|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 717
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 12:54 pm: |       |
Hi Glenn,
just a few points to also consider;
Joe was around fairly soon after Mary"s body was discovered so when do you yourself consider that she was murdered?
How did Joe dispose of Mary"s flesh and heart?
If he put them on the fire it doesnt work as a "copycat"
-----neither does taking the "heart"-as opposed to say a "kidney" work as a "copycat".
The point Jeff makes about joe"s psychological state is surely valid in so far as we know nowadays far more about mental illness and can use such knowledge to "predict" certain behavours among certain categories of mentally ill killer
and indeed not SO mentally ill killer so it too forms part of a valid quest to try to discover the identity of the killer.
The fact that Joe had very little time to "recover" from murdering Mary[if he did Is a factor not to be dismissed].
He then all in a few hours at the most had to race round somewhere [WHERE?] to "clean himself up" "settle his nerves" and ready himself for a lenthy police interrogation-----a tall order indeed, though I admit not an impossibility.
So I think its of crucial importance to discover whether Joe did in fact commit a domestic murder followed by a "copycat" cover-up feigning sexual serial "lust " killer which he pulled off brilliantly as far as arousing nobody"s suspicion
----when even then "domestic" murders were the most frequent and Joe,even then would have been the first to be questioned.
By the way it was the actual positioning of Mary"s legs that gave most credence to her murder having been done by the ripper as I have always understood it---same as with Polly ,Annie and Catherine.I" am not sure that anyone other than the police and the medical team had known about
this precise "arrangement" and how easy it would have been [or not] to "copycat this.
Best Natalie |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 9:36 pm: | |
Jeff,
I dont know why, but I totally missed your above post. I certainly wouldnt have posted my thoughts right behind you if I knew they were about the same thing. My Bad. But going back and re-reading your post, I guess we have similiar views about the womb thing. Anyway,
just wanted to clear that up. Best regards,
Paul |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 821
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 4:20 am: | |
Hi,
I Would like to make a point about Mrs cox's statement, refering to a blotchy faced man, complete , with a quart container of beer.
On entering the room, she soon started her singing, which seemed to have been a lengthy session, as Dave Pickett, was extremly agitated, and only wife catherine stopped him from making a scene.
clearly a strong desire for sexual activity, was not on the agenda for this person, nor a desire to kill in a homicidal manner.
Yet this person, was not the same description, she told her niece, that was of a real toff, complete with high hat [ not silk] who appeared to have been in a hurry' All right my love don't pull me along'were the words used by Kelly, there was no mention of any ale being carried.
Of course many will say the interview of Mrs cox's neice, was just hearsay, yet points have to be examined.
A] If Mrs cox was trying to impress her neice, Why did she make a point that his hat although high was not a silk one?.
B] Why did she invent words spoken by kelly' ie.. 'Dont pull me along], for to my mind, they are strange points to add, rather like Hutchinsons'Oh i have lost my hankerchief'?.
She also made a point about Kelly always bringing back men to her room, mostly seaman, and many a time she would come through the court with a song , and a bottle of gin slung under her arm.
This seems a good description of Kellys type of activities, yet she could only have done this, in the last few days of her life, for Barnett was on the scene until the 30th october, as, that it would appear , by her visiting her old lodgings with a obvious client, that she could not have lived that way, with Barnett on the scene.
To sum up , I believe that it is a strong possibility, that the behaviour of the 'Toff' was more in line with an impatient person, who was in a hurry to complete his business?. then the man with the quart of ale, who seemed to have just content to sip his beer, whilst kelly sang.
Of course we should not disregard the posibility , that she only sang whilst she disrobed herself, which owing to Kellys habit of folding her clothing, may have been several minutes.
I am extremely suspiscious, about Cox's statement, for I have the opinion that her neices version contains more of the truth, and is not impossible that the blotchy faced man , was pure fabrication, by the police, to give a false impression to the killer.
Regards Richard. |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 37
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 8:02 am: | |
Richard,
Once again, I have to ask just where you got this story that Mrs. Cox allegedly told her niece. Where does this come from?
Kelly was apparently singing for about an hour or more that night. The possibility that she sang only while disrobing would seem pretty remote.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 10:03 pm: | |
Hi all,
I think that anyone who thinks that anyone other then the ripper killed Kelly needs to go and look at the colorized picture of the Kelly murder. very few people have ever been able to kill like that with that much viciousness. I doubt that Joe could have commited the murder unless he was the ripper.
By looking at the picture it almost seems that the ripper did not finnish. It looked to me that he was planning on skinning the whole body. I wonder what made him stop once he had gone into such a frenzy.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 2:33 pm: | |
Hi all, I agree with Leanne I feel the longer you push back the time of death the least likely Joe was the killer. I see know reason not to believe that Kelly was a ripper victim. I dont think that Joe would of had to make it look like a copycat killing. Mary was in a very dangerous proffesion and she had been seen by witnesses with various other men. I am not sure if Joe had just cut her throat that he would have been any more a suspect then he was. He obviousley had some sort of alibi that night so I dont feel he would of had any reason to mutilate Kelly in such a mannor.
