And even if he did, he'd have a pretty ugly body disposal problem. He's not likely to have a quicklime pit or a bathrub to dismember the corpses in. Or garbage bags to wrap 'em in, no cars to drive the body off into the woods to bury. Nor a shovel to bury it with, etc...
Given that he's gonna kill women, who's he going to kill? The ones that are out at night, when it's dark. Indeed, the only ones likely to actually assist in finding a secluded murder site. It's not a bad approach at all, he's only in the victims company for a short period and he avoids body disposal problems.
If he did have a "thing" for prostitues he was lucky, because I don't think there was any other group he'd have had the slightest chance of getting away with killing for as long as he did. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Dear John,
You make a good case for prostitutes being the perfect victims. They provide a (female) body,
in the right place, at the right time...willing accomplices? What can you say!
Rosey :-( |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Friday, 18 May 2001 - 09:06 pm | | Leanne,
I don't think Jack hated prostitutes at all. Probably the prostitute vaguely represented a relationship he'd had with a woman before, possibly his mother, but I don't think this had any great bearing on the case. The murderer was very different from you and I.
David |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 12:14 am | | G'day David,
Do you think that maybe Jack targeted, (at first), females older than himself because they represented his mother's 'lack of love'. I mean a prostitute will go with any man that can pay, (love has nothing to do with it)!
Perhaps he didn't hate 'Prostitution',(which was just a means of making a living), so much as the 'lack of love' that I describe?
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 12:32 am | | G'day All,
Tomorrow I'm flying to Bali Indonesia for 2 weeks, so will miss this discussion till I get back....(just when it was starting to get interesting too).
It's getting interesting because we are starting to 'touch' on Jack's possible motives, (i.e. was it a hatred for prostitutes, older females representing his mother, 'easy' females, females in general or just a liking for killing, and shocking the public?)
Enjoy the debate!
Leanne. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 07:35 am | | Bally well have a good time, Leanne!
Martin F |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Saturday, 19 May 2001 - 08:22 pm | | Leanne,
I think the murderer was an opportunist, basically. He saw the prostitutes as available, and he took advantage. He of course did have an interest in their maternal nature, demonstrated by the removal of the uterus and the choice of middle-aged women, in the main. But that's like saying I like fishing for trout--yes I do, but if the bass are available, I will go after them too.
I'm basically critical of two things in Ripperology:
1. British empiricism. The idea that the proper way to evaluate the case is strictly according to empirical evidence seen non-interactively. Historicism, Sugden, spend years of your time "researching' newpaper articles, and the like.
2. Psychologism. The idea that the murderer's crimes arose from some kind of trauma he experienced, and we can unpack what that trauma was by analyzing what he did.
I'm basically in favor of idealism, as a response to (1) and (2). This is the idea that there is a single idea of what the whole case is all about, and by understanding that, we may be able to make one or more new connections between two more pieces of the puzzle that havn't been made before. Then, if only one domino falls into another, perhaps many more will fall. This is interactive and dynamical in nature, and takes account of the thought in the mind of the thinking subject (Ripperologist) and what is being thought about (the factotum related to the case, all the empirical evidence, all the previous interpretations of it, the police files, the newspaper articles, the census information, you, and I.)
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 05:31 pm | | | Essentially my idea as well , we need to throw lots of ideas around in the air and see if we get anywhere. This isn't normal criminology , but then this is no normal crime ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 05:38 pm | | | At least the Joseph Barnett theory provides an explanation for why the Ripper changed from killing middle-aged women in the open to killing a young woman in her bedroom. This is very important and always seems to get overlooked - why did the killer change his type of victim ? Why ? There has to be ( IMHO ) a change of circumstance , a dramatic shift somewhere , maybe even a paradigm shift in the mind of the killer to make him change his pattern - maybe something happened , a change of circumstance somewhere maybe but something must have changed ? What could it have been ? |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 05:44 pm | | Hello Martin
Above you mentioned that I don't think Barnett to be a "better than most" suspect.
To be honest, I cannot recall all that I have said about Barnett in the archives, maybe those were my words, I'm not sure.
What I do maintain, and have always maintained, as you have no doubt read, is that the case against Barnett is based on basically nothing.
Both Paley & Harrison have come up with normal circumstances in Barnett's life and taken the 'dark view' and promoted negative spectulation in order to present him as a witness. In other words his candidacy as a witness is a fabrication.
