Archive through 10 January 2002

** 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 10 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Barnett, Joseph: Archive through 10 January 2002

Author: Arfa Kidney Friday, 04 January 2002 - 07:16 am
Hello and happy new year to you all. As yet, nobody has been able to give a definite answer to my original question--"Was Barnett taken to the mortuary to identify Kelly's body?" Maybe this is yet another area where a vital piece of information has been lost. Leanne,in the absence of such information, I still think it is fairly safe to conclude that Barnett Identified Kelly's remains either inside No.13 or at the mortuary. The very fact that he identified her by looking at her eyes tells us that he would have needed to be close to the corpse and that someone would have lifted the eyelids for him. I personally think that Barnett said "Hair and eyes" and I suspect that he very quickly,was able to identify her just by looking at the hair with it's distinctive colour and swept back style. It would however,be nice to have this confirmed. Regards, Mick
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 04:33 am
Leanne, I believe one of the last posts by myself before the unfortunate break,was the official report by Abberline of the Kelly inquest. Dated 12 November the evening of the inquest,it stated that Kelly had been identified by several persons,and that Barnett had identified Kelly by the eyes and ear.I cannot remember where or how the identification was made by those that gave evidence. It is possible that Aberline was satisfied with circumstantial evidence of the body being that of Kelly,and that no person other than Barnett made an identification after actually sighting the remains.Still it is an odd remark for abberline to have made. I believe it was John who revealed the Abberline report. Regards,H.Mann.
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 05:58 am
G'day, MICK: Have you seen the first photo of Kelly that was taken of her on the bed? Do you think that her hair wasn't soaked in blood and was still in a nice swept back style?....Are you looking at the same photograph as me? HARRY: Paley's book says that John McCarthy (landlord) also confirmed Kelly's identity and I remember reading this in a press report. I'll dig it up! LEANNE
Author: Arfa Kidney Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 07:35 am
Hello Leanne, Although Kelly's hair can be seen to be matted with blood in certain places,I don't think the top of her head is one of those places.It certainly doesn't look saturated all over. Also I remember reading that someone had described Kelly as having hair almost down to her waist. Given the fact that the colour and length of the hair could be clearly seen despite some matting,this would have made identification by Barnett and McCarthy beyond doubt I think. Regards, Mick
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 07:35 am
G'day, I just searched the word 'McCarthy' in the message boards and found that Christopher-Michael DiGrazia said that the in the Kelly Inquest Papers held in the 'Greater London Record Office', it says that John McCarthy said: 'I knew deceased as Mary Jane Kelly I have seen the body and have no doubt as to the identity'. LEANNE
Author: Kevin Braun Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 11:13 am
The 'Daily Telegraph' reported that John McCarthy made a similar statement. Go to Press Reports, Daily Telegraph, November 13, middle of page 3 or here. I also seem to remember reading a press report where Abberline said that several people identified Kelly's remains and that there was no doubt that it was her body. I will see if I can find it. Take care, Kevin
Author: Monty Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 11:14 am
Howdy all, Wouldn't "hair and eyes" come out as "ar an ioes" in coick-er-ney ! Sound similar to ear and eyes dunnit G'vnor? Dick van Monty Moari Poppins step in tiome !!
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 12:11 pm
Hi. Interesting to note that George Hutchinson also was taken to the mortuary to identify the body. [Abberline's report of Nov 12th.]
