Tweet
Originally posted by The Good Michael
View Post
-
Most likely, Joseph Barnett left 13 Miller's Court because Mary Kelly refused to comply with his manipulative demands that she change her ways and do as he ordered. He himself gave this reason for their break-up. -
Heinrich,
Instead of using the word 'manipulative' which of course is something you've added, would you say that he was unhappy that his girlfriend was engaging in prostitution again and that's why he left?
Mikehuh?Comment
-
By attempting to control Mary Kelly, Joseph Barnett was being manipulative. Not only was he unhappy that she was consorting with prostitutes and resorting to prostitution herself, he was clearly furious about this, enough to do her in when she did not comply with his wishes even after he left her (as he claims) or when she had given him his running orders.Originally posted by The Good Michael View PostComment
-
Yes, I do, Lechmere. Provided you were in a "suitable location" to monitor the comings and goings of the occupants of Miller's Court, you were unlikely to go too far wrong. I have no idea where you're getting "everyone coming in" from. Who would "everyone" refer to in this case? The precious few people who were passing through the arch in the small hours of a miserable night? We're hardly talking hoards of potential stalker-spotters here.So Ben you do think that 13 Miller's Court was a suitable location to stalk a potential victim?
Exactly, and what better cover than that? To the untrained eye, he could easily have passed for one of the houses's many lodgers skulking outside.it was also outside a very big and busy lodging houseComment
-
Heinrich -just out of curiosity, if your partner was getting drunk, engagingOriginally posted by Heinrich View Post
in prostitution, and inviting other prostitutes to sleep in your bedroom, would you be happy about this ?
If you weren't happy with the situation wouldn't you say so ?Comment
-
As I've been reading through all this and many other threads and articles here and elsewhere, the idea that the Ripper may have stalked his victims for a time has occurred to me more than once.
Okay, probably not a new thought by any means, but...here goes.
All the victims had something new on them. Several of these things seemed unusual or unexplained - the expensive cigarette case, the new bonnet in the absence of even a few pence. Perhaps they were indeed 'groomed' for a short time prior, perhaps the Ripper was not an unfamiliar face - which could account for the lack of screams.
And okay, admittedly this is a very wild and hairy speculation here (rather than mildly unkempt? ) but ... some men like to pay prostitutes for 'fantasies' and Victorian England is quite famed for behind-closed-doors spanky games - what if he'd paid his victims for an 'unusual' service before, and gained their trust? I mean strangulation fantasies, that sort of thing. From what I read isn't at all unusual a thing for prostitutes to be asked to submit to. If they knew the punter and were used to his 'unusual requests there'd be less likelihood they'd panic and scream before he could cut their throats. In any case, the crimes could have looked a lot more random than they actually were.
The Ripper seemed very sure of himself - took substantial risks in areas where he could have easily been disturbed. Yet, if the victims led him to their favoured spots for business, and he knew what those spots were, he could pick a time when things were reasonably quiet in the street - and, if he was indeed stalking the victims, wait for them to be in the right place at the right time - and still get the thrill of taking a chance.
Somehow, the idea of a very mentally ill person killing that many women in a crowded city within spitting distance of neighbours and passersby, in enclosed areas and taking the time to perform not only a murder but some pretty involved mutilations - and not only doing this unseen but getting away cleanly, without being seen drenched in blood (being smart mentally together enough to have avoided that, possibly) - well, it just doesn't sit right. I think the Ripper's mind was probably pretty sharp and that he liked to play games. So stalking isn't that far a stretch, for somebody with a calculating mind.
I read that several of the murder sites were fenced in on two or three sides? (I really need to go back and find that information...) If that's actually so, it isn't so unlikely to me that he'd pick Mary Kelly's place, if he was already taking chances in alleys and yards with not a lot of room for undetected escape in case of discovery, and if he had been stalking Mary a while and thereby knew her habits and those of the people who lived there.
How far off the regular beat of patrolling officers was each site? Perhaps part of what attracted him to each victim was that the risk of police discovery wasn't really a factor, but close enough to make it exciting? Just a thought - I don't have that information yet. Perhaps he knew the beats, since the police walked very regular routes and thus were sort of predictable in the timing of their rounds.
