home > message boards
Join the Chat Room!
Archive through December 03, 2003 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile
Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Suspects » Barnett, Joseph » Questions about Joe » Archive through December 03, 2003 « Previous Next »
Peter Sipka
Username: Peter
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 12:54 am:
Is THIRTY-NINE stab wounds not enough for you to at least think the Ripper may have done it?
There were a lot of variables that the Ripper had to deal with. Perhaps he didn't have enough time to cut Tabram�s throat so he killed her a different way. If Stride was a victim, one variable would be how open the area was and Stride's resistance towards him. The Ripper planned to kill these women a certain way, but something made him change his M.O. - a little, but not entirely.
You are looking into an unknown mind of a killer. You don't know who he is and you don't know what is going through his head. I just don't think you can claim that "he knew her and didn't want her to have them."(Clothing)
How does that make sense?
The Ripper would have easily risked detection if the purpose of the "clothing in the fire" was to provide light for his "dissection." The light would have been �beaming� out of a room so small and a place so dark.
He had already killed at least three women in pitch dark conditions and great speed. Why would he need light now? Why would he take such a big risk? Plus, did Barnett really have enough skill and speed to work in the dark for any of the murders?
You are basing your facts of symbolism off a mind that you cannot get into. How do you know the killer was thinking this when he took it? Do you really think he had enough time to think about why he was taking the heart?
Regarding Lawende's description. I'm sure there were many men that looked similar in height and facial features to Barnett.
Also, let's not forget that it is believed that Lawende identified a different man in 1895 as the man being with Eddowe's.
-Peter-
(Message edited by peter on December 02, 2003)
Frank van Oploo
Username: Franko
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 1:10 am:
Hi Shanon,
Why did he need light to kill her? He was perfectly capable of (and used to) killing in the dark. He might only have lit the fire after killing her in order for him to see and enjoy his other 'work', which must have taken him a while. The killing itself was probably done very quickly. Jack might have taken some of his clothes of in order not to get them all covered in blood. So, another advantage of the fire would be that it warmed the room up a little on this cold November night.
Shannon Christopher
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 268
Peter, no 39 wounds doesn't. It actually points in another direction; a different killer. Jack killed each of his victims by choking / strangulation before he ever mutilated the bodies. Each of the other women was laying on the ground at the time their throats were cut (no blood on the front of their clothing to prove they were standing up).
If the killer didn�t have enough time to cut Martha's throat then you have a different killer as this is the first thing he did after choking / strangling them.
As far as the clothing, give me one viable option as to why he burned them that actually makes sense? No, he didn�t need the light, no he didn�t burn them while she was alive, so why would he need to burn them after she was dead? If he wanted to view her body, he would have just lit the candle on the table and brought it to the bed for a close up view.
Did Barnett have the skill? What skill? There was no skill involved! If you take a woman, stab her in the genital area, pull the knife in a circular motion up to her breast you remove the majority of the organs in her viscera with what appears to be precision; but ask any doctor, if your are trying to remove a human kidney and you have medical experience, you slice through the back, not the front.
I don�t have to know what the killer was thinking at the time he took her heart, only he does, and what he does follows established patters of psychological behavior that have been studied for the past 100 years. The psyche of the mind is much the same today as it was 100 years ago, only now we understand the seemingly irrational moves that someone makes when they commit such a crime.
As for Lawende, his identification of a man who looked like Joe at the time of the murders is substantial since he saw what appears to be the last man Kate was with the night she was murdered. To recall the events 5 years later and identify the correct person is highly unlikely as his mind has had all that time to "fill in the blanks" from that night. Its only natural, and the reason eye witness testimony is a perishable commodity. The longer the time from the crime, the less likely the witness is to be correct about what they remember.
Richard Brian Nunweek
Username: Richardn
Intresting posts.
I Agree with shannon, to a degree, the blood in Kellys room is a positive point.
I Disagree on a couple of points.
I Totally believe Tabram to be a ripper victim, for the following reasons.
