-
-
Phil ...if you divorce MJK from her sisters in death, then you start to look at the case differently. At least that is what I have found.
Sally: Sure - but why would you? And how could you?
Evidence of a closed mind, Sally?
I have no axe to grind, no theory to promote so I can try and test all permutations. In recent years, since I overcame the shock of first being introduced to the concept,(when I read Turnbull's "The Killer Who Never Was" I think, so around 1996) I have been comfortable with dissolving the canonical view and thinking of a number of hands being responsible for individual killings (Kidney for Stride) and Barnett or someone similar for MJK.
I find that de-coupling Stide from Eddowes makes the "double-event" (that may never have been) much more comprehensible. There is no rush to find a second victim, the frenzy to mutilate because of a failure to do so with the first victim vanishes - we are left with a JtR working as normal.
Similarly, I glimpse more "sense" when I study MJK with a mind that she was killed by someone other than "Jack" than I do when trying to pin her murder on JtR.
Try to open your mind to new possibilities Sally, rather than taking pot-shots at those striking out into new fields and fresh ideas.
PhilComment
-
Heinrich:
"The case of Mary Kelly is strikingly special in attempting to piece the evidence together. She was murdered in her own dwelling, a place which she had until recently co-habited with Joseph Barnett! As I mentioned in Post #20, Barnett "was well aware of how to gain access to the dwelling anytime he wished" (the main subject of this thread). Secondly, she was mutilated in a far more gruesome manner than any other victim, suggesting a possible special interest in her, perhaps as the recent partner of Joseph Barnett who was defying his will by consorting with prostitutes and resolving to continue that lifestyle herself. And thirdly, the murders ceased after Mary Kelly's slaughter (provided we keep to the canonical five) and only after Joseph Barnett had been interviewed under suspicion by the police when the heat was on in earnest.
The key, so to speak, is in understanding Mary Kelly's murder and the most obvious culprit has to be Joseph Barnett."
I do like some of the things you say here, Heinrich. Others, though, I am not as keen on.
Putting it otherwise, yes, I concur that a fair case can be made for Mary Kelly having been killed by somebody who knew her, but I do not concur that this somebody would have been Joseph Barnett.
A closer look at a couple of your points will tell you why I feel the way I do:
A/ "Barnett was well aware of how to gain access to the dwelling anytime he wished"
Absolutely - that stands to reason, does it not? Furthermore, in any relationship between two people who live with each other it will hold true. Take me, for example: I know exactly how to gain access to the house in which I live. The snag is that it has (so far) not resulted in any ambitions on my behalf to tear my wife to pieces. Actually, most people would be very disinclined to do so.
Others - very few of us - are instead set on doing just this: tear somebody to shreds. These people will belong to two different categories of potential killers, the ones who would happily tear anybody up and leave the leftovers where the deed was done, and the ones who plan their deeds, in order to stay away from detection. Category 1 here are generally called disorganized killers. They have a very clouded judgement in most things and their intellectual shortcomings are easily picked up on. They are people suffering from all sorts of delusions. I think we can calmly agree that Joseph Barnett was not such a type of person.
Category 2, the organized killers, are not as easy to tell apart from the rest of us - they are planners and they can often disguise their urges very well. These people often choose a type of victim that will maximize their chances of staying undetected. Prostitutes, typically, are such victims, often living lives that few people keep track of or care about.
So, if we must sort Joseph Barnett in under one of these umbrellas, I´d say that category 2 is the only reasonable option. Which raises the question why a killer who got his urges satisfied by killing apparently unrelated prostitutes in the open street, varying his venue from time to time, thus making it more or less completely impossible to rationally go looking for him, suddenly would lead the police to his own doorstep? It makes very little sense.
To all of this we must of course also add that even if we should accept that Barnett did know how to enter number 13 Millers Court, this may have been a piece of cake for just about anybody - we do not know if Kelly, in her drunken state, even remembered to lock the door from inside. And even if she did, many people may have known about "the window trick".
