|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 467
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 12:11 pm: |       |
Not going to dress for it?? Caz, I don't know how people will react to you being naked.
You sure you haven't been drinking already?
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 652
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 6:36 am: | |
Sarah,
I meant…. oh, never mind.
Anyone else not heard of not bothering to dress for cocktails these days?
I don’t always dress for dinner either. No doubt Joe didn’t dress for supper while Mary was singing for hers. That doesn’t mean he was naked and up to his elbows in his ex-lover. 
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 489
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Caz,
Am I not allowed to make a joke anymore?? I knew what you meant. I going to stop this because I've had to explain myself on numerous occasions. It's not worth joking about anymore.
With regards to Joe not incriminating himself, I'm sure he wasn't THAT stupid that he wouldn't think the tell the truth because if he lied and he was found out it would be worse for him. Also, if it seems as he has nothing to hide then he will look innocent. This is a basic human instinct. I've done it plenty of times in the past.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 657
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 9:09 am: | |
What have you done ‘plenty of times in the past’, you naughty girl, that you managed to get away with by talking to the police as if you had nothing to hide?
So now Joe may have had something to hide because he said things that could be incriminating but weren’t? Wonderful.
Love,
Caz
PS The wink in my posts gives you a clue that I knew you knew what I meant and knew you were joking, and had a joke with you in response. Blimey, you are much blonder than I ever was!
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 493
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Ah, but Caz, the wink was after the part about Joe being up to his elbows in Mary.
Ok, I never said these things to the police but to loads of people. Not so much now though. It's the basic lie, in that you don't lie so that you look innocent. Hope that makes sense.
For example (not that I've ever done this by the way), say you kill someone you hate and the police question you. Would you suddenly pretend you liked this person or tell them that you hated them and are glad they are rotting in the ground. Well maybe not to that extent, but you get the idea. You should always say the latter because most people tend to think you would lie if you had been the killer.
The only time I've deceived the police is when I've been stopped whilst driving and turned on the water works, but what girl hasn't??
(Message edited by Sarah on January 21, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
This girl hasn’t. 
Obviously, it is quite impossible for anyone to guess whether Joe talked freely about his private life with Mary because he had nothing to hide, and wanted to show he had nothing to hide, or volunteered more information than he had to – true or not - because he wanted to pretend he had nothing to hide.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 22, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 507
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:59 am: | |
Caz,
As confusing as that sounds, I think that may be true. That's if I read it correctly, I think my brain turned to mush about halfway through. 
Sarah |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 200
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Does it strike anybody other than myself as being odd that Joe is the one reading the paper to Mary? Mary supposedly was receiving letters from family, so it's likely she could read. Remember, Nichols could read and write, Joe can read and write, even a large percentage of the poor were literate.
Now, why does it strike me as being odd? Well, the same people who are insisting this very normal and innocent behaviour also insist that Joe was a stutterer, and that his stuttering indicates he's schizophrenic and all sorts of mental disorders.
If Joe's got this horrible speech impediment, wouldn't Mary read the papers to him? Wouldn't that work just as well to "scare her". Wouldn't it make more sense for "p-p-p-oor J-J-Joe" to ask Mary to read to him? She gets the fright, he ensures she reads it, etc?
Or might it make more sense if, in fact, we accept that Joe did not have a speech impediment. That his stuttering and stammering at the inquest reflect nervous behaviour. That his reading to Mary reflected the fact that they got on quite well? Isn't it kind of hard to reconcile the reading of the paper and the speech impediment? And if he doesn't have a speech impediment, doesn't the whole leap of faith to schizophrenia become even a bigger leap?
Does anyone else have a problem with how all these bits hang together?
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 606
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
The stammering and stuttering at the inquest, would imply nervous behaviour.
I do not belief Joe was suffering from a speech impediment, throughout his life, nor do I believe he suffered from schizophrenia, he simply was in a nervous state at the inquest, but the question is why?. because of his sorrow at losing Mary, and the traumatic events, or because he killed her.