I dont condone murder and I PERSONALLY THINK THAT ANYONE WHO KILLS ANOTHER PERSON IS CRAZY. However, there is a big difference from killing someone by cutting there throat and killing someone by tottally mutilateing the body. Could Joe had done that to a woman who he loved?
Just a thought there has been killers who have killed woman they love were they actually coverd up the face because they did not want to look into the eyes or look at the face of there victim. I feel and this is speculation and with due respect to Glenn and Jeff who have a great deal of knowledge on the subject. I feel the eyes would have been the first thing Joe attacked if he would even mutilate the face at all.
All the best,CB |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1644
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Hi, CB. I think that anyone who thinks that anyone other then the ripper killed Kelly needs to go and look at the colorized picture of the Kelly murder. very few people have ever been able to kill like that with that much viciousness. I doubt that Joe could have commited the murder unless he was the ripper. This is a complete misconception, I misconception I used to believe in myself.
True crime literature is loaded with this kind of lust murder crimes, not only connected with serial killing but also of domestic character, and far worse than the one we see in Miller's Court (yes, it is possible - and, unfortunately, not uncommon!). With all respect, I'm afraid you need to read up a bit on things here, CB.
Even the least thinkable individuals are capable of the most extraordinary things. It may sound harsh, but Mary Kelly's murder is nothing compared to several domestic murder scenes I've seen. One may not want to accept it, but that is unfortunately the reality. To think that just a serial killer is capable of such things, is unfortunately a fallacy and miscalculation.
That doesen't mean that Mary Kelly's murder has to be a domestic incident, but there is no reason to exclude the possibility, relying on the notion, that Barnett couldn't have done it, because he was her spouse and not a serial killer.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for your response. You are absolutely right I am not an expert on serial Killers and I have never seen a crime scene. I relize your experiance in this field and I rspect your oppinion. If you say it is possible then I have to believe that it is possible. That is what is great about the boards. People with limited Knowledge in a specific area can Lean on people like you who have a certain expertise in this field. What makes you a great poster is the fact that you respond giveing me and others an oppertunity to learn.
Haveing said that, I look at the picture last night and again after I read your post. I found it very disturbeing that someone could kill in such a fashion. I have talked to men who were in combat and they said that takeing human life was a very difficult thing. Too kill in such a fashion as the ripper did you would have to be deeply disturbed. If Joe killed kelly in such a fashion he would have been deeply disturbed. There is no indication that Joe was deeply disturbed. To Suggest that Joe killed Kelly and he was not the ripper but he killed out of jealousy or because she threw him out or for any reason is a stretch. Not because demestic violence is uncommaon. The way that the murder was commited would have to be the work of a very disturbed man.
I guess when I posted last night I was reacting to the picture. I really have no argument for you because you are an expert in the field. It would be like me giveing advise to Jack Nicklaus on how too play golf. I know it is common for men and women to kill ex lovers but I dont know how common it is to rip out your girlfriends Hart,fillet her thiegh to the bone,destroy the face and skin most of the lower half of her body. I would bet dollars to doghnuts that I could go to the palm beach sherrifs department and ask them if they have ever seen a case of demestic violence as horrific as the ripper murders. There response would be no. There is a reason that true crime Litterature is loaded with this kind of lust murder because it is the must sensational not the most common. I would not describe most domestic violence crimes were men have killed there spouse or there girl friend as lust murders.
I guess you have to ask yourself is it possible that Joe killed kelly in such a fashion and he was not the ripper? I would agree yes but is it likely?
On a personal note Glenn you are one of my favorite people on the boards because of the way you take the time to respond to peoples post. I doubt that I can submit a post as well structerd as you,Jeff and some of the others. I diagree with a great deal of respect
Your friend, CB |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hi CB,
Excuse if I may have sounded a bit harsh, but I once used to believe so strongly in the exactly same thing as you do on this matter. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who are capable of almost anything - and quite ordinary people, on the surface, that is. No harm intended. I really like you too and thanks for the nice words.
And by the way, CB. Don't sell yourself short - you're doing just fine.
Oh no, I am not an expert, although I've seen some rather gruesome crimes since I started to study crime and got contacts within the police force. Most of the things I know, comes from people who work on the field themselves, not just from books.
And the experiences one learn is sometimes incredibly shocking, at least they was in the beginning. Now, nothing really surprises me anymore to such en extent - I must admit.
We must remember - in contrast to the soldier example - that these individuals are not well (not necessarily insane in a legal sense, though); they are frustrated people with often very strange fantasies and with a lot of personal issues. They may sometimes appear ordinary on the outside to neighbours and friends, but inside of them broods dark secrets, and very little is needed to push them over the edge to a psychosis.
In my earlier post above I mentioned a couple of old cases that are extreme in their own right, and I myself have seen a lot of crime scene photos from domestic murders, looking even worse than the one in Miller's Court. This is unfortunately true, but I sure wish it wasn't. It is a wicked and insane world.
Yes, CB. I think that it's likely that he could have been capable. You see, we don't have enough information of his mental status in order to state for sure either way, so therefore we can't rule it out either.
