|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 16 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Why did Jack the Ripper stop?:
Archive through 16 April 2002
Author: Rodney Gillis
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 01:57 pm |        | I am always a little hesitant to post on this site because I usually speak in ignorance compared to those who are frequent posters and write with so much knowledge. It does make for great reading though.
I was thinking about the various theories as to why JtR stopped. Under the theory that he died soon after Mary Kelly, has there been any research along the idea that he himself may have been murdered? Jack certainly seemed to be out and about in a bad area well into the night. It is possible that he could have been scouting his prey or just revisiting the general area. This would explain why he wouldn't always have the tools of his trade with him. Was any male killed in the general area that would fit in the time frame and could be linked as a suspect?
Not a theory, just doing a little thinking outside of the box.
Thanks,
Rod |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 11:09 pm | | Rodney,
That is a possibility. There were more than one group of vigilantes out looking for JtR. Some even affected strange costumes. A Dr. William Holt almost created a riot by scaring some women on the street. The police had to save him from an angry mob. Ironically he was wearing bizarre face paint in order to catch JtR himself. We don't know if he was a practical joker, a wacko, or serious but he supposedly turned up drowned in the Thames shortly thereafter. The mob may have tossed him in the Thames or perhaps he finally found JtR, who was not amused. [I must tell you there is no record of a drowning or inquest pertaining to a William Holt in 1888, so the story may be untrue as to the demise of this odd fellow.]
Some reports indicate that any person was taking a risk by even walking through Whitechapel on any given night, regardless of JtR. Wouldn't it be ironic if JtR fell prey to a deadly criminal on his way to find his next victim? Or, as indicated above, if the vigilantes got to JtR before the police.
Even possible that the Masons figured out the identity before the police and he was one of their own. Perhaps they enforced their own justice to stop this killer and to preserve the secrets of the order they are pledged to protect.
The ultimate irony would be, as you mention, if JtR was accosted on an off-night when he failed to bring his knife along. Stranger things have happened.
Interesting thought.
Robeer |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Tuesday, 19 March 2002 - 03:41 pm | | Penelope:
My view is that there are a handful of reasons why Jack stopped. None is iron clad and until we have a 100% guaranteed killer (Which at this late date is unlikely) we will never know.
1- He died either by his own hand, illness or someone knew his game and rid Whitechapel or her most infamous nemesis.
2- He was committed to an insane asylum by friends or family.
3- He was arrested for the police for an unrelated crime.
4-He fled to avoid prosecution. If you view Francis Tumblety as a likely suspect this makes sense.
Hope this helps. Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Tuesday, 19 March 2002 - 04:06 pm | | Hello Neil-
An addendum to your point (4). If one regards Mary Kelly's murder as the last in the series, it is interesting to note that the killings ceased immediately after the government offered a free pardon to any accomplices of the murderer.
A coincidence? Perhaps.
Or maybe the one truly effective government/police measure designed to stop the murders.
AAA88 |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 08:32 pm | | Jesse: I had not thought of that. It is interesting to note that very shortly after Mary Jane kelly was murdered, Francis Tumblety fled to the United States. While I personally think Tumblety could be the ripper I have not gathered enough evidence or seen enough from others to state with certainty that he is our boy.
I do not think that Mary Jane Kelly was the last murder but Again, this is not a limb I want to climb out on just yet. Kindest regards, Neil
PS- Hello Caz! How was your Easter? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 03:46 am | | Hello Neil,
Very nise thanks. Too many eggs though. 
Perhaps Jack stopped because of over-indulgence too.
Do serial killers ever lose their appetite as they get older and frailer, I wonder, if someone else doesn't stop them first?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 03:41 pm | | Caz; Glad you had a nice easter. Mine was as well.
Everything I have read says no that if anything serial killers tend to get more prolific as they kill. Of course we really don't know with Jack but perhaps he laid off and went somewhere else. They usually get nicked before they get too much older don't they? I'm on rather shakey ground as I am no sort of expert. I base this on what I have read which deals only with those who have been caught. (Graysmith's book on the Zodiac killer and what I've read on our boy being the exception. Kindest regards, and have a lovely week, Caz. Neil |
Author: maria giordano
Monday, 08 April 2002 - 06:17 pm | | I always read that serial killers stop because:
They die.
They are physically unable to continue (are in jail, the loony bin etc)
They move away.
I don't know of any crimes just like Jack's that happened in any other parts of the world right after 1888 or 89. I've read about some other cases of serial killers around that time and I was shocked that there are so many of them considering that we're told how the number of these predators has so sharply increased in the past 30 years or so and that this is an American problem.
So, did he jump in the river like Druitt or was he committed to an asylum like Cohen? |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 07:59 am | | Hi All,
There is always the possibility that Jack just simply stopped. Didn't move on, didn't die, wasn't locked up, or even had some debilatating accident, but simply stopped of his own accord.
I'm sure we have a psychologist or two out there that can explain that there are many documented cases of people having brief psychological breaks, that suddenly just go away as quickly as it appeared. Though this is a rare thing it does happen.
Typically cases like this are due to stress. A sudden build up of stress that overwhelms the subject for a period of time, thus causing anxiety, iritability, and some cases mania.(Stress is actually where MANY nervous breakdowns come from.) Once the stress is relieved then the subjects symptoms go with it.