I don't think the idea of the Ripper having stalked his victims is all that terribly unlikely as to warrant outright dismissal, anyhow.Comment
-
Oh - just a quick addendum. Well, really a few questions I couldn't find clear answers on yet.
Did any of the women have known pimps? I know prostitutes without pimps working in pimp's areas could be murdered for it. Did Jack target areas that weren't controlled by pimps, by any chance?Comment
-
Had I hooked up with a prostitute in the first place I would neither have a right nor a reasonable expectation that she would change, especially were I a broke sacked laborer unable to provide for her.Originally posted by Rubyretro View Post
Joseph Barnett didn't just say so but he continually argued with Mary Kelly about it and even forbid her from prostitution; "He would not allow her to go on the streets." (Julia Vanturney's statement at the inquest)Originally posted by Rubyretro View PostComment
-
Heinrich - if Barnett objected enough to be capable of murder and unthinkable mutilation, would he perhaps also have beaten her senseless prior? Are there records of people stating Kelly was often beaten-up looking while she was with him?
(sorry if I'm asking things that are just too stupid to be addressed)Comment
-
No, Ausgirl, we have only evidence of constant arguing and the manipulation of Mary Kelly by Joseph Barnett but no brutality. It looks to me as though this troubled relationship was building up to a showdown and the separation 10 days previous to the discovery of the body did not work as Barnett continued to hang around 13, Miller's Court until the night when words alone would not suit him.Originally posted by Ausgirl View PostComment
-
Heinrich:
"we have only evidence of constant arguing"
Constant arguing? Constant? Really? Was that what Barnett hinted at, when he at the inquest stated that "I lived with her, until I left her, on very friendly terms."
Did he lie, Heinrich? Are there other, better, sources that tell us that Barnett and Kelly argued constantly?
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Valid for speculation...
Hi Ausgirl,As I've been reading through all this and many other threads and articles here and elsewhere, the idea that the Ripper may have stalked his victims for a time has occurred to me more than once.
Okay, probably not a new thought by any means, but...here goes.
All the victims had something new on them. Several of these things seemed unusual or unexplained - the expensive cigarette case, the new bonnet in the absence of even a few pence. Perhaps they were indeed 'groomed' for a short time prior, perhaps the Ripper was not an unfamiliar face - which could account for the lack of screams.
And okay, admittedly this is a very wild and hairy speculation here (rather than mildly unkempt? ) but ... some men like to pay prostitutes for 'fantasies' and Victorian England is quite famed for behind-closed-doors spanky games - what if he'd paid his victims for an 'unusual' service before, and gained their trust? I mean strangulation fantasies, that sort of thing. From what I read isn't at all unusual a thing for prostitutes to be asked to submit to. If they knew the punter and were used to his 'unusual requests there'd be less likelihood they'd panic and scream before he could cut their throats. In any case, the crimes could have looked a lot more random than they actually were.
The Ripper seemed very sure of himself - took substantial risks in areas where he could have easily been disturbed. Yet, if the victims led him to their favoured spots for business, and he knew what those spots were, he could pick a time when things were reasonably quiet in the street - and, if he was indeed stalking the victims, wait for them to be in the right place at the right time - and still get the thrill of taking a chance.
Somehow, the idea of a very mentally ill person killing that many women in a crowded city within spitting distance of neighbours and passersby, in enclosed areas and taking the time to perform not only a murder but some pretty involved mutilations - and not only doing this unseen but getting away cleanly, without being seen drenched in blood (being smart mentally together enough to have avoided that, possibly) - well, it just doesn't sit right. I think the Ripper's mind was probably pretty sharp and that he liked to play games. So stalking isn't that far a stretch, for somebody with a calculating mind.
I read that several of the murder sites were fenced in on two or three sides? (I really need to go back and find that information...) If that's actually so, it isn't so unlikely to me that he'd pick Mary Kelly's place, if he was already taking chances in alleys and yards with not a lot of room for undetected escape in case of discovery, and if he had been stalking Mary a while and thereby knew her habits and those of the people who lived there.