Then, there may be other circumstances we have to take into account, I don't know, but from this particular point of view it is absolutely possible. It has happened several times before and it will happen again.
I don't think you will find such cases necessarily if you went to your local police station and asked; these are crimes of quite special character - they don't happen everyday and certainly not everywhere - thank God.
I just wanted to make you consider the possibility on those grounds - then, in the end it may show that it doesen't apply here at all, but at least we must keep an open mind to it, until evidence proves otherwise.
All the best, CB. Nice talking to you.
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 721
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
hi glenn,Perhaps you missed my post addressed to you of 24 April 12.54pm.
I would appreciate it if you could answer some of my questions concerning the feasibility
of Joe being able to dispose of bloodied clothing,clean himself sufficiently to meet and fool police,settle himself from the adrenalin flush and heightened excitement that followed such an astonishingly gruesome murder all this within a few hours of completion.
Incidently the murder and mutilation of Mary Kelly still ranks as one of the most gruesome ever recorded in the UK so Sweden must have a much worse track record than the UK for such merders domestic or by serial killers.
i will understand if you prefer to leave this aside but I do feel that if claims are to continue to be made concerning the guilt or otherwise of Joe Barnett such questions are justified and in order
Best Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 341
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Wow! Lot's of interesting discussion going on these past few days! I miss one day and have just caught up on some great stuff everyone!
Paul, there's no need to "not post" just because someone else has commented along a similar line, so there's no need to apologise if you missed a post of mine. Often, two people have similar ideas, but they phrase it in different ways, or draw in more material, which can help complete the picture.
And CB, I agree with Glenn. Your posts are very good. Everyone here has something to learn, and everyone here has something to share. Disagreeing is not disrespectful, and being wrong isn't wrong - it's expected of all of us.
As we all know, the evidence we have is so incomplete that there are a lot of different ways to view it. Not all of those ways can be correct, especially since some are the complete opposite of each other. Because we can't completely rule out some of these conflicting interpretations, the best we can do is try and figure out which explanations require the fewest assumptions to be made, which allows us to roughly order them in terms of their "explanatory power". The more assumptions, the less power, the more contrived the story is the less power, etc. But, even if we come up with a story that seems to flow through the known events in a logical manner, and just because we don't have to make very many assumptions, doesn't prove the story is true. It just means we've got a good story, one that does not contradict the known the evidence, and one that doesn't require us to guess (make an assumption) very often. But guess we must, and if our guess is wrong our story is wrong.
The discussions of late, I think, have been quite constructive. I think we're all putting in good points and making some good suggestions. As long as we don't start thinking "it must have been this way", there's no need to invest our "reputations" on a statement. Strong statements require strong evidence, and we have far more of the former than we have of the latter in the Ripper case.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 823
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Although your post was directed at Glenn, my pennysworth, is dont forget Barnett was used to living in that room , nothing in that small hoval, was alien to him, he i would have imagined washed daily whilst living with kelly, before leaving to go to work, he knew the residents of the courts behaviour, their waking habits etc.
If anybody could escape that room , after such murderous deeds, looking non suspicious, it would have been him.
Lets not forget police at that time, were going by medical reports , that the victim was killed between the hours of 2am - 4am , when Barnett had a satisfactory alibi for.
But a considerable amount of modern day knowledge, dismisses that timing as accurate.
We should remember, that on the day of the murder all the courts residents were interviewed,Mrs Cox,was considered the main witness, as she apparently was the last person, to have seen the victim alive,ie, allowing for medical testomony, and Mrs Maxwells sighting [ because of medical reports was disregarded ] even tho Abberline made it clear , even with his experience in questioning he could not' Break the woman'.
Hutchinsons appeareance, did not happen to the Monday evening, in after hearing his statement,the police believed that the killer of Kelly, was the same man that had accosted kelly at 1130pm -midnight, that Mrs cox saw, and after realizing that this woman had residence of her own , with no other residents, left the room, with intention to collect his murderous weapons, and was on the way back to Dorset street,when he encounterd Kelly, and quickly perswaded her to allow him to spend the remainder of the night with her, the parcel about eight inches long, was persumed to have been the murder weapon/ weapons.
The police treated Hutchinson as the last realistic person[ owing to medical reports] to have seen her alive, therefore was encouraged to roam Whitechapel, with police officers in search of the suspect.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 722
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Richard, thankyou for your reply.
I can see the plice having been thrown by Hutchinson"s description and I saw this point you made some weeks ago and thought it very valuable esp with regard to the police possibly/probably having a reason of their own for believing Hutchinson"s man was THE man they were excited to hear about.
It sounds this a bit like when the police raced around after the Geordie tape man thinking the hoax tape to br true in the case of the Yorkshire ripper.
But I dont think it would have been at all easy in Millers Court ,already fairly busy -people coming and going etc bet say 8am and 10 am when you seem to think the murder was committed.However maybe this was when it happened its possible.
The point I am also making is how Joe settled himself down after the rush/excitement of the activity ,how he then in less that a couple of hours got changed washed and disposed of bloodied clothing[the fire?----but theres no account of burnt mens clothing in the ashes and the heart and swathes of flesh?[I guess this could have been put on a fire but it would have made a very bright fire and drawn attention to her room surely?
