|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 22 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Barnett, Joseph:
Archive through 22 April 2002
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 11:53 am |        | Hi Rich,
You asked if serial killers ever end their reign with someone known to them personally.
I can't think of any off-hand, but the case of Christie came to mind as one whose wife was among his victims. The reason he killed her may have been that she had discovered his grisly secret, or grown too suspicious for comfort. Or perhaps her very presence was making it increasingly hard for him to carry on killing.
I haven't thought too much about this before, and I don't think Joe killed Mary (I simply don't believe he'd have got away with it in the long-term, whether he was likely to kill again or not). But I'm wondering how common it is for a murderer to have to kill again purely to get rid of someone who had become too much of a danger or hindrance - someone they might otherwise have had no intention of harming. Might this have applied to Jack? Could someone have known, or found out about his secret, or even just been in the way, and paid the ultimate price? One of the Whitechapel murder victims, perhaps? Or a ripper victim we don't yet know about (friend, relative, or even accomplice)? And if so, could such an experience, bringing him face to face with possible betrayal and the noose, ever be nerve-shattering enough to make a Jacky finally lose his touch and his taste for murder?
Just an idea.
Love,
Caz |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 02:49 pm | | If it was easy or not to reach the catch/lock by putting the arm through the window and if "through the window" was to be intended as "through the hole in the window", you would expect Barnett and Kelly to "clean" such a hole.
I mean to remove all the jagged shards around the hole in the pane.
Why should they risk to be cut or to cut their clothes in such an operation ?
Moreover when you know that you get often drunk ?
The contemporary picture of 13 Miller's court that we all know, taken the morning of the murder, suggests nevertheless that this was not the case.
It is difficult for me thus to accept the statement of Barnett unless the window could be open/raised from outside (as Jeff say here above).
Nevertheless we may safely discard such possibility because the door had to be broken to enter the room.
The only remaining possibility, as far as I am concerned, is that they did not open the door by reaching through the window (or through the broken pane) as this is moreover suggested, even if that does not provide an irrefutable evidence, by the testimony of Mary Ann Cox who states that MJK and Blotchy-face entered the room but does not mention one of them going round the corner.
I believe thus Barnett was lying on this point.
Without believing he was the Ripper, I think likely he had things to hide.
What was is role in Miller's Court anyway, working place of prostitutes ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 03:34 pm | | Hi Caz,
You make some good points (as usual) in your post. I don't think much of Barnett as a suspect either.
It seems that those who propose Barnett as Kelly's killer must choose either of four scenarios:
1. Barnett was a homicidal serial killer who slayed women and his bloodthirsty reign culminated in the murder of Kelly at which time Barnett's lust for blood was satisfied.
2. Barnett was a serial killer and Kelly was simply one of his victims - he continued his murderous rampage after her death.
3. Barnett murdered other Ripper victims in order to blame his eventually murder of Kelly on a serial killer.
4. Barnett murdered Kelly and Kelly was not a victim of Jack the Ripper.
My point is scenarios 1 and 2 are unprecedented for a serial killer (as far as I know). While this doesn't make the theory impossible it does make it less plausible.
No one has pointed to any evidence to suggest the third scenario - that Barnett continued to murder after killing Kelly.
This leaves scenario 4 as possible but unproven.
Rich |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 04:46 pm | | I can think of two serial killers who's last victims were people close to them. Edward Kemper's ended with killing his mother and a friend of hers. And another fellow (described in one of John Douglas's books; his name and exactly which book I foget just now) who ended up by killing his grandfather.
Kemper turned himself in after killing his mother, and the 2nd fellow was caught due to the investigation of his grandfather's murder.
There probably are others, but those are the two whom I can think of off the top of my head. I'll try and track down the name of the 2nd fellow.
- Jeff |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 05:11 pm | | Hi Jeff,
My recollection with Kemper is that he murdered college coeds and one day in a fit of rage murdered his mother - he then chopped her up. I believe he then got drunk in a bar and confessed the crime.
I understand you might believe I am quibbling. But I don't believe that Kemper's murder of his mother fit the pattern of his other killings. In the case of Barnett, it was one in a series.
But I understand your point.
Rich |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 05:21 pm | | The 2nd fellow was Nathaniel Code, described in Keppel and Birnes book, "Signature Killers". Not sure if Douglas covers him.
