|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1733
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 6:45 pm: |       |
OK Leanne. Here's hoping for a good outcome.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 119
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 7:14 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
I’m one of the people who doesn’t see the ‘evidence’ offered as being that strong.
1- The mutilations clearly show that we’re dealing with a serial killer. Generally speaking there are no links between a serial killers and his victims. Certainly there are exceptions, but not to the point where he knows more than half or all. This would make this point useless.
2- This really doesn’t say all that much.
3- The only thing he wasn’t clear about and might have lied about was the reason why he left MJK. In the official statement he made to Abberline on November 9 he stated it was ‘in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution’, while at the inquest he deposed he ‘left her because she had a person who was a prostitute whom she took in and he objected to her doing so, that was the only reason, not because I was out of work.’ He might have changed his reason for leaving MJK after having debated it with Abbeline, but if he decided on his own to change it, it seems strange that Abberline didn’t react to this during the inquest. All in all, I don’t see anything vague or suspicious in what Barnett told at the inquest.
4- In my view the facial mutilations in this case probably are an indication that her killer knew her, but I’m not so sure about the taking of her heart – maybe, maybe not. It’s a fact that clothes were burnt in the fireplace, but it’s not a fact at all that the purpose of this was to destroy her possessions. So, the Ripper probably knew MJK, but this certainly doesn’t mean it was something personal that he killed her for.
5- I agree with you on this point. Whoever killed MJK, also killed the other mutilated victims.
6- I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here, but I think I agree with you.
7 – I don’t know why you mention Hutchinson as a reason for you to think Barnett is a viable suspect. Anyway, you said the following:
“Hutchinson was so full of $%^&*( that his eyes should be brown).”
I agree with you there.
“I find it hard to believe that he was even there,..”
George Hutchinson’s story puts him exactly where Sarah Lewis stated to have seen a ‘man looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out,…’, so there can be but little doubt that this was George Hutchinson.
“…let alone following someone as close as he claimed in the middle of a cold rainy night in a neighborhood where he didn’t live and the description he gave being nearly exactly what was in the papers the preceding day”
This is one of the reasons that makes GH suspicious.
“…along with the newly offered reward.”
As far as I know rewards were only offered between the 10th of September and the 1st of October, but they were no rewards offered by the Home Office because of their standing policy of not offering rewards, as they appeared to do more harm than good. A pardon was offered directly after MJK’s murder, but – as far as I know – no reward.
With the rewards offered in September and October in mind, it’s suspicious that GH didn’t come foreward any earlier if he was only out to get the reward money.
If Joseph Barnett killed the women, it was because of a scenario like Alan described above, but not because of the reasons like trying to scare Mary off and finally killing her because she broke up with him and wouldn't listen to him. However, judging from the state his victims were found in I have doubts whether the Ripper was able to have a normal relationship with a woman - which seems to have been the case with Mary and Joe.
All the best,
Frank
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1734
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 7:59 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
Why do you say that Hutchinson didn't live in the area?
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 338
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 9:48 pm: | |
Robert, GH lived in Romford, not WC.
Frank, as we are going to see the evidence differently, its time to get nit picky about Joe and explain everything in detail. Will start with facts, and then go to the whys and wherefores...
1, your right about Joe; he told Abberline one thing and the coroner at the inquest another. What he told Abberline about no money is probably the truth, and what he told the coroner about her having another prostitute that he disagreed with makes no sense as Mary was a prostitute herself so why would he object to another prostitute being with her? He can’t very well blame the others for enticing MJK to a life on the streets. It was her choice and hers alone.
2, Joe claimed at the inquest that he bought the papers and read everything about the murders to Mary because she wanted to hear about them. First, for someone without a job, a newspaper isn’t something you’re going to buy. You have to pay for rent, food, and drink (which bring us the next point). When you’re without means, you measure every penny, and a newspaper isn’t included.
3, MJK's murder was done by someone who knew her. Question is - who knew her that well? Joe lived with Mary for the last 18 months of her life. Joe would have known if there was someone else as he was without a job, and spent the majority of his time in the area during the 3 months preceding the murder.
While there are thousands of other males in WC who lost one or both of their parents as an adolescent and it doesn’t make Joe any different in that respect, he was in a psychological position to become (not saying for the record that he did, as it is only my personal belief that this happened) a sociopath. Joe had to learn from the age of 6 to become self reliant, not to trust anyone, and to do what ever it took to survive on the streets. All the while blaming the one person who forced him into this life; his mother.
