Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through September 29, 2003 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Barnett, Joseph » Why Barnett? » Archive through September 29, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 26
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 9:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Rodney, George may have had a very personal motive for giving the police such a detailed description. If you remember in the USA a few months back, the "Washington Sniper" Shot and killed Linda Davis, an FBI analsyt outside a store. A "witness" to the shooting came forward and gave the police a very detailed description of the killer, the gun, the car, everything. Problem was, everything he gave them was directly from the papers in the preceding days and totally inaccurate. Further more, he was discovered on the store's video camera to have been inside the store at the time of the murder. I believe George Hutchinson is a 19th century equivilent. He wanted to be accurate enough in his discription to make sure he was given the reward money when the killer was caught. If you remeber after the "double event" the rewards totaled in excess of £300

Shannon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 27
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 9:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Rodeny, in reference to Barnett ID'ing the body, the question should be, what took him so long? According the witnesses from Miller's Court, Barnett was there nearly all the time both before and after he moved out. For a man who usually arrives in the morning, especially considering the day was a holiday to now arrive (so conviently) after the body was discovered. I believe he waited near by, blending in with the crowd of people celibrating Lord Mayor's Day until word spread that there had been another murder. I would have more believe Joe to be innocent if he were the one who found the body instead of arriving after. Or, it he had not arrived until someone had come and got him from the police deaprtment to inform him she was dead. All a bit too convient for me...

Shannon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 284
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 8:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Alan,

"So what I was saying was that having been disturbed, the conscious mind takes control of the person and he would enter the remorse phase. He could not go from there straight back to the killing phase, he would have to begin the cycle all over again."

I actually don't agree with you here; it sounds a bit strange to me. If this kind of killer (or a killer like JtR in a greater sense), would be interrupted, I believe he had to let off steam on another victim just the same. I don't believe an interruption would make a killer like the one you describe aborting his killing plans, if he had a "wake up-call", it would only be a temporary lapse -- his drive to kill has nevertheless been disturbed and haven't been fulfilled. The fact that he was interrupted doesn't mean that the urge disappears -- I believe completing a murder would be crucial for the "pressure cooker"-effect to wear off.

All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 285
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 8:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Brian,

A killer like this doesen't stop because a certain individual is out of the way. And I do belive he would have turned to that victim from the start instead of killing others, since he had acess to her, knew her and spent occasional time with her, even though they had broken up. The motive doesen't add up.

"In the words of the elderly nun who was interviewed in the nineteen seventys, she was told in 1915, by a nun who was in the dorset street refuge at the time of the murders.' If it was not for the Kelly woman , none of these murders would have happened."

Oh my God, Richard. I hope it's not that kind of "credible" sources you are going to use in your book...
If you'd ask some of the East End working class about the Ripper murders, you'd only hear myths and story tellings. I once heard some man from the area say that "the Ripper killed over sixty people on this street". Hmmmm...

All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 286
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 8:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne,

"We can debate about these examples after the book is published and no doubt you'll be looking for little points in each case that support your argument that Barnett couldn't have mutilated Mary Kelly! I'm looking forward to this!"

Glad I can make someone happy. We aim to please!

All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 686
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 9:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

ROBERT: The 'Eye' aspect of murders has been studied by psychiatrists, and discussed on Casebook before, and it has something to do with the killer's 'neutralizing the victim'.
Can you see Mary Kelly's eyes in that photo? And Barnett identified her by them!

ALAN: Serial killers don't go through three distinct phases, they go through seven:
1. 'The Aura Phase'
2. 'The Trolling Phase'
3. 'The Wooing Phase'
4. 'The Capture Phase'
5. 'The Murder'
6. 'The Totem Phase'
7. 'The Depression Phase'.


Do you think that being interrupted, could have made the Ripper determined to succeed?

ALL: I think what Richard means in his last post is that Barnett wouldn't have felt the need to kill again once Mary Kelly was dead. What about the anger/heart-break of having to destroy the woman he loved, because of his mental-torment? Could it have caused him to kill a prostitute, without the need to use the same 'signature' of the Ripper? I mean without the need to inject the community with the same degree of fear? something new to think about?

RODNEY: George Hutchinson is a worry! Don't think that we have solved that puzzle. His involvement will ensure the survival of these debates! We can only offer suggestions.

