|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 360
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:31 pm: |       |
Jeff, if the women were slowly strangeled as you indicate, why are there no defensive wounds from where the victim tried to fight off the attacker?
If I have you on the ground and am slowly strangeling you, you are going to do your best to break free, mark me in some way, or hurt me in the hope that I am forced to let go.
Someone who is about to be killed in such a fashion is more than likely going to fight like hell with every fiber of their being to try and escape. The hands would have been clenched with signs of a struggle and there were none.
The only way I know to overcome this is to strike so quickly and violently that the victim can not fight back. The fact that the brusing was so prominate so close to death indicates that this is what happened.
Shannon |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Shannon,
I don't see why you think that Jack would hit them at all. It seems obvious to me that he strangled them first. As you said somewhere earlier (when defending the possibility of Jack knocking them out) that these women were drunk and were pretty much helpless and so surely they wouldn't have been able to fight back that much.
Sarah
Smile and the world .... will wonder what you've been up to.  |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 361
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
Sarah, et all - I am NOT saying he did. I am asking why he didnt when he could have? If Jack wanted to mutilate these women any more than he already did he would have taken them to a place where he would not have been interupted. There are warehouses near two of the victims where "Jack" could have taken the women to have more time and enjoy the killing and mutilation IF HE WANTED TO which it appears he did not.
He killed these women quickly and violently and left them where they fell; why?
You cant claim he wanted to do more in the way of mutilations. If he did he would have either taken them to a more secluded area near where the women led him in the hopes of earing some money, or he would have done as he did in the case of Kate which is to inflict a great about of viseral damage to the victim in the little time he did have.
So, the theory that he wanted to mutilate each of them like he did MJK doesnt fly. That removes the "lust killing" theory as well since each of the kills was done swiftly and violently leaving him nothing to enjoy about the murders. If you believe they were sexually motivated then why not take more time and enjoy it as you do when you first discover the pleasures of intimacy.
These murders were done in a place where they would be found still fresh within just a few minutes of the crime. The women were left on display FACE UP in each case. If the killer even remotely intended to hide the nature of the crime he would have rolled them over face down so that the first few people on the seen would have thought they were merely drunk and passed out.
He wanted them to be found and what is most frightning is that he made no attempt to cover the crime. He boldly walked away from each as though nothing had happened!
Shannon |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 222
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
Shannon, I believe that he wanted them to be found. I think the mutilations grew over the period of murders. I think that having them found quickly was part of the "thrill" for him. I believe that he wanted people to know that he did all that he did quickly. That he was smarter than anyone else. That kind of thing. Anyone else??
Mikey |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 362
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Mikey, exactly my point. It looks like the killer considered his actions to be a just cause needed to accomplish his goal (whatever that was).
When a killer commits a murder for personal pleasure they tend to make it private and intimate so that it is something very special between killer and victim. Something that the killer can later regale and enjoy much the same as a first kiss or first intimate experience.
Here we see the killer setting the victim out on display which tells me they are doing this more for an audience and not necessiarily for personal pleasure especially considering the position of the bodies. Sharing his experience with others takes away the personal nature of the crime.
Question - Who was the intended audience, and why did the killer feel that they had to go to such an extreme to get their audience's attention?
Shannon
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 289
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Shannon,
I agree he probably strangled them quickly. I just disagree that it would take exceptional strength to do this. I posted somewhere else, quite some time ago, testimony by a corner in relation to the Boston Strangler case, that manual strangulation to unconsciousness can be achieved in as little as 3 seconds without exceptional strength (the information is in a footnote, if you want the source info, I can look it up again). This time is obviously a minimum (it's phrased as the lower limit), so even if we multiply this by 4, we're still only dealing with 12 seconds to reach unconsciousness. Yes, one has to have a certain level of strength to do this, but one doesn't have to be Arnold Swartzenegger to do it. That's all I'm saying.
As for why didn't Jack take his victims to more secluded locations? I agree he would have done these things if he was the type of person who made such plans. Not all serial killers are like those in the movies. They are not all cool planners, who work everything out ahead of time. Some do, like Ted Bundy, but they are more the exception than the rule.
Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, sort of had things worked out. He took his victims to his place. He drugged them. He had vats of acid to dissolve them. He had locks on his doors to prevent anyone from getting in. But then, he also had lots of rotting flesh around, which smelled and must have attracted attention. His one effort to combat the smell was a single box of baking soda in the fridge alongside a head, etc. Why would someone, who could plan as much as Dahmer, for example, not realise that the smell would attract attention? (The oddest thing was that he wasn't caught because of the smell, which he explained to his neighbors was a dead rat). Still, why take the risk? Gacy, however, was caught, partly, because of the smell coming from under his house.
Murder and mutilation in the street may indicate that Jack didn't have a place he could take his victims of his own (but this doesn't fit with the "big picture" which tends to suggest he had a bolt hole). He may not have suggested more private areas (like warehouses) simply because he wasn't a planner. He didn't work things out that far ahead. Once they were in a dark secluded area, he just blitz attacked them (strangled them), and mutilated them. And he left upon the first sign that someone was coming.
In other words, JtR may not have worked out that he wanted to mutilate to some particular level (i.e., MJK). He my have simply killed and mutilated to the level that opportunity provided. With Mary Kelly, he simply may have had more opportunity by chance, not by design.
As for wanting the victims to be found, that's possible. Personally, I think it was more he knew they would be found, possibly he posed the victims for display post mortem, but this was a secondary pleasure to increase the pleasure as he recalled it later. The primary pleasure was in the destruction of the victim, the posing and/or leaving to be found, was just to further humiliate the victim.
In summary, the fact JtR didn't do some of the more "obvious" things, like get the victim to a more secure location, indicates that JtR is probably more "spontaneous" than he is a "planner". The more common terms here are the "organised/disorganised" continuum, so that places JtR more towards the "disorganised" end. Since he has a weapon with him, takes it when he leaves, chooses high risk victims, quickly silences them to reduce chances of them calling for help, etc, he has taken some steps towards lowering his chances of being caught (meaning, he's not entirely disorganised and shows some level of planning, but nothing very sophisticated). Your questions, which all suggest he could have done things to reduce his chances of being caught, demonstrate that JtR was not a very "organised" killer. Which, in the end, means we probably agree.
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 251
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 6:59 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
If Jack the Ripper posed as a client, which is the generally accepted idea, and which is also supported by the sightings of Mrs. Long and Joseph Lawende, it’s likely that he was lead by his victims to the eventual crime spots because this is how it usually worked, not the other way around. I think it could have been regarded as suspicious if the Ripper had tried to lead his victims somewhere else, to a place of his own choosing, where he perhaps could have had more time for the mutilations.
So, in order to control the choosing of the crime spots he could either have chosen them beforehand, then kept hanging around there until a suitable victim turned up, who would have led him to his chosen crime spot, or he could have done like you suggested: render his victims senseless after arriving at her chosen spot for doing business and then carrying her to a more secluded place like a yard or an unoccupied building or shed.
There are no indications supporting the first possibility -- except for Hutchinson, no-one has been seen loitering around any of the crime spots shortly before the murders. As to the second possibility, your suggestion, there don’t seem to have been as many places where he could have taken his intended victims as you seem to be saying.
According to the Daily Telegraph of 1 October, the fence door to the yard, in front of which Eddowes was killed, was locked and the green shutters in front of the back windows facing the square, just above Eddowes’ body, were closed. According to the Woodford Times of 7 September 1888 and ‘JtR, An Encyclopaedia’ by Eddleston, the stable doors in Buck’s Row were locked as well and there was of course, George James Morris, night watchman at Kearly and Tongue’s. Furthermore, according to Eddleston’s Encyclopaedia ‘There were three houses next to Taylor’s shop, but these were all empty, and the shop itself was left locked up and deserted at night. The rest of the square consisted of warehouses that did have nightwatchmen,…” Taylor’s shop had a side door in the path leading to Mitre Street and the empty house next to it had a door at the Mitre Street side.
Furthermore, there seem to have been more night watchmen around close to Nichols’ and Eddowes’ crime spots, besides George James Morris. There’s James Blenkinsop, night watchman overseeing roadworks in St James Place, there’s Patrick Mulshaw who was guarding some sewage works in Winthrop Street at the back of the Working Lad’s Institute, there had been a man on night duty at the gates of the Great Eastern yard, some 50 yards from the spot where Nichols’ body was found.