1]The thirty nine stab wounds I believe has significance, which connects to the other murders, remember 38 of the 39 wounds could have been inflicted by a ordinary penknive, i would think the cause of death would have been inflicted by the bayonet type wound. so why swap weapons and continue to punture her body a further 38 times.
Answer By design.
I would doubt if the killer,was contemplating mutalation, and even if he was, Have you seen the small area of the first floor landing?.
I Wonder why Tabram was taking this man to such a destination,surely there would have been courts or alleys nearby, to have sexual contact on the landing of a building wasnt exactly suitable.
My second point is regarding the killer of Kelly burning her clothes, I was under the impression, that only items that were left in the room ie. boys shirts and a bonnet were burnt , and that kellys clothes were intact.
Richard, the first blow to Martha was the fatal blow. You have to picture as you said a small tight space, and a small rather heavy woman in it. The killer stabs her in the heart piercing the two lower ribs to reach the heart. As Martha falls with the bayonet firmly weged in her rib cage, the killer panics and takes out his pen knife and repeatidly stabs her over and over again until he kills her and is able to get her rolled over on her back so that he can remove the bayonet from her chest.
Not like he could leave it stuck in her and be identified by it. It had to be removed before the killer left the scene. It's also why I don't believe she was a Ripper victim. None of the other women were killed with a bayonet stab, nor with a pen knife. They were killed with a knife that would have resembled a fish fillet (no I am not point the finger at Joe for working at the fish market as it is highly unlikely he used one as part of his trade) knife; six or so inches long and reasonably sharp.
Robert Charles Linford
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1447
Hi Shannon
What about Kate's face? Was Barnett in love with her too?
If you have any figures which show that hearts are only taken by people close to the killer, it would be interesting to see them. I can't see anything very personal in a physical heart. Eyes, yes - and he left those.
I always thought that it was the clothes Harvey left that were burned. Though here I agree with you. On balance, it does look like spite (against Harvey), so to that extent, this does point to Joe more than anyone else.
Even if Joe killed Mary in a fit of rage, why would the fit continue to outright skeletonisation, when Barnett knew that he'd shortly be talking to the police? And why take her heart, ditto?
Barnett knew that anyone could look in the window. He also knew that the rent man could soon be knocking.
After this mind-shaking orgy of destruction, Barnett is supposed to recover himself sufficiently to remove all traces of the crime from his person, and put on a performance that fooled Abberline?
This is all on the basis that Joe still hankered after Mary - which is only one interpretation among others.
Sarah Long
Username: Sarah
"As Martha falls with the bayonet firmly wedged in her rib cage, the killer panics and takes out his pen knife and repeatedly stabs her over and over again until he kills her and is able to get her rolled over on her back so that he can remove the bayonet from her chest."
Please can you explain how you reached this conclusion. I tend to think of Barnett as the killer too but if he was then I think he killed Martha Tabram. I think that he killed her because he was stressed about Mary. When he saw that Mary was a little scared by the fact that a prostitute was killed in Whitechapel, he decided to actively go and kill the others and make it worse so he gutted the others in a sense like he did to the fish. If you look at it this way then I can see why she was killed with a pen knife as Joe hadn't gone out looking for someone to kill so he had a different knife on him.
I agree with Peter that the Ripper had to be a white man anyway even if it wasn't Joe because people would have mentioned it if they had seen a black person around as it was a very racist time period. They would have been going around saying that the killer was a black man if one had been seen.
Oh yes and Richard is correct about Mary's clothes being neatly folded up and not being burnt.
Alan Sharp
Username: Ash
I'm not saying I think Martha was a Ripper victim, I am still undecided although I tend to lean towards the idea that she was. But regarding the throat cutting, my idea has always been that this has to have been something of a messy killing, and that assuming it was the Ripper he learned from the experience that he needed to immobilise his victims quickly in future, hence the strangulation/throat cutting. It wouldn't make sense if this killing had come in the middle of the series, but is consistent with it coming at the start.