-Jeff |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 05:26 pm | | Mr Dewar,
You propose four valid scenarios with regard to Mr Barnett. But what of (5) and (6)? I guess you are still working on these!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 05:32 pm | | Well Graziano,
What about (5) and (6)? Any ideas?
By the way, have you read Dante?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 05:33 pm | | You are correct, in the Kemper's normal victims were college co-eds. His murders, it is thought, were fuelled by his hatred of his mother. So, the story is that by killing his mother he finally got around to killing the one that motivated him to kill in the first place. That would be the only link to her killing being part of the series, and of course it all rests on the accuracy of the motive explanation.
Still, it's the only example I can think of that fits the idea that Barnett may have
1) killed other people because he was angry at Kelly
and
2) stopped after her murder
The difference, of course, is that Kemper then surrendered while Barnett did not.
Although Code did not surrender, his crimes aren't thought to be motivated by the same thing. He killed during house robberies and he killed his grandfather when robbing him.
- Jeff |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 05:43 pm | | Hi Rich,
One other thing about Kemper. He is reported as admitting that if he was released, he would kill again. So even killing his mother, the proposed "motive" for his killings, he would probably have continued. With Barnett being "on the loose", even Kemper's example would suggest he would have continued. That would again, seem to leave your option 4. But the Kelly murder fits the escalation pattern of the crimes so well, that she wasn't killed by the same person is unlikely.
- Jeff |
Author: Vila
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 10:02 pm | | Hi all,
I have to side with Barnett being an unlikely killer, at least at the moment. If he did kill anyone, I feel that it would be Mary alone. I have a bit of experience of being a battered spouse (I'll expand on that if you're morbid, and courteous enough to e-mail me privately, otherwise I'll assume that the details of my life are as boring as anyone else's and omit them.) and to my mind, Joe's act of leaving the room rather than getting into a fight with Mary over the added houseguests reveals him as being the submissive member of the couple. To my mind this act makes it less likely for Joe to be a killer. Although there still exists the lesser probability that he did come back and kill Mary. I don't dismiss the possibility, I just think it the least likely.
As for Joe being Jack, I just can't see it from what I've read. Possibly that's an artifact of my frame of mind. I can't help it, I'm just drawn that way, as Jessica Rabbit said.
Um, I fear that until or unless we can find a record of *why* Joe lost his job, we'll never *know* the full dynamics of their relationship. The stresses and circumstances that convert an ordinary Joe into a ravening Jack have got to be many and complex. Per Capita, there just aren't that many serial killers. (I count this as a blessing.) As always, I express only my opinions. I can't lay claim to being an expert on anything that involves JTR. (Although, as an editor, the Letters and the Diary do present some interest in an obscure way. Although any examination of transcripts of the text would be less meaningful than handwriting analysis, some clues could be obtained. But both working together should bring out the *most* value. But although I do know a little bit about words, I know nothing about handwriting. In other words, I know enough to be interested, but not enough to do much good. LOL!)
Vila |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 10:22 pm | | Hi Jeff,
I am doubtful that Barnett killed anyone yet I think it is possible that he murdered Kelly. Indeed, if he did, the mutilations might have been perpetrated to implicate the Ripper. Of course, thus far, there is really no credible evidence that Barnett ever did anything so ghastly.
I understand your view of the escalation pattern of the killings. Of course, this assumes that Stride either was not a Ripper victim or the killer was unable to carry out the mutilations he desired.
I am in the minority because I am uncertain that Stride and Kelly were murdered by the same person who killed Eddowes, Chapman, and Nichols. The Stride and Kelly killings are too different in modus operandi. I acknowledge that those who include both Kelly and Stride in the series have plausible explanations for these differences. To my mind, though, their inclusion in the series is unproven.
My basic point is that if Barnett murdered Kelly - which is possible - it is likely that this was the only murder he committed and that Kelly was not slain by a serial killer.
Rich |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 01:49 am | | Hey Rosey,
yes, I have.
And, please, not in a translated version.
Not even in nowadays italian, but right as he wrote it.
So, what do you wish me to explain you about it ?
Which figure captured your imagination ?
Ciacco ?
Farinata degli Uberti ?
Le due colombe dal disio chiamate (The two doves called by the desire) ?
Your (not always obedient) servant.
Graziano.
P.S.: I do not have 5) or 6). As far as I can think, not even 2).
Barnett was not the Ripper and he did not kill Kelly. He was only McCarthy's "bull", and, for one reason or another, had been dismissed.
