Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barnett's candidacy - a few issues

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Dickens View Post
    Bear with me, this is just my 2d worth. Correct as required...

    Having again recently finished Bruce Paley's book fingering Joseph Barnett as Jack the Ripper, there seems to be a number of issues that stick in the throat, (aside from the occasions where Barnett's alleged actions are troublingly novelised.)
    Throughout the series, canonical or not, the escalation is evident; the scene at Miller's Court is often contemporarily described as frenzied, ferocious, savage or such like. I don't suppose many would argue that this wasn't the work of a disturbed individual, but the implication of dramatic adjectives is to give it a rapidity, an impulsivity and a lack of control that seems quite out of keeping with the actual events, (something the Telegraph at the time hinted at.)

    The Kelly murder appears to have many elementally psychopathic hallmarks – the murderer seems to have enjoyed his time both literally and figuratively; yet the process does not appear punitive in that the victim's death, (and therefore her suffering), was rapid and effective - a preliminary step and not, apparently, one to be necessarily savoured. Whoever spent that night at 13 Millers Court was careful, considered and deliberate to the extent of being almost playful. A generous fire was tended to secure suitable light; organs were not strewn around in abandon, they were placed; Kelly was less ripped than degloved, and then in an almost inquisitive manner.

    The few surviving images undoubtedly provoke horror and distaste, but there appears to be a lack of these in the perpetrator as he rummages around inside her - his hands slick with blood and bile, urine and faeces. The almost total lack of empathy and clinical detachment involved exonerates Joseph Barnett in my estimation if, as Paley suggests, he killed Kelly in a fit of spurned pique. This was committed by a person with a cold and considered interest in exploring and destroying the female body, although it's worth noting that he takes care to place her left arm back in a restful manner across her abdomen rather than leave it hanging down as it must have ended up, (but then why leave legs akimbo?) Surely this is no impulsive act, rather the culmination of atypical desires; you can almost hear the Ripper's delusional grace, “Thank you for allowing me to do this to you...”

    One thing of note that I can't help but notice is the apparent concentration upon the internal pelvic, abdominal and thoracic spaces, and the attending lack of amputation attempts on any of the victims. The lacerations to the throat were described on more than one occasion as being down to the cervical vertebrae, but this was evidently not a decapitation attempt and simply the result of wanting to extinguish life as swiftly and silently as possible. The 'denuded' thighs again were no attempt at dismemberment and look likely to have been stripped due to their being contiguous with the external genitalia. Kelly's arms were lacerated but again with no real fervour as seen on the thorax. And in regard to removing the organs, this would be no difficult feat given the amount of time available and doesn't per se infer anatomical ability; not that Barnett's filleting skills would give him a head start on anatomising a human aside from being adept with a sharp blade. Ultimately I'm not yet sure what to make of the lack of amputation efforts, (which is surely the most complete and theatrical method of destroying a person), or equally what the interest in the internal spaces signifies, if indeed anything specific.

    Repeated suggestions that the facial mutilation was an attempt by her ex-lover to dehumanise Kelly is perhaps something to be considered, but one can assume that if Barnett did indeed go to Miller's Ct without murderous intent, then his actions were subsequently impulsive, in which case a swift and ferocious attack would have been entirely the order of the day, followed you might expect by a degree of remorse and culpability. And yet again if dehumanising is the goal, then why not desecrate entirely and dismember or decapitate or in other ways destroy the cranium?

    If we accept that Barnett was indeed Jack the Ripper and that he harboured the delusional thinking and fractured personality necessary to commit the crimes, then it is difficult to accept that his escalation and progression as a serial murderer would involve someone he knew and, (however superficially), cared for. The risks are inordinately increased and I can't help but think there would be a conflict of interest which would affect his evident enjoyment of the situation. Alternatively if we consider Paley's assumption that Barnett was merely acting under an altruistic desire to protect Kelly, then his actions in committing the previous four or so murders were misguided affectations and not the expressions of a genuinely disintegrating personality. If that were the case, then why commit such atrocities upon Kelly, (if we assume that this was Kelly - another matter entirely.)