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 03:37 pm
While the Casebook has been off line I took the chance to read up a bit. These killings are all described as savage. They give the impression that a most demented bloodthirsty killer committed these acts, after all, what picture comes into your imagination when you think of Kelly being killed and butchered. Of course all acts of killing are savage, even a V.C. holder has more than likely been in a savage state during the process of winning that medal. I don't think that JtR was in a savage state when mutilating the bodies, he may even have felt amused while doing it, wishing he could see the face of the first person to come across his handiwork. Mary Kelly's facial slashing almost proves to me that it wasn't done in blind hate. If it had been done blindly then surely he would have slashed across one eyeball if not both,- the eyes were carefully avoided, JtR was not a savage "KILLER", he was a thoughtful killer!, cutting throats was not uncommon at that time as a way of murder. I think the mutilations were done in a cold, careful, matter of fact way. Even the body parts are carefully placed,--they are not cut out and thrown "away" all over the room. It seems to me, that he was most careful and even tidy during the process of mutilation, and according to what precautions he used, he didn't need to have any blood on him at all, but we can only guess as to what he did to avoid splashing blood, the actual throat cutting would have been the most messy, with Kelly being alive and his having to restrain her in the dark. No matter what anyone says, there is a lot of significance in him taking her heart, it should have been a kidney, her uterus, a breast, her liver,- but no, it was her heart, I think maybe Kelly wasn't the type to give her heart to anybody, but she had no choice about giving it to JtR,--whoever he was!!. He cut out her heart, why didn't he leave it with the other organs he had removed? Like in love stories, it must have meant quite a bit to him, and he was keeping it! In Bruce Paley's book there are certain passages that interest me greatly,-- --Bagster Phillips consulted with Insp Beck and it was agreed that the room should not be entered until the bloodhounds arrived. In the meantime the window frame was removed and a police photographer took several pictures of the remains, one of which survives to this day, testament to the demented savagery of the man who called himself Jack the Ripper. -------------------------------- Into the the midst of this scene came Joseph Barnett, sometime in the early afternoon. "I'd heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court,"he later told the press, and on my way there I met my sister's brother-in -law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the Court and there saw the police inspector and told him who I was and where I had been the previous night. Barnett then peered through the open window to view the body and confirmed that it was Kelly, John McCarthy had also confirmed Kelly's identity. The police took Barnett to the station where he was interviewed by Insp Abberline. "They kept me for about four hours, Barnett told the press, examined my clothes for blood stains, and finally finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free. According to the Daily Telegraph, Barnett told the police that he was at Buller's Lodging House and was playing whist there till 12:30am when he went to bed. although the police, "as usual" made a few fruitless arrests, Barnett's detention may have been the inspiration for a curious story that appeared the next morning in the Eastern Post and City Chronicle.-- "An arrest has been made, and it is so far satisfactory to learn that this is not supposed to be another of the series of Whitechapel murders. It is reported that the cause of this dreadful crime was jealousy!!! --------------------------- The result of police reticence, wrote the Star, has been the creation of a market for false news and the actual facts of this latest horror, (Kelly's murder) differ with each narrative of the revolting details. This was also due to the fierce competition between newspapers who often printed hearsay and uncorroborated reports in their rush to get their stories out. -------------------------------------------------- The City police were thought to be more co-operative to the press than the Met. maybe someone will find this useful. Rick
Author: Arfa Kidney Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 05:46 pm
Hello Rick, And a very happy new year to you mate. A very interesting post.I can almost see this image of the Ripper calmly slicing of great chunks of flesh and grinning as he did so.I just feel somehow,that this image fits, rather than a a frenzied ,angry maniac going at it hell for leather.That is not to say that he didn't work rapidly,because I think he did. Having said all that I don't think you can reconcile all this with your belief that Barnett staged a campaign of prostitute killing to keep Kelly off the streets. Regards, Mick