This idea is proven by the ability to declare a defendent in a murder case had a moment of 'temporary insanity'. Of course many of these cases are just lawyers maneuvaring to get their client off, but their are a few cases where this is true.(Such as the battered wife, who decides she can't take it anymore so she shoots her husband in his sleep.)
Most of the profiling we have on cases such as this, are only because these cases have been solved. So we have a suspect for the profilers to study and dissect. But there are MANY more out their that go unsolved(this includes serial murders). Most of these cases don't continue in other places. But not all of these could just stop because the murderer died or was incarcerated. So there must be other reasons why they stopped.
Most people don't like the idea that a person can be perfectly sane one moment, then go completely insane for a brief period of time, and then their sanity return as quickly as it disappeared, but this has happened in many cases throughout the years.
Of course this doesn't mean that the mania wouldn't return later in the subjects life, a majority of the cases of 'temporary insanity' typically do have a relapse into their manic states. However, not all of these subjects have a relapse, and many of those that do have relapses they typically may not happen for years (sometimes decades) after the first instance of mania.
I've witnessed cases such as these with my own eyes, so I know it is possible. It's a very scary thought that anyone of us could suddenly have a psychotic break then go back to being sane in such a quick span such as a few months, but it is possible. But it must be remembered, that dark side of our mind remains with us for our entire lives. So we may be victorious over it for a majority of the time, but there is always the possibilty that it may poke its ugly head up and win a battle or two.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 09:09 am | | Hi Chris,
I'm not altogether sure if your using the term 'mania' is correct or what your intent was to use it. |
Author: maria giordano
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 09:48 am | | I agree, Jill. I think "compulsion" is probably a better term.
And, like my compulsion to eat chocolate, I don't think SKs compulsion to relieve their anxieties by indulging their fantasies ever goes away. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 06:17 pm | | Hi Jill,
Actually it is called a 'mania', or in some EXTREME cases it could be called a 'schizophrenic episode'. Compulsion would not be a good term because one is not 'compelled' to have a nervous breakdown or a psychotic episode.
Now of course the idea of one having a schizophrenic or psychotic break (which are EXTREME cases of mania) and then it suddenly curing itself in but a few months is EXTREMELY RARE. But I have witnessed one case myself in which a person I know had a SEVERE nervous breakdown. He locked himself in his room, and began talking to himself, with differently personality traits I might add(however never diagnosed, so it can not be stated for sure if these were Multiple-Personalities forming), and he even set a small fire in his room just because he enjoyed the look of the flames leaping up as well as enjoying the way certain things burned(Again since it was not diagnosed it couldn't fully be stated as a form of Pyromania). He was like this for 3 months, and never saw a therapist, or was inducted into an asylum(his family were devote catholics that believed that 'only God could save him, not science') Then slowly over time he began to stop talking to himself, and venture out of his room more and more, till finally after another few months, he was back to being fully normal again. Again his case was an EXTREME one(Maybe even close to being as extreme as Jack's.) However, over a very short period it manifested itself, then disappeared just as suddenly as it appeared.
Now I'm sure that there probably are VERY few cases of such a thing happening, but they DO exist. So maybe Jack could be one of these cases? He could easily have gotten away with it, if either he lived alone and was a rather anti-social person to begin with, or if he did have a Multiple Personality disorder that never manifested itself around his friends, family, and coworkers.(The Boston Strangler had this disorder, being able to hold down a steady job, and be a loving father and husband, as well as moonlighting as a serial killer without anyone suspecting it.)
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 07:17 pm | | --- Now of course the idea of one having a schizophrenic or psychotic break (which are EXTREME cases of mania) and then it suddenly curing itself in but a few months is EXTREMELY RARE. ----
Oh, yes, I know that mania can appear while the person isn't even pathalogical manic. And that it can dissappear as well. And hadn't I requested for a gap-year with my boss, I'm sure I would have had a nervous breakdown, instead of simply 6 months of a trance-like state. And I cured myself from it constructively without seeing a shrink either. That is not what I reacted on.
I think you use the word in a wrong context. A manic reaction is partly closing yourself off the world, as you say (lock yourself in your appartment) and seeking some enlightment, clinging on to an unrealistic idealism to attain hope. Starting a fire in your own room during a manic episode is not a violent act towards others, and therefore it is not pyromania.
The problem I have is using the word mania in connection to violent behaviour. To act violent you transform an anger from your ego to somebody else. While during a mania episode you are doing the opposite. You escape everything from your ego, and go fly sky high to feel happy still. That is, as if you're stoned all the time.
BTW, MPD is a dissociative disorder. That is far from manic.
Also sincerely,
Jill |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 07:21 pm | | Maria and Chris,
Like Chris suggested, maybe he did just stop. Maria says that she doubts his compulsion ever went away, however, though you may be compelled to eat chocolate, you can prevent yourself. I know that the urge to maim is probably a million times more strong than the urge to eat candy, however maybe he did. I strongly doubt it but it is possible.