    Aside from considerations of motive and intent, another troubling aspect is the reports allegedly of Kelly crying, “Murder” in the early hours. If we are to give credence to this as being the actual time that Kelly, settling into the far side of her bed awaiting her companion, realises his intent; then there are a few hurdles to the imagination to be overcome.
    Many have mentioned that in the heat of the moment, a victim is unlikely to recant, “Oh, murder”, in favour of some strangled noise or at best, “Help”. It's difficult not to agree in essence, but given that such a cry was a relatively common occurrence, as noted by numerous witnesses, is it possible that it may have become ingrained enough to the contemporary denizens of 1880's Whitechapel to actually be used? Hard to say, but seemingly unlikely.
    If we do accept that this was Kelly's reaction to Barnett coming at her with his knife of choice, (it does seem possible she had time to cry out given the assumed superficial defensive lacerations to her hand mentioned in the PM), then might we expect her choice of words to have been different? We assume she would have been comfortable with him in the room, so at the onset of attack her appeals should be aimed at Barnett himself rather than the hopeless and directionless, “Murder”. “Joe! No..” perhaps or something along those lines seems more befitting if you put yourself in that position, but again this is pure conjecture from a century and a quarter away. The 'cry' element is obviously tenuous at best; heavy rain may have precluded any audible evidence and recollections were fogged by booze if not by calendrical mishaps, such as Kelly's apparent resurrection some hours after her murder to chat in the street. It is equally possible, if not entirely likely, she was already asleep, another reason for her not to have the coherence and presence of mind to make a specific cry of murder.

    There are other details within the book and regarding the whole Kelly scene that rankle, and that have led many to discount Barnett from their own lists. It seems we move depressingly ever closer, (or maybe we are already there), to the conclusion that whoever he was, he won't be found on the suspects page of Casebook. Paraphrasing many a Ripperologist's final published thoughts - it's perhaps enough that we have our own firm ideas on what he was like, how he thought and why he did what he did, rather than the more prosaic and essentially unhelpful who he was... (yes, and who am I codding?)
    I believe this to be one of the best posts I have read so far on the Ripper's mental equilibrium, the victims response, and the way he mutilated.

    Of course I am still under the opinion that, "playful" or not, he took only a mere 15 minutes to dismember Kelly.

    Other than all that, the flight or fight instinct and fear strangled lack of response, the phrase of the killer thinking, "Thank you for letting me do this to you. . ." all adds a certain weight of credibility to your post as it appears you study criminology and or psychology.

    All I can say is very, very good read.

    :]

    Now, if Barnett was the killer? No way! haha

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
      Hi
      I agree , great post.there was a time around 2002 , that good old Leanne , and myself, were really attempting to dig the knife into J,Barnett..its strange how times change, and suspicion fades, I would say his brother has more chance of being the killer then him, he resided in the Victoria home, alongside ex beau Fleming. and good old friend Hutchinson.
      So we have a common law, brother-in-Law,
      A jilted Ex,
      And a concerned friend..
      Surely there is at least one suspect for Kelly's murder there ?
      Regards Richard.
      Hi Richard,

      The problem I have with trying to put any of MJK's male associates in the frame is that I strongly believe this was another ripper crime, by someone targeting relative strangers.

      I realise there have been cases of serial killers turning on a loved one. For example, Christie killed his wife, but this was arguably because she was getting in the way or becoming suspicious of his activities, and their home was filling up with rotting corpses. I suppose it's possible that MJK knew the ripper and was beginning to suspect him, which could have forced his hand. But he would need to have been a bloody idiot to do the deed in her own room, especially if he had shared her bed. His best chance would have been to waylay her outdoors and make it look like just another random murder by Mr. Anonymous.

      He could have been a bloody idiot, but only if the police were even bigger fools.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • #18
        Hi Caz,
        Yes indeed other serial killers have killed their partners, and it is indeed possible that the other ''Joe'' that Mary spoke about, was the actual Ripper, and she may well have suspected him, either that or he was aware, of the alleged dream that Kelly was reported to have told to a court resident..That she was being murdered. and if one takes the view that she would have had that dream on the bed in her room, it may have suited a sordid mind to kill her on that spot..he would have surely known about it from Mary..
        All speculation..but the other Joe[ if he existed ] has to be a suspect because of his alleged ill use of Mary...
        Regards Richard.