I would not compare Barnett with Miles, Sickert or Maybrick basically because I hold a somewhat rigid view of what it takes to be a suspect. And none of them make the grade. What I do regard as genuine are the contemporary suspect that we read of that caught the attention of police.
D'Onstan & Tumblety were around at the time, though I have wrote plentiful on Tumblety's candidacy I would regard him as far ahead on the list of suspects than Barnett.
If you read over the 10 points that Paley lists as reasons for Barnett being a suspect, then read over my objections to those very points, then I might ask you if you were to agree with Paley's list then 'we disagree'. But if you find my objections logical, then 'we agree' that the Paley/Harrison case against Barnett is worthless.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 06:04 pm | | Dear Jon,
Where can I find Paley's points...and your points re, Barnett?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 06:10 pm | | Dear David & Simon,
Is this 'continental drift' or more like...'continental shift' in the investigation?
Simon, your idea of throwing ideas into the air reminds me of the Delphic method!!!Who knows what will land where and which side will end up on top?
Interesting...but how does one propose this trick?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 06:16 pm | | Make a suggestion Rosey !
" There is more in heaven and earth than in your philosophy , Horatio " |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 20 May 2001 - 07:31 pm | | Rosey
Look under this thread but the archive of 'May 02' this year.
The actual post was on Oct 7, 2000.
Martin, yes I did say Barnett was not a "better than most" suspect (I found it), but I also said "based on what has been presented", which means, Paley & Harrison are taking an ordinary man and finding understandable gaps in his life story which they fill with incriminating unfounded? speculation and pass him off as a suspect. Bear in mind I'm talking of Barnett as a Ripper suspect, not as the sole killer of Mary Kelly.....I don't think he did that either, but my point is that a case against him in that crime maybe easier to make than the fabricated one he is presently labelled with.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 08:56 am | | Dear Simon,
I would choose the gnonomic method of divination,
myself.
Finding a useful point between two pillars as ascribed to Horatio :-0 then at the right hour,
adopt the Crane position and the Lion Roar, humming..."I'm Walking Backward for Christmas".
Rosey :-)) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 09:55 am | | Having been forcibly made to stand thus in a room eleven foot square...I reached the uncomfortable conclusion that EVERYONE was right SOME OF THE TIME!
As if, somehow, an important piece of a jigsaw was missing...Why and How?
Ed, for example, is convinced of a "message" within a message (...ad infinitum?)and is seeking
a solution via an obscure biblical code X.
Ivor's preferred key is geometry and ritual.
Stephen Knight's is Masonic/aristocratic plot.
And so on...
from the crazy Jew unto the cunning Cockney!
Somewhere in the plethora of data and conjecture,
in the interstices of inspired guesswork at the cusp of insanity...lies that missing 'link'.
The dragnet of Mnemosyne is needed here...or white rice!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 06:52 pm | | The ABC Murders ?
While waiting for the program on the hoaxer in the Yorkshire Ripper case to come on , I watched an intriguing program of ' Poirot ' , the story of the ABC murders. Now this is a piece of fiction , an Agatha Christie story , but could it contain a clue to the Ripper crimes ?
In essence , a series of murders is committed each beginning with a consecutive letter of the alphabet - A,B,C,D etc. But this is just to throw the police off the scent - only ONE of the murders is important , the others are to disguise why it was committed. The other murders are essentially ' red herrings '.
Could it be that this is the case in the Ripper crimes ?
Our murder really only intends to kill one victim , but he kills another four to disguise his motive. He wants to make it look as if there is a madman on the loose in Whitechapel , hacking up old women who walk the streets. For those who might look closer , there are insinuations of the involvement of Freemasons or black magicians. A cryptic message on the Goulston Street wall - what does it mean ? A mysterious shape on a map laid out by ' joining the dots ' of the killings - what does it mean ? Obfuscation , sleight of hand , misdirection...mere light and shadows :
the real victim is in the Ripper's sights and has been all along , and given the change in the killer's signature I would suggest it was Mary Kelly. Else why change from murdering middle-aged women to killing a young and pretty girl in the prime of her life ?
Was the real victim Mary Kelly all along and the others were murdered to disguise the identity of the real killer ? Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.... |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 07:06 pm | | Dear Simon,
Now...who will believe that? Anyway, the thesis I've been working up these last 30 years is- there never was a homicidal killer called "Jack the Ripper". Truth is stranger than fiction...
Rosey :-)))) |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 07:15 pm | | | My imagination soars like an eagle , high above the streets and houses of Victorian Whitechapel... |
|
|
|
|