Personally to borrow a phrase from a friend, I think he stepped off the curb and got hit by a beer wagon...but that's just my opinion. |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 08:15 pm | | | I suddenly realized that we had two threads going simultaneously about why Jack stopped so I have moved the current posts to the appropriately titled thread. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 09:55 am | | Hi Chris,
here comes your required psychologist. What you mean is a "Dissociative fugue". The main characteristics are:
1) A person suddenly packs up, leaves home and ends up in a new city (You know husband going out for a pack of fags and disappears).
2) The person will take on a totally new identity and behave normal most of the time.
3) Amnesia concerning the past.
4) Anywhere between a few hours and a couple of weeks the person will appear back home (with a full pack of fags and demanding tea).
5) Amnesia concerning the episode.
Could this have happend to Jack?
Two other minor points.
MPD is a very rare disorder and even today there are only a handfull of cases in the world. The chances for Jack to have suffered from are about as high as Leicester City winning the Champions-League in the next ten years.
Serial-killers don't just stop. Something makes them stop. The idea that Jack just stopped after killing MJK is - eh - well you not what. What we don't know is what made him stop. I liked Rodney's idea of him falling victim to a violent death. Perhaps at look at the files or the newspapers could bring forward a list of male murder victims between November 1888 and May 1889.
Philip
PS An afterthought. If Jack suffered from a fugue then there could be a Missing Persons file somewhere which was opened and closed in 1888. |
Author: Raphael Aglietti
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 07:17 pm | | I think the fugue is an intriguing idea especially since the MJK eviseration was so much more "dedicated" than the previous killings. Could have JTR quit considering the MJK was his "master work"? Problem is what would have JTR done after the MJK murder? Had he suffered from a fugue scenario the answer seems fairly clear; a return to relative normalcy.
The alternative scernario implies an event or series of events which prevent JTR from either a) carrying out the detail and depth of his previous murders, which means he continued to murder to quench his bloodlust but for some reason could not carry out his "signature" b) he couldn't even perform his dastardly acts |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 08:45 pm | | Hi Philip,
Well I know the odds are stacked against it, however it does remain a possibility.
After all there have been at least two known serial killers that had Dissociative Disorders. Desalvo (The Boston Strangler) had a form of Dissociative Fugue(thanks for giving me a name for it so I could look up the term), for he was not cognizant of the murders in which he was responsible. Also we have Ed Gein who had a form of Dissociatve Amnesia, and may also have had Multiple Personality Disorder(A.K.A. Dissociative Identity Disorder.)
Now yes both of these men were captured, and didn't just simply stop. But then again, what are the odds that two Serial Killers would have similar disorders? The odds are definitely stacked against it, however we have evidence in hand that it has happened.
Now, I'm not saying Jack just simply stopped for no reason. However, how does one explain what happens when people suddenly snap out of Catatonia's or even from Severe Mental Breakdowns without any warning or added stimuli? But it does happen. So maybe something similar happened in Jack's case?
I'm not saying that this is the case with Jack. Just saying that it could be a possibility.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 10 April 2002 - 09:53 pm | | Hello, All:
"Jack" may have stopped because "it" worked and "Jack" became pregnant.
Rob |
Author: Jeff York
Saturday, 13 April 2002 - 04:21 pm | | I have enjoyed reading the some 109 posts since starting this section with my question: Why did Jack the Ripper stop? And after reading many thoughts and theories, I still am nagged by one thing: the fact that Mary Kelly was killed indoors. Here are the reasons why it is sticking in my craw:
1.) This murder broke the pattern.
All the other victims were killed and found outdoors. Why was this one different? And why was Mary Kelly 'overkilled'? Some here have suggested that the serial killer was escalating. I suggest that Kelly very likely had emotional significance to Jack. Let's remember that one reason that certain victims are 'overkilled' is to make them less of a person to the killer. Easier to look at your victim when it no longer looks like your loved one, you know. Read about Lizzie Borden or O.J. Simpson if you want to know how certain murderers turn their victims into pulp as to make them less of the person they once knew and loved. This has been found time and time again in profiling. John Douglas writes at length about it in "The Cases That Still Haunt Us." And I think that may very well be the case here. And why Kelly was killed where there would be significant time to destroy her body. That is one answer to why she was killed indoors and broke the pattern.
2.) This murder was risky.
Jack could've easily been caught. If Kelly was a random victim there is no way that Jack would've shown enough confidence to take such time and care in killing her. How did he know that she didn't have a roomate or friend staying with her who could come home at any minute? To gamble like that would've really invited the strong possibility of capture. Unless of course, he knew that she was alone because he knew of her personal status.
3.) The door was locked.
Simply, why would Jack lock the door after he was finished slaughtering her? Did he have a key? And why did he care to lock the door? After all, this is a killer who WANTED his victims to be found and put them out in the public on horrifying display. So why was Kelly's murder so different?
We can talk and talk about outsiders like Dr. Tumblety and James Maybrick. And there are certainly more intriguing or fantastical theories out there like the Royal Conspiracy or Lewis Carroll. But I think it may very well be the simplest of things. A jealous lover, driven to murder. (And of course, who are women most often murdered by? That's right. An intimate man. Husband. Boyfriend. Ex.)
Once again, I bring up the name Joe Barnett. He, and he alone, best answers the three questions I submitted at the beginning of the post:
1.) This murder broke the pattern.