This all gives me the impression that at least in the Mitre Square case most doors to more private places were either locked or not near enough, or night watchmen prevented the Ripper from going into warehouses and such. Besides, I think it’s plausible to think that a lot of officially unoccupied buildings that weren’t locked were already ‘taken’ by people who couldn’t pay for a bed.
What I think, is that it wasn’t that easy to find places where he could have mutilated his victims more extensively and that Jack the Ripper just was more of an opportunist, at least regarding the chosing of the crime spots. Jeff Hamm has put it very well when he said ”JtR may not have worked out that he wanted to mutilate to some particular level (i.e., MJK). He may have simply killed and mutilated to the level that opportunity provided. With Mary Kelly, he simply may have had more opportunity by chance, not by design.” Although I do lean toward thinking he put more thinking into Mary Kelly’s case beforehand.
As to the bodies left purposely on display, to be found like he left them, I also agree with Jeff and think this was more because he had no other option. He couldn't dispose of them somewhere else, and rolling the bodies around face down so that it looked like they were drunk or asleep or something would only cost extra time and wouldn’t really serve a purpose. I don't think Jack was looking for notoriety, much less that he left the bodies to scare a particular person.
Jack the Ripper wanted to mutilate and that’s why he killed quickly, worked swiftly and left his victims immediately when he felt he could no longer stay.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 7:36 pm: | |
I am with you on this one, Frank. Good points all.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 363
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 9:03 pm: | |
Jeff, when you kill another human you have two immediate fears - being overpowered by your victim allowing them escape or turn the table on you, and being spotted by another party while in the act.
To overcome these fears you strike quickly and with all the strength you can muster which is quit a bit more than you normal would have due to the fear and adrenaline.
The second fear of being caught is overcome by selecting a place where you feel comfortable committing the crime. Just because the victim led him to a spot doesn't mean he had to go through with the act. He could argue over money, say that he changed his mind, or any number of other reasons to excuse himself from the location without giving himself away to the intended victim.
Our killer was comfortable with the location or he would not have followed through with the killing. So, the reason he didn’t select a more private spot has to be that he had no need of one. This shows that the killer was confident of his ability to perform the act under the conditions and wasn’t afraid of being spotted so he must have been very familiar with the area surrounding the murder site.
Polly's body could have been moved to the side of the building. There was approx 5 - 10 minutes between the time of the murder and the first person spotting the body, yet she was left where she fell with no attempt to hide the body until the killer could get further away from the scene before it was discovered.
Annie's body could have been placed along the back fence to the yard where it wouldn't have been spotted until sunlight came over the fence instead of making it visible by the light from the rooms in the house.
Kate's body could have been placed along the row of buildings out of way to normal foot traffic so as to allow the killer more time to escape the area before the body was discovered.
In each case the killer struck when he felt comfortable, completed the mutilations he desired, and wasn’t left wanting for more or he would have done more in the time he had.
Now, having said that, the questions still remain:
1, What was the motive of the kill? Not sexual as there was no indication they had been sexually assaulted.
2, Retribution? Possibly, but what would cause so extreme of a payback?
3, Lust killing? Not likely as the women were past their prime and not the stuff dreams are made of.
4, Message? Most likely given that they were left out in the open for the world to see. That they were killed so violently and that the mutilations were done POST MORTEM indicating that the killer was not into torturing the victims. He did not give them time to express their fear, nor beg for mercy, or much of anything else that is common to a lust, or sexual predator who is driven by the thrill of the kill and the rush they get from seeing the fear in the victim's eyes as they realize their life is going to end and the killer enjoys the fact that he is in control and now its up to him to determine how and when the victim dies.
Our killer murdered these women for a reason other then personal gratification because had this have been his motive he would have selected more desirable victims, after all, he had any number to chose from, so why take over age and unattractive women?
Shannon
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 291
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
Very few serial killers are sadistic killers. A sadistic killer is one who gets enjoyment from inflicting pain and suffering, who gets satisfaction from the fear he generates. I'm full with you that Jack was not one of these.