I still think it would have been very tricky indeed for Joe to get out of that room in mid-morning without being seen to wash off blood stains etc.Dressed or undressed when the deed was being done there is no reference to a bowl of water/a sink anythink to connect the murderer washing in the room to clean himself so he must have left the room by your reasoning in a bloodied state mid-morning when people were up and about and would know him by sight etc,etc.
Having said all that he could have had a friend maybe who covered for him and lived close by.
Unlikely though dont you honestly think?
thanks again for the reply, Richard
Best Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 342
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yes, you're right. Domestic murders are not always preceded by an immediate arguement/fight that turns physically violent. I think what I presented in my previous post suggests that such a thing did not happen.
What I hadn't considered was the idea of "Joe simmering, and then coming over to deliberately kill Mary". This, I think, is what the alternative domestic murder scenerio would have to be.
Now, Joe's alibi for the night still means he has the opportunity to kill Mary in the morning. And, although suspect, there is some testimony to the effect that Mary's alive in the morning (and so must have been killed after those sightings). So, if Joe kills Mary, we either have to make the assumption that Mary was the women spotted vomitting, or make the assumption that this was a misidentification but coincendently Mary was actually killed around this time as well. The latter is too "constructed a story" for my taste, so I think we would have to accept the sightings as "valid, with poor descriptions of Mary". Eyewitness testimony is unreliable, so the poor description of Mary is not a problem.
This means, of course, Mary had to get undressed, fold her clothes, dress in her night clothes, and get back into bed prior to Joe coming over. Also, just before being spotted, she must have 1) had a beer and 2) a meal of fish and potatoes. However, nobody at her regular pub has placed her there for a beer (no testimony to that effect), and the meal seems more of an evening meal than a breakfast (especially for one hungover enough to vomit).
Then, Joe, for whom we have no indications of any past violent behaviour (towards Mary, or anyone else for that matter), has to decide to suddenly murder Mary. So, he goes over, gets in via the window trick while Mary's still asleep, and kills her. She wakes just before he attacks, defends herself, but it's too late, etc. Joe then proceeds to mutilate Mary along the lines of what he thinks a Ripper murder looks like. Then, he needs to clean up, leave Miller's court, dispose of Mary's heart, and this normally non-aggressive fellow, with no known previous interactions with the police, has to prepare himself for a police interview. He also has to realise that he can give some information about how he actually committed the crime (like reveal he knows how to get into the room when it's locked), indicate that he and Mary did have fights, etc. but that this won't make the police suspicious of him. He also has to realise that it's best to do more of the same if it occurs in the last victim (increase the facial mutilations, which were seen only in one of the previous victims) but make the "mistake" of taking the wrong organ (the heart, not the womb, which was taken from 2 of the previous victims, including the last one).
Nothing is impossible about this. What worries me is that we have to assume that a fellow who appears criminally niave (no prior record of criminal activity) and fairly passive (nobody testifies he beat up Mary), seems to have figured out some pretty sophisticated things. He's able to figure out how to get through the interviews. He covers up his emotions, he knows what information he can give out and what has to be held back, etc. He's committed the killing by emulating the "right kind of behaviour" (repeating the facial mutilations which only occurred in one previous murder; but it was the last one), while at the same time he makes a "mistake" by not taking the one organ that everyone actually thought the Ripper was trying to get (the uterus).
Anyway, I admit, it's possible something along those lines could occur. But I find such a sequence comes a distant second to the idea that Mary got some money from her previous customers, bought herself a late meal, Mary picked up another customer, who was Jack, took him to her room, disrobed and got in bed, he then attacks and kills her, mutilates her as he's done before, takes a trophy (this time the heart because he has no specific design on the uterus) and leaves during the night. The women spotted the next morning is not Mary, hence the discription doesn't sound much like her. Joe is cleared because of his alibi.
Why does Jack wait for her to undress when this is so unlike his previous attacks? I don't know, maybe he figured it would be easier to do what he wanted if she wasn't fully dressed. He's inside, so now he has the time to wait for such luxeries? His change in behaviour may simply reflect the fact that this time he's inside; not by his plan but by "luck".
Anyway, you are correct in that ex-lovers do sometimes change their behaviours as dramatically as I've suggested Joe may have. However, in such cases this conclusion is drawn because of all the other evidence that points to the ex-lover. With Joe, we have nothing that points to him at all, so until something starts to tie Joe in specifically, all we really have is evidence about other people rather than evidence about Joe.
I've never said Joe should be completely ignored as a suspect. In fact, his relationship with Mary makes him worthy of investigation. He must be considered because we can't clear him in the case of a morning murder (so he has oppertunity), and it's not unheard of for "passive people" to commit equally violent crimes. So, as out of character as it may be, it's not outside the realm of human behaviour. But, without evidence to link Joe to the crime, he remains simply an alternative to what the evidence tends to suggest; which is that Mary was killed by the same person who killed Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. In otherwords, in terms of ranking the "stories", I do think it's JtR in first place, and Joe as a distant 2nd, based upon the current evidence set.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1654
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Sorry, didn't mean deliberately to brush you off, but I have a tremendous lot of work to do at the moment. So yes, I actually missed your initial post.