I suggest it was because Kelly had emotional significance to him. The other prostitutes were rather quickly dispatched compared to Kelly. And the 'overkill' explanation certainly fits Barnett in the same way it fits the likes of Lizzie and O.J.
2.) This murder was risky.
The only way it wasn't is if the murderer knew Mary Kelly's living status. And knew that there could not possibly be a roomate or friend coming home to that room that evening or morning. Joe Barnett knew her life that intimately. And I would suggest that he and he alone would have the calm and confidence to take his time in killing her, because he knew her living status and that no one else was going to be there. A stranger who didn't know that would not have been so leisurely.
3.) The door was locked.
The Ripper could only have entered Kelly's room through that door. And to lock it after the murder suggests one of either two things: That the Ripper had a key. Or that the Ripper took great care or even caution to bother locking it! How silly is that? It betrays simple common sense. If Jack had been a stranger, he would've left and not cared about the door. In fact, he would've likely left it open so Kelly would easily be found, just like his other victims. And why would the Ripper have had a key? Oh, of course, he would if he just happened to be Joe Barnett.
Joe Barnett, ladies and gentleman. These three disturbing and glaring inconsistencies in the crime pattern, suggest that he is the man we are looking for. And ultimately, why Jack the Ripper stopped. Quite simply, he had finished his work. Joe Barnett could not keep Mary Kelly off the streets. Even after murdering fellow prostitutes to scare her. When his plan failed, he killed the woman he obsessed over. If he could not have her, she would have to die. His jealousy and rage and wounded male ego got the best of him, the way it does most women's killers.
Thanks for reading. And responding. See you at the conference in Baltmore!
Jeff York |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 08:13 am | | Hi Jeff
Interesting reading, but ultimately flawed.
Quickly ...most prostitutes lived in doss houses, they conducted their business outdoors, that is why they were killed outdoors. Kelly was lucky enough to have a room, that's why she was killed there. Not so difficult.
You ask:
"How did he know that she didn't have a roomate or friend staying with her who could come home at any minute?
Well Jeff, I don't suppose he did know that, but I guess if Kelly was confident enough to have it off with someone in her room without fear of interruption then Jacky could be confident enough to kill her without fear of interruption. And if he was interrupted? So what, he had the knife, right? I don't think he would have been unduly worried.
The door was locked? Yes, that's right - and that has always been a problem in the MJK murder, but it doesn't point towards Barnett anymore than any other candidate.
This next bit is where your flight of fancy really crashes and burns Jeff:
"The only way it wasn't is if the murderer knew Mary Kelly's living status. And knew that there could not possibly be a roomate or friend coming home to that room that evening or morning. Joe Barnett knew her life that intimately. And I would suggest that he and he alone would have the calm and confidence to take his time in killing her, because he knew her living status and that no one else was going to be there.
Quite simply Jeff, Barnett left MJK because she had moved another prostitute into their little room. So, all in all, Barnett would have expected to find someone else there.
And by the way, Barnett had an alibi. The police checked it out, checked him out and he wasn't a suspect.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 09:32 am | | G'day Peter,
Barnett didn't have an alibi! He told the police that he: "was at Bullers, [Lodging House], playing whist there until half past twelve when I went to bed."
Mary Kellys estimated time-of-death wasn't even made until her inquest, at which Joe Barnett didn't state any alibi because he wasn't even asked!
Where's the proof that police checked out his Buller's alibi and that he was never a suspect?
OH...and why do you suppose Mary Kelly moved another prostitute, then another one as soon as the first one left, into their tiny room with a single bed if she wasn't frightened?
LEANNE! |
Author: Jeff York
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 11:53 am | | Hello Peter!
Thanks for your response. And for being rather courteous in your dismissal of most of my thoughts. I do think that even if the Ripper was told by Mary that he (as her 'trick') would have privacy, he still would have been taking a HUGE risk in doing as much ripping of her body as he did. Killing Kelly is one thing. Taking hours to cut her to shreds would've been a whole other thing entirely.
You also contend my hypothesis by bringing up the issue of Kelly's prostitute friend who was staying with her. True, this would have presented an access and time problem for anyone. And perhaps Barnett didn't even know about her. But supose for a moment that the Ripper was Barnett. Just suppose. Don't you think that Mary Kelly would probably have been more honest with him about who was staying with her? He was an intimate acquaintance. I think she would have been more open with someone like Joe than with a total stranger. After all, the issue of time would not even have been relevant to a common 'trick.' The time required by a 'trick' to do his business would have been a matter of minutes. Needing hours of privacy with Mary Kelly would not have been a request. She was a two-bit prostitute. Not some high-faluting lady of the evening one would sleep over with. But if it was Barnett, Kelly probably would have been rather specific with him about just how much time she had that evening for him to come over and talk. And knowing she was alone for the night would have given Barnett all the time he needed. For whatever. To try and win her back. Or to kill and mutilate her. This still makes more sense than telling a stranger about his amount of access to her that evening. With a stranger, the topic would never have needed to come up. So the whole thing still comes down to why Jack the Ripper would've felt so comfortable taking that much time in that room. Again, he had to know he HAD the time! Barnett is still the best answer here.
