|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 04 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Why did Jack the Ripper stop?:
Archive through 04 April 2002
Author: HERBERT SHAFFER
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 08:33 pm |        | Phillip:
I know that you have heard this before, but Phycology sucks!!!!
Profiling is even worse!
You assume from very meager evidence, that what one person does, another person will do. That is so much Bulls--t!!!!
Each and every person is an individual! They will each respond differently to the same stimuli.
Not every child that is molested as a child, becomes a Pedophile.
Nor do they always become criminals of any sort!
Jack will not be caught by profiling.
Chances are that we will never know who committed those murders. There will always be room for doubt.
Evidence, and knowledge of the persons involed is the only way these murders will ever be solved.
Like you I regret that. I would love to know who!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Herb |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 04:40 am | | Herbert
If psychology sucks, then I have been giving a lot of head over the last six years.
If profiling sucks, then it is surprising how many criminals are put behind bars because of it.
Philip |
Author: HERBERT SHAFFER
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 06:35 am | | Phillip.
Sorry if I ruffled some feathers.
I'm happy for you for all the head you've gotten, but that does not lessen the true. Psychology like religion causes more problems than it cures.
Profiling puts away criminals, yes, and a lot of innocent people too.
Herb |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 09:41 am | | Hi Monty,
sorry I forgot your question.
If we knew who his last victim was we could perhaps find out why he stopped. Martin Fido thought that Kelly was his last victim and looked for suspects who were locked up shortly afterwards. He found Cohen. Williams Beadle thinks that Ellen Bury was his last victim and found William Bury. Of course if he killed ramdomly it may not help knowing who his last victim was. But as you said everything helps.
Profiling wil not catch Jack, but it may be able to give us an insight in how he ticked and can help discredit certain suspects. D'Onston springs to mind as one who just does not fit in. Too much bragging. Maybrick on the other hand matches in certain aspects. (Peter: be sure to read that one). Profiling Jack is a game and can not be exact because all we have is files and photos. None of us can walk the crime scenes which would be needed.
The question still stands: Why did he stop? The number of possibilities is limited: Death, Asylum, Prison. But then are we really talking about a true serial killer?
Philip |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 09:45 am | | Hi Van(Can I call you Van?),
It is possible that someone may have made the mistake in age. After all let's look at the fact that many people thought the victims were 10 years younger then they actually were.
However, have you actually looked into the neighborhood where Hutchinson's suspect was? Numerous stories of Dorset street filled the paper about how it was one of the hardest and worst places to live, how police often dreaded having to go into the street at night, and mugging and prostituion was rampant in the area. Dorset was considered the 2nd worst street in all of Whitechapel.(Flower and Dean being the 1st, and Thrawl street being the 3rd. Both of these streets were basically right across the way from Dorset.) So basically we are looking at an inner city ghetto. A precursor to the modern day housing projects. Do you REALLY think a gentleman with a THICK gold chain, and a nice little horseshoe pin would be able to walk in and out of Miller's Court in the middle of the night and NOT be mugged for his possessions? That would be like Donald Trump walking all alone in a Housing Project at two in the morning with a diamond cluster ring, without being scrutinized by every person on the street.
Hutchinson was lying about his suspect. The police themselves even had their suspicions of his testimony, but gave a few resources to check into it due to the public scrutiny they were already HEAVILY under.
I'm not saying a gentleman of this stature couldn't have passed along Commercial Street with little or no problem. After all Commercial Street is a MAJOR thoroughfare, while Dorset street is some side street that ends into a backwater. Just saying a guy like Hutchinson supposedly saw would have garnered MUCH more attention.(We have to remember that this same gentleman is tramping about on Berner street before MANY witnesses as well as cutting through areas such as Goulston Street and Duke's Place.)
Hi Leanne,
I stand corrected on Barnett's testimony about his leaving Mary Kelly. Barnett had changed his testimony slightly in the inquest compaired to his interview by Abberline prior.
Yet, there is no way Barnett could have been making anywhere NEAR 3 pounds a week. The average families salary was about 21 to 27 shillings a week.(Roughly a Pound to almost a Pound and a Half.) If Barnett is making so much more then that, then how come he's not paying his rent on time at the other places he stayed with Mary? If he's fortunate enough to be paid a KING'S RANSOM(at least in Whitechapel it would be considered such.) then why is it he and Mary aren't living in better areas of Whitechapel than in Miller's Court? Why, according to Paley, is Barnett being fired for stealing, if he's making such a GREAT income as to be able to buy whatever he needs? Just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean if you are doing so much better than your fellow man/woman in your profession, you'd want to live a little more comfortably, wouldn't you think?
We still have no evidence of why Mary left Flemming. And going with the reasons why Jack stopped his killings, given by both you and your fellow Barnett theorists, one could still susbstitute Barnett for Flemming. So why are you so afraid to try?