That's the only logical reason I may imagine for Kelly to be allowed to be so much in arrear with the rent.
Till that moment, being the girlfriend of the "bull", she had some priviledges. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 03:55 am | | Vila,
when Barnett called on Thursday's evening and found Mary in company of Maria Harvey, he was not afraid of staying and it was Maria Harvey who went away (at once).
Hard to believe he was submissive or Mary was mad at him and did not bear him anymore.
I have no problem to think he just went to have some sex and then went away because he had nothing more to do that night with Mary.
The girls who spoke about him at the inquest underlined his gentle character.
Seen the problems he had before in other lodgings and likely with his work and the fact that he lived in a rough neighborood and with a prostitute, I have some doubts believing he could have been such a gentle and kind person (question of survival you know).
Could they (the girls at the inquest) have known that it would have been better for them not to be too harsh on him by fear of revenge ?
I am not sure the figure Bruce Paley's gives of Barnett stands the (sparse) facts we know about him.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 05:54 am | | Dear Graziano,
Paradisio...The Transformation of M.
Ciao, Rosey :-) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 05:56 am | | G'day Everyone,
I have been searching the Internet, then flicking through 4 volumes of Marshall Cavendish's 'Murder Casebook' to find examples of murderers who have killed their spouse. I have 1 volume to go and here's what I found:
1. Edward Zakrewski hacked his wife, his son and daughter with a machette over an impending divorce.
2. Mark Barton of Atlanta bludgened his wife and 2 kids with a hammer, then killed nine other victims.
3. Thomas Clark murdered his wife with an axe, inflicting injuries that were 'critical in the extreme'.
\b4.} Thomas H. Groover threw his wife off a bridge.
5. Some guy planted a bomb on a jet that his wife was on, killing all 35 passengars.
6. In 1910 Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen was convicted of murdering his wife, Cora, dismembering her head, removing all bones from her torso, removing her arms, legs and genitals.
This was described as a classic example of 'domestic murder'. Cora Crippen had become a drinking, domineering and unfaithful wife.
7. In 1986, Robert Healey killed his wife of 8 months, and her 13 year old daughter by her first husband. Robert battered them both with a rolling pin. In a diary he had written that he felt like a piece of furniture to be moved around at the whim of his wife.
8. In 1915 American Belle Gunness advertised for husbands and murdered them with a hatchet while they slept.
9. Sometime before WW1, Bela Kiss advertised for wives, killed them all and stored 7 bodies in oil drums in his cottage.
\b(10.} Begining in 1895 Johann Hoch married 24 women and murdered about half of them by poison.
I also read: 'jealousy is a complex and powerful emotion that can lead to acts of great violence.'
LEANNE. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 08:25 am | | Hi All,
I believe Fred and Rose West's final known victim was their daughter, Heather, who was murdered in 1987. It would be interesting to know why there were no further murders (assuming there weren't, of course) between 1987 and when the Wests were finally arrested in 1994 - seven years seems a long time for them to go without killing again.
In the West case, there were probably too many surviving victims with tales to tell of serious sexual assaults, and too many dead ones whose remains would no doubt eventually have been found, for the couple to have got away with their crimes indefinitely. But did anything change after daughter Heather's murder to make them take stock and make a conscious decision not to kill? Were they getting increasingly worried about getting caught? Was middle age slowing them down, or curbing their urges? Was their cellar just getting too full? 
What I'm going back to, I suppose, is the question of compulsion to kill, and whether it ever slackens off due to the killer's own physical/mental condition, and whether the compulsion can be turned off by the powerful whiff of fear caused by the police getting closer to the truth with every passing day.
Heather's 1987 'disappearance' was no cause for concern until some years later, because the Wests hid their handiwork. But if Joe Barnett killed Mary Kelly it's a whole different ball game, leaving her on display like that. He would have breathed a huge sigh of relief when the cops concluded the ripper had been at work again, and that the ripper was anyone but yours truly, JB. Let's face it, he could have wound up having the whole series pinned on him instead, by over-eager coppers, so sickened by the latest scene that they were desperate to see someone pay, regardless of whether jilted Joe could in reality harm a fly. And had an innocent Joe swung for Jack, the fact that no more murders after Mary's were confirmed to be by the same hand would only have served to reassure the public that justice had been done.
Just one more reason why I can't see Mary's death being down to Joe.