Also, how on earth do you explain the fact that the darn door was locked? No one here in this forum has given a really good explanation of that yet. Answer that in a plausible way and you have a real argument. But you cannot. Thus Barnett moves forward to the front of the line of plausible suspects on that fact alone. Who else among the suspects had a key to that door? And who else could have locked it? And the fact is, the door WAS locked. It's that simple. Motive and access are the two most prevalent considerations when examining a suspect in any crime. Barnett, of course, had both. He is the only one who truly did. The key and the locked door are unanswerable with any other suspect that we know of.
Finally, I would like to thank Leanne and others who keep illuminating the fact that Barnett's explanation of his alibi is moot! The real time of Kelly's death does not correspond with Barnett's alibi. Also Peter, why do you believe that Barnett automatically told the truth? He could very well have lied. Most murder suspects do. Consider the likes of Lizzie Borden, Ted Bundy, the Menedez Brothers, Jeffrey Dahmer, O.J.Simpson and Kenneth Bianchi- all murderers, all liars about it. There is absolutely no reason we should take Barnett at his word. And there is no reason we should believe in Barnett's testimony. Especially when you consider that the true time of Kelly's death eradicated his alibi.
Good discussion, though! I appreciate your response and interest. See you at the conference perhaps?
Jeff |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 12:48 pm | | Hi Jeff,
Some answers to your questions.
1.) Jack could easily be stated as breaking the pattern with his 'overkill' of Catherine Eddowes. He had mutilated her face, and nearly chopped her ear off. Also the mutliations to her abdomen were much more severe than in the cases of Nichols and Chapman. So if there was a change in killing patterns it started with Eddowes, and not Kelly. So how do you explain this?
Peter, has a GOOD theory that Kelly lived by herself and took clients to her room, while the others hadn't. We have A LOT of evidence about this. Even if we go with just November 9th. Kelly was seen bringing at least 2 different men into her room. So Jack could have felt relatively safe of not being interrupted since Mary wasn't worried about being 'caught in the act'.
Also there is another possiblity. Around 3:45 to 4 a.m. two people in the vicinity of Miller's Court believed they heard the cry of, 'Murder'. Perhaps it was Mary Kelly screaming this. But maybe it wasn't her screaming about Jack and his knife in the room with her, but maybe because someone else was in the room, possibly with the intent of robbery? Crying out 'Murder' is much better than hollering 'Robber'! More people would come running in the former than the latter. (After all, going by the Barnett Theories, Barnett and Mary were so 'well to do' compared with their neighbors. And Dorset Street was infamous for theft.) The robber, could possibly have knocked Mary Kelly out, and ran off, before someone came looking in on the attack. Jack may have heard Mary's cries, walked up as he saw the other man leaving. The robber leaving Mary's door open. Jack waited a moment, waiting to see if anyone came to her aid, and when no one did, he simply walked in, closed the door, and went to work. This theory of course requires A LOT of imagination, however, we have nothing as far as evidence to say it couldn't have taken place.
2.) As stated before, Jack could have felt relatively safe, since Mary was taking men to her room for sex. Or in the case of my 'imaginative theory', when no one came to her aid, he could have felt that no one lived with nor cared about the woman.
3.) The door was ALWAYS locked. Barnett admitted at the inquest that since the key had been missing, he and Mary had to slide their hand through the broken pane in the window to open the door. The only way the door wasn't locked was if it was kept slightly ajar. So if Jack closed the door behind him after being finished, then the door would immediately lock.(This could also give him more of a feeling of safety during his killing Mary Kelly, since he knew the door locked behind him as he went in.) Jack could simply have closed the door to give him some time to flee the scene before someone found the body. Let's remember that the backdoor to 29 Hanbury street was closed, while the front door remained open. Now maybe the backdoor closed of itself, but then again maybe Jack closed it so nobody would notice his bloody work before he got away. But getting back to Miller's Court, since the door was always locked, Jack would not need a key, so he would not need to lock the door. The reason why McCarthy busted the door down, may have been because he thought the door had been locked by the key(the bolt lock), which would have made it impossible to open by sliding your hand through and opening it from the other side, without said key. But if it was only the spring lock, and not the bolt, then Barnett's idea would've worked easily, yet McCarthy may not have known this.
But Jeff, even if we go by your theory about the answers to all these questions, we still are left with one other suspect, asides from Joe Barnett. That being Joe Flemming. He knew Mary's living conditions. He was a jilted lover. He was known to be abusive to Mary.(While Barnett wasn't.) And he had been visting Mary, so it is possible that he took the 'missing key'. Also Flemming never was interrogated nor was he even thought of as a suspect. So it could easily have been him. Maybe even easier for Flemming to be Jack, then Barnett.
Hi Leanne,
Barnett did not have to be asked his alibi at the inquest, that would be up to the authorities to check into. You also state that we have no proof that his alibi was checked out, however we also have no proof that it wasn't. Nor do we even have the actual testimony he gave when questioned by police for 'four hours'. So I guess that didn't happen either?