Please note, that I've said that this scenario is only based on parts of the forensic evidence (differences in the MO and signature) and on the fact there has been other similar domestic cases, that's all. Then if we include other aspects it may just be possible that it doesen't work, but my point has been to get rid of the old argument that "Joe couldn't have done it, since he loved her and couldn't have handled the pressure".
Regarding your questions, I agree with much of what Richard says here. The time of death is under debate, as far as I am concerned, since we have to take the conditions on the murder site into account.
I totally agree with Richard when he says that "nothing in that small hoval, was alien to him, he i would have imagined washed daily whilst living with kelly, before leaving to go to work, he knew the residents of the courts behaviour, their waking habits etc. If anybody could escape that room , after such murderous deeds, looking non suspicious, it would have been him." It is absolutely plausible and logical, from a police investigation point of view.
It has been said, that if he wanted to kill Mary, why copy the Ripper? Why not just cut her throat? The answer is simple. Even during the Ripper scare, when a murder is committed inside a home, the first person that is being subjected to interviews and a thorough examination, is the one the victim was living together with. They often immediately becomes prime suspects.
Therefore it would be perfect to him - at least in a state of desperation - to copy what he though a Ripper victim should look like, in order to throw the suspicions away from him and avoid capital punishment. This is not such an uncommon approach.
Yes, Sweden has indeed had it's share, but most of the ones of similar character I've seen is American, but I think a couple of them were English as well. As you may have noted, I posted some examples in a message above earlier - these are just a handful of existing cases. Several of these murderers have managed to fool the police, at least in the beginning and especially in a time close to the murder. That is nothing unusual; these are characters that don't functions the way we do, on an emotional basis. And since we don't know enough that much about Barnett's mental capacity, we can't say that it's impossible.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 724
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Thanks Glenn.I can see bits of this as viable and other bits still leave some questions unanswered.
I"m off to the Wimborne Ball thread now to have a pop at our ruling classes!
Best Nats. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1655
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
Hi jeff,
I hear what you say, but I just don't agree with you - or at least I don't find it as weak as you do. We have no links to anyone here, not more to JtR than anyone else. Barnett is the obvious choice if it's domestic murder, since
a) their relationship was strained and he left her under circumstances that he obviously wasn't pleased with.
b) he was the one closest to the victim and knew Miller's Court and the residents there, as well as the layout of the place
c) he didn't approve of her prostituting herself, which led to conflicts
d)he knew how to handle a knife
e) he was apparently interested in the Ripper murders and used to read about them to her.
This is no evidence pointing against him, but we have no evidence regarding anything else either. I don't think the crime scene fits the Ripper, and that is my main reason to exclude him and instead point the finger at Barnett (as a probable option).
Any police investigator would turn their eye to him without hesitation, regardless of the ravings of a local serial killer.
We have absolutely no proof of that Barnett didn't have violent traits - many time these types of characters are regarded as rather harmless by those outside the household in question, besides that we only have his own words on the matter. And even if he hadn't such traits, he could just as well be one of those who builds it inside and then suddenly snaps.
There would be no reason for Barnett to sneak in through the door, although I think it's possible. He could just as well have entered the room in a normal way, maybe coming back to get something etc. and then something happened. So the murder didn't have to be premeditaded. In fact, I don't think it was, if Barnett did it. I believe it was a spur of the moment reaction and then the idea of the Ripper came up when he realised what he had done.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
I just noticed that the title of this thread is spelled guily instead of guilty. I just wondered
if anyone had ever noticed that. Cheers
Paul |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 343
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:58 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yes, I think we agree on what is evidence and our differences are all in terms of how we subjectively weight the similarities and differences. In other words, we have a classic "difference of opinions". That's not a bad thing though. In fact, it works well because it gives us both an opertunity to view things from a different perspective.
We have no evidence Barnett was never violent, but then what would such evidence be? It's hard to prove the absense of something like violence. I think to support the claim that he was violent in the past, one would need to be able to produce an example. Without such, one simply has to fall back on the boring statement of "We have no evidence to suggest Barnett was previously violent towards Mary". That statement doesn't rule out the possibility that Barnett could have, on this one occasion, resorted to violence. And I think that's sort of what I mean by violence being an "out of character" behaviour, although perhaps I'm tending to imply too strongly that the lack of evidence for previous violence means he must not have been prviously violent. That is probably being a bit strong in the conclusion. In fact, Barnett does say that as far as he knows Mary was not afraid of anyone expect himself when they fought. That does hint at the possiblity that he was not quite as passive as I've been painting him. Even the lack of any criminal record doesn't rule out the possiblity that he just never used his real name when picked up for "drunk and disorderlies" (ala Eddowes and others). And, such an assumption could then be used to suggest that demonstrates his not "criminally unsophisticated", etc. But as you see, I'm making assumptions to explain the absense of evidence that allows me to make yet another assumption that predicts the previously missing evidence. Although the story is possible, these are the kind that I feel are too complicated to be supported by the current evidence. As a "theory", it's good because it does suggest where new research could be focused to try and see if anything new turns up by thinking of things this way (i.e., look for police records that tie in an alias with Joe Barnett. This has been done for some of the victims, though I don't know how the connection was made between the alias and the victim's real name?)