In conclusion, this point of yours is worth very little, I´m afraid!
B/ Your claim that Barnett disliked prostitutes.
In this case, we cannot look away from the obvious fact that this claimed dislike of his apparently did not stop him from living together with a former prostitute. That would have been how he would have thought of her - as an ex-hooker. And there is nothing strange about that: the ordinary man would not approve of his fiancée walking the street, would he? But what is a fellow to do if he takes a liking to a girl who IS a streetwalker? Exactly: make her give up that life and come stay with him instead. And that was exactly what Joe did, was it not?
And as long as he had a steady income, he could keep that project up. But when unemployment came his way, this all came to an end. At that stage, he must have realized that Mary Kelly would sooner or later turn to prostitution again, before she starved. And since he would not like that, Mary´s taking in an active prostitute with her would have signalled grave danger to Joe, which would have been why he so disliked the idea - it would have constituted a reminder for Mary that there was always a way out if nothing else worked, and Joe would arguably have been none too keen to have that reminder around.
What all of this means is NOT that Joe would have been a crusader against prostitution and a pathological hater of these women. It instead means that he liked Kelly enough to try and bring her out of prostitution, since he did not want to share her. And people who feel that for a woman do normally not kill that woman - they plead, they discuss, they hope, they may well argue and quarrel - but that is in order to KEEP the woman, not to dispose of her in a thousand bits and pieces. What Barnett disliked was not so much prostitutes as prostitution - and if we work from a wiew (some do for some reasons) that the Ripper hated prostitutes, then we have a guy who looks at it the other way around.
C/ The murders ceased after Barnett had been put under pressure and interrogated.
They did - if we are correct in our estimations. But if Barnett had grown so bold throughout his spree as to confidently kill off his own spouse right under the noses of the investigators, I don´t think that he would have been all that scared by an interrogation that quite apparently did not succeed in any fashion to pin any part at all of the Ripper deeds on him. If he killed Kelly, that would have been a very clear indicator of him playing some sort of cat and mouse-game, in which he was totally unbothered by any risk of getting caught. As such, I fail to see why he would not have carried on afterwards.
That´s the criticism, Heinrich - after that, I will once again add that I think that there is every chance that the man who killed Kelly knew her well and harboured deep feelings for her.
All the best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 07-25-2011, 09:58 AM.Comment
-
Phil
Thanks PhilTry to open your mind to new possibilities Sally, rather than taking pot-shots at those striking out into new fields and fresh ideas.
But the thing is, this approach hardly constitutes a new field, or a fresh idea, does it? What you're suggesting is that Jack's traditional victiims were killed by different hands. I get it. I don't agree.
It's revisionism, born, for the most part, of the fact that the case remains unsolved.
Darnit (Barnett) I was almosst serious for a second there.Comment
-
Sally
It's revisionism, born, for the most part, of the fact that the case remains unsolved.
Whatever its cause, what's wrong with revisionism?
At what point in Ripper studies did we ever reach a point, either of concensus(hah! in this field?) or time when a particular view became sealed in aspic?
MM's canonical five has been under question for years?
Tumblety came out of left field.
So surely we should be challenging conventional wisdoms all the time? Stagnation, which is how I interpret your alternative to "revisionism" (which is not actually how I personally would characterise my view) is nothing to brag about. It has got us nowhere - so we need to try to look at the facts in different ways (not suspect motivated, I hasten to add after the recent RLS fiasco) and different combinations, adding other suspects (Tabram, McKenzie, Coles, Milward etc) or deducting them.
I have the temerity to call you "stagnant" as you felt able to call me a "revisionist" first, please forgive my boldness.