I do believe Joe was the killer of MJK, and as such believe by extension even though there is no evidence that he murdered the others except it appears all (Polly, Annie, and Kate) were killed by the same hand.
Joe didn't have to kill Martha to learn from whoever it was that did. Remember, he lived in Whitechapel his entire life. One can only imagine all the things he would have been exposed to during those years.
I see Martha's murder as the catalyst for Joe. When he saw how the women reacted after Martha was murdered he came to see how it would have a more profound affect if the next murder was more brutal and closer to home.
Robert: "Even if Joe killed Mary in a fit of rage, why would the fit continue to outright skeletonisation, when Barnett knew that he'd shortly be talking to the police? And why take her heart, ditto?"
Robert, if you have ever seen anyone in a blind rage, rational thought is the LAST thing on their mind. They are focused on one thing, and one thing only, and that is taking care of the business at hand in whatever fashion they believe necessary to accomplish the task.
I just find it hard to imagine that Jack would start by slicing the women open. What Alan said is very plausible. He realised that Martha was a tough woman too kill and that it would have been better if she was immobilised. Although I don't think that the attack on her was planned. In fact the only ones I think he planned were Polly, Annie and Kate. I think he killed Liz out of frustration of not finding Kate and she happened to be there. Mary, I don't was planned, although I think that while he was on his way to see Mary he was getting more and more upset over an earlier argument they had had when they had been in the pub.
This is all speculation though and we have no real proof of any of it. But it's good from a fiction point of view.
Re the blind rage : the fact is the organs etc were not strewn around the room. They were either on the bed or on the table. It was almost neat and tidy!
I see what you mean Robert. Neat in a bloody, messy sort of way.
Joe was supposed to be a neat person, a bit like Mary.
Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 2:27 pm:
Hi Shannon & the rest,
Although I haven't read the newspaper article myself, John J. Eddleston writes in his Encyclopaedia that there's a report in the Illustrated Police News that reads in part, 'she (Martha) being throttled while held down'. If credence may be given to this report, it would make it easier to consider Martha as a Ripper victim, I think.
Have you not heard what Dr. Philips had to say about the murders regarding the knowledge of dissection?
Also, I really don't think we should just blow off the fact that Lawende "may have" forgot how the man with Eddowes looked.
I am sure that after he found out what had happened only some minutes later, he had that man stuck in his head.
This identification in 1895 should not be taken lightly.
Also, if Lawende got a good look or even a slight look, why didn't he identify Barnett at the police station or when Abberline was interrogating him?
Answer-because it PROBABLY was not Barnett.
Brian W. Schoeneman
Username: Deltaxi65
Man. No matter how long I'm gone, nothing changes. We're STILL debating Joe Barnett?
(Cracking his knuckles)
Guess I'll have to get back into the fray again. Lemme pour through these posts first.
Peter, is this the same doctor that just happened to declare Annie Chapman dead two hours before she was last seen alive? The guy was a quack! He knew how to document a crime scene, will give him credit for that; but, he didn't know how to use the information he had to come to any sort of conclusion about the case. If he had he would have known that blood dries in a matter of hours dependant on temp and humidity and yet the blood on the sheets and floor was still pooled in a liquid state when he did the post mortem at 1:30 in the afternoon... Please explain how any first year med student could miss that fact or that you have to slice the back of a woman open to gain access to her kidney if that is the intent of your procedure. This is the same idiot that saw the wound to Annie as a botched operation and not as a mutilation. He was not fit to be a lab rat let alone a medical professional assigned to the case. Now on the other hand, take a look at the work of Dr Blackwell from London who was assigned to look into the Eddowes murder. The man did an excelent job for the time...
PS: Lawende never was given the chance to see Barnett in a line up.
Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 10:07 pm:
Every doctor makes mistakes. I don't think we should question that. Dr. Philips had the advantage over ALL the other doctors. As far as I know-he was at each of the five canonical victims' murder sites.
Forget Philips, why don't we go into what Dr. Brown had to say of the Eddowe's murder?