From a psychological standpoint all the markers are there. Whether activated or not is only a guess and my guess is that they were. For all intent Joe would appear quite normal from all outward appearances; same as most serial killers today. The statement usually associated with a serial killer when captured is that their friends, relatives, and neighbors say he was the last one anyone would ever suspect.
Its also accepted that a trigger is required to push a serial killer over the edge. Usually a present day traumatic event which subconsciously triggers the killing. For Joe, I believe that trigger was losing his job which took away his control over his environment. For 10 years, he had beaten the streets, now they had won by taking away the one thing that gave him power. Without his job, his self esteem went down the drain. Again, seeing this as a failure, and knowing that without his job he could not hold on to the one thing he wanted most; Mary. She wasn’t like the other prostitutes. Mary was young, pretty, and to Joe a status symbol of his achievement same as “trophy wives” are in our society. It’s a case of look what I have; good job, and pretty wife (or girl friend), and you don’t so I am better than you. By losing one, he was going to lose the other.
I again, in my own opinion see this as the start of the end. He lost his job about the same time as Martha was murdered, and if some speculate Martha was the first victim, it makes sense that he took out his anger on a middle aged prostitute who may have resembled his mother, or served as a ‘substitute’ for her. Personally, again, I don’t see Martha as a Ripper victim, but the catalyst for the crimes that followed.
True, without Joe and a team of psychologist / psychiatrist there is no way to know if any of this is even close to the truth. It is after all only speculation, but to me it makes sense. To you and a host of others it may seem so far fetched that it couldn’t possibly be true. I believe in the old Sherlock adage: Remove all that is false, and whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth.
Once you clearly and unequivocally remove a suspect from the list, you have to cross their name off and move on. If anyone can provide evidence that Joe can be removed from the list, I will retract my book.
Shannon
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 3:33 am: | |
Hi,
I have given a great deal of thought, over the last forty years, to this case , looked at every suspect,from Druitt - Hutchinson, and I can honestly say, none of them comes anywhere near Joseph Barnett.
If one takes all the evidence, some factual, some oral history, I cannnot implicate anyone , except this person, although I must admit Walter sickert, unbelievable as It may seem , may be second choice.
If one works backwards on this case, taking in the alleged grave spitting[ which was not made public till the 1970s, although farson had the imformation in 1959] then all begins to make sence, a ugly scenerio presents itself,pieces of the mammouth jigsaw start fitting together, one then can research more closely into more complex matters, and surprising imformation , starts to reveal itself.
We will never be certain, if the truth will ever be revealed, but it is a absolute fact , that someone, living in this country today, has imformation , that could name the killer, but is to ashamed to make public any knowledge, that would cast a bloody mark on their heritage.
He was somebodys son, brother, or even father, he would have had cousins , mayby nephews , or neices, uncles and Aunts.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Shannon, I don't understand. GH gave his address as the Victoria Home, and said he'd known Kelly for three years.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 6:56 am: | |
G'day,
Three years hey? So he must have either been a close friend of the couples, or Mary was serving him all the time she was with Barnett!....then why did he wait until after her inquest to come forward? Especially since he was so concerned for her safety!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Well of course we only have his word for it that he knew Kelly at all. According to him, Kelly addressed him by his name, so she knew him.
He was asked to go down to the mortuary to ID the body.
I think the scenario where Kelly is on the game while living with Barnett is a possibility.
This could have been because she never gave up prostitution, or it may have been something that only happened when she was drunk.
We can't even be sure that Joe wasn't her pimp, although McCarthy seems a likelier candidate for that.
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 324
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 7:29 am: | |
Leanne
The point is, you just hit on precisely what makes him such a good suspect. He came forward after the inquest because he realised he had been spotted by Sarah Lewis lurking in the doorway of Crossingham's waiting for Mary's customer to leave so that he had free access to the room. Knowing that if identified he would become the prime suspect, he instead goes to the police himself with his story to deflect attention onto Astrakhan man. It also wouldn't surprise me if his incredibly detailed description fitted somebody he knew and held a grudge against.
I should point out on saying this I'm not claiming Hutchinson to BE the Ripper, but he would be among the strongest suspects imho. |
Liz Green
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 9:00 am: | |
Hello Alan
I just wanted to say that I totally agree with your idea of why Hutchinson is such a strong suspect.