LEANNE

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert

Post Number: 829
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 9:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne

I can't imagine how Barnett managed to identify Kelly by her eyes. I can't imagine how McCarthy identified her. My only suggestion is that perhaps Kelly's hair really was waist length, which I suppose would have been very rare for that area, since it was totally impractical.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 288
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 9:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne,

Alan's killer type was an alternative one based only on his own suggestion and thinking, it wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with serial killers in general, I believe.

Besides, you can't strictly say that every serial killer acts after the same manual or going through exactly the same "phases". One must consider individual differences based on personality etc.

"I think what Richard means in his last post is that Barnett wouldn't have felt the need to kill again once Mary Kelly was dead."

I know that was what he meant. And that is why the Barnett theory is totally absurd. Once again, why didn't he kill her directly instead?

All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert

Post Number: 831
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 10:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne

I suspect that if Barnett blamed prostitutes for Kelly's being a prostitute, he'd also have blamed them for making him kill Kelly. He'd have been likely to kill again, at some point. If he did kill again, it would have been in his interests to make it a Ripper killing, ensuring that the hunt for Jack didn't stop for ever at his door.

If you add on Richard's beliefs - that Joe was obsessed with the number 39, and that he still hated Kelly enough to spit on her grave - it makes it even more likely that Barnett would kill again. For instance, Joe would have kept seeing the number 39 everywhere. Leanne, you keep on pointing out that there was no very great understanding of mental illness in those days, but equally there were no counsellors to help people overcome neuroses and obsessions. Barnett lived to a good age and doesn't seem to have been nuts.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 6:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Robert,

'...to ensure that the hunt for Jack the Ripper didn't stop at his door.' But he was overlooked 99% then, (I say 99% because I believe they very briefly suspected her murder to be another 'domestic').

'there were no counsellors to help people overcome neuroses and obsessions.'
Exactly, so how can any of us say that he lived a totally normal life after Kelly's murder? How do we know that he didn't show signs of keeping a dark secret in his mind?

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert

Post Number: 836
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 6:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Leanne

Let's assume that Barnett was the Ripper. After the Kelly business, he feels he's got away with it. But time passes. No more Ripper murders (Mylett's murder obviously didn't make the same sort of impression). Wouldn't Barnett have felt safer if "the Ripper" did in fact do another murder? The more time that passed, the more worried he'd have felt that people might conclude that the murders had all been about Kelly.

What I'm saying is, if Barnett committed another murder, it would have been in his interests to make it look like a Ripper job.

The question is, would he, at some point, have killed again? It seems to me that you're walking a bit of a tightrope here. You want him to be crackers enough to kill all those women, fiendishly mutilating them. But afterwards, you want him to lead the rest of his life brooding on his dark secret.

Even if he killed Mylett, McKenzie and Coles - and I get the impression you don't think he did - surely he'd have done something a bit more spectacular during the rest of his life than carrying fish and getting married. He certainly didn't end up in an asylum. I'll be interested to see whether your book reveals him to have got into any kind of trouble with the police in the years after the Kelly murder.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 41
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 9:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert, while Joe (and yes I believe he was the ripper) didn't commit a murder after Kelly, I think the hysteria was there to the point where he didn't need to commit another murder because the press treated every murder as coming from "Jack." Even the torso that was found in the basement of the New Scotland Yard building on Oct 3rd was blamed on the Ripper. Its one of the reasons no one was caught. Joe, or any other suspect would have been able to provide a responable accounting of themselves during the time of at least one of the murders that was not committed by, however was atrributed to JtR.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 3:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

ROBERT: 'Wouldn't Barnett have felt safer if "The Ripper" did in fact do another murder?
Well the fact that he was almost caught in the act during the 'Double Event', and that he was suspected briefly after the murder of his woman, could have been enough to make him want to kill the 'Jack the Ripper' myth.

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 43
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 3:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne, just out of curiosity, where was he almost caught?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 692
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 7:01 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Shannon,

I know you don't believe that Elizabeth Stride was one of his victims, but I do, and I believe Diemshutz interrupted him.

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert

Post Number: 844
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 1:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Shannon, Leanne

I'm not a Barnettist. Now with you two, we have the very latest line in thinking on the Barnett theory - one's just written a book which I haven't read yet (sorry, Shannon!), the other's still writing hers. So let me ask you both : leaving the victims to one side, do either of you have any evidence that Barnett was violent or even rude to anyone either before, during or after the murders?