And finally, the reason I think Joe would have to sneak in is because of Mary's position in the bed. I guess I find it hard to imagin her opening the door, letting Joe in, and then getting back into bed while he was upset with her. And, if she was standing and then turned towards the bed, why didn't he attack her when she was still standing up (grab her in a police choke-hold, arm around the throat with her neck in the nook of his elbow, and strangle her that way?) It seems an odd situation, but then maybe you've envisioned a sequence of events that starts with Mary letting Joe in and then getting back in bed before Joe attacks her that is more plausible sounding than I've come up with. I suspect part of my problem stems from the fact that I see the attack beginning when both Mary and her killer are in bed together already (or he's just gotten out of bed, i.e. to get his knife, etc), and I just don't see her allowing Joe in bed with her unless he's paying her like any other customer. Note, I don't see it as a huge problem to suggest that JtR may have actually engaged the services of prostitutes as well as killed them. This is common of other SK's of prostitutes, but not necessarily true of all of them. As such, if JtR is one of those that never engages the services of a prostitute, then this weakens a big part of what I've suggested. It doesn't totally destroy it, but it would require some revamping of how Jack gets in to the room and/or why Jack waits for Mary to undress and get into bed before attacking her.
But with Joe, we still have to get Joe in the room, and Mary back in bed, before the attack occurs. I find that just as difficult to sort out. Why is Mary getting back into bed when Joe's there? Why doesn't she get him to wait outside while she gets dressed and then let him in? Etc. My "solution" was to have Joe sneak in while Mary's asleep. And I suppose the same "solution" could apply to Jack, but then there's the problem how how does Jack know how to unlock the door in order to sneak in? Not insurmountable, but if Jack's not Joe I find the Jack enters as customer an easier story line. Still, it's not like burgler skills are unheard of amongst SK's of this sort, so maybe we should be looking for someone with a background that includes a criminal record for burglery?
Anyway, our differences boil down to the theoretical and interpretation side of things. We both see the differences, and I think we even both agree on what they are, it's the importance we put on those differences and/or similarities that determines our final point of view. I see no reason why anyone should accept my weighting of things in preference to yours, or vice versa. But really, I think we both agree that it's not 100% certain Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim, we only differ on how we phrase the "research question". I would say "more evidence is needed before concluding she should not be considered as part of the series", while I think you are more likely to phrase it as "more evidence is needed before concluding she should be considered as part of the series". Both "questions" imply the default may be incorrect, but it's where to start with her placement: in or out?
I find the similarities of victim is a prostitute in need of money, the victim is at least partly intoxicated and/or very tired (poor risk assessment and off their guard), the murder location likely selected by victim with a customer, evidence that the attack was swift (though with Mary was not initially a strangulation attack), throat cut to the spine all the way round (like Nichols and Chapman, but not Eddowes), evidence that the throat cutting was done to direct arterial spray away from likley location of the killer, continuance of facial mutilations (like Eddowes), extensive abdominal mutilations and eviseration, a body part taken as a trophy (similar to Chapman and Eddowes), ability of killer to leave the scene without drawing attention to himself.
I hesitate to suggest that the move to an indoor murder scene may even reflect the killer is learning from his previous interruptions (Nichols and possibly a near miss with Eddowes too), and finding that in the street is just getting too risky. It's possible he started specifically searching for victims who had a room. If so, and this is not an out to lunch idea, but if so then perhaps the change to an indoor murder scene could be viewed as evidence that the same killer is involved and his technique is improving, he's learning to reduce the risks involved?
Or maybe it's time for me to have a coffee and wake up a bit. ha! Anyway, I'm not expecting you to change your views based upon any one post of mine, nor even on the entirity of them. I think it's more important that we share such opinions and viewpoints as it's often hard to come up with a different perspective from the one we "like" already. If we don't allow ourselves to see things from a different, but equally reasonable, perspective we end up being convinced we must have the only reasonable view. And, in case I've not said it, I do think you're views here are entirely reasonable and that you've presented good arguements for why you see things the way you do. I may not agree, but that's not the point. I suspect we've both taken a lot of new ideas on board and have a lot of stuff to think about. Cool! What more could one ask for.
- Jeff
- Jeff
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
I do not find it to complicated to imagine this scenerio taking place.
we have albeit dubious evidence that kelly was in Dorset street that morning, we also have it, that she was unwell, hungover or a possible touch of cold/flu.
If Barnett was her killer, and the murder was planned for the ninth, he would have tried to give the impression that she was killed by a client during the dark hours, therefore her being undressed in bed, with her clothes folded,would indicate this, also a alibi for that periodwould have been in place.
He called on Mary the previous evening, to say he had no money, he would have known then that she had not planned for a female sleepover that evening, also by stating he was broke, he knew that she would be forced to obtain some cash that evening, exspecially as McCarthy was on the warpath for rent.