I'm not trying to pull out the rug from under Barnett, after all if I did that, then I'd be doing the same to Flemming. I'm not that hypocritical! I'm just trying to show you that the case against Barnett can be used against AT LEAST one other.
If the case against Flemming is so flimsy, then give me proof. Just as others have tried to give evidence against Barnett(I.E. the alibi, his living with one of the victims without being suspected by her, etc.), then please give me evidence against Flemming. I'd be happy to hear it.
Of course we've gone a bit astray from the topic of discussion. Maybe it would be better if we moved this discussion over to the Barnett Board?
But as to why I think Jack stopped. Well maybe he had a certain agenda that he hoped to achieve? This fits well with the Barnett Theory, the Occultist Theory, the Conspiracy Theories, etc. The death of Mary Kelly may have been the last piece of the puzzle. Whether her death would have been from scorned love, the search for organs, the death of a blackmailer, or even the last murder of a madman's perverted plot. There are endless reasons why he could have stopped. But I pose another equally debatable question which goes along with this....Why did Jack Start?
Adios,
Chris H. |
Author: Jeff York
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 10:31 am | | As I read over the many messages left since starting this question "Why did Jack the Ripper stop?" I am a little taken aback by how much faulty 'proof' gets served up here. Speculation and conjecture are fine. But we all must try to refrain from stating things as fact that are not. And some here tend to rather brazenly condemn certain things being written without getting their own facts straight before condemning! Chris Hintzen wrote a very good analogy of Barnett to Ted Bundy in the fact that they were both interrogated by police without leading to an immediate arrest. Jesse Flowers then writes Mr. Hintzen and says his argument is shoddy and that Bundy was never interrogated by the police before he was arrested. This is untrue. He was. Three times! And thankfully, Mr. Hintzen wrote back and told her so. Speculation is one thing. But we all must refrain from stating things as fact, when they are not.
One other thing I would like to add to the discussion o Barnett is this: Leanne Perry points out that Joe Barnett's alibi does not matter since the time of death of Mary Kelly was proven to be much later than originally thought. So why are we arguing about his alibi? It's moot. This is one thing we do know as fact. If Barnett's alibi is unaccounted for at the actual time of Kelly's death, then he is still a possibility to be her murderer, isn't he? Despite what the police thought or did.They were interrogating him without the proper facts. I say let's continue to debate about Barnett's clothing, motive, economic status, washed or unwashed aprons, and whether or not he was a real butcher or not, but please, let's not distort the real facts we have. If we do that, then that just blurs more lines. And this website deserves a little better thinking than that. Hypothesis is one thing. Facts are another. I think we should try to keep them separate in our dissertations. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 10:50 am | | I'm supposing and guessing again!!.
Barnett was a sharp dresser when he was employed, but his job could have been a bit messy,(guessing again), if that was the case, during his unemployed,--but odd jobbed period, he would not have objected to any work, so long as it paid. I would "guess" during the beginning of his oddjob period he would still have his dandy clothes plus working clothes, maybe plus others. Some of his working clothes could have been caked with all sorts of things due to working part-time in such places as horse or cattle slaughter-houses!, I don't believe they could tell animal and human blood apart in those days?. What was the point of looking for bloodstains on suspects clothing when they couldn't tell whether it was animal, fish, or human?. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 11:08 am | | | In fact he did still have his toff clothes after November 9th. He appeared at Mary Kelly's inquest in them! |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 08:09 am | | Jeff York (31-Mar, 10:31 a.m.), repeats the statement that Mary Kelly’s time of death was shown at the inquest to have differed to that given by Joe Barnett when explaining his movements on the night of 8-9th November. Having let this assertion go when it first appeared last week (by Leanne Perry 27-Mar, 7:30 a.m.), I feel this really must be challenged before it becomes another accepted but incorrect fact. One of the many unsatisfactory outcomes of the whitewashed inquest held on November 12th was that the time of death was not properly established. The comments of two witnesses hearing cries of murder appeared to place the killing at around 3:45 to 4 a.m. In contrast, the evidence of Caroline Maxwell, though prefaced with a warning from the coroner, was left hanging in the air with its implication that the murder time was after 9 a.m. The testimony of Dr. Phillips gave nothing at all away – something which went unchallenged by both coroner and jury. Hence any statement like "Her estimated time-of-death wasn't established until her inquest, so any alibi heard before that date wasn't really an alibi at all!" (Leanne) is immediately rendered incorrect.
A read-through of Barnett’s inquest testimony and of his original statement to the police dated 9th November does not reveal any alibi for the night in question. Unfortunately no report of his interview with Inspector Abberline survives either. Stories of his spending the entire night at Buller's playing cards before retiring to bed come to us from press interviews. Whether or not Barnett was questioned at the inquest about his movements that night, if the police had felt there were inconsistencies in his accounts worthy of further investigation, they were, of course, free to interview him again. They need not have settled, as Mr. York implies, for having been "interrogating him without the proper facts".
