|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 438
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:17 am: |       |
Hi Sarah
You asked for someone to provide one decent reason why Joe couldn't have been Jack.
In a domestic murder scenario the events play themselves out to the point where one spouse, usually the husband, becomes enraged at his lovers behavior and kills her in a fit of rage. So far, so good for Joe. However, I have never heard of a case where the spouse killer engages in overkill to the extent we see in the MJK killing.
Two hours of hacking and slashing way at the corpse dosen't comport with the behavior of the aggrieved lover who kills his spouse and then waits for the police to come and take him away. I think the important point is that these are killings induced by a sudden rage and once the deed is done the rage subsides. The killer realizes he has killed the object of his affection, recognizes the enormity of his act and the consequences to follow.
As far as the idea that Joe killed prostitutes to scare MJK off the streets, I can find no evidence anywhere that a serial killer was ever motivated by so rational a motive. You just don't find someone suddenly becoming a serial sexual killer in order to carry out a systematic plan.
Serial killers and spouse killers are two different breeds. Indeed I would say that if Joe were a born and breed serial sexual killer we would find evidence of him killing again to satisfy his passion for serial murder.
All The Best
Gary |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 279
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:46 am: | |
Gary,
You said:-
I have never heard of a case where the spouse killer engages in overkill to the extent we see in the MJK killing
Well, have you ever heard of any other murder as brutal as the killing of Mary Jane?
I'm sorry but just because many people do one thing it doesn't mean that someone else would do something completely different. It has always been said that there is a thin line between love and hate so maybe Joe did hate Mary Jane by the time he killed, so much that he just couldn't bear the sight of her, whilst also loving her, but just too much.
When I asked for a decent reason as to why Joe couldn't have been Jack, I meant something solid, not the fact that other domestic murders haven't resulted in a similar way.
Sarah |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 439
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hi Sarah
Kelly's murder was tremendously brutal. A killer named Otto Wilson attempted to murder three prostitutes in one night in a fashion highly reminiscent of the Kelly killing. This took place in California in the 1940's and trust me, you don't want to see the autopsy photographs. However it has to be remembered that Kelly and victims like those of Wilson were murdered and then mutilated post mortem. JTR was not a killer of the sexual-sadist variety. These killers keep their victims alive and get their kicks inflicting pain on their victims. The Bette Short-Black Dahlia killing was more heinous than anything Jack ever came up with. The Torso murderer in Cleveland, during the depression, actually cut the heads off of his victims while they were still alive.
As for your second point. the only thing we have to go on with regard to examining these killings and the perpetrators is based entirely on what other killers with similar M.O.'s have done in the past. If virtually every spouse killer kills in the fashion that I describe, then it is logical to use inductive reasoning to conclude that we have a pattern or template we can look to and follow in examining these killings.
You asked for a decent reason as to why Joe couldn't have been Jack. I raised the fact that the MKJ killing was distinguishable from every other spouse killing I have ever come across. If you don't consider this something solid, then this is tantamount to saying that the behavior of all serial killers is useless for the purposes of extrapolation.
All The Best
Gary |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 59
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
Hi Sarah, Gary,
Good posts Gary!
In my view there are two reasons why I don't think Joe was the Ripper.
First, I can't see Joe (or any person) being a spouse killer and a serial killer all at the same time either. Statistically I would say that the chances for this are at least very slim, if not zero.
Secondly, I think the same goes for the way in which a spouse killer murders his lover. If joe was a spouse killer, I don't think we would have seen the kind of butchery that was very clear even from the poor quality photograph of Mary's remains. I would say that statistically the wounds inflicted on a murdered wife or girlfriend are generally way less and different than the savagery that took place at Miller's Court number 13 - unless of course these killers are forced to dismember their victims in order to be able to dump them, but that is a different kind of mutilation because the reason for it is much different.
So Sarah, I would say that there's a good chance statistics show that these are both quite solid reasons for Joe not to have been Jack the Ripper.