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 05 January 2002 - 08:33 pm
Hello Mick, nice to hear from you, my best wishes to you and yours too. Now Mick, you know I'm a strong believer in Barnett for Jack the Ripper, but I'm always ready to play the game and put forward other considerations and questions. But why don't you think I can reconcile what I have written with my thoughts on Barnett, is it because I think of the Ripper/Barnett as cold and calculating, and not the frenzied killer?. If it was Barnett, and he was the calculating killer type, he knew what he was doing, and had a solid reason for what he did. I did mention the jealousy reason that one or two newspapers believed could have been the reason for Kelly's murder, I really believe that Barnett killed Kelly because she had taken him for everything he had, brought him to the gutter, associated with Fleming, brought other prostitutes into the home, treated him with contempt,caused him to move out and would not allow him back--dumped him. I think it's possible he had killed the others to put fear into Kelly. It's possible! you are dealing with an off balance mind, due to jealousy, and having his nose rubbed in the dirt then thrown away like rubbish. What do you think Mick? All the best Rick
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 06 January 2002 - 04:57 am
G'day, The motive suggested for Barnett being Jack, (to keep Kelly off the streets), bothers alot of people and I feel it is the weakest element in the case against him! I prefer to think it was more than that. Think of that motive, plus the feeling of rejection and jealousy of Kelly's former lover Joseph Flemming, plus the fact that Mary invited two girlfriends to share their tiny room with one bed. Then there's the fact that he lost both his parents when he was young and grew up in the East End with no figure of authority! LEANNE
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 06 January 2002 - 05:18 am
G'day, Here's something to think about: Everyone knows that Kelly's murder was different to the others because she was murdered indoors. All the others were murdered and left in very public places: Nichols - On a street to be found by two carmen. Chapman - at the bottom of a stairwell which was a popular haunt for prostitutes. Stride - At the enterance to a popular night spot. Eddowes - In Mitre Square to be found by the next passer-by. Why then was Mary Jane Kelly hacked behind a locked door in her own private world, especially on the morning of the 'Lord Mayor's Day', when heaps of people would be on the street? My belief is that the killer must have been so familiar with Kelly's life, that he knew someone would be there to collect the rent early in the morning and/or that her killing was less thought-out than the others and more of a 'lover's-rage' type of thing. That would be enough to make a lunatic stop! What are everyone's thoughts on this? LEANNE
Author: graziano Sunday, 06 January 2002 - 05:38 am
Her own private world was quite clearly a popular haunt for prostitution. For her surely. For her friends very likely. Tabram murder's site was certainly more private (I mean less frequented or at least frequented by a smaller number of people) than Kelly's. As for the Hanbury street back yard I will never stop saying that it being considered regularly frequented by prostitutes is the result only of the very suspicious testimony of one man (John Richardson) against all others testimony (not least but not only his mother) and against all odds. This practice (prostitutes going on the back yards of houses for performing) is not corroborated by any contemporary source predating the murder of Annie Chapman. Leanne, don't please believe my aim is to be rude, but could you please begin thinking as a prostitute does (being a woman you are at advantage here over a lot of other boarders)? Then, another point. What is important is not very much where the bodies of these women were found, without doubt the same place where they were killed and cut, but where they could potentially have been previously assaulted (and very likely rendered unconscious). Aside for Tabram, the difference with Kelly would not be so important. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Sunday, 06 January 2002 - 05:44 am