Yes, Mary Kelly could have been frightened. Barnett even stated that she was scared when he read to her about the murders. This could have been a reason why she had taken prostitutes in with her. Maybe not for her own safety, but for their own. After all the reports stated that the reason Jack's victims were on the streets is cause they couldn't afford a room for the night. So Mary could have wished to make sure her friends didn't end up with the same fate.
But if you are trying to hint that Mary was afraid of Barnett. Well as you stated about Barnett's alibi, where is the proof? Mary never stated that Barnett ever attempted to harm her. Nor did she say that she was ever afraid of Barnett. So I guess if Barnett's alibi couldn't have been checked out because we don't have any proof, then Mary Kelly couldn't have moved prostitutes in for fear of Barnett since we don't have any proof that she did. Also, let's remember this, Lizzie Albrook was with Kelly when Barnett came calling that night, yet Lizzie left Kelly with Barnett. Doesn't sound like something Albrook would do if Kelly was afraid of Barnett.(Nor would Kelly let Albrook leave if she was scared of Barnett.)
We have evidence that Mary and Barnett lived quite peacefully by many of their friends. We have no evidence otherwise, save for the broken panes of the window, which was in agreement by all that Mary was the perpetrator of that one. The only evidence that we do have about any violence against Mary could be that against Joe Flemming. Since it was stated that 'He was abusive to Mary because she lived with Barnett.' So again Mr. Flemming's name pops up, yet no one has bothered to try and research the man. Why? He fits the same profile as Barnett, maybe even better than Barnett fits it himself. Yet no one has tried to research him, instead they maneuver around the holes in the Barnett theory rather than trying to plug them.
Hi All,
As to why Jack could have stopped. Jack is not your typical serial killer. Ask Mr. Douglas, our profiling friend, about serial killer patterns. He will tell you that Serial Killers tend to speed up their killings. That the time between killings becomes closer and closer together. But Jack did not do this. He did quite the opposite. The murders tend to get further and further apart. Taking in just the canonical five victims, we have an 8 day stretch between Nichols and Chapman, a 23 day stretch between Chapman and the 'Double Event', and then a 40 day stretch between the 'Double Event' and Mary Kelly. This is at odds with the common profile for Serial Murderers, because they speed up their killings, not slow down.
So is it possible that this was Jack's end run? Maybe he had killed previously and this was his Coup De Grace? Or maybe these were his only killings, and he slowly was losing taste for it? A failed experiment into his own darker side? Perhaps he was dying, or became sickly so that the killings began to become further and further apart? Maybe he was coming to terms with his madness, and slowly turning back to the light of sanity? Or maybe these murders were because he was a jilted lover? Or these specific women needed to be rubbed out due to some previous crime(Maybe they didn't know each other, but a client knew them all)?
These are but a 'FEW' theories. One can take their pick, or give their own. Just depends on what Flavor of Jack you like.
Best Wishes,
Chris H.
P.S. Sorry Allegria, next time I'll be sure to move my Barnett Rants to the appropriate thread. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 01:34 pm | | Jeff
Just one quick point before we get into the JTR discussion, and it is this: OJ was found 'Not Guilty'.
Now to this:
"The time required by a 'trick' to do his business would have been a matter of minutes. Needing hours of privacy with Mary Kelly would not have been a request".
I happen to believe George Hutchinson's statement to the police (let's not go into the reasons why here) in which he said "I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out. They did not.
Clearly prostitutes such as Kelly were in the habit of taking more time with their clients than the ladies of the pavement. How can I surmise that? Well, Hutchinson's statement was known far and wide - and nobody took issue with it. Abberline believed that Hutchinson saw Jack the Ripper, which is as good as saying he believed Hutchinson's statement. The newspapers poured no scorn on it.
Now Jeff, don't you think that if the average "trick" took 5 minutes and Hutchinson said he was standing there for 45 minutes this would have raised some suspicion with either the police or the press?
Thus, with that client at least, MJK took her time. And by the way, it wasn't Barnett.
Her previous client was supposed to be carrying a quart of ale, what was he supposed to do? Quaff it and do the wild thing in under five minutes?
Stay with me Jeff, because now it is to Chris that I turn, but in response to one of his replies to your query. With me?
Chris, I too think the door was locked. But this is where our opinions part company, for I believe it had been locked with the key. Why? Quite simply because when Barnett was called to the scene he didn't open the door by reaching through the window, no - he allowed them to break the door down!
And McCarthy didn't have a spare key.
So how did the 'lost' key suddenly materialise and then disappear again? That's another discussion, I'm afraid - maybe Kelly took McCarthy's spare after her original was lost? It would make sense for the landlord to have a spare, wouldn't it?
Now, Leanne. Why did Kelly allow her friends to stay in her room? Well, isn't it obvious? If you had a room of your own and your friend was in danger of sleeping in the gutter, wouldn't you want to help? I know I would.
Take care
Peter. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 04:52 pm | | Peter, it wasn't Kelly's room, it was Kelly's and Barnetts home when she invited the prostitutes in to stay. It was after the second one turned up that Barnett said ENOUGH!!
Rick |
Author: Jeff York
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 05:12 pm | | Peter,
Just because O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty" does not mean that he wasn't a murderer. It just means that in a court of law he was not proven to be a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt. For what it's worth, he was found guilty in the civil trial. It is also felt by a majority of Americans, including African Americans at this point, almost a decade later, that Simpson was indeed guilty. But if you would like to eliminate him from my argument you may. The others I listed prove my point about lying. (Which you didn't really address.)