All the best,
Frank |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 283
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:14 am: | |
Frank, Gary,
When I asked for a decent reason, I meant some actual evidence to prove that Joe COULDN'T PHYSICALLY have been the Ripper. Something from all the evidence we have that shows that it wasn't him. We have evidence that it was Prince Eddie (although this is not a good suspect anyway), we have evidence that Montague Druitt couldn't have done it, for example, unless he could guarantee that he could murder Annie Chapman and make it to his cricket match very quickly whilst being clean and completely composed. Joe wasn't composed at all, his excuse was that he had just seen his ex-girlfriend hacked to pieces. That would shake anyone up so how could we be sure that his distress and nervousness wasn't because he had killed her.
Sarah |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 1:57 pm: | |
Gary, in your post Dec. 10 at 11:17 you made this statement: "I have never heard of a case where the spouse killer engages in overkill to the extent we see in the MJK killing"
For what it is worth, read the story of the Amish killer, Ed. Gingerich at:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/gingerich/1.html
The point of this post can be found in chapter 12:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/gingerich/12.html?sect=12
Slight case of overkill here wouldn't you say  ?
While that case was not of the typical domestic homicide, it is illustrative.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 54
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
Dan thanks for this information.I"m having a bit of a time of it with this computer which behaves like a sadist just as I"m about to post .Will look up these tonight[if allowed by machine!] and get back to you.thanks again Natalie. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 446
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Hi Billy
I read the article you pointed out to me and I can't find the MJK style of overkill in a case where a man literally pulverized his wife's face. The cases would seem highly distinguishable in that the one you point out involves a terrible beating while the other (The MJK killing) involves a wholesale slaughter of a human being.
As you say, the Gingerich case was not your typical domestic homicide.
The only cases I can find which are similar to that of MJK are perpetrated by sexual serial killers, not spouse abusers and wife murderers.
All The Best
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 447
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Hi Sarah
I don't believe it is possible to point out some type of physical evidence that Joe 'couldn't' have been the Ripper. If I read your post correctly you are looking for the non-Barnettists to prove that someone other than Joe was the killer. This would then serve to eliminate Joe as the killer. Believe me, If I had irrefutable physical evidence someone else was Jack I would be accepting bids from publishers right now for the rights to the story I had uncovered naming the real killer.
However, I don't believe in approaching the case from the standpoint of saying that until we find a better suspect we have to look to poor old Joe as the killer. The true killers name may have been lost to the mists of history.
I would not want to take a case of circumstantial evidence into court 115 years after the fact and try to prove that any of the people named as possible suspects was the de facto killer.
Jack's true identity may well be amongst the names we have on our suspects board and proof of that quilt may one day surface. Or the killer may have been simply Jack-The-Nobody.
All The Best
Gary |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 286
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:28 pm: | |
Gary,
If I read your post correctly you are looking for the non-Barnettists to prove that someone other than Joe was the killer.
Then you didn't read it correctly. I am merely asking you to produce some factual evidence that he didn't do it, not to point the finger at someone else.
Since the rest of your post is based on you thinking I was asking you to name the killer then I have no other comments.
Sarah
P.S I am not a "Barnettists" at all by the way, I just see him as a plausible suspect. I wouldn't push him at anyone and if some evidence turned up to show that he absolutely didn't do it then that's fine.
(Message edited by sarah on December 11, 2003) |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 60
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 3:37 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
Like Gary, I doubt whether we’ll ever find any physical evidence of Joe’s innocence, nor of his guilt. At this point in time we simply know too little about him and Mary’s murder to prove anything either way. On the one hand I must admit that Joe might have had motive and opportunity, but I don’t see this motive going beyond Mary. To me, in case we assume Joe also killed the others, the motive even becomes farfetched. On the other hand, one could also see Joe as an (innocent) ex-lover, who simply couldn’t accept that it was over and kept coming back to Mary to try and win her back by giving her money.
Judging by your last two posts, you seem to have chosen to ignore the ‘mental evidence’, if you will, that points in the direction of a seemingly motiveless killer. Am I right and if so, why? By the way, with ‘mental evidence’ I mean that the way in which the women were left at the crime scenes is an indication of the mental or psychological state of the killer.