PhilComment
-
Yes, and it addresses the topic of the OP here.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
Having easy access to the dwelling relates to opportunity, Fisherman, not motive.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
I am not a criminologist and cannot give an opinion about the categorization of murderers. I understand that there are several competing ways of organizing such categories. Many critics feel that this system of organized/disorganized category is insufficient. Since not many crimes are clearly classified as committed by organized/disorganized killers, many of them are classified as committed by mixed-category serial killers. The FBI classification offers little help in psychological or criminological study (Vronsky, P. Serial Killers. p 147).Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
We need not, Fisherman.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
If you believe Mary Kelly's killer is the same man who killed the other canonical four, then, as I mentioned in Post 25, some circumstances are strikingly different. One particularity being that the murders stopped after Mary Kelly's murder which brought the police to the attention of Joseph Barnett. Jack the Ripper is not to be considered sensible at all, given the considerable risks he took with other victims, almost getting caught in the act once before.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
It was not a piece of cake for the Metropolitan Police who waited hours before making a forcible entry.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
It is his own claim, Fisherman, as I mentioned in Post #90 regarding his statement to police and again in his testimony at Mary Kelly's inquest.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
So, the if I can't have you then no one can idea doesn't work for you, Fisherman.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
I would not be so sure, Fisherman. Some people, even today, place enormous weight on the skill of the Metropolitan Police of the day being efficient in delivering the third degree. It is called heat and has been known to send culprits to ground.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
It would not follow that either liking or disliking Kelly implies playing a game with the police and while he did take risks, the killer might only have had the wind put up him with the knock on the door. Besides, Mary Kelly was now dead and gone.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
Thank you for your criticism, Fisherman, and your sober approach to the discussion.Comment
-
Heinrich:
"Having easy access to the dwelling relates to opportunity, Fisherman, not motive."
Absolutely - but one cannot look away from the overwhelming majority of those who HAVE opportunity and choose not to use it, can one? Barnett is much, much more statistically likely to be nothing but a bereft spouse than a calculating killer. Then again, SOMEONE killed Kelly ...
"Since not many crimes are clearly classified as committed by organized/disorganized killers, many of them are classified as committed by mixed-category serial killers."
That is correct. And many have put forward the idea that Jack the Ripper WAS a mixture of both types. But what I am saying here is that the classical disorganized killer as we know him is a total misfit for Barnett. And I very much suspect that if Barnett did portray one or more of the traits ascribed to this category of killer, whilst having his other foot in the organized camp, the police would have picked up on it. But all we have is an apparently compassionate coroner who treats Barnett with the kind of respect that one would expect portrays an exoneration. Speculation, yes - but it fits a lot better than any remaining suspicions.
"If you believe Mary Kelly's killer is the same man who killed the other canonical four..."
I don´t know, Heinrich - but it is my hunch, absolutely.
"... then, as I mentioned in Post 25, some circumstances are strikingly different".
Mmm - but if that depends on the totally different staging and/or the time afforded or on something else is hard to tell. What is less hard to tell is that the kind of crime portrayed by Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly is and remains a very rare one. And just as many differences are involved - understandably so, since we speak of different killings carried out under differing circumstances - there are also built in likenesses to consider. The notched vertebrae is one such thing, for instance. Not a thing to be expected by the common throatcutter, perhaps.
"It was not a piece of cake for the Metropolitan Police who waited hours before making a forcible entry."
Ah! But then again, we KNOW the door was locked at that stage. If it was NOT on the murder night, we are still served cake ... And the men who waited outside may not have belonged to a potential list of people that could have known about the window trick.
"It is his own claim, Fisherman, as I mentioned in Post #90 regarding his statement to police and again in his testimony at Mary Kelly's inquest."
But all he says in them comments is that he resolved to leave Kelly due to a combination of not being able to support her and her resorting to prostitution, plus he adds that he did not like Kellys letting another prostitute live in her room. That does not portray the kind of pathological hatred of prostitutes that have lead some killers to kill them, does it? It sounds a lot more like a question of practicality to me - as long as he could not support her, he avoided living with her when she prostituted herself. Then again, we KNOW that he supported her financially, keeping her out of the trade when he could. He liked the thought of her as his fiancée, but not the thought of her as a prostitute, apparently. And little wonder. He consequently kept her out of it when he could, and killing her would kind of prevent any future prolonging of such a state of affairs.