Love,
Caz |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 08:30 am | | Rosemary,
seriously,
is it possible to know something more about you ?
I mean, something more than what you give on your profile ?
I mean,...you know,...well, you know what I mean.
Ciao. Graziano. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 08:56 am | | Multiply that by 2. Or is that divided into two, like the District of East Middlesex was? I can never get that right. Either way, excellent move, Graziano.
Rob |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 03:39 pm | | Hi Leanne,
You certainly have done your homework. Those are all noted cases in which murders slayed their loved ones.
I can understand the theory that Barnett murdered Mary Kelly - though I see no evidence for it. Those that believe Barnett murdered Kelly would have a stronger case if they suggested that Kelly was not a Ripper victim.
I know of no circumstance in which a serial killer concludes his spree by murdering his wife/lover in the same way he murdered others.
The reasoning that I have read of the Barnett as Ripper theorists is, I believe, unprecedented. That does not make the theory impossible but quite unlikely.
Rich |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 04:13 pm | | Hi Leanne,
You forgot one person who pertains well to this subject.
11.) George Chapman poisoned three of his wives. Suspected by some at Scotland Yard to be Jack the Ripper.
Of course Chapman's poisoning and Jack's mutilations are VERY much different. So there is as much evidence against Chapman being Jack as there is for.
There are several other cases involving serial murderers killing their lovers/suitors.(And yes there ARE female serial killers out there, even though most profilers say they do not exist. There is at least one case that I know of where a woman was convicted of being a serial murderer.) However, these cases only have the killer killing those he/she desired, or that desired her/him. So this doesn't exactly suit the Barnett mold. But of course this does not knock Barnett out of the loop. After all, there is always someone out there that 'Bucks the Trend'. 
Hi Richard,
Actually Eddowes had a change of M.O. for Jack as well. He had never mutliated the faces of the victims before this. So if Kelly and Stride can be disconnected with the case due to the change in pattern so can Eddowes. So that leaves Jack with only Nichols and Chapman. Also some will say since Jack didn't remove an organ of Nichols, then this is a change of M.O. as well(that is of course if Jack wasn't disturbed as it is possible in both this case as in Stride's death), so then Jack is left with one. So maybe we don't have a Serial Murderer at all?(Not something I believe, but going by the change in M.O. theory, then this could be the case.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 05:24 pm | | Hi Rich,
Yah, Stride of course doesn't show the escalation, but as you point out she's either not a victim of the Ripper, or he was interrupted and hence, on to Eddowes.
I tend to include Stride as a Ripper victim because the discription of the throat wound to her seems similar to that of Eddowes. I'm writing this at work, so don't have my references with me to make sure I get this 100%, but let me try.
Strides throat was cut such that the left cartoid artery was nearly severed, but the right was left undamaged. This is a very different wound than that of either Nichols and/or Chapman, where the throat was cut from ear to ear down to the spinal column.
However Eddowes throat was cut such that the left cartoid artery was severered but the right only had a small hole. This is also different from Nichols and/or Chapman's wound, but sounds similar to Stride's.
The similarity of the one wound Stride had with the same wound (throat cutting) on the 2nd victim of that night, appears to link the two cases.
Then, in terms of the mutilations, we go from
1) Tabram (if a Ripper victim) lots of stabbing
2) Nicholes - throat cut, some torso mutilations
3) Chapman - throat cut, extreme torso mutilations, vicera removed
4) Stride - throat cut
5) Eddowes - throat cut, extremem torso mutilations, vicera removed, some face mutilations
6) Kelly - thoat cut, extreme torso mutilations, vicera removed, extreme face mutilations, removal of flesh from limbs (legs) and breasts
It seems to me, that each murder, apart from Stride, is reproducing the last one with "additions", and Kelly fits in with that pattern. Note, by including Tabram (sp?) I'm not saying she definately was a Ripper victim, only that if she is included, she doesn't break the trend. See 2 posts down in terms of Tabram -> Nichols as "repetition".
So, in my opinion, both Stride and Kelly should be included in the series.
On the other hand, it's been suggested that someone may have "copy catted" the Ripper crimes in the Kelly case. I guess it depends on how close copy cats actually tend to come to the original series. I'm not qualified to address that issue, or even hazard a guess. My general belief is that Kelly fits the series too well to be a copy cat victim. But I would rather base that on information from someone who has knowledge about how well copy cats actually copy than on my own intuition. Anyone got some information on how well the copy cats actually replicate the MO and signature of the crime spree being copied?