However, lust killers are not always sadistic. Ted Bundy, for example, was not a sadist because he wanted his victims dead as soon as possible. Everything about his attacks (until Florida anyway) was focused upon obtaining a victim he could completely dominate and own.
Lust killing is not necessarily about finding the victim sexually attractive. Rather, a lust killer gets his "thrills" from the actions. If those actions include causing pain and suffering, then they are sadistic. If, however, the thrills come only from the mutilation, as it would appear the case with Jack, then it's still a lust killing. It's the mutilation of a female body Jack found satisfing, not the physical appearance of the female body he mutilated.
Also, the fears you list, and the concerns a killer "would have", only apply to someone who's thought patterns are "normal". What if Jack, however, was disturbed in his thinking? The notion that Jack may have suffered from schizophrenia has to be considered. There was no treatment for this disorder. In fact, this disorder wasn't even recognised at the time. If, as has been suggested by a fair number of people, Jack did suffer from a mental disorder that disturbed his thinking, then he may not have been able to evaluate the risks he was taking. It looks dark, nobody is around, I'm safe! Once a noise indicates a door opening, or a policeman/pedestrian is comming, then he flees and has no time to adjust the bodies as you suggest he could have.
- Jeff
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 364
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:48 pm: | |
Jeff, I agree with you for the most part. What bothers me is that if he were schizo he must have had the most incredible luck of any serial killer. For him to be able to kill and then regain his composure and act as though nothing had happened while walking away from a crime scene with the evidence about his person and enter the mainstream of traffic (each killing was near a major access route) and not give himself away is incredible to happen at all, let alone 4 times in a place as crowded as Whitechapel...
This is why I feel that Barnett is (IMHO) the best suspect. He lived in WC his whole life, grew up on the streets, knew the place better than most, knew the comings and goings of the police constables, the prostitutes in the area, and knew how to appear innocent enough to approach one of them and not pose a threat. Afterall who would suspect someone who lived next door?
I am still bothered by the fact that Joe lived with the last victim, across the narrow street from the second, may have had dealing with the third who frequented the area and possibly spent nights in the shed next to the shop of the owner of the court where he lived. He is the only person to date that can be placed within 50 feet of two or more of the victims...
Shannon |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 35
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:55 pm: | |
Shannon,
You can not use the fact that these women were "past thier prime" as a reason for JtR not being a lust killer. There have been plenty of killers that have attacked older women as well as younger women and boys. It is not the physical attraction that they are after it is the sense of power they get from the killing and/or mutilations.
I think JtR was on the street many more times than just the nights of the actual murders. I think the "Need" to kill just overwhelmed him on the nights he did kill. He followed the women to where they felt safe, got caught up in the moment, as it were and could not help himself.
Just my 2 cents.
Vlad |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
Sarah,
Sarah Said: I'm sorry Tim, but you are wrong here. It is well known that once Joe had left Mary, he frequently stopped by to see her and to give her money on occasion when he had it. This to me suggests that he really did care about her and her well being and was still trying to get her off the streets, even though he couldn't in the long run.
Great, you have shown that Joe Barnett was a normal guy who acted in a a normal way towards his ex-girlfriend. Good job, how is that evidence?
I don't need to do any research, I just sum things up in a rational way instead of putting a preconception of guilt spin on them.
Everything that Shannon said and you said simply points to Barnett being a normal ex-boyfriend of an average girl in East End London. Just because I don't concoct a theory with non-existent evidence does not mean I don't know what I am talking about.
You have no evidence whatsoever that Joe Barnett made any attempts to scare anybody, anytime, anywhere.
You have no evidence that Joe Barnett murdered anybody, anytime, anywhere.
You have no evidence linking Joe Barnett to any crime.
You have no evidence of anything, all you have are leaps of faith, solely based on what YOU THINK Joe Barnett MIGHT have done.
It would be much simpler to beat the hell out of Mary Jane Kelly on a regular basis than it would be to go and murder prostitutes to scare her. That argument right there blow yours right out of the water.
And, as far as reading the paper goes, if MJK could not read, chances are that Joe Barnett read to her ALL THE TIME about all manner of subjects in the news and elsewhere. You can't possibly suggest that the only thing that MJK ever wanted read to her was news about JTR.