"So, the if I can't have you then no one can idea doesn't work for you, Fisherman."
For me? Oh yes - but NOT applied to Barnett.
"I would not be so sure, Fisherman."
Nor am I - killers like these come in different forms and shapes. But killing your spouse in her home would be a very bold thing to do - and bailing out of the whole business afterwards would NOT be what I´d expect as the next move. But that´s just me.
"Thank you for your criticism, Fisherman, and your sober approach to the discussion."
Likewise, Heinrich!
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 07-25-2011, 06:15 PM.Comment
-
PhilSally
Nothing at all, per se. I just happen to feel that a lot of it exists in this field for its own sake. That, I see as without much merit.Whatever its cause, what's wrong with revisionism?
I'm not suggesting it should be, not at all. Got me wrong there, PhilAt what point in Ripper studies did we ever reach a point, either of concensus(hah! in this field?) or time when a particular view became sealed in aspic?
Well good. And so it should be. I don't recall suggesting otherwise.MM's canonical five has been under question for years?
Ok, I'm quite happy to add, less to subtract. I don't accept the 'multiple killers' view - I think it's unlikely at best. I'm not sure that makes me stagnant, Phil.So surely we should be challenging conventional wisdoms all the time? Stagnation, which is how I interpret your alternative to "revisionism" (which is not actually how I personally would characterise my view) is nothing to brag about. It has got us nowhere - so we need to try to look at the facts in different ways (not suspect motivated, I hasten to add after the recent RLS fiasco) and different combinations, adding other suspects (Tabram, McKenzie, Coles, Milward etc) or deducting them.
Well, I didin't actually call you a revisionist, Phil, I said it was revisionism - that is, the approach that sees multiple hands in the Whitechapel Murders.I have the temerity to call you "stagnant" as you felt able to call me a "revisionist" first
Absolutelyplease forgive my boldness.
Comment
-
Fisherman
I can’t agree that it is likely that Mary Kelly’s killer knew her or had deep feelings for her.
That would put her murder into the melodramatic detective novel category – where Poirot lines up the suspects and goes through them one at a time.
Some serial killers knew their victims. Some can change their MO to kill unknowns and knowns.
But by far the most likely answer is that the killer wasn’t known to her anymore than the killer of the other victims knew them.
The simple explanation for the level of violence shown is that he had the time and privacy to do what he wanted, in contrast to the other victims which were necessarily hurried.
The simple explanation as to how the killer gained access to her room was that she took him there as a client on that rainy night.
We need not think up convoluted theories as to how he knew of the ‘window trick’. All he would need (perhaps) was to remember the ‘window trick’ he could have observed on entry, to lock the door on exit. Or perhaps he just pull it shut.
Nor is it likely in my opinion that there were multiple knife murderers of semi-alcoholic down-at-heel prostitutes in this small area in that narrow time frame. And precious few such killers at other times and in other places in Victorian England.
The simple explanations are usually right.Comment
-
Lechmere:
"Fisherman
I can’t agree that it is likely that Mary Kelly’s killer knew her or had deep feelings for her.
That would put her murder into the melodramatic detective novel category – where Poirot lines up the suspects and goes through them one at a time."
With all due respect, Lechmere, then the absolute majority of all instances where a man kills a woman are melodramatic novel category murders too - for the by far most common killing is the one where a husband or lover kills his spouse. Makes for a lot of novels, that ...!
Then again I do of course see the sense in what you are saying - most serialists kill people they don´t know and don´t WANT to know. In that sense, it would be odd if Kelly differed radically from the other Ripper victims in this respect.
But the fact remains that she was killed in her own room. That, to me, is a compelling pointer, especially if we take into account that Cox had Kelly down as very much drunk when she saw her. A guess that Kelly did not venture out after Blotchy left seems a reasonable one to my mind. And if that is correct, then her killer did not pick her up in the street the way he usually did, by the looks of things (it can of course be discussed who was picked up by whom, but you get my drift!).