- Jeff |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 05:32 pm | | Leanne,
Check out www.crimelibrary.com. There you should be able to find a few more. Murder by spouse/partner is relatively common (in terms of murder), so there should be a fair number listed. Can you separate these into those
1) who only killed their spouse
2) who killed their spouse as part of a series
3) who copy catted a serial crime to kill their spouse
Option 3 is not unheard of! After the original Tylenol poisonings in the US, a women poisoned her husband and I think even put some tainted bottles on store shelves.
- Jeff |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 06:03 pm | | Oh yah, Tabram to Nichols doesn't "replicate" the previous in the specifics, only in the ferocity of the attack. It would have to be argued that the Ripper didn't find the stabbing satisfying, and switched to Ripping which then "worked" for him. Tabram fits in terms of time, victim type, location, and violent attack with a knife, but doesn't fit in that the thoat wasn't cut and there was not opening up of the gut cavity. With the C5, there does seem to be a form of "replication" going on.
Just thought I should qualify that.
Oh and Leanne, if you check out the crimelibrary, be cautious in some of the interpretations given! I think it's accurate enough to get the information you want though. I can think of another "copy cat" situation, where a soldier has been convicted of murdering his wife and child copying the Manson Family murders. However, there are those who beleive he was wrongfully convicted, and that others committed the crime. Either way, it's a copy cat situation. Good luck in your research.
- Jeff |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 07:06 pm | | G'day,
I have been trying to prove that a person can be murdered by their lover, (Barnett and Mary weren't lawfully married rememeber, so he hadn't 'won' her heart).
Over the years I've been posting here, people have always said that it was impossible for Joe to kill the woman he was obbsessed with. This is like saying: "See, I told you so!"I don't believe he planned to kill her, if he did, it could have been a fit of rage, brought on by jealousy. The way her face was unrecognizable and she was spread all over the bed.
The fact that there are no known records of Barnett's behavior after her death, has me stumped! But that just means no one has found any records.
Caz: Jules has researched Fred & Rose West. I have found the story and will read through it later. I have found a few more cases and will tell of those later too.
JEFF: I don't know what to do with this list when I'm through but I will be looking further into each case, separating them into categories etc. Remember though, we shouldn't expect to find a case that exactly matches the Ripper one and points to who did it. Every murder is different!
LEANNE |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 07:23 pm | | Dear Graziano,
Mere mortals are not permitted to peer beyond the Veil.
Celestial Rose :-) |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 08:15 pm | | Leanne,
It would be unlikely to find a case exactly like the Ripper one, for sure. As for people not killing those they are obsessed with, there are clear examples of it; again not like the Ripper, but people do murder those they are obsessed with, such as Hinkley killing John Lennon. This is quite different on a number of fronts, obviously, but I'm just making the point that people do kill people they are obsessed with. Most murders tend to be between people who know each other, and "murder by stranger" relatively rare.
I think, though, what you could try (and this is just a suggestion), would be to try and categorize as many cases as you find along the lines of the theories put forth on the boards. The three I had mentioned earlier was one way of dividing them up. It would be up to you to decide if you want to limit the cases to be "murder involving mutilation", which tend to be rare, or "murder by any method".
I find it odd that you've had to argue that people are murdered by their lovers on this board though? Are people objecting to the notion that "If Barnett was obsessed with Kelly, he wouldn't have mutilated her if he killed her?", meaning "If he killed her he wouldn't have performed the mutilations, and so he couldn't have killed her?" If so, you might want to limit the cases on your list to ones that involve mutilation of some sort. Just a suggestion. Good luck.
- Jeff |
Author: Vila
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 09:37 pm | | Hiya,
There are people here that deny that murder is most common between family or lovers? Come on, we've got come cops that post here, they should back up that factoid.
Graz, thanks for reminding me about Maria. I'd forgotten her details. I do all these posts from memory, unless someone asks me to check some point, so if I err its because I don't have computer enough to keep research windows active while I post.
Vila |
Author: graziano
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 03:08 am | | So Rosey,
I guess the only possibility that is left to me is to show you that I am not a mere mortal.
No problem. See you soon Baby.
Hey Rob,
your incredible perspicacity astonishes me more and more.
