Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Was Jack The Ripper ? (H Division, 2019)

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

  • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

    This is blunt and cruel, I suppose, but this tendency to want to 'fit up' the characters loosely connected to the case--the Barnetts, the Richardsons, the Hardimans, the Lechmeres, the Hutchinsons, the Flemings, etc., may lead to El Dorado, but it strikes me as more akin to the bloke who has lost his car keys in the park, has no idea where they are, and confines himself to searching under the only available street lamp because that's where the light is. Wrongful convictions are usually traceable to some overzealous investigator or attorney trying to pin the crime on the boyfriend, the neighbor, the passing bystander. The Joe Barnett theory, in particular, seems more like a wind-up or a thought experiment than anything with any true conviction behind it.
    Your analogy doesnt really work though.

    Statistically, more people are killed by aquaintances or family members than by wandering strangers.

    Kelly was killed in her home and had a recently so ex-boyfriend, who until shortly before had shared her domicile, who was giving her money and who was not too enamoured about her previous lifestyle to which she appeared to be returning and had been around her place quite close to the murder time.

    Statistically...thats enough to make him a valid suspect even without having to engage in profiling nonsense like "obliteration of the face is only done by someone close" and all those McGUffins.

    So equating eyeing Barnett for the crime to looking for your keys under a lamp because its conventient seems to be a bit of stretch,

    A correct analogy would be that looking at Barnett as a valid candidiate is akin to a bloke who, having lost his keys in a dark car park, searches the place he last remembered pulling something else out of his pocket. Because statistically, one most often loses ones keys when pulling something out of the place you kept them.

    That would be more correct.

    P

    Comment


    • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

      Finally, I'm not entirely sure if 'Stride' has the right Barnett at the end of the article; the guy from 1911 appears to have gotten married in 1887, and I believe the 'Louisa Rowe' connection has been disproven, though I admit I haven't reviewed the data in a long time.
      The 1887 marriage between a Joseph Barnett and Louisa Rowe was ruled out when the marriage certificate showed that the Barnett in that case was a musician whose father was named Michael.

      The Joseph Barnett, market porter at Billingsgate, living alone at Red Lion St SGE but said to be married for 23 years with no children still has the apparently corresponding 1911 record of a Louisa barnett, a patient at SGE Union Infirmary, married 23 years with no children.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
        .

        Finally, I'm not entirely sure if 'Stride' has the right Barnett at the end of the article;
        That part wasn't written by Stride. It was plagiarized from John Bennett’s Casebook wiki entry on Barnett.

        JM

        Comment


        • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
          I haven't read all the book yet, but there are some good contributions, and quite a lot worthy of discussion. It was interesting to see some of the 'Old Guard' defend their theories--Martin Fido, David Anderson, Bob Hinton, etc. Fido's theory seems to have crystalized into the belief that if the lunatic didn't die shortly after January 1889, then he aint Kosminski. I'm not sure I can agree with that, but it's interesting.

          Personally, I know nothing about Mr. Cobb, or the political infighting behind the scenes, or Facebook for that matter, but I found the 'Stride' chapter to be the weakest of the ones I've read. Anyone who has actually gutted a fish will roll their eyes--properly done, it takes 30 seconds to gut a fish, is relatively bloodless, and teaches you absolutely nothing about human anatomy. Only a Freudian profiler from Virginia could believe that it offers some sort of vicarious 'thrill.' It's no more thrilling than peeling an onion.

          Worse yet, Billingsgate fish porters didn't gut fish anymore than cat's meat men (or women) knackered horses. They moved boxes around.

          Finally, I'm not entirely sure if 'Stride' has the right Barnett at the end of the article; the guy from 1911 appears to have gotten married in 1887, and I believe the 'Louisa Rowe' connection has been disproven, though I admit I haven't reviewed the data in a long time.

          This is blunt and cruel, I suppose, but this tendency to want to 'fit up' the characters loosely connected to the case--the Barnetts, the Richardsons, the Hardimans, the Lechmeres, the Hutchinsons, the Flemings, etc., may lead to El Dorado, but it strikes me as more akin to the bloke who has lost his car keys in the park, has no idea where they are, and confines himself to searching under the only available street lamp because that's where the light is. Wrongful convictions are usually traceable to some overzealous investigator or attorney trying to pin the crime on the boyfriend, the neighbor, the passing bystander. The Joe Barnett theory, in particular, seems more like a wind-up or a thought experiment than anything with any true conviction behind it.
          Whilst acknowledging your innocent ignorance RJ, and with respect, this isn’t mere Ripperological infighting.