The stage was then set, for her to frequent the pubs, and prostitute herself, and for her to have opportunety to fall into the killers clutches.
Barnett knowing Kellys sleep patterns, would have expected Kelly to sleep late, after a night of drinking and business, and planned to return to the court around 8.30am the next morning, expecting the sleeping kelly to be curled up in bed.
But on arriving at the room , found it empty, so he let himself in, and waited.
Kelly returned to the room, around 850am, and was surprised to see joe there, she told him she felt unwell, and he suggested she returned to bed., as he could see she looked bad.
Kelly then undressed, folded her clothes in normal fashion, and Barnett finding that she was in the position, he intended her to be, swiftly moved in for the kill, proberly smothering her with the sheet to avoid screams, before hacking her with a knife.
Speculation 'Yes' But possible.
Regarding how he managed to cleanse himself, and return to the court a few hours later, we can only further speculate, but if the murder was carefully preplanned, provisions for this could have been made.
His mental behaviour with the police, would have been looked upon, as the stress of a man , who had just found out his recent girlfriend, had been cut to peices.
And I should add[ sorry] that if Barnett was responsible for spitting on her grave, he was by definition a cunning person, for he was able to conduct himself normally during the service, before acting in that frightful manner.
I am so glad that I started this thread'Barnett number one suspect' when the new boards opened a year back, because agree/disagree on any guilt being attributed to him, he simply refuses to go away.
Regards Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 344
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:36 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I think I have a problem with the idea of Mary undressing while Joe was in the room if, as you and Leanne suggest, she detested him so much. Despite their previous relationship, or perhaps because of it, I would think it far more likely that Mary would insist Joe leave before undressing. However, let's go with the possibility that Mary did undress and get in bed while Joe was still in the room.
Now, I realise the idea of Joe planning to murder Mary on the 9th is part of your "39" theory, so this indicates you are going for Joe as Jack. So, let's work with that as our starting point as well. Joe is Jack and he has to kill Mary on the 9th (or at least someone on the 9th).
The idea is that Joe is Jack, he's in the room with Mary and needs her to appear like she's been killed at night. Up until now, Jack has strangled his victims. So, when Mary enters the room and sees Joe present, why is she not upset? Why does he not simply attack her and strangler her then and there? He can always undress her himself and put her in her bed clothes? etc? We know this didn't happen because when Mary's throat is cut, her heart is still pumping and she's in bed in her night clothes.
So, for some reason, Jack (Joe), who needs to kill on the 9th, is going to risk Mary kicking him out so she can change? Knowing that she hates his guts (part of your theory, not mine), he's going to suggest she undress while he's there? Rather than just blitz attack her as has worked so well for him in the past? I don't know, but this doesn't stack up well for me already.
But let's assume that Mary who hates Joe with a passion agrees to undress and get in bed while he, our Joe/Jack who really needs to kill on the 9th decides to watch on rather than to either strangle her when she enters the room and/or attack her while her hands are caught up during the removal of her dress. Let's assume that happens, and Mary is now in her night clothes.
Why, when Mary turns to get in bed, does he not simply strangle her now, when she's got her back to him? Why does Jack suddenly deviate from his tried and true method if he's 1) intending to kill Mary and 2) has the opportunity a few times already?
In previous posts I've suggested it's because the attack begins with Mary in the room and either Jack has entered as a customer and things start out with him at least intending to avail himself unto her services, or perhaps he enters while she's already asleep.
But what you're suggesting is that Jack is in the room, with no intentions of engaging in sexual activity and every intention of killing then and there. So why does he change the working method? Especially since the amount of planning that is implied in this very complicated scenerio seems to beg the question as to why the most obvious way for Jack/Joe to reduce the risk of capture is to ensure that Mary is silenced as quickly as possible. Strangulation means she can't yell from the moment he starts the attack, but attacking with a knife leaves that risk wide open for a scream to occur.
See, even if we accept the first two points as being true, the story still doesn't seem to fit cleanly. It still has bits that seem to stick out as "not quite fitting the behaviour of the meticulous planner that is described".
I realise that we could then try "well, let's just assume that he didn't get the opportunity to strangle her". Since that's not impossible, we could do so. But now we're getting into the habit of just assuming away all the bits that don't fit. For example, if we just assume the statement "Joe is Jack the Ripper" is true, well we don't need any evidence at all to "solve" the case. We've assumed the solution, which makes the need for evidence a bit unnecessary.
I admit that nothing you've said is beyond the realm of possibility, so yes it is in one sense "possible". However, the story is unusually complicated, indicates a level of sophistication in the selection of not only the victims but also the dates of the crimes that is unparalleled in the history of serial murder, and yet despite all the complexity and sophistication still produces "event lines" that don't seem to mesh with the few bits of evidence that suggest behaviours that aren't already assumed. This is why I think the usual idea of "Joe as Jack the jealous and jilted jaded lover" notion introduced by Paley just doesn't work.
But, I would never say Joe should not be considered. He should be simply because he is linked to one of the victims. That's not enough to prove he is the Ripper, of course, but it is enough to include him in a list of "people of interest". I also think that Kidney and Kelly must likewise be considered, and yes, GH should be considered too because of his admitted presence at the scene of a crime in the time frame of the crime (or, to be exact, in one possible time frame of the crime).