Frank
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 287
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 5:12 am: | |
Frank,
Are you aware of what Joe's psychological state was? I cannot comment on it because we never knew Joe personally and therefore have no idea of his state of mind at the time of the murders. Even if we had known him we may still not have truly known what his state of mind was like as many people can come across as normal but can turn out to be murderous monsters.
Sarah |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 326
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 8:14 am: | |
Sarah, your right. When the majority of serial killers are identified and their past comes to light, the most commonly heard remarks from people that knew the killer is usually something about them being the last one you would have thought did it.
Shannon |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 513
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 8:52 am: | |
Hey, y'all getting too technical for me now !
Ed Kemper gave up after dispatching his Mother.
Not Joe eh ?
Monty
 |
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 60
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 10:41 am: | |
Hello Again All -
Some quick and random thoughts, feel free to call me out if my thinking is incorrect
Short of DNA evidence (which is going to be a little sparse even if we dug her up. And we'd have to dig up her mother or father too.) I don't think we'll ever unequivocally know if it was MJK or not MJK.
However, one would have to imagine that if it were not MJK, there would probably have been a lot of work going into the hiding that fact at some point after the murder (by someone). If only to be certain that her 'killer' knew her to be dead. I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I don't know what to look for when looking for a conspiracy, but it does't look to me like anything of that nature happened at all.
Just good, old fashion murder. Albeit in a fairly gruesome manor, it's murder none the less.
I always try to weigh things against each other to see which is more probable.. (for example, right now it's breakfast time.. now, am I hungry because I haven't eaten in a while or am I hungry because space aliens pump'd my stomach whilst I slept. While the space alien idea is possible, I wouldn't exactly call it probable.)
It's always worked for me and keep me fairly grounded when attempting to solve problems, big or small.
So, I asked myself.. which is more likely.. that A) MJK was in fact murdered in that little room or B) That she was somehow somewhere else, came home to find one of her 'friends' horribly murdered, and then decided to flee with out ever being heard from again (do bear with me, I don't know the theory so I'm summarizing what I can from memory).
I'll narrow it down even further so as to not upset anyone: A) That MJK was in fact murdered in that room or B) Anything else. You name it.. fall off a cliff, went into hiding, fell into a wormhole...
To me, I'd take option A) over B) anytime.. Simply because A) is more likely to have happened in my mind than anything I could possibly put into B)...
Personal opinion of course.. It's far to early in my little investigation for me to start claiming a suspect(s) guilt or innocence, but having studied this a little bit, I do have to say that it was in all probability MJK and not someone else.
crix0r |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 63
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:05 am: | |
Jason,
That's not fair -- you're trying to be logical. Cheers!
Don. |
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 61
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:21 am: | |
Don -
Heheheh.. yeah, what _was_ I thinking
crix0r |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 516
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Monty falls to his knees and thanks the good Lord...or Allah..for sending down a son that is not only born with logic but uses it as well !!
Praise him !!
Monty
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Hi All,
Isn’t the point that serial killings are usually termed motiveless, because there is no obvious motive beyond an inexplicable urge to do horrible things to strangers.
As in the case of Kemper and others, it may well be that such urges are connected with the killer’s earlier relationships with women in general, or one woman in particular. But I have never heard of a specific motive like the one people try to saddle Joe with – ie that he killed his earlier victims to warn his lover and scare her off the streets and back into his arms.
Presumably, the argument is also that the mutilations increased with Joe’s frustration that the plan wasn’t working, and his need to put an even greater fear of God up her if he was going to succeed. Then weeks after killing Eddowes, he is supposed to have suddenly accepted defeat, yet ironically saved the worst mutilations of all for Mary. If he was capable of this ultimate slaughter, why did he not do as much for one of her close friends instead? Now that would have scared Mary witless, and looked like another random and motiveless murder – far more effective, with nowhere near the risk to his own neck.
And the very reason for him becoming a murderer in the first place would still be alive, less bolshy, and very grateful for all Joe’s concerns about her welfare.