Hi Rick, I'm glad you re-posted the 'curious story' that appeared in the Eastern Post and City Chronicle: 'An arrest has been made, and it is so far satisfactory to learn that this is not supposed to be another of the series of Whitechapel murders. It is reported that the cause of this dreadful crime was jealousy!!!' I was about to respond the first time just as the site went down. This report appears to suggest that then, just like today, it was usual to look close to home for a motive for murder and a likely suspect. Barnett was duly questioned and eliminated in this regard as Kelly's former lover, only recently estranged. The report also suggests that they would not have taken alibis for any previous killings into account when checking out Barnett if they thought for one moment that Kelly was not one of the series. They must therefore have had other reasons for believing him innocent. Even if Kelly was killed later in the morning and Barnett's alibi for that time was never looked into, I think it's safe to say that his story of being in bed after 12.30 would not have been sufficient on its own. But if Kelly's murder had been a one-off crime passionel would Barnett have managed to sit through a four-hour interview so soon afterwards and kept his cool? Seems unlikely to me. Love, Caz
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 06 January 2002 - 04:07 pm
Caz, nice to hear from you,happy new year to you and your household. Thanks for your comments,--- Caz, there's something about the events leading up to Barnett moving out and Kelly dying that won't let me believe anything other than that Barnett killed Mary. I see what you mean about whether Barnett could face down Abberline during the 4hr interview if he had killed Kelly only, but I think his mind was hovering on the sane/insane borderline during this period and maybe that helped him in some way. Perhaps he broke down completely in grief or so Abberline would think,--- tears can hide a guilty look or a slip of the tongue. But whatever, IF Barnett killed Kelly then I believe he killed the previous victims. What he did to Kelly was what he had done to his previous victims, it wasn't that different, he took it further, but I think he would have done that with the others, given the experience and the same situation. Theres no getting away from the fact that Kelly's death looked like a Ripper killing and thats what Barnett intended ---and had to do, love her or not, to take the suspicion away from Barnett the spurned lover. Thats it Caz, now you are going to write me back and tell me I've converted you to my way of thinking? All the best Rick
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 06 January 2002 - 04:07 pm
G'day Graziano, By saying 'Her own private world' I meant her locked room. I wasn't referring to Millers Court. Tabram was found on the stairwell of George Yard. There was no attempt to prevent anyone from finding her. If 'Jack' had wanted maximum shock and impact on 'Lord Mayor's Day', he could have left her body outside or something. The risk of being caught in the act didn't stop him before! LEANNE
Author: graziano Monday, 07 January 2002 - 05:32 am
Leanne, do not misunderstand me, by repeating your (poetic) her own private world, I meant, as you did, her locked room. Other girls used it as it comes out plainly from the statements of two of Mary's friends at the inquest. For the possibility of increasing the impact of his deed on Lord Mayor's day, you are absolutely right when you say that Jack could have left the body outside Miller's Court. This is the reason why I think Marry Kelly murder was also a message to be sent to McCarthy. After all pimps represents one form of exploitation of human being by others in capitalistic societies. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 07 January 2002 - 06:11 am
Hi Rick, Thanks for the good wishes which I am pleased to return in equal measure to you and yours. I'm not very easy to convert though. If, as you say, 'to take the suspicion away from Barnett the spurned lover', he made Kelly's murder look like the ripper's work, he brought it straight back on himself by taking, of all organs, her heart, which fact is so often used by modern theorists such as yourself as a clear sign of a spurned lover at work! Is that what Barnett was doing too? Wanting to have her heart and eat it? Love, Caz
Author: Monty Monday, 07 January 2002 - 08:00 am
Howdy Arfa, When in the bath last night I was just browsing through Mr Sugdens Complete history of JtR when bang, something hit me....... it was the bathroom cabinet that fell. Anyway, I remember a post of yours asking where Barnett made his Kelly I.D.,well if this question has already been answered then I apologise. But on page 310, last complete paragraph, last 2 sentences read:- "It was the last time Barnett saw Mary alive. And when he was to look upon her, dead and mangled in Shoreditch Mortuary, he would only recognize her by her hair and eyes". According to Sugdens notes, it was taken from Barnetts inquest testimony. Hope it helps, Monty
Author: Arfa Kidney Monday, 07 January 2002 - 08:55 am