You have absolutely zero evidence to support your case, it is all speculation. If an association to one of the victims were going to be an important part of the case, it seems that the FIRST victim would be the important one.
Tim |
Brandon Krogh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Vlad, Great point.
Shannon, Vlad is right. Age/looks/desirability don't necessarily matter to a 'lust' killer.
David Canter in his book "Criminal Shadows" relates an account of a young, athletic serial rapist who specifically targeted elderly women as his victims as he was confident of being able to control them. Their looks, apparently, had nothing to do with and did not detract from the pleasure he received from the act of rape.
The fact that Jack's victims were in their late 30's to mid 40's (except MJK) at or near 5 ft. in height and given to regular or occasional heavy drinking may simply indicate he chose victims he felt confident he could control. It need not indicate that lust was absent from his motivations.
Brandon |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Shannon,
On top of the fact that we don't know how big, strong, etc the killer was. Knocking out victims (or making them pass out) adds an incredible amount of risk to getting away with the crime. It greatly increases the chance that the victim will have a chance to scream, wake up, run away, he'll be seen etc. The logical conclusion would be that he wanted to surprise and kill the victims as quickly as possible to avoid being seen or captured, even if the killer was 6'5" 250 lbs.
Tim |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Shannon,
Adrenaline works both ways. It makes both the attaker and the victim much stronger.
And stop making all of these inferences about the killers trength. You have no evidence to back up that he was any stronger than an average 25-35 year old working class man from East End London.
And there is certainly no evidence that he grasped anybody or killed anybody by using one hand.
Tim |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Good point Robert. I have read that people who kill people they know tend to not want to look at there victims. Some even cover the faces of there victims up. It is not conclusive but a very good point.
Take care,CB |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:28 pm: | |
Shannon, I'm sorry, but there's no evidence at all for crushed windpipes or the idea that they were strangled with only one hand. Your quotes from the inquests only indicate some form of suffocation. You don't need "extreme force" for a tongue to protrude.
It's amazing what people can invent up in their heads as the only plausible way of reading things... |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 11:40 pm: | |
Shannon,
Have you ever seen a real life confrontation? Even a 25 year old 6' 200 lb man would have trouble knocking a 40 something year old drunken woman out in one blow. He would have to beat her.
This isn't James Bond, or any other movie, to knock somebody out in real life you have to beat them to a pulp unless you are a martial arts expert and know the exact spot and have a practiced technique.
Stop living in the movies. The human body can take quite a beating. Go watch the Rodney King tape. It is very difficult, but possible, to knock somebody out in one strike. But, to suggest that JTR got it right 5 times in a row. You are out of your mind! I highly doubt that even Bruce Lee could accomplish that feat!
Go fishing sometime Shannon, it's hard to even knock a medium sized fish out in one blow with a large club right to the skull.
Tim |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
Shannon,
You Said: If this were the case he would have taken the others to a more secluded spot to do the killing. As strong as he was he would have been able to knock them out with a single blow or smother them causing them to pass out, at which point he would have found a quiet place to do the mutilations.
I am beginning to seriously doubt your crime research abilities:
1) I did not realize that some unknown source was able to definitively determine the strength of the actual killer, and the level of skill he had in knocking people out. Could you please provide the source that you have that can legitimize your claim?
2) All indication are that these were passion crimes. They escalated in level of mutilation, time spent on each murder, and complexity. In fact when you claim "at which point he would have found a quiet place to do the mutilations" that is in fact exactly what he did once he found MJK. He found a quiet secluded place to do exactly what you said. And the logical explanation is that if the crimes would have continued they would have happened in more and more secluded places, with more and more mutilation. I honestly don't see your point. JTR did find a more secluded place to carry out his mutilations????
3) You said: "The murder selected the site for the killing for a specific reason - that the bodies would be found by either constable or passer-by, and they would be found rather quickly" I did not realize that another unknown source somehow got inside of the actual JTR and managed to document this information. Could you once again please provide a source for your claim?
You are not relying on evidence, your claims are entirely based on your opinions, speculation, and the preconceived notion that Barnett is already guilty before analyzing the evidence.
Tim |
Chris LeQuellec
Sergeant
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 9:15 am: | |
In Lituania last summer the singer of the french band "noir désir" (40 years old) has killed her "wife" with only four blows (i hope it's the correct word) with his hands open.