In the recent Soham murders trial it emerged that Ian Huntley himself used this tactic after fearing he may have been spotted disposing of evidence. He voluntarily went to police and reported seeing a suspicious looking man in the area he himself had just been in, he even gave a description of a car he had seen, same make and colour as his own!
Is there anyone who can solve a little problem for me, I would appreciate any help :o);
In the mammoth book of Jack the Ripper (Jakubowski and braund)in the first chapter "undisputed facts" there is a chronology of events which includes this ;
9 Novenber
>>2.30 am Sarah Lewis, laundress, temporarily residing at Miller's court, sees Kelly with a man ( presumably Hutchinson)<<
Later on in the book in the chapter about Kelly's murder it says that when Sarah Lewis arrived in Dorset Street at 2.30 am she saw >>a man leaning against the wall of the lodging house opposite the passage that lead into Miller's court( this could have possibly been Hutchinson)<<
It doesn't mention in the second passage her seeing a man and woman together as in the first passage.
Can someone tell me which is correct?
Also ( sorry for asking so many questions!) did John Mc Carthy ever make any witness statement after Kellys murder.Elizabeth Prater went into McCarthy's shop after waiting 30 mins outside on the night of Mary Kelly's murder and gave a statement that she was chatting to the owner for 10 minutes, >and in all that time< she saw no one enter or leave Millers court,
Does this mean that McCarthy had a view from his shop of the comings and goings in Miller's court, as Elizabeth seems to include the time spent in the shop as time she saw nothing?
thanks
Liz Green
|
Katrina Everdeen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 12:16 am: | |
Hi....um can we get to the point of it being Mary or not Mary sprawled on the bed in a mutilated mess. I personaly think she did live for so many facts that I have picked up and asked many people here. But thats just me many ppl would snap in my face that she did indeed die. What I find starnge though is the testimony of George Huntchinson he was able to give a remarkable testimony of the man seen by Kelly and yet didn't give a description of Mary herself a little odd don't you think? And what I find more strange is that the police didn't care to ask him!  And also the clothes folded on the bed was not mentioned to be Kelly's or belong to Ms or Mrs. Harvey b/c would she have not retrieved them or said that they belonged to her and she was loaned them to clean them? Then who did the clothes belong to and by the description of what Mary wore she didnt have seemed to wear anything like that. Gooday ol' chums ,
All wishes and luck,
katrina |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
I think Joe should be removed from the list...
simply because he sold fish.
I do also wonder whether the murder rate went up in the UK during the great period of unemployment in the 1970's with the introduction of fuel rationing and a three day week. Well, I don't wonder really because the murder rate actually went down; murder increases during times of plenty. People are drawn together through hardship, not ripped apart. Read history.
Rating a suspect on the fact that he lost his job is parlous to say the least, and many of you here appear to be jumping onto passing sticks of straw as your ship goes down.
Call stuttering and stammering what you like, it didn't appear to hinder the progress of that spiky haired chap who almost won pop idol last year, in fact he became the darling of female society, so why do you try and tell me that stuttering or stammering is a disadvantage? It is a positive boon and always has been.
So Joe sold fish and stammered, and lost his job.
Big deal. Oh yes he lived with a prostitute.
Big deal. Everyone in Whitechapel in 1888 lived with a prostitute, and everyone had a difficult and deprived childhood.
But none of that adds up to murder, it adds up to life in the LVP.
To swing between Joe the fish porter and Sickert the painter says it all.
I better put the SSB down and write a poesie 'bout that. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
G'day,
ALAN: Sarah Lewis gave a very vague description of the man she saw! It would have caused headache to every Londoner who owned a wideawake hat. What about all the other descriptions that appeared in the newspapers?
Hutchinson came forward the same day that Lewis gave her testimony, so he couldn't have read it in the newspaper. If it worried him, he must have been there and heard it from her mouth. If he was there, why didn't he speak up then and give his very detailed description? Especially since he was so concerned for her!
WOLF: No one has said that Barnett murdered just because he lost his job!!! And who's 'ship is going down'? Not ours!
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 122
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
"Hutchinson came forward the same day that Lewis gave her testimony, so he couldn't have read it in the newspaper. If it worried him, he must have been there and heard it from her mouth. If he was there, why didn't he speak up then and give his very detailed description? Especially since he was so concerned for her!"