Really amazed.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 07:30 am | | Hi Leanne,
I doubt people are saying that they can't believe that an obsessive love (Barnett) can kill the object of his obsession (Kelly). That would just be plain LUDICROUS! Obsession has been a driving force for such infamous parts of our history(Such as Hitler's obsession with the 'Master Race', world conquest, and the Holocaust.), that EVERY one of us has witnessed a form or two of it.
What most people are doubting is the fact that Barnett killed 3 or 4 other women because of HIS obsession with Mary. I believe there is a VERY GOOD possibility of his doing this, but not for the excuse, 'He wanted to keep Mary off the streets.'
Barnett and Kelly moved into a little room right off Dorset Street. This is within the 'evil quarter mile.' Dorset Street on it's own had been known for it's prostitutes, not to mention Flower and Dean merely a block away. So if Barnett wished to keep Mary off the streets, and supposedly had all this money to do this(which is one thing I thoroughly disagree with.) then why would they move to an area with such temptations? After all, if you wanted to keep a drug addict from their addiction, you don't move them into a Drug House.(Of course I don't mean a prostitute is addicted to the sex, but Barnett himself stated that it was Mary's bringing in the Prostitutes off the street(and her subsequent return) that was a driving force for him to leave.)
Hi Graz and Rosey,
Welcome to the entrance.
Through me the way into the grieving city,
Through me the way into eternal sorrow,
Through me the way among the lost people,
Justice moved my high marker;
Divine power made me,
Highest wisdom, and primal love.
Before me were no things created
Except eternal ones, and I endure eternal.
Abandon every hope, you who enter.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 08:34 am | | G'day,
Kelly was obviously the dominant one in the relationship! Barnett earned all the money and the room at Millers Court was in her name. Mary seemed to think she had a right to invite friends to move in until they found other arrangements.
Here are 3 more examples of 'domestic murder':
11. In 1999 in Maine, Gene Gogan shot and dismembered his wife Vella.
12. In 1998 in Maine, Andrea Lockhart was beaten to death by her husband.
13. Adam Matthew Moss killed his girlfriend and her 5 children with a hammer, then killed Ronald Fish.
This is getting morbid trying to dig out these cases! I've read about some wicked people!
CAZ: Fred and Rosemary West were two of the wickedest! Not only did they kill a daughter as part of a series, but they threatened another daughter that if she told police she would join her sister in the garden!
LEANNE! |
Author: graziano
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 09:05 am | | Of course the room was in Mary's name.
It was she who had to work there.
The coming in the room of other girls could just mean that the room was also used by other girls to perform their (sexual) professional activities.
The going away of Barnett could mean exactly the same thing.
McCarthy could have need more money from one reason or another from Mary, or she (together with Barnett) decided that some kind of sub-renting was necessary to get more money for their projects.
And that her prostituting was not enough anymore.
Leanne, places such as Miller's Court and couples like Mary Jane and Joseph living in such places, are quite usual and you still just find them today.
Nothing exceptional in all that.
Telling all about it at an inquest, before the police, would not have been so easy.
For the police aknowledging that they knew about such places and their use in the Victorian period was even more difficult.
The idea of Bruce Paley was well found, well brought by and intelligent.
I fear nevertheless it fell short to the hard daily reality that such people had to face (do not be misled by naivety, many time by choice).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Raphael Aglietti
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 09:11 am | | I don't doubt that Barnett could have killed Kelly, but depth and extent of the mutilations would seemingly be much to mnuch excessive to be one's first kill.
If you are suggesting that Barnett copied JTR and only murdered Mary Kelly then the extent of mutilation seems extremely unnecessary.
Option 4 is just as implausible as scenarios one, two, three.
4 is only a possbility if Barnett had committed gruesome murders in the past which may not have been related to the the "canonical murders" in order to acquire the "taste" for such acts. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 09:20 am | | In reality, Leanne, if you live with your companion in a room for which you do have to pay a rent and both of you do not have a regular income, and you accept that the room is put down to your name only, thus being the only one to be responsible for the not paying of the rent before the landlord and the law, it is you that are submissive, not really your companion.
He just seems to use you for his own benefit.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 10:01 am | | Leanne,
I've been following the boards for years and I have never seen anyone make the claim that it would be "impossible for Joe to kill the woman he was obbsessed with." That people sometimes kill their loved ones is a given, and does not need to be proved. Indeed, I've seen a number of people who believe that he was NOT JtR, but believe that it is entirely possible that he did in fact kill MJK. When someone is killed the spouse/lover is almost always suspect #1 by default.