I believe he read the papers to Mary, not because she asked him to, but his frustration with her , not altering her lifestyle, dispite , all of these murders.
Richard. |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 202
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
Jeff,
I admit I find the Barnett threads a bit of a snooze and so haven't really been paying attention. However, something you posted caught my attention. Stuttering=Schizophrenia ?!!! Sheesh I know a whole lot of speech therapists who don't know what they're dealing with in their patients. I know you arent' the one making that claim...can you point me to the argument where it is made so I can read it? I find that..uh..improbable to say the least. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 201
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Ally,
Actually, I believe the link to schizophrenia tends to be something like:
1) During Barnett's testimony, there are 3 newspaper reports suggesting something odd about his speech pattern.
2) One paper reports he "stuttered"
3) One paper reports he "stammered"
4) One paper reports he repeated the last word (or words?) of every question asked him.
5) Despite 2 of the 3 reports suggesting "a stutter/stammer", (which technically aren't the same thing, but are commonly used as equivalent) the emphasis is placed on the word repetition.
6) Echolalia is when someone parrots back sentences or phrases spoken to them. It is normally associated with autism, and is also found in some schizophrenics
7) Because one paper suggests Joe repeated words from questions, it is argued that this suggests he might have been schizophrenic.
I've argued before that this line of reasoning is flawed, and like yourself, suggest it is "improbable to say the least".
I would think a keyword search on echolalia would be the best way to find the discussions on the topic though.
Anyway, this is what I'm referring to in the jump from "stuttering to schizophrenia". At most the newspapers (2 of 3 reports) suggest a simple nervous stutter, and somehow this leads to Joe suffering from schizophrenia.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 202
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:25 pm: | |
Richard,
I guess I just don't find it all that surprising that someone might have been nervous during questioning at an inquest into the death of his ex-girlfriend. Especially since he has already been questioned by the police as a suspect. Despite being let go, knowing you've been considered a suspect in the most talked about series of murders at the time just seems to me to be something that might be a bit nerve wracking. Moreover, reading the articles to your girlfriend that deal with the most talked about events at the time doesn't seem at all strange to me. Quite the opposite actually.
Sure, there are ways to make these innocent behaviours look sinister, but that doesn't mean those interpretations are the "right ones". In order to suggest something more than the most obvious interpretation (which are the innocent ones for these behaviours), there must be something to suggest the innocent interpretation does not work.
And even if Joe hoped the stories would help keep Mary off the street, so what? He's admitted he didn't want her working as a prostitute. Why should that be considered an unusual thing? It certainly does not lead to the conclusion that he was the one committing the murders in the first place.
Let me put it this way. I smoke. My wife doesn't want me to. Every time there's a stop smoking ad on TV, she points it out to me. Should I conclude that my wife is putting these advertisements on TV?
Based upon the logic behind the "Joe reads the articles to scare Mary and so Joe must have committed the murders" arguement, the answer to the above is "yes". Since my wife does not put these ads on TV, it proves the logic is flawed and does not validate the conclusion.
Note also, that the wife/husband of the person who does put the ads on TV may do exactly the same thing as my wife. This time the "yes" answer is in fact correct. That doesn't make the logic "correct" because we know it's flawed from the previous demonstration (my wife and I). That one "correct" conclusion is only one compared to the thousands, or millions, of times it is wrong.
So I guess it depends upon what odds you're willing to place your bets on.
- Jeff |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 214
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
Thanks Jeff, I assume most of the Barnett stuff you are referring to is on the old boards? I suppose I'll eventually have to buy a copy of that.  |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 204
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
I don't recall if the discussion is "old" or "new", sorry. A search on echolalia only brings up one link, so I guess it must have been old. Anyway, the above more or less summarises things, well, it more or less summarises my view of the issue. Obviously there will be those who disagree with my presentation.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 3:10 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Your wife sounds like both my daughters, regarding the two evil vices, drinking , and smoking.
