Tweet
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?)
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?)
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