There's the broken window, of course, but it's a pound to a penny Kelly smashed that.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 389
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 5:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The defence of the indefensible
Feckless reckless and reprehensible.
The offence a wordy worn flatulence
In itself no offence and no defence.
Ah, you theorists how you come and go
Planting seeds that never grow.
And dig deeper in that common hole
And therein doth rot the common soul.
Would it be that one soul could save
By leaping forth from that grave?
But you leap by gain
Being quite vain
And dust down that old shelf
For your material wealth.
Ah, but for a spread of wings
Instead of same old things.
Ah, but for a small sparkle
Amongst common old debacle.
Come, Jack, give me a light
Letís suck awhile on this old pipe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 46
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 11:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert, to my knowledge no, I haven't found anything in my research, which isnít surprising. What I found is that Joseph Barnett is what would be referred to in America as someone likely to go "postal." Meaning that in reality he was a sociopath who blended in to his surrounding, not drawing attention to himself, and struck out at society when the conditions were all in his favor.

I see two completely separate psychological problems in Joseph. The first is a subconscious one he is unaware of; a hatred for his mother for deserting him after the death of his father at the age of seven. The second being a threat to his manhood in that he lost his job at the market and afterwards was unable to provide for Mary which meant she was going to be returning to the streets. Something he felt responsible for and helpless to do anything about. His subconscious told his conscious mind it was OK to kill if it would momentarily keep Mary off the streets, and then his psyche chose the victim (one who resembles his mother).

After Martha's death in early August he saw the reaction the other ladies of the evening had and the fear of being the next one. (IMO) Joe believed if he could scare her off the streets just long enough to get a job she would be back and everything would be right in his world.

Each time she went back to the streets, he killed again. Each time it was more intense that the last, and closer to home. I believe Polly was his first and easy prey being drunk lost and alone. Annie was chosen because she lived next door (across the passage on Dorset street), and Kate for the same reason. When it failed to stop her, the two had it out, and that was the night of the broke window. Joe wanted her off the streets and they fought about money, her working, and telling him if he couldnít support her, then she could find someone who could. In affect abandoning him to the streets the same as his mother did. All that boiled over and he struck with a vengeance.

Yes, this is all speculation, but, it is my belief that this is how it unfolded or close to it.

Shannon

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 303
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 12:32 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Shannon,

Yes indeed these are speculations -- and may I say wild ones. Barnett's supposed personal background, which could fit anyone (also those who doesen't become serial killers), could very well be a good starting ground for a Ripper to evolve, but as long as we don't have any records or hard evidence showing that Barnett was a violent man or had earlier convictions for violent crimes it is all irrelevant and ludicrous.

Looking at the pure facts, nothing at all points to Barnett, except quasi-psycological interpretations of his childhood. Do we in his behaviour even see any real proof of him being a sociopath? Have we even any proof of that the women knew each other? No, I think not -- unless Leanne & Co hasn't unfolded some serious data that to this day has been unknown. In a scientific sense, the Barnett theory is to be considered a seeed of fictional imagination. I also want to add, that -- whatever the motive -- this kind of killer doesen't stop unless he dies or is put away for some reasons. The crime scenes indicate an urge to kill that lay beyond any thorough planning at all -- all personal connections suggested by Barnett "theorists" are pure hypothetical and groundless.

All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 2:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

ROBERT: Mary Kelly very likely did smash that window, (no one ever questioned that), but if the couple were very happy/comfortable (or whatever he said), until Julia came to live with them, then why such a violent outburst? And if Julia's presence upset him and interrupted this comfortness, why didn't Mary just say: "I'm sorry girls, you know I'm kind-hearted but...." As soon as Julia found a place of her own, Maria Harvey moved in and Barnett stormed off!

Then there's being dismissed from the Billingsgate job: Years ago, when I supported Bruce Paley's assumption that he was caught thieving, people slammed that assumption saying there's no proof! So, after researching the market bylaws, I chose to suggest the only other offence that caused the cancellation of a porter's licence, and that was violent or drunken behaviour, and people still weren't happy!!!!

Then there's Julia Venturney's statement that Mary told her she was fond of another Joe, but Barnett supplied her with money!

I thought: "There's something hidden behind this well-behaved, well presented man. Something that no one could see then and people refuse to see now!"

People keep looking for absolute proof of someone's guilt, but as it's just not there, Shannon, Richard, Paley, Harrison and I choose to look through someone's 'Mask Of Sanity'!

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon

Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 2:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Glenn: "as long as we don't have any records or hard evidence showing that Barnett was a violent man or had earlier convictions for violent crimes it is all irrelevant and ludicrous."

Since when did a violent past history become a prerequisite for a serial killer?