Hello, Rick,I think it is a mistake to rationalize Jack's motives using anything that resembles common sense.Our Jack worked by his own rules and his perception of life and what it's about must have been grossly distorted.He made his own logic. As an illustration, one serial killer,who's name I forget,used to check his soap dish daily.He would lift the bar of soap to see if there was a jelly like deposit at the bottom of the dish.If this was the case then he would immediately conclude that his bloodstream had turned to powder and that all his energy was therefore depleted! What I am saying Rick,is that Jack had drifted away from reality long,long before any of the murders and who knows what was going on in his head. The trouble is that he was too bloody good at being a serial killer.No amount of ill treatment of humiliation would have caused him to do what he did and surely Rick,you don't believe Jack was a normal ,sober and sensible chap before he met Kelly or do you? Monty,thanks a lot for the information.I had the vaguest notion that I had read something like this before(I do have Sugden's book). Sorry to hear about the nasty bathroom cabinet accident.Hopefully it contained some Elastoplasts! Regards, Mick
Author: David Radka Monday, 07 January 2002 - 11:55 am
So close and yet so far away-- I'd like to commend Mr. Parminter for his recent posts. In one sense he has come very, very close to solving the case. I've been reading these boards since April, 1996, and the above is one of those times, not altogether rare but neither common, when somone picks up the real golden ball and tosses it overhead for all to see. A few posters, among them principally Mr. Nelson, Yazoo, David Yost, and once, perversely enough, even Mr. DiGrazia have done so. But thereafter, Mr. P muffs the catch, and his thought drifts off the mark again... Oh well... No Barnettarian, David
Author: Arfa Kidney Monday, 07 January 2002 - 12:18 pm
Hello David, Does your theory provide us with a suspect who's killing "career" is stopped by either death or incarceration? A fellow non-Barnettarian, Mick
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 07 January 2002 - 04:09 pm
Erota mania is defined as the violent behavior to one�s self or others as the denouncement of unrequited love. Basically speaking, John Hinckley Jr. suffered from it and killer of actress Rebecca Shaffer (I can�t remember his name at the moment) suffered from it. Just think stalker. I have worked six murders that have been the result of erota maniacs. The clues left behind are classic. If Barnett felt strongly enough of Mary Jane Kelly to kill her then he would have suffered from this mental delusion. It is a delusion that forces the killer to kill the object of his affections. The killer has a mind set where he believes that huge vast majority of cases involving erota mania, the killer does not mutilate his object of affection. Homosexuals who suffer from this delusion tend to mutilate their objects of affection. If he kills her then he will do so fast as he does not want her to suffer. He wants the object to feel the pain he felt but at the same time is very sympathetic. It is also common for erota maniacs to keep falling into these love hate relationships. Mary Jane Kelly would not have been the first or last. If Barnette suffered from erota mania then all of his love objects would share common physical and/or non-physical characteristics. In other words they would all be the same height and body build, definitely the same hair and eye color. Peace, Scott
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 07 January 2002 - 06:43 pm
DAVID, thank you for those encouraging words, do you think we should get together, dust it off, get it solved, and put it away once and for all?. Or,-- let everyone enjoy it a while longer?. Best regards Rick
Author: brad mcginnis Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 12:17 am
I think you guys should solve it. Then we could all turn our attentions to another matter, like helping O.J. find the "real killers".....Brad
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 05:29 am
G'day Scott, If Joseph Barnett did suffer from Erota mania, could it have steemed from unrequited love he felt in his parentless childhood? Kelly's killer did kill her fast, with a knife to her throat and she possibly had her eyes covered. The post-mortem mutilation could have represtented his pain. Then when he'd finished, he took her heart! There are no official records of Barnett following Kelly's inquest until 1919, when at 61 he was listed in the electoral rolls as living with a Louisa Barnett. There was no marriage certificate. There are no records of any children of his. That doesn't that mean he never had any relationships or other common-law wives! Must he have killed them all? LEANNE!