As for the key, a landlord may have had one. So what. Is he a suspect? No matter because you still haven't gotten to the meat of what I was asking. And that is why the door was locked after Kelly was killed at all? The murderer had to have had a key. Who else would lock it? What? her landlord came by in the middle of the night and locked it for her after he heard her turning a trick? Please. Jack locked it after he was finished. And therefore, Jack had a key.
Finally, the testimony of anyone can be faulty. And is not always the truth. Hutchinson may have been wrong about the time. Barnett may have been lying. I would not put so much stock in this kind of thing. It seems most things in this case are contradicted by something or another. Even the police reports. So going purely on historical record or transcripts is not enough. Let alone accurate. No testimony is ever an absolute.
Jack locked the door. And somehow he had a key. I doubt that he locked it with Kelly's. Can you imagine Jack rummaging around looking for her key after all his carnage? Why would he do that? So he could let the flies get to her before her landlord? I' m not sure why Barnett would have either, for that matter. But the fact that he had a key clearly makes him suspicious. The police should've pursued this angle further. Combine the fact that Barnett once lived there, had a key, and was her jilted ex and you have a lot of reasoning to bring him in. Again. And again. In today's smarter world, it would auomatically make him suspect number one.
Finally, Peter, answer me this.. the overwhelming majority of women who are murdered are done in by their husbands, boyfriends or ex's. That's true today. And that has always been true throughout western civilization. Knowing that, why don't you think that Barnett is a good suspect? Doesn't this fact alone make him viable? And combine that with his tumultous history with Kelly and you should be able to admit that it makes him one heck of a good suspect. If not the number one suspect! How can you ignore the possibilty when there are those kinds of facts known to us?
And then there's that damn key. How did Jack lock the door again? Oh that's right. He must have had a key. Again, paging Mr. Barnett...
Jeff York |
Author: Jeff York
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 05:19 pm | | Chris,
Interesting post. I am not all that familiar with Mr. Flemming, but appreciate your commentary on him. I will have to read some more about him. Nonetheless, whether Flemming or Barnett, I too feel that that Kelly's murderer probably knew her and had a more personal motive. And that this was the reason, more true and simple than the 'escalation' of a serial killer's bloodlust, that caused Kelly to be butchered so. Thanks for all of your intriguing thoughts!
Jeff York |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 06:21 pm | | | In this intriging eternal triangle of Joe Barnett, Joe Fleming, and Mary Kelly, I would have thought that with Fleming being the outsider coming to visit another man's common law wife, Barnett would be the jealous party ready to kill if required, if he was that way inclined, to keep the woman he loved. Since I've been old enough to understand, I've known the old saying,-- "if I can't have her,-- HE WON'T HAVE HER!!--(But then we have different values today) |
Author: Michael Conlon
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 07:04 pm | | Apropos of Kelly and the locked door,
For what it's worth, the very Ripper-like murder of prostitute Carrie Brown ("Old Shakespeare") in a New York flophouse in 1891 involved an indoor killing with extreme mutilation (and the reported extraction of "a certain organ") wherein the door was also locked from the inside, leaving authorities quite perplexed as to the killer's escape route. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 07:16 pm | | G'day All,
CHRIS: You say that Joseph Barnett wasn't abusive to Mary, but Mary was thought to be abusive to Joe. Barnett himself said that their relationship was punctuated by frequent and sometimes violent rows, sparked by her drinking.
Mary's good friend Julia Venturney said: "I have frequently seen Kelly the worse for drink, but when she was cross, Joe Barnett would go out and leave her to quarrel alone." As Mary was known to go out late at night drinking with her friends, Barnett went out by himself late at night...FREQUENTLY! Venturney also stated: that Mary had told her that she "could not bear" him.
About the 4 hour interrigation: Barnett told one newspaper that Police kept him for two and a half hours!
PETER: If my friends needed a room, I had a tiny little shack with one bed and a boyfriend I wanted to get rid of, I would invite one friend, then immediately invite another to sleep with us!
Ages ago, we questioned here on Casebook why McCarthy didn't have a spare key or masterkey. We concluded that extra keys were very expensive in 1888. Kellys room was partitioned off from John McCarthy's shed. It was not infact a room!
LEANNE |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 03:27 am | | Good morning all,
The key:
McCarthy (and Bowyer) did not have a key to the room. Otherwise why look through the broken window? If the room was locked then the last person who left the room took the key with him. Barnett told the courst that he and Kelly used to open the catch of the door through the window. What if the catch locked when the door was closed? Some modern doors cannot be opened from the outside without a key but can be opened from the inside. Were such doors around in the 1880s?
Barnett:
Barnett testified to have read to Kelly out of the newspapers. Paley presumes that this was done to scare her and keep her of the streets. What if she did not stay of the streets? If Hutchinson saw her with a customer then Barnett may have also seen her out. When he saw the customer leave he went in and murdered her. To go with that is alibi is more than suspect, "claims to have played whist until 12.30 and then went to bed". Kelly was clearly killed after 12.30.