        Comment


        • #19
          G'Day Richard

          but the other Joe[ if he existed ] has to be a suspect because of his alleged ill use of Mary...


          But 1000's of men throughout history and to today, ill use women without killing them.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
            Hi
            I agree , great post.there was a time around 2002 , that good old Leanne , and myself, were really attempting to dig the knife into J,Barnett..its strange how times change, and suspicion fades, I would say his brother has more chance of being the killer then him, he resided in the Victoria home, alongside ex beau Fleming. and good old friend Hutchinson.
            So we have a common law, brother-in-Law,
            A jilted Ex,
            And a concerned friend..
            Surely there is at least one suspect for Kelly's murder there ?
            Regards Richard.
            abolutely! The circumtances that night seem to point to mary and her killer knowing each other.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi,
              The circumstances do.
              If we accept Hutchinson's account,then we have the rather easy pick up by Mr A.The laughter, the walking back pass Hutch, with arm around the shoulder, the kiss in Dorset street, and all that with a man dressed like he was out of the ''Penny dreadful'' and Mary showing no apparent alarm..
              All rather strange, that she should trust a complete stranger , when the day before she said to Mrs McCarthy'' He is a concern isn't he'' when referring to the killer..
              If she did know this man, it does not have to be that this man killed her, if he had known her, and had left before dawn, why would he come forward ?
              Regards Richard,

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Dickens View Post
                The Kelly murder appears to have many elementally psychopathic hallmarks – the murderer seems to have enjoyed his time both literally and figuratively; yet the process does not appear punitive in that the victim's death, (and therefore her suffering), was rapid and effective - a preliminary step and not, apparently, one to be necessarily savoured. Whoever spent that night at 13 Millers Court was careful, considered and deliberate to the extent of being almost playful. A generous fire was tended to secure suitable light; organs were not strewn around in abandon, they were placed; Kelly was less ripped than degloved, and then in an almost inquisitive manner.
                This is very much in line with my own thinking on the Ripper, which is in part based on the type of killer called a lust murderer, or post-mortem mutilator... a very rare type of serial killer in fact. It is important to note that this type is not normally sadistic, ie. he does not get pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering on his victims. Instead, he is primarily interested in exploring the body after death... seeing what is under the skin. This is a primitive type of killer, and quite probably psychotic.

                For reference, see "The Lust Murderer" published by the FBI BSU at Quantico, April 1980.

                "The lust murderer, usually after killing his victims, tortures, cuts, maims or slashes the victim in the regions on or about the genitalia, rectum, breasts in the female, and about the throat and buttocks, as usually these parts contain strong sexual significance to him and serve as sexual stimulus."

                "The asocial [lust murderer] approaches his victim in much the way as an inquisitive child with a new toy. He involves himself in an exploratory examination of the sexually significant parts of the body in an attempt to determine how they function and appear beneath the surface."


                RH

                Comment


                • #23
                  G'Day RH

                  If we accept the FBI BSU analysis and I'm certainly inclined to as they have "the runs on the board" that really begs the question, why did he stop? Because Quantico are clear that Lust Killers escalate not stop, t is, they opine, other serial killer types that have the capacity to stop.
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Checking Dickens’ post, the following points occur to me.
                    He says that the culprit didn’t spend time savouring the act of murder and did not prolong it. This surely was an essential feature of the act. He was compelled to kill quickly to ensure the alarm was not raised. That was what he knew. Theoretically he may have been able to disable the victim in such a manner that she was not killed quickly but could not cry for help. But that was not within his previous experience.