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 08:47 am
Hello Leanne, Just because one suffers from erota mania does not mean they have a string of dead bodies to account for. When the erota maniac kills it is usually a last ditch effort, if he or she can't have the object then no one will. They may just have a record of stalking people who fit their profile. They may find the person just right for them, one that loves being possessed and placed upon a pedestal. A loveless childhood could account for this behavior. It has been found that usually this type of person had a dominate, strict but not abusive, parent, usually the mother, and a weak parent, one that would spoil the child by giving into their every whim. This yin/yang type of relationship would become a hallmark of their lives. They love and hate the object of their affection with equal passion. I personally do not think Barnett killed Kelly nor is he the ripper. I do not think he suffered from erota mania. I am just saying the motive that is generally supplied for him would be considered that given to an erota maniac. It is intresting to note that the use of a knife by an erota maniac is a sign of sexual tension. The knife becomes a phallic symbol and the thrusting in ane out is associated with the act of intercourse. The gun is used when the killer wants to put distance, both physically and emotionally, between him and his love object. The gun also represents a final ending to the affair. The affair being real or just imagined. Of course we also have to look at this realisticly, as in the ability to get a gun over a knife or the availability of a gun over the availability of a knife. In the US it is far easier to get a cheap saturday night special than it is in England. For erota maniacs to start targeting their victims it may take only a friendly smile. That usually is misinterpreted as a sign of love and the erota maniac's fantasies will start. Peace, Scott
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 09:56 am
LEANNE, I can't really believe Barnett took up with any woman till he met Louisa.I think it would have taken him a long time to get over Kelly's death, whether he killed her or not. He doesn't come over as a womaniser to me. It's just a guess, but I would say Louisa came after Kelly with no one between. Their union lasted well because she was respectable and true to Barnett. Rick
Author: Jeff D Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 10:43 am
Hello all !!! It's been a very long time since I have posted to these boards and I do hope that no one minds me adding my 2-cents and joining the discussion. The Barnett theory as so far put forth is really about the only one that actually tallies with the evidence. I'm not so sure about the sexual serial killer aspect, however I believe it was the display rather than the actual killing and mutilation that was the killers primary motivation. The killer appears to me to have been sending out a message that he knew would be discovered within minutes of leaving the scene of crime. Such an horrific sight would be bound to shock even the most case hardened investigator and this would most surely instill fear and panic into a very specific class and type of woman. I'm not totally convinced of Barnett as the chief suspect, however it does seem to me that the display of the horribly mutilated victims, left where it would most certainly be discovered, publicised and sensationalised had to be primary driving force behind the killer. The Barnett theory is the only one (IMHO) that even comes close to explaining why the victims were left to be found as they were. As mentioned, for numerous reasons, I have been unable to post to these boards for nigh-on the best part of a year now. I see a few friendly names still posting, hopefully some will remember l'il ole me. Although not posting, I have not abandoned my own personal ripper studies and now that I am back home and online I do hope to be able to post one-or-two ideas that might stimulate and lead to further interesting discussion. I even have a name to add to the list of "credible" suspects, however I shall wait awhile and explain my reasoning before I give people the chance to say there's another crackpot jumping on the Ripper band-wagon with his suspect who just positively, categorically has to be the killer. Anyway, Hello !! everybody, I do hope that no one minds me adding my own thoughts amd joining this discussion. Many Regards & Happy New Year to all !!! Jeff D
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 03:59 pm
Hi, Jeff: Nice to see you back here, and as always we welome your input. I too doubt that Joe Barnett could have been a sexual serial killer. If he killed at all, possibly he only killed MJK and it was a "one-off" deal. My inclination though is to discount that likelihood because of the removal of the kidney: too like Eddowes. Chris
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 04:21 pm
G'day, Rick: What do we know about Louisa Barnett? Bruce Paley suggests that they merely took advantage of a recent change in the law that gave the right to vote to any female over 30, who was living with a male resident. This was 31 years after Mary Kelly's death. How can we know for sure that he had no relationships prior? Jeff: Yes I remember! How are ya mate? I only just pointed out to posters that Kelly's mutilation was different to the others in that her killer resisted the urge to display his work on the street for 'Lord Mayors Day!' LEANNE!
Author: david rhea Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 04:22 pm
Barnett killing the whitechapel victims to keep Mary Kelly off the streets is like Florie Maybrick willing to go to the gallows to keep James's Maybrick's secret that he was Jack the Ripper.
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 06:31 pm
Hello LEANNE, You ask, what do we know about Louisa?,-- well, nothing, and not much more than that about our favourite suspect, Barnett is a man of mystery, I'm guessing like everyone else.Thats all we can do, it seems we can't trust the evidence that comes with the story, that was given out at the time by police and newspapers. Best wishes, Rick.