Philip |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 04:59 am | | Hi All,
Hi Peter W,
Re MJK:
"I left nothing of her face to remember her by. She reminded me of the whore."
"One of these days I will take the head away with me."
Familiar words? 
I think certain psychologists/profilers might say the author of such words (whoever he/she is/was) knew a thing or two about serial killers.
While a one-off killer in a rit of fealous jage might want to destroy the face of his faithless lover and take her heart, a serial killer (Bundy, Sutcliffe for example) sees the real object and image of his hatred in each anonymous victim and wants to destroy that image over and over again. Whether it be an early girlfriend who let him down, a prostitute who cheated him or gave him a dose, or a young and beautiful wife who couldn't say no to the charming male acquaintances or relatives of her much older, sickly husband.
Maybe that night in November, and his chance encounter with Mary, just happened to be the closest Jack ever came to destroying the 'right' image for him - yet another stranger, but for the first time one who had something physically in common with the real object of his hatred (the very opposite of Lady Macbeth's feelings about the murder of Duncan: "Had he not resembled my father as he slept, I had done't"). Up until that date, all the women he'd encountered and sent to their maker were - not surprisingly, statistically speaking - older, scraggier specimens. In short he had to take whatever was available and hoped that something better would eventually turn up. It did, and she had her own room too.
So I think it far more likely that the woman who called herself Mary Kelly was killed by the serial killer we call Jack the Ripper, and that he was doing to her what he did to the others - destroying someone else entirely.
If Mary had been the only mutilated victim that autumn, only then would Joe Barnett stand out like a sore thumb IMHO, and even then we'd have Joe Fleming as sore thumb number two, along with a couple of sore fingers like McCarthy and Hutchinson.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 07:09 am | | Hi Caz,
You write, concerning lines in the diary:
"I think certain psychologists/profilers might say the author of such words (whoever he/she is/was) knew a thing or two about serial killers."
And all they would be offering would be pure and general and unsupportable speculation, since they would have had no subject to actually analyze and since the rather obvious and melodramatic lines you mention could just as easily have been offered by someone who knew no more about serial killers than you or I or the general movie-going public do. And the doctor's speculative conclusions, coming after the fact and projecting backwards, might very well be the result of their own desires and professional influences and prejudices and might actually tell us nothing at all about the authors of the lines you cite. Their conclusions, in fact, tell us more about them as readers than they do about any possible writers.
Why?
Because they are not analyzing a patient, they are reading a written text, one with an anonymous author, and consequently, they cannot make or offer us any firm or reliable conclusions about the writers of that text, since the meaning of written texts always and inevitably exceeds their own intentions.
They are not doing psychopathology in this case, since there is no subject, only a text. They are, in fact, doing literary criticism.
And as a professional literary critic, I can tell you that having your cuckolded hero/serial killer see his wife, the object of his hatred, in his victims, is no more necessarily an informed and subtle psychological insight than having your villain always wear a black helmet and cape and confess to the hero, while they duel with light sabers, that he is secretly the hero's father.
--John
PS: If this response to Caz's post is too off-thread-topic, please feel free to delete it. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 08:05 am | | Hi Leanne,
I didn't mean to sound that Mary was abusive to Barnett. Was just stating that Barnett had no history of abuse towards Mary. And that the panes in the window that were broken, were by Mary and not Barnett.
Nothing More....Nothing Less.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: maria giordano
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 05:59 pm | | I was wrong when I said ( on April 8 ) that there were no other killings just like JTR's in other parts of the world just after 1888.
Suspect Arbie LaBruckman was unknown to me then, but is a fascinating new find. New to me, at least.
See in dissertations "A Tale of Two Frenchy's"
and the thread on LaBruckman if you haven't considered him before , it's worth the time.
Maria |
Author: Michael Conlon
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 01:04 am | | Thanks, Maria,
The article, "The Ripper In America", published in December's "Ripperologist" (a great publication to which all interested in JTR should subscribe) is also in the Dissertations section and is the more up-to-date article on La Bruckman.
Thanks. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 05:53 am | | G'Day,
CHRIS: Barnett didn't initially take his jealousy/rage out on Mary. Instead he went out "FREQUENTLY". So did he take his anger out on other women I wonder? In the end I believe that he killed Mary in a fit of rage, after realising that he'd lost her.....perhaps to Joseph Flemming!
LEANNE! |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 07:37 am | | Hi Leanne,
Or maybe Joseph Flemming killed her in a fit of rage because she left Barnett and didn't go back to him(Flemming)? After all she and Barnett had been splitsville for more than a week, but she didn't seem to be moving anywhere. Flemming was already angry that Mary was living with Barnett. We have evidence of this by statements made that Flemming was 'abusive to her because she lived with Barnett.' Yet we have no statements about Barnett being abusive to anyone.
So again, the ball falls further into Flemming's Court, than in Barnett's.
Adios,
Chris H. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 08:11 am | | Hi John (O),
I wrote:
'I think certain psychologists/profilers might say the author of such words (whoever he/she is/was) knew a thing or two about serial killers.'
I didn't say anything about whether they were right to say it or not. 
As you say, this is off topic, so I’ll meet you down in diary land behind the bike sheds in ten minutes.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