But yes in fact 90% of the time it's hard to knock down someone easily... |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 962
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
"This is why I feel that Barnett is (IMHO) the best suspect. He lived in WC his whole life, grew up on the streets, knew the place better than most, knew the comings and goings of the police constables, the prostitutes in the area,...
Yeah, so did thousands of other men.
...and knew how to appear innocent enough to approach one of them and not pose a threat.
Where is the evidence to support this ?? That he knew how to appear innocent enough ?
Frank, Tim and Jeff cover the rest of the points I wished to make far better than I ever could.
I stand with them.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 229
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Okay, my main reason for "feeling" that Barnett cannot be the killer is that I think MJK would have known it was him. It has been said many times on this board that somewhere someone knew who the killer was because he was a family member. They knew he came and went at odd times of night, that he came home with some amount of blood on him, that he had the right kind of knife, something along those lines. I truly believe he could have kept anyone else from knowing, but he lived with Mary. How could he have kept his secret entirely from her, at the very least she would have been suspicious.
Mikey |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 365
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Tim: "You have no evidence that Joe Barnett murdered anybody, anytime, anywhere."
True, but then we do not have ant proof that he didn’t either; no more so than we have proof that anyone else other than Joe committed the crime. Will we ever have a "smoking gun?" No. Will we ever have a confession? No. Can we take a look at the facts of the case and come to what we each believe to be the chain of events? Yes.
Do I believe Joe is guilty? Yes. Could I prove it? No, not today; but, if this were 1888, and he was still alive, yes I believe I could. At the very least I would be able to dismiss him as a suspect if all the reported facts of the case prove to be false, which I do not believe they are.
FACT - Joe lived with the last victim
FACT - Annie lived across the narrow street less than 30 feet from 13 Miller's Court
FACT - Joe lied numerous times at the inquest into Mary's death about his relationship with her, her drinking habits, and her family
FACT - Joe fits extremely well with the description of the last man Kate was seen with only a few moments before her death.
FACT - Joe losing his job and his lover were the low points in his life. FACT - His father died when he was about 6 years old and his mother deserted him shortly after to a life on the streets of the worst slums in the country (and perhaps the world)
FACT - Joe has a lot in common with the profile of modern day serial killers (no it doesn’t make him one, only stating that this is something that needs to be investigated further): 1- absence of a father figure 2- deserted or abandoned at an adolescent age 3- alcohol or drug abuse in the family 4- loss of self worth due to loss of job and/or love relationship.
Did a lot of others in the area at the same time have the same social problems? Yes. Do these facts make Joe the killer? No. But, they do at least give you a starting point for an investigation which is far more than you can say about any other suspect. Besides being the lover of the last victim, Joe is the only known suspect to possibly come in close contact with more than one of the other victims. No, this doesn't make him the killer either. It does however place him high up if not at the top of the suspect list. Even modern criminal investigators will tell you that the reason they start with the lover/spouse of the victim is that in an overwhelming majority of the cases they are the guilty party. If you focus the investigation there you achieve your first goal which is either catch the guilty party or prove them innocent and continue. If the investigation fails, then you remove him as a suspect and continue the investigation.
Is Joseph Barnett a valid starting point? Yes, for me at least. Had Joe not lied at the inquest and caused me to take a second look at him in relation to the murder of Mary Janet Kelly would I consider him a suspect? Probably not. However, someone once said, remove the lies and whatever remains however improbable has to be the truth.
By all outward appearances Joe is just your typical "boy next door." So was Dahlmer, Gacey, DeSalvo, Speck, and Bundy. The first thing the neighbors said when these men were arrested was, "I never thought he was the killer."
Shannon
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 366
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
Tim: "And there is certainly no evidence that he grasped anybody or killed anybody by using one hand."
Read the coronor's reports on Nichols and Chapman which I posted earlier on this thread. There most definately is proof that the killer only used one hand. A single mark from a thumb print on one side of the neck and multiple marks on the opposite side from the fingers states very clearly that they wer grasped by ONE hand otherwise there would be identical marks on both sides with the thumb PRINTS (plural) in the center of the throat...
Shannon |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