Author: Jeff D Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 05:02 am
Helloooo ! CTG, Leanne, et al !!! It really is great to be back and thanks for your kind welcome. I do have a few crazy ideas that I would like to post for discussion on these boards, especially as I have so much respect for all of your learned opinions ! Many Thanks again, and I really do look forward to joining in on some of the great discussions here Regards Jeff D
Author: David Radka Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 05:10 pm
Hello Jeff D, Welcome back to the boards, ol' buddy! Its been a long time since we've seen yo' hangin' 'roun' these heah pahts. I remember that you were facing a serious health issue at about the time you stopped posting. I hope you have gotten beyond that by now, and are ready to resume your usual thoughtful and insightful commentary. If you would like to have confidential discussions about your theory by e-mail, I can recommend several trustworthy and reliable people who currently post here--people who have proved thoroughly "au fait" concerning the case evidence, and who would be estimable and reliable with respect to your wishes and confidentiality. On the other hand, there are certain others who might prove a bit dodgy in these respects--perhaps you might want to read the last few months' posts to get an idea for yourself. I've tried to e-mail you, but have been having trouble getting e-mails off. I believe I am able to receive e-mail, however. My ISP is working on the issue. Hope you have a pleasant sojourn here! David
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 10:30 pm
I seem to slightly remember an American legal case [perhaps the Tylanol case?] where a man murdered several strangers before killing his wife [in a similar fashion] to make it appear that she was a 'random' victim of an [ahem!] madman. Another sorry bastard had plotted to blow up an entire commercial airplane in order to cause the speedy exit of his significant other. [Love is a many splintered thing]. But as for the Ripper case, I sincerely doubt that Barnett/William Druitt/Kidney or any others had similar plots in mind. Though, I admit, as a whole, these are no less palatable theories than the nearly universal notion that these crimes were the work of a 'a sexual serial killer'--which I don't happen to believe. Jeff--Hello. I recognize you from some very old posts. Glad to see you here. Regards, RP
Author: Jeff D Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 07:24 am
Hello David & RJ, Thanks for your kind welcome.... it really is great to be back. I have loved these boards from virtually the very beginning and its great to be remembered by people I have always had a good deal of respect for. I have really missed discussing all things Ripper on these boards, so now that I am back, I do hope to be able to contribute to this very interesting historical drama. Although not posting, I have been attempting to do a fair amount of research and writing while offline. I am loathed to simply throw another name into the pot and especially without a firm foundation of facts to support my wild claims. Introducing a name is not my priority anyway. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I do believe we can provide a good amount of information on the person who was the killer without confounding the issue further with wild unsubstantiated claims. I do think though that I have a viewpoint that will make people think and hopefully stimulate some good discussion. People are always prepared to jump on you on these boards should you leave yourself and your theories exposed and yet I have gained a great deal of knowledge from those who have offered constructive critisisms and offered the benefits of their expertise. Having the Evans/Gainey "Ripper Sourcebook" has been of great benefit also and I am confident that when I do reveal my thinking and the facts that have lead me to my conclusions people will see what has become to me to be quite obvious. There is a very common thread that connects all of the victims that I believe has been largely ignored by people who are much smarter than myself so I had better be careful before making any wild accusations :-) I do appear to have run up against a brick wall and am awaiting documentation that I am confident will support my claims, however I would appreciate if anyone could advise me on how to obtain specific information from the Thames Magistrates Court. An ex-CID acquaintence of mine had promised to get me into the Black Museum and help me obtain some information I need from the T.M.C., however it would presently appear to have been an empty promise and I am still waiting. Would anyone here be able to advise me how best to contact these authorities in the hope that I can investigate my theories further? Many Regards DR & RP and all who post here. I do hope to build upon my theories openly on these boards and your inputs are always very welcome. Jeff D
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 10:35 am
Hi, Jeff: It's Evans and Skinner who published the indispensable JtR Sourcebook not Evans and Gainey. Paul Gainey was Stewart's co-author on The Lodger aka JtR First American Serial Killer. However, I don't blame you for being confused! I should think by now SPE himself may be getting confused with all his co-authors. Best regards Chris George
Author: Jeff D Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 06:04 pm
Whoooops ! Thanks CTG... how embarassing. I was very tired and typing on virtual auto-pilot. Hope no offense was caused.... Jeff D