To me it looks as if Kelly wawed goodby to Blotchy, folded her clothes on the chair, and went to bed for a drunken or semi-drunken sleep after having undressed for the night. And if that holds true, then her killer made his way to Miller´s Court on his own, perhaps using his knowledge that prostitutes lived there, perhaps knowing from experience that Kelly inhabited number 13, perhaps prowling more unintentionally, taking his chances - explanations can be thrown forward, putting him in the frame without knowing Kelly as such. But a man who ventures into a specific, narrow court like that, and who finds a way to gain access to a specific room, is normally a man who has set out with the agenda of ending up in that specific room, and as such I find it quite logical to reason that this was since he full well knew who lived there.
"The simple explanation for the level of violence shown is that he had the time and privacy to do what he wanted, in contrast to the other victims which were necessarily hurried."
That is the simple explanation, yes. He WAS afforded more time and privacy in Miller´s Court, we know that.
But do we know that he actually wanted to do the same thing to the other victims?
Would he have spent the longest of time with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, cutting away, if nobody had turned up in Buck´s Row, the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street or Mitre Square? I don´t think that "yes" is in any manner the obvious answer to that question.
Furthermore, I don´t think he could have made much worse decisions, choosing these places to kill and eviscerate - in fact, he minimized his options timewise by doing what he did. The East end would have offered venues that would have been far superior choices if he wanted to destroy these three women the way Kelly was destroyed.
So what is the logical deduction? To my mind, it is that this opportunist killer was NOT set upon any Kellyish carnage as he cut the throats of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Instead, he hoped to quickly open them up and get at their innards before he was discovered. That seemingly failed with Nichols - not even that much time was allowed in that case. And the damage inflicted on Chapman and Eddowes, respectively, only took the fewest of minutes to cause. And in each case, he left the scene BEFORE somebody chanced upon him. He made that call by himself, with the possible exception of Nichols: "That will do, I´m finished now".
He was not a sadist as such. His goal was not to inflict pain, it would seem, but instead to quickly and practically kill to gain access to the inside of his victims. Therefore it would have made a lot more sense if he had sought out venues where he had time to explore further if that had been his objective. Yet he did not. And that tells us something about what he originally came for, I think.
In the Kelly case, we seem not to look upon a woman who was used to quickly rip up and have something taken away. Instead we look at annihilation. And this sort of massive damage is often connected with deep personal emotions towards the victim. No smash and grab this time, thus, as was the case in the other deeds. And nothing in Kelly´s predecessor´s respective fates hinted about what was to come.
Of course it could have been an experimental lust in combination with time that brought about what happened. But it may likewise have been a wish to annihilate, grounded in deep emotion!
"The simple explanation as to how the killer gained access to her room was that she took him there as a client on that rainy night."
Perhaps. But this "simple" explanation seemingly involves staggering out onto the cold, windy and rainy streets in a more or less drunken state, and meeting an opportunist killer that normally pounced at the first chance given, but who this time allowed his victim to take him inside, undress, fold her clothes and then jump into bed before he made his move. I find that more than a tad strange. Why not knock her off immediately? What practical use would be involved in waiting? None, I think - and one thing we can say about our killer is that he was a very practical man.
"We need not think up convoluted theories as to how he knew of the ‘window trick’. All he would need (perhaps) was to remember the ‘window trick’ he could have observed on entry, to lock the door on exit. Or perhaps he just pull it shut."
Agreed!
"Nor is it likely in my opinion that there were multiple knife murderers of semi-alcoholic down-at-heel prostitutes in this small area in that narrow time frame."
... and once again agreed! I think that the man who killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, was the exact same man who killed Mary Kelly. The main difference, though, is that I also believe that whereas he targetted and killed middleaged prostitute drabs, personally unknown to him, for the kicks it gave him, he knew the much younger and very different Kelly very well, knew where to find her, was quite fond of her and did NOT kill her for any kick.
I think it was a case of a man killing a woman he was fond of and quite aquainted with, the way scores of women are killed around the globe each year. It is by far the commonest type of murder, and as such, a very easy explanation. And just like you say, the simple explanations are usually right ...