I certainly don't think the stories I've presented are necessarily 100% correct. Far from it, there are some problems which I've mentioned and Glenn has commented upon as well. The biggest one, that bothers me a bit, is I have to assume that Jack initially did not intend to kill Mary but rather intended to engage in sexual activities. This is why she's in bed. Sexual SK's of prostitutes generally do engage the services of prostitutes, so I don't see this as a huge leap of faith. The problem is that it is a deviation from the previous pattern, where no sexual contact occurs and the attack begins as soon as they are in a secluded area. One solution to this is that jack may break in to Mary's room, but that then deviates from the general notion that Jack makes contact posing as a customer. Still, the ideas I've suggested seem to have only one "trouble spot" in the general flow of events and that's the fact that it would appear that Jack spent some time alone with Mary before he actually attacked her. Or, Jack started breaking and entering to select victims. Either way, I have to suggest some change from the previous pattern. To the extent the deviations are considered small or large, one can decide for themself if they find the overall story plausible.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
I agree, this has really been a fruitful discussion. As I said earlier, you really forces me to set the bar higher for my own thinking each time. I am so glad that I started this thread'Barnett number one suspect' when the new boards opened a year back, because agree/disagree on any guilt being attributed to him, he simply refuses to go away. Oh oh. I think we've done Richard a favour here, Jeff... 
Seriously (sorry Richard, just kidding), Jeff, when you say "with Joe, we still have to get Joe in the room, and Mary back in bed, before the attack occurs", well, there could be a number of reasons. This was a small room and with only one chair. I can imagine a scenario where Barnett is returning to the room to get something or talk to her and maybe already being in a frustrated state, and Mary had already gone to bed, so she gets up and opens the door. And maybe they start talking, and sits down on the bed?
Then we can't be sure of what happened. But have you though of the most valid reason - one that in most cases is the source of domestic murders - namely that Barnett suddenly may have tried to force her having sex with him and she declined? The shout "murder" if it was hers, could then have derived from him pulling out the knife.
So there could be a number of reasons why she was found in the bed, and my bet would be that she had already gone to bed, when Barnett arrived (if we consider this scenario). I don't find this a problem at all.
Well, the effort of these very free speculations, has made me craving for coffee, so I'll follow your example. I haven't had breakfast yet!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Harry,
Have only had a chance to look at this thread now.
I agree that Joe probably wasn't with her at midnight, but then why on earth should that customer GH saw with her (supposedly) be her killer. That was quite some time before the supposed time of death.
Jeff,
I agree with you there about Mary undressing in front of Joe. I don't see why she would have. I know she was a prostitute but that doesn't mean that she would strip in front of just anybody. For a start, she only probably took her clothes off for paying customers (after her and Joe had split obviously).
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Hi,
Jeff I agree with Glenn, your posts make me also raise the bar.
A couple of points, some kind of strangulation, was proberly part of the Rippers MO, however suffocation has the same kind of effect, lets not forget Kelly was young, possible of above average weight,and would have put up some kind of resistance, the defensive marks are proof of this.
As for kelly detesting Joe, this is not exactly accurate, she appreciated his kindness, although she could not bear his attitude, she even suggested that she would be sorry to leave joe, as he had been kind to her, when corresponding to lizzie the night before.
To undress down to nightclothes, and to get back into bed , would not have bothered her, in his presence, she was not revolted by him. after all they had shared a lot together since april 1887.
Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
Hi all,
Thanks for takeing the time too respond to my post Glenn and Jeff!
I think the one problem with Joe killing Kelly around 9:00 is that ther were so many people up and about around that time. I mean look how many people claimed to have seen Kelly that morning. Joe was a familiar face in the neighborhood and somebody might have reconized him that morning entering or leaveing Kelly's room. We can speculate that Joe could have sliped in without being noticed but what would Joe have thought? Would Joe have taken that risk? It would only have taken one person to identifiy him and blow his alibi. Would he risk being hung?
Hi Sarah,
I tend to believe GH and I feel the man that he saw Kelly with was her killer. There are othe possibilities. GH could have killed her or Joe could have slipped back in around four in the morning and killed her but I feel she was killed between 2:00 and 4:00. I was wondering what you have read about the official time of death. I thought that it was actually susposed to be earliar then 2:00.
Hi Jeff,
I feel that Kelly probably did not hate Joe. He did go either because she threw him out or he decided to go because she had taken in another unfortunate. They still stayed social and were on good terms. She probably would have felt comfortable enough to undress in front of him. They had been together for over a year and lets not forget she was not completly nude. If Joe killed Kelly I believe he slipped in after she had already got ready for bed most likely around 4:00. She may not have been asleep when he came over but she would not have gotten dressed again.
I dont understand the 39 theory so I am not going to debate it but I feel if the ripper did pick the 9th specificly too strike it may have been because of the lord mayors day parade and the fact that the lord mayor had put out a reward for the rippers capture. He may have been sending a message.
All the best,CB |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