How far off the regular beat of patrolling officers was each site? Perhaps part of what attracted him to each victim was that the risk of police discovery wasn't really a factor, but close enough to make it exciting? Just a thought - I don't have that information yet. Perhaps he knew the beats, since the police walked very regular routes and thus were sort of predictable in the timing of their rounds.
I don't think the idea of the Ripper having stalked his victims is all that terribly unlikely as to warrant outright dismissal, anyhow.
All that you've suggested has validity. It's been discussed on these boards before whether Jack was a clever, conniving psychopath or a crumbling schizophrenic who got lucky. Of course we don't know. If he was the former your suggestion of stalking etc... is certainly believable as is his being a previous customer.....again and frustratingly, we don't know....
The pimp question has been brought up before and the consensus was that these women were too low-life to have pimps with the possible exception of MJK. They didn't make enough money for some guy to steal. Pimps would have gathered around the more lucrative girls..MJK may have chosen to go solo...?
The police indeed had beats that I'm sure the street prostitutes knew like a symphony and possibly Jack as well. Perhaps the predictability of them wasn't a good strategy?
The only fenced in on 3 sides would be Hanbury St....the rest were in the street, a court, an alley....etc...
GregComment
-
The best source is Joseph Barnett himself. His and Mary Kelly's relationship is characterized by disagreements and arguments although he claims they always patched things up amicably. "... she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly" (Joseph Barnett at the inquest of Mary Kelly), as I already mentioned in Post #92. Not amicably enough to prevent their break-up just days before the murder, however.Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
Elizabeth Prater heard them arguing on the night of the "double event".
Julia Vanturny, as I mentioned a couple of post above, testified that Joseph Barnett would not allow Mary Kelly to go on the streets.
He did not lie when he admitted to these quarrels.Comment
-
Greg, thank you for your response. I'll have a hunt around for the threads you mentioned.
MJK seems the exception in a lot of ways - but it's really hard to think of her horrendous mutilation as being done by anyone else but the man who did the same to Eddowes.
Has it been discussed whether these crimes could have been committed by a local pimp trying to scare the prostitutes of Whitechapel either out of his territory, or into his 'care'? People have done things every bit as bad as those murders for the sake of money, and in far less impoverished areas. Perhaps some of the more infamous local thugs were hauled in for questioning?
I realise this is a Barnett thread - but I'm not convinced he killed Mary Kelly. Unless there's something I've missed that hints more strongly toward his being bonkers enough to have also killed Catherine Eddowes and Annie Chapman.
There's so much about this case that I don't - or can't - know. You regulars are probably quite sick of new people wondering about the same old things, so perhaps it's better to go back to lurking a while until I have something more useful or conclusive to say.Comment
-
Barnett is innocent...
Hi Ausgirl again,
You're welcome.....Greg, thank you for your response. I'll have a hunt around for the threads you mentioned.
Agreed.MJK seems the exception in a lot of ways - but it's really hard to think of her horrendous mutilation as being done by anyone else but the man who did the same to Eddowes.
Yes indeed, see Charles Le Grand...a terrible fellow and a recently discovered suspect...Has it been discussed whether these crimes could have been committed by a local pimp trying to scare the prostitutes of Whitechapel either out of his territory, or into his 'care'? People have done things every bit as bad as those murders for the sake of money, and in far less impoverished areas. Perhaps some of the more infamous local thugs were hauled in for questioning?
I'm not convinced either but you're right perhaps some of these discussions should be taken to other threads...I realise this is a Barnett thread - but I'm not convinced he killed Mary Kelly. Unless there's something I've missed that hints more strongly toward his being bonkers enough to have also killed Catherine Eddowes and Annie Chapman.
Don't fret..........there are some curmudgeons out here but most people are polite and welcoming to newcomers...There's so much about this case that I don't - or can't - know. You regulars are probably quite sick of new people wondering about the same old things, so perhaps it's better to go back to lurking a while until I have something more useful or conclusive to say.
As an aside, where I differ with some is I don't believe that MJK was a domestic one off - the evisceration was too intense and depraved and overdone.....this was Eddowes on steroids in my view...
GregComment
Comment