                    I disagree with Rob’s suggestion that the Ripper was a lust killer, primarily interested in exploring the body after death and seeing what was under the skin. In all the cases but Kelly he must have been acting with whirlwind speed and in very poor lighting conditions. He can barely have seen what was going on.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      having read Bruce Paley's book, I must say I really enjoyed it. surely one of the best suspect books, if not the best? that said, I got the impression the author was willing to jump to some conclusions in order to beef up the case against his suspect, particularly regarding the boning of fish at work, his motives (disapproving of prostitutes and being intimately involved with the final canonical victim), and the key fiasco. still, Joe Barnett is one of the more tangible suspects, along with Hutchinson and David Cohen, but only because the rest have no more right to be there than any other man who was alive in 1888.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        G'Day J6123

                        I got the impression the author was willing to jump to some conclusions in order to beef up the case against his suspect
                        I think you'll find that most Ripperologists do just that.
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by J6123 View Post
                          ...I got the impression the author was willing to jump to some conclusions in order to beef up the case against his suspect, particularly regarding the boning of fish at work...
                          I forget, what was the evidence that Joe graduated from fish porter to fish gutter?

                          Not that it makes much difference if MJK's killer also murdered Eddowes and Chapman. We had a surgeon posting here a few months back, who advised that these murders featured techniques used on human corpses that were probably picked up from the dissecting room by an amateur observer or medical student.

                          While Joe was in work I suppose it's possible that he paid to be one such amateur observer, but fish had nothing to do with it. And again, why would he have planned to kill MJK in the room they had shared until very recently, and put himself straight in the frame, when he could have done an outdoor job on her to make it appear like the work of a stranger? Not a spur of the moment decision, surely, since a very sharp knife was called for.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          Last edited by caz; 01-16-2014, 10:04 AM.
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by caz View Post
                            I forget, what was the evidence that Joe graduated from fish porter to fish gutter?

                            Not that it makes much difference if MJK's killer also murdered Eddowes and Chapman. We had a surgeon posting here a few months back, who advised that these murders featured techniques used on human corpses that were probably picked up from the dissecting room by an amateur observer or medical student.

                            While Joe was in work I suppose it's possible that he paid to be one such amateur observer, but fish had nothing to do with it. And again, why would he have planned to kill MJK in the room they had shared until very recently, and put himself straight in the frame, when he could have done an outdoor job on her to make it appear like the work of a stranger? Not a spur of the moment decision, surely, since a very sharp knife was called for.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Hi caz my dear,what people seem to forget is that Barnet was interviewed by the police quite thoroughly so if he was the killer of mjk he must have had a very good story and a cracking false alibi.
                            Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Hello Caz,

                              Boning of fish - I don't think there is any evidence that his work involved gutting fish. at least none that I have come across. the author seems to have simply assumed that his work involved boning fish, because that then gives Barnett the rough anatomical knowledge and knife skills that the killer is believed to have had. the same goes for his apparent dismissal from his job for 'theft'. there's no evidence I'm aware of that he was dismissed for theft. again, the author suggests theft as the reason for his dismissal to make him seem more like a potential serial killer.

                              Medical Knowledge - that is interesting. notice how close the Polly Nichol's murder was to the London Royal Hospital. most likely just a coincidence, but still worth noting.

                              Barnett's candidacy - I agree with you. it doesn't add up does it. nothing tells me that Barnett was angry, hostile or demented enough to carry out these mutilations. obviously some serial killers appear fairly normal on the surface, but look at what this offender did to Mary Kelly. it seems unlikely the perpetrator walked out of Miller's Court after this crime and simply slipped back into an ordinary life, never to kill again. Barnett, on the other hand, appeared to be genuinely distraught and affected by events, and appears to have settled back into a quite normal life afterwards. in fact, didn't he marry again?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hi J6123,

                                I suppose I was thinking that Mary Kelly was gutted rather than boned.

                                Presumably whoever boned fish at Billingsgate would have done the gutting (aka cleaning) too, although I can't think experience in either process would have been particularly useful when it came to extracting a human uterus, kidney or heart.

                                Maybe Kelly was a mermaid - vital statistics 38-22-one and thruppence a pound.

                                And yes, I thought there was evidence that our Joe settled down with another woman - Louise or Louisa? - for the long haul, whether they married or just lived together.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X