Leanne, if GH was at the inquest and he had nothing to hide he probably would have done this. The fact that he didn't only makes him more suspicious. When he heard Sarah Lewis make her statement he might not have prepared his own statement yet or he had it ready but didn't want to speak up in front of a public. Perhaps his main concern during the inquest was to find out if this woman he had seen entering the court at about 2:30 am would tell anything about having seen a man standing opposite Miller's Court. If she did, he would find himself forced to act, but not necessarily at the inquest.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 123
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 10:31 pm: | |
Hi again Leanne,
"Sarah Lewis gave a very vague description of the man she saw! It would have caused headache to every Londoner who owned a wideawake hat."
I know you addressed this to Alan and I hope he doesn't mind me reacting to this remark.
It might have been vague to the rest of London, but not to the man who actually stood there.
All the best,
Frank |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 12:09 am: | |
G'day Frank,
What I meant was that Sarah Lewis gave a very short description of the man she saw, and the colour and style of his hat. If that worried him and he thought that the police would surely knock on the door of every man that owned a wideawake hat, than he surely had mental problems!
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 124
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
"If that worried him and he thought that the police would surely knock on the door of every man that owned a wideawake hat, than he surely had mental problems!"
Not if he had something to hide, whatever that may have been.
All the best,
Frank |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 368
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 4:37 am: | |
I haven't read all of the above posts there were so many posted while I was off over xmas so please bear with me.
Richard,
I like what you say about Mary Kelly not being at Millers Court all the time. Perhaps Joe killed when she was away, this would explain he frustration, not that she had returned to the streets but that she was actually living on and off with another man very occasionally. I don't know if you have specific dates as to when she wasn't at Millers Court but it's a possibility. Maybe in October she tired of Lawerence and went back to Millers Court on a more permanent basis and that could by why the murders stopped until her murder for which she would obviously have been there for anyway.
Sarah |
Fiona Rule
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
Hi! Liz Green - in response to your second query - yes, John McCarthy did make a witness statement, which was given at the inquest into the death of Mary Kelly. A copy of it can be found in the Jack The Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner (it's probably published elsewhere as well.)
With regard to the view from his shop: The only exit from Miller's Court was right next door to the shop's front door. Therefore, if Elizabeth Prater was standing at the front door of the shop it would have been pretty difficult for anyone to sneak out of the court without her noticing.
Kind regards, Fiona. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
Sarah,
Very good point, It was reported that kelly, was involved with a man named Lawrence, reports state this infact was her husband, this man was reported to have attended Millers court on occasions, He was a drover by profession. he even dropped by a neighbour during october, to ask should a summons arrive to take it in.
He used to visit Kelly on occassions, but several weeks apart, and it is said that she went to stay with him[ obviously tiring of Barnett] but returned to the court when she got fed up with Lawrence.
There is more to Mary Jane , then meets the eye, and I would conclude Barnett was sick of her wanderings.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Shouldn’t every one of Kelly’s male friends, customers or otherwise, have equal status as suspects with Joe – if not higher status, assuming not all were questioned as soon after the murder and in as great a depth as Joe presumably was.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 379
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
Caz,
Why do you think that? I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'm curious as to know how you reached that conclusion. Joe was her partner and therefore a bigger suspect than her male friends, etc. Maybe I could see Flemming or Lawrence being suspects too but not all her clients and just friends. I still think Joe should be more of a suspect than the others. This morning I kept thinking about the reason her killer took her heart and I can only think of the reason that whoever killed her was in love with her but hated her at the same time as she didn't love him and showed it.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1785
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 7:29 am: | |
Hi Sarah
Then why was Eddowes's kidney taken?
Robert |
Vladimir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 2:07 am: | |
Richard,
If Joe was "sick of her wanderings" then why kill the other victims? I mean, wouldn't killing the other victims have an equal chance of making MJK run to Lawrence to get away from Miller's court (and Joe) as it would of making her come back to Joe? If he knew about her wanderings, what purpose would killing the other ladies serve?
I just think that killing the other ladies would not have the desired affect, or rather the opposite effect and drive her away from Joe and Miller's Court.
Vlad |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 8:21 am: | |
Robert wrote:
"Then why was Eddowes's kidney taken?"
Obviously because Jack was "pissed" at her.
:laughtrack goes here:
But seriously folks, I just "flew" in from the WHO HELD THE TORCH? thread where I made fun of the heart taken means the killer was in love nonsense, and boy are my arms tired. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