Here's a few headlines from yesterday's papers, there are undoubtedly many more. It happens all the time.
Young love gone wrong--(Jersey City Reporter)--Last week, St. Aloysius High School, a close-knit school where everyone knows and loves everyone else, was rocked to the core when it was learned that a former basketball star allegedly strangled his high school sweetheart to death in her college dormitory room.
Woman's letter tells of regret in slaying--(Sacramento Bee)--In a letter written by Laren Sims Jordan the day she was arrested on a murder warrant, she tells of her regret for killing her husband and beseeches her teenage daughter not to steal and lie the way she did.
Woman found dead in her home; boyfriend held--(Modesto Bee)--A Modesto woman was found dead in her Airport Neighborhood home Saturday night, and her boyfriend was being detained for questioning, Stanislaus County sheriff's deputies said.
I don't think anyone doubts that people kill their loved ones. Quite a lot of people doubt that Joe was a killer though. The complete and utter lack of evidence of any kind probably has something to do with that. Indeed, it's not entirely clear that Joe would even have a motive. There's a been a whole lot of speculation going on about what went on in Joe's head that is not supportable on the evidence we have.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 10:22 am | | What is possible is that Barnett murdered Kelly. The excessive nature of the mutilation might very well have been based on the vague press reports of the time - Barnett after throttling Kelly might have engaged in the mutilations to make it appear that she is a Ripper victim. I doubt this occurred but it seems the only plausible circumstance in which Barnett murdered.
Hi Chris,
I think Jeff lays out very well the escalation pattern with the Ripper's victims. This would explain the Eddowes facial slashes. With Stride, there was a regression in mutilation (though this is explicable but not proven by the "interrupted in the act theory")
Hi Jeff,
Your layout of the escalation pattern makes sense. But I would suggest that the Eddowes killing differs from the others in that the initial assault was witnessed. In no other circumstance did the Ripper allow someone to see him grappling with his victim. Of course, this could be explained away if indeed it is theorized that Stride was attacked separately by two different assailants within 15 minutes.
Hi All,
Barnett doesnt make sense as a Ripper suspect - his pattern of attack is very unlikely (murdering prostitutes then killing his lover and retiring from murder). Though it is possible he killed Kelly.
Rich |
Author: Kevin Braun
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 02:03 pm | | Rich,
I think you meant that the Stride killing differs from the others in that the initial assault was witnessed. Eddowes was seen with her hand on a man's chest (minutes before her body was found). The witnesses did not indicate that she was engaged in a struggle. Rather, a friendly conversation with a man dressed like a sailor.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 02:44 pm | | Hi Kevin,
Thanks for clearing up my last post. You are correct. That is my intention. Several victims were seen by witnesses with people who might have been their killer. However, only with Stride did was a victim attacked before witnesses.
Rich |
Author: Raphael Aglietti
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:45 pm | | Hi Richard,
While I don't disagree that Barnett could have killed Kelly I don't think he would have carried out a copycat role to such a degree I.E. gross mutilation of the corpse. He only would have to have mimicked (spelling?) the throat slash and perhaps cutoff an ear. The nature of the Kelly "slaughter" (for lack of a better term) is the work of someone who is off kilter. It is not that of a copy cat killer avoiding blame being placed.
Like I said if what you suggested was true Barnett would have had to have killed prior to the Kelly murder.
One's first murder is usually very timid in nature because remorse still exists. It is after a few murders that remorse has left. Hence I beleive that Kelly was murdered by someone who had murdered and mutilated before. |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 07:04 pm | | Hi Rich,
Good point about the Stride assault being witnessed. As a counter point, if any of the eye-witness reports are actually witness to the victims with the Ripper, then being "seen" with the victim wasn't a deterant. It comes down to deciding if "being seen assaulting someone" would be enough taking into account that the witnesses fled the scene (Schwartz does say both he and the "man with the pipe" left the area; if the 2nd man is part of it, then only Schwartz had to leave - and he definately did). Perhaps it was, almost, and this is why he left after only cutting Stride's throat? Killing her to prevent her identification of him but leaving in case Schwartz went for the police? (Pure speculation here, but I don't think I've seen this suggested as the "interruption" before?)
- Jeff |
|
|
|
|