I agree with you regarding Barnett, there are two options, harmless , or incriminating.
Obviously my wavelength, is tuned in to the latter.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 511
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
I personally don't think that Joe reading the papers to Mary proves anything at all. He may have read them to try to scare of of the streets, but as Jeff says, that is the same as him presuming his wife is putting those stop smoking ads on the tv. By the way, that latest one is disgusting, glad I don't smoke.
Anyway, I believe that Joe may possibly have been the Ripper but I don't see how him reading her the papers can prove this.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 375
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:18 am: | |
Jeff
I've made this point before but it is worth repeating. If someone I had lived with for a year up until a week or so ago was brutally murdered and turned into dogmeat, I would be traumatised. In fact I think I would be if it happened to any of my ex-girlfriends, even one I only went out with for a couple of weeks ten years ago. To me the surprise is not that he stuttered or stammered at the inquest, more that he was able to answer questions in any kind of rational manner at all! |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi all,
The stuttering/stammering/echolalia to autism to schizophrenia connection seems to have started around here:
Suspects->Joseph Barnett->Why Barnett?->Archive through July 08, 2003.
Having read it, I would agree with the previous posters' comments that it is improbable.
Hope this helps,
Jim |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1921
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 4:58 am: | |
Hi all
Just catching up.
Donald, re your point about the unlikelihood of a Joe with a speech impediment (or echolalia or autism or whatever) reading or being asked to read the newspapers to Mary, I thought this too (especially if you throw in fruit hawking). However, Diana, who works with autistic children, told me that reading out loud or hawking fruit would not be a problem.
There's a lot of stuff on echolalia/autism scattered round the new Boards. However, I don't think it's much of an issue any more, is it? I think the main proponent, Leanne, has given up trying to flog that particular horse.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I cannot speak for Leanne, but I personally do not belief Barnett , had a speech impetiment, he was merely extremely agitated at the inquest, which would be understandable, if he was in a severe state of shock, or of course, if he was her killer, he would desperately try and convince the authoritys, by thinking extremely carefully his answers, and mayby repeating the question, before making an answer.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 2:13 am: | |
G'day,
Are we believing that John Kelly wasn't traumatised as much as Barnett was, or that Michael Kidney wasn't?
About the fruit hawking: Wouldn't it have been frustrating for the poor bustodd?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1929
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 3:12 am: | |
Hi Leanne
From the reactions of other people at the time of the Kelly murder, and from the photographs of the body, I'd say that I can understand Barnett being more traumatised than John Kelly (and especially Kidney).
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 7:04 am: | |
G'day Robert:
'Stress may aggravate stuttering just as it may aggravate diabetes and high blood pressure, but stress doesn't cause any of these conditions.'
http://members.aol.com/rharkn/page7.htm
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1932
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 9:02 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Well, I'm no expert in these things. My bet would be that every psychological state has a physical (brain matter) accompaniment, and that by suitably manipulating someone's brain we could make them "see" a horse or fall in love, etc.
But surely it's a matter of ordinary experience that a psychological trauma can bring on a stutter. For instance, I believe Patrick Campbell (you may not have heard of him in Oz) developed a lifelong stutter as a result of being sat on a cooker hotplate by his nanny when a child. True this may have left a trace in his brain, or reinforced one already there. But if the argument is that only those whose brains are genetically predisposed to stutter will actually stutter, whatever experiences they may undergo, then I would have thought that there are quite a few people like Barnett.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
I'm no expert on these things either but I reserched a bit on this topic last night, and learned something like this: (these are not exact words):
Everyone reacts in some way to stress. Their facial expressions change for example. For about two and a half % of the worlds population, the muscles in their throat contract (or something). People who stutter fall into this two and a half percent. Then I read somewhere that post traumatic stress actually improves the speech of some stutterers.
LEANNE |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