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 517
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:36 am: | |
Hi Caz,
...nothing to say, just saying 'Hi Caz'.
Very good point. It would seem as if Joe had an obvious agenda. Very rare for a Serial Killer.
This killing to scare Mary off the Streets is far too elaborate.
Monty
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 62
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Hello Again All -
Yeah, I would be inclined to agree with you Monty.. something like that is far to elaborate.
Besides, as it is known today, it was probably known then.. the butler did it.
If I was forced to pick a killer for MJK and MJK alone, poor ol' Joe would be suspect #1 in my mind simply because he is the boyfriend. I'd be willing to bet that any seasoned detective will tell you that you should probably work out from the victim, starting with the closest circle of friends and family and moving outward from there.
Thankfully, I am not being forced to choose someone :P
Anyone know how difficult it would be to get the death records from say.. 1886 to 1895 for the entire city? I bet those aren't online anywhere >=/
crix0r
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 281
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:52 am: | |
Hi Caz
This is what I always think of as the Silence of the Lambs syndrome.
The movie "Silence of the Lambs" featured probably the most convincingly real screen portrayal of a serial killer since Peter Lorre in Fritz Lang's "M". And Anthony Hopkins won an acadamy award.
Trouble is, it wasn't him, it was the other guy, Ted Levine playing Jame "Buffalo Bill" Gumb. Hannibal Lector is a cackling grand guignol villain, he isn't remotely realistic. But people are impressed with him because he's clever and evil and that's what people want in their villains. Buffalo Bill meanwhile is a rather pathetic character that you can't quite decide whether to be disgusted by or feel sorry for.
The Joe theory, together with the Royal Conspiracy, or Cornball's Sickert, or Ivor Edwards' D'Onston with his Vesica Piscis, all seem like Hannibal Lectors to me. And I can't help thinking that Jack the Ripper was a Jame Gumb. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 520
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 12:02 pm: | |
Alan,
Couldnt agree with you more.
Monty
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 63
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 4:22 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
“Are you aware of what Joe's psychological state was?”
When people start to ask me these kind of strange questions in response to one of my posts, I have to wonder if expressed myself well enough (since English is not my native language). So, I reread my own post and came to the conclusion I didn’t do a very good job. I tend to be long-winded or go at my goal in a roundabout way and this doesn’t make things any clearer sometimes.
What I really wanted to know from you was (and still is), what do you think about the points raised by Gary and me, because you didn’t really address them – you merely said that you were looking for some actual evidence which would prove that Joe couldn’t physically have been the Ripper.
By the way, to answer your question above: because I don’t think Joe could have been Jack the Ripper, I wasn’t talking about Joe but only about the Ripper and what I wanted to say was that I think what was to be seen at the crime scenes could only have originated from the mind of a serial killer.
I hope this is better.
Frank 
|
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 10:26 pm: | |
Gary, actually the point I was trying to make was not the facial bashing but what is contained in the excerpt from the site.
WARNING: THIS IS GRAPHIC
Yeah, I know but...
"Once all of her clothes were removed, he took a steak knife from the kitchen drawer and used it to make a seven-inch incision in her lower abdomen. Through the incision, Ed reached his hand up inside Katie’s body cavity, and removed her lungs, kidneys, stomach, liver, spleen, bladder, uterus and heart. He stacked all of her organs in a pile next to her body, and stuck the knife into the top of them. Satisfied with his work, Ed washed himself up in the sink, threw his Bible into the fireplace, and told the children to put on their coats on."
Sort of similar to JtR's "style" wasn't it; minus the children,knife through the top and possibly the Bible? Yes, no flensing <sp> took place on Katie but something says to me the husband was very capable of going that far.
Trust me, I do not believe, nor have been able to follow, any argument unequivocally stating Joe was JtR. I wanted only to point the above because of the abdominal mutilation, removal of organs, & stacking of body parts. And the facial bashing? Wasn't it, in its own way, as bad as what happened to Mary?
Best of wishes to a fellow Southerner (even if he is a Sandlapper  )
Billy |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