Rick states that Barnett was a sharp dresser. Based upon what, may I ask? A one-off appearance as a witness at the inquest is insufficient to conclude that smart dress was a day-to-day characteristic of Barnett's. It is certainly not enough to justify banding terms like 'dandy' about, as though the casually-employed ex-porter from Dorset St. was some sort of Oscar Wilde character. Yes, The Star may have been sufficiently impressed with his appearance that day to remark on it, but other witnesses appeared smartly dressed at these inquests too (like Polly Nichols' husband). It’s not unusual for the scruffiest herbert to go to court in a suit. Chris Hintzen makes the reasonable point that the clothes Barnett wore at the inquest could have been borrowed.
It is probable that Barnett did have alternative clothes of some sort. With regular employment his wages would have been better than those of many of his contemporaries. No doubt it was a relief to be able to change into something that didn't stink of fish. (When I inspected the Billingsgate Porters' Registers a couple of years ago the whiff of hundred year old fish emanating from the pages was overpowering).
Chris Hintzen (29-Mar 7:40 and again since) is almost certainly correct in stating that "no way" was Barnett making £3 a week. This oft-quoted figure comes from page 12 of Bruce Paley's JTR The Simple Truth. The relevant text says:- "Porters were paid by the piece at varying rates, but a steady, diligent worker could earn as much as £3 per week – a considerable sum for a labourer at the time, and one that put him at the top of his class". It isn’t made clear where £3 figure comes from, but it appears to be based on the assumption in Paley's previous paragraph that Barnett doubled as a fish gutter after hours – something for which there is absolutely no evidence. Furthermore it’s worth pointing out that Billingsgate's portering system had been changed c1877, largely because of the employers' frustration at the feather-bedded working conditions of certain grades of porter prior to that. The new conditions would have left some porters worse off. So we need to know from where and when Paley derived his numbers. It really shouldn’t be difficult to ascertain what a realistic wage for a porter was – there must be records of this at the Corporation of London or perhaps at the Fishmongers' Company. More research is needed on this point, so if anybody’s got a bit of time…
On the question that arises of blood detection at the time, it was impossible to tell human blood from other mammalian blood in 1888. It was possible to detect the difference between the blood of mammals (including humans) and fish.
Related to the above point, where does this assertion come from that Barnett may have been a butcher (see Jeff York), or a slaughterer? Rick again stirs the pot with "Some of his working clothes could have been caked with all sorts of things due to working part-time in such places as horse or cattle slaughter-houses!" Has somebody uncovered some new facts? Can we please have the evidence for Barnett's butchery career posted either here or the appropriate Suspects topic.
Rick’s latest poste says he has been misinterpreted and that "it must be something the name Barnett does to posters". Maybe, but that stems largely from the Barnettites themselves. For starters, whilst I fully recognise the difficulties of investigating a 'nobody' who lived over a century earlier, Paley's book is a trifle short on facts, but very long on speculation. Paley’s supporters here on the boards don't help themselves by overdoing his case with some of the statements I've tried to highlight in this missive. Of all the suspects regularly discussed here, Joe Barnett has become the one most surrounded by careless assertion and by myth. Well… unless you count Maybrick as a suspect that is!
Regards, V. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 03:48 pm | | Chris, many thanks,I thought it must be a genuine case of mis-reading,--your a gent!.
Viper, I would never have known anything about JtR particularly if I hadn't picked up Farson's book in W.H. Smith, in 1969. I've never quoted from anything but a respectable book,(I think) I don't have much time for the Diary,(but I have it) I don't have much time for Knight or McCormick
but I have their books. The more you read, the more information and opinions you draw in,-- that you can draw on, is that wrong? not so long as you pass it on as you read it, true or speculative. I've always tried to be sure to say when I'm guessing, if we didn't guess we wouldnt be talking to one another. You have so many facts and you can only go on repeating them or disbelieve something and think up something else to take it's place, as you do! AS I said before I only quote from a book, and I say when I'm guessing. It's hardly my fault if when I quote from a book,it sounds silly,or proves to be untrue, thats the authors responsibility not mine.I also thought exchanging opinions would be a good thing, not on these boards seemly, Viper calls it "stirring", I've seen some mighty silly posts on these boards, --what do you call those.
Viper I'm asking this in all curiosity, how do you make it more reasonable to say Barnett never took the opportunity to make a couple of bob at a horse slaughter house a couple of nights before Kelly was killed?-- as I have been asked,-- were you there? As far as I am concerned speculation is a two way thing, if an author says a thing,---and you say "naw never in the world" without knowing or proof,-- you are as wrong as the author. You can disagree, but it don't make you right
Rick |
|
|
|
|