Robert Berdella: On April 4, 1988, was arraigned on seven counts of sodomy, one count of felonious restraint, and one count of first degree assault. Bail was initially set at $500,000, revoked the next day, when officers testified that one of the men in Berdella's photographs -- trussed up and hanging by his heels -- appeared to be dead. While excavation continued on Berdella's property and prosecutor's contemplated murder charges, homicide investigators started checking out their list of missing persons dating back to 1984. A bargained guilty plea on one count of murder consigned Berdella to prison for life, but authorities suspected him in at least seven other deaths.

No prior record.

Joel Rifkin: The son of unwed teenage parents, born in 1959, Joel was adopted by Ben and Jeanne Rifkin at three weeks of age. The couple was so happy with their son that they repeated the procedure, with a daughter, three years later. In 1965, the family settled in East Meadow, where Joel would spend most of his remaining years. He shared his mothers enthusiasm for photography and handicrafts, a brainy child who never quite fit in with other kids his age.

No prior record.

Paul Bateson: In 1977 and '78, New York homosexuals were terrorized by a series of "bag murders," in which six male victims were mutilated and dismembered, their remains wrapped in black plastic bags and dumped in the Hudson River. Some of the grisly fragments washed up on the New Jersey shore.

No prior record.

Joseph Christopher: A pathological racist, Christopher launched a one-man war against blacks in September 1980, claiming victims from upstate New York to southwestern Georgia. In his wake, he left an atmosphere of bigotry and violence that provoked a string of hostile confrontations in communities not known for racial animosity. His legacy of death and hatred lingers to the present day, as several of the crimes connected to his rampage -- or inspired by his example -- are officially unsolved.

No prior record.

Billy Ray Waldon: The death of Waldon's grandmother, in 1985, appeared to be the trigger incident for an astounding, lethal shift in Billy's personality. A quiet, unassuming man by all accounts before her death, he changed dramatically in later weeks, like Mr. Hyde emerging from the passive Dr. Jekyll. With the change of seasons into autumn, Billy launched a one-man reign of terror that could claim four lives and leave at least eight other persons injured.

No prior record.

None of these killers had any previous violent behaviors before they went on their killing sprees. I dont find it "irrelevant and ludicrous" to believe that Joseph Barnett who lived a very similiar life style could have been the killer.

Shannon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 267
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 3:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi,
The strong possibility , that Barnett spat on Kellys grave, would show at the very least a uncontrolable form of temper.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 305
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 4:30 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, Shannon

A prior police record is generally a common feature among serial killers. Many of them have distinguished themselves already in their early teens with arson and torturing animals, then it escalates. Many have a record showing rape or attempts of rape, abuse etc. But I must hand it to you; you are very good at digging up exceptions -- I am sure you can find several others, but I believe most of them have actually committed crimes before, but that have never been connected to them. I don't believe that would be the case with Barnett, though. I must claim a higher evidence value here, since this concerns crimes committed over hundred years ago and the material we have is very sparse and uncomplete.

Noone ever begins to start a killing spree out of the blue, unless one can point at some sort of brain damage or mental illness suddendly occurred. Pure common sense says this. I could give you a vast amount of examples of serial killers with a past police record and very serious juvenile problems, but I'm afraid this thread would get too long and heavy.

With mass murderers (a person killing several people during one single incident) it is a different issue, though. These are usually shy and introvert people, with invisible emotional problems and who then suddenly snaps. The modern phenomenon with children that go bezerk with weapons in schools are such examples. These are also suicidal people; unfortunately they sometimes get mixed up with serial killers.

And once again: a killer like Jack the Ripper (or anyone similar) doesen't stop unless he dies or is put away for some reasons. To claim the opposite is ridicolous. And so is the Barnett "motive".

All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 306
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 4:32 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh No, Richard!!!!!!!

Not the grave spitting incident....
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash

Post Number: 28
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 5:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne,

The seven phases you refer to are taken from Joel Norris's book and are not a general rule. In this highly controvertial book Norris was trying to make an argument that serial killing is a mental illness which can be diagnosed before it occurs, an extremely dangerous theory in my opinion. The book also contains a number of major inaccuracies in the case descriptions.

When I referred to the three distinct phases I did say "killers of this type", and also I wasn't intending it as a hard and fast rule but rather as a guide. However it isn't inconsistent with what Norris was saying, I merely concatenated his "aura and trolling" phases into my first stage, the "wooing, capture, murder and totem" into the second, and then described the "depression" phase as the third.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.