"It required a great deal of knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed."
Now, is Dr. Brown not educated either?
I'm sure Dr. Blackwell made stupid, simple mistakes like Dr. Philips had done.
Regarding Lawende, I can almost be certain that he AT LEAST stumbled upon Barnett at the police station. He would have seen him there or even at the funeral when Barnett was riding through town. He HAD to have seen him on accident or on purpose. There were already so many CHANCES they could have seen each other.
Peter, a mistake once in a while, yes, but to blatently fubar 5 out of 5 cases... no! Show me one instance where Dr Blackwell made any of the mistakes that Phillips did?
Lawende was never placed in a position to ID anyone at the police station or inquest. At the inquest the coroner was more focused on him being able to identify the victim, not her attacker.
Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: "... I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill."
Dr. Who?
Was he there when Polly or Annie were murdered in the early hours? Did he personally and physically look over the victims or did he just look off some notes and then gave his conclusion.
I would trust Dr. Brown a lot more than the doctor you have mentioned.
Also, why do you think Dr. Philips and Dr. Brown were the police's first guys to call?
The reason-they were better than the ones on the list.
Regarding Lawende, I don't think it's a question over weather Lawende was PLACED in a position to identify Barnett. What I am saying is, is that in all probability, after the Kelly murder, he would have taken notice upon Barnett accidentally or purposely. He may even had come face to face with him.
Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 2:24 am:
When I asked you how the doctors could be unaware of how long blood takes to dry, you replied that forensic science was in its infancy and that we can't fault the doctors for what they didn't know.
Now you're calling Phillips an idiot for not knowing!
What pleases me is that for the first time in 115 years, we are not looking at a colour picture, and only seeing black and white.
We are discussing really potent points, such as blood wetness, time of death, and the relevance of Dorset street, we are also not just accepting that the last victims name was Kelly.
We are getting used to the idea, that Maxwell, Lewis, and unnamed witness[female] saw the last victim hours after her persumed death, we are also analyzing the mutalated remains of the last victim, instead of just looking at the same old picture through the naked eye.
We are also talking continuesly about Barnetts involvement, I am not saying everbody agrees, but he is definately getting analyzed, I for one believe he has to be Number one suspect, until proven otherwise.
Regards Richard.
Until proven otherwise? It should be the other way around. It should be so for every suspect. There just is not enough evidence to convict Barnett. And saying he is the number one suspect is a bold statement. Just because he is the most analyzed, it shouldn't mean a thing. There are tons of problems with Barnett.
Hasn't Sickert gotten analyzed a lot? Was he the Ripper? Probably not. Cornwell's book sold millions. Sudgen�s book sold a lot less than Cornwell�s. He is one of the best Ripperologists out there.
All this has to tell you something.
Popularity doesn�t matter.
Robert, I am not calling Phillips an idiot for not knowing that it takes time for blood to dry. I am calling him an idiot for stating
1, that the killer had medical knowledge, when there is no proof that the killer was anything more that a butcher with no anatomical skill other than knowing where to slice a person's throat in order to kill them instantly.
2, that he declared both Annie and Mary dead long before they were attacked.
3, that he saw the mutilation to Annie as an operation.
I would like to know where he went to med school and where in his class he graduated as I find it difficult to believe that he came from any credible institution!
Lets be honest, unless someone steps foreward with absolute proof, of any suspect, we will never know his identity, it has been far to long, since these events took place.
All we can do is do our best to make out a case against a likely candidate, present all the facts we know, and in the case of Leanne's and my book, that is exactly what we are doing.
Every possible detail will be discussed, to suggest a strong case against this man, both of us are not wearing blinkers, and we both are honest enough to say 'we may be wrong' but we both feel strongly that Barnett should be kept in the picture at all times.
Innocent till proven guilty, is obviously the right policy, but in Barnetts case , the balance most certainly swings to his guilt.
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.
Support this site | Link to us | Privacy Policy | Copyright © Stephen P. Ryder & Johnno, 1996-2003 Thomas Schachner