All the best, Lechmere!
FishermanComment
-
Most victims are known to their killers and if the Jack the Ripper murders are the work of a serial killer who was born and grew up in the East End, even lived in Whitechapel, then it is plausible that they were more than acquainted.Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
Which is why I put the finger on Joseph Barnett.Originally posted by Lechmere View PostComment
-
Fisherman
Yes most murders are domestics – and most murders are speedily solved for that very reason (and for Heinrich!) They are very different from serial killings.
But it was clear (to me anyway) this wasn’t a domestic and the police were satisfied about that.
Poirot didn’t solve domestics as a rule – the cases were usually a little more complex to be fair to Agatha Christie!
I remember saying on one of the other threads I see no reason why Kelly couldn’t have gone out again – particularly if she was a habitual drunk who can often sober up quickly – a topper!
That is what I presume happened.
The Ripper gaining access in such a manner as you describe is a change in MO that is not really necessary to understand what happened and I think is at odds with his profile. For example unless you agree that he was observing and stalking for some time (as some do) how did the Ripper know that she was alone?
Street walkers walked the streets even on bad nights. That is what they did. Often while drunk.
I am fairly sure the Ripper on each occasion followed his victim to wherever they took him, near where they met. That leaves no mystery as to why he didn’t kill her in the Commercial Street or Dorset Street.
She may well have said, ‘Come back to my place’, and he may have thought ‘That will do nicely’ and so he was willing to wait before doing it. In fact I should say that is the most likely chain of events.
There is often a progression in serial killer brutality – as shown by the Ripper. That is another explanation for the severity of the Kelly attack.
Also in the open he would always be hurried, and anxious, even if not directly disturbed. But the chances of being disturbed in the open in the East End, even at night, would always be high – it was incredibly densely populated.
I suspect he was led back to Miller’s Court unexpectedly and just ‘took advantage’ of the situation that was presented to him.
I don’t think he chose any of the locations- they were chosen for him. I find it difficult to imagine how he could have chosen the locations.
By the way, Eddowes was also very brutally treated in a matter of a few minutes.
Also if you agree that Stride was a Ripper victim (as I do), then he was most likely disturbed then as well. I think you don’t include Stride though?Comment
-
And, without evidence, I see no reason to believe this, Lechmere.Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
I'm sure you have your reasons.Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
Being her former long-time boyfriend and partner, Joseph Barnett knew her every move.Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
How about, "Looking for a fun time, Duckie?" And he responds, "Cor! Not 'alf, Darlin'. My place or yours, Petunia?"Originally posted by Lechmere View PostComment
-
Welcome back, Fish.
I was only recently introduced to the pleasures of fishing, and since then I've been "hooked", in more ways than one! Yellow-fin tuna remain a distant dream for me at present, but I still derive immense pleasure from plucking the odd tench or roach out of the River Medway.
I agree very much with your observations. I too would quibble with the assertion that Kelly fell victim to a client she met on the streets. I feel the crime scene evidence points very strongly against this being the case. It certainly isn't the "simplest explanation", unless it is to be argued that Blotchy was her killer. Otherwise, in the absence of any legitimate evidence that Kelly ventured out again after 1.00am, the parsimonious assumption is that she remained indoors. It was, as you note, a night of unpleasant weather, and the client pickings would surely have been slim. She was also sozzled at the time. The expression "MO" can often create confusion, but it merely refers to the steps taken by the offender to pull off an efficient crime, and a different venue-type will often necessitate a different pre-crime approach.
Significantly, it appears that Mary Cox was also soliciting that night, and yet she does not appear to have serviced any of her clients in her room.
All the best,
BenLast edited by Ben; 07-26-2011, 03:06 AM.Comment
-
How about, "Looking for a fun time, Duckie?" And he responds, "Cor! Not 'alf, Darlin'. My place or yours, Petunia?"
Yes that's it!Comment
Tweet
Comment