          We are talking out and out plagiarism.

          Monty

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JMenges View Post
            That part wasn't written by Stride. It was plagiarized from John Bennett’s Casebook wiki entry on Barnett.
            Which makes it even more lame.

            When it comes to plagiarism, I like Paul B's response earlier on this thread. Sometimes plagiarism is a matter of extremely sloppy writing and editing. The person has cut and pasted his own ideas with quotations from others and at some point has confused the two; I don't know if it happened in this particular case--possibly it didn't--but I try to live by Hanlon's razor: don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

            The main weakness that plagiarism exposes is that the theorist is not even bothering to think about his subject matter. He is simply going through the motions--regurgitating the standard wisdom, taking someone else's beliefs and words as gospel, repeating old errors, etc. etc. Even if it was done accidently, it shows a lack of seriousness... a lack of thought.

            Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
            Statistically, more people are killed by aquaintances or family members than by wandering strangers.
            Not when the victims' organs have been cut out and taken away. These are not 'statistical' murders.

            If several grotesque street homicides are connected, but the victims don't know each other, then my money is on the wandering stranger.

            But since wandering strangers are difficult to identify, it's easier to investigate the bystanders, just like it's easier to look for your keys under the lamp.

            Barnett was investigated...and released from suspicion. But 'Stride' is not limiting himself to implicating Barnet in the Kelly murder (as did Alex Chisholm) he is claiming he is Jack the Ripper.

            Do you find the psychology compelling?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
              The 1887 marriage between a Joseph Barnett and Louisa Rowe was ruled out when the marriage certificate showed that the Barnett in that case was a musician whose father was named Michael.

              The Joseph Barnett, market porter at Billingsgate, living alone at Red Lion St SGE but said to be married for 23 years with no children still has the apparently corresponding 1911 record of a Louisa barnett, a patient at SGE Union Infirmary, married 23 years with no children.
              Thank you, Debs. That's what I remembered, but it is strange isn't it? The 1911 Barnett is just about the right age and listed as working at Billingsgate.

              Stranger things have happened, I suppose.

              Comment


              • Barnett was investigated...and released from suspicion. But 'Stride' is not limiting himself to implicating Barnet in the Kelly murder (as did Alex Chisholm) he is claiming he is Jack the Ripper.
                I agree that thats annoying. He most likely...statistically and circumstantially...did Kelly but doing Kelly does not a ripper make.

                P

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JMenges View Post
                  That part wasn't written by Stride. It was plagiarized from John Bennett’s Casebook wiki entry on Barnett.

                  JM
                  One danger of nicking the work of others is that you nick their mistakes as well as benefiting from their hard work and accuracy. The moral is to do as much of your own research as you can and double-check what others have written. That's not always possible, but it is something to strive for.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                    Thank you, Debs. That's what I remembered, but it is strange isn't it? The 1911 Barnett is just about the right age and listed as working at Billingsgate.

                    Stranger things have happened, I suppose.
                    I think the 1911 JB is probably the right man, R.J. And I think the Louisa found in the SGE Infirmary also seems to be that particular Joseph Barnett's 'wife.' The couple Joseph Barnett and Louisa Rowe were found by researchers to have moved to Lancashire if I remember correctly, so they couldn't be the people at St George in the East in 1911.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                      One danger of nicking the work of others is that you nick their mistakes as well as benefiting from their hard work and accuracy. The moral is to do as much of your own research as you can and double-check what others have written. That's not always possible, but it is something to strive for.
                      As Debs points out, John Bennett didn’t make a mistake since he doesn’t claim that Barnett married Louisa Rowe.

                      Still, your moral is a good one to live by.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • Good morning RJ,

                        Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                        I haven't read all the book yet, ...

                        ... this tendency to want to 'fit up' the characters loosely connected to the case--the Barnetts, the Richardsons, the Hardimans, the Lechmeres, the Hutchinsons, the Flemings, ...
                        I've not read any of it. In fact I didn't know it was available in the US yet.

                        But I do think Hardiman is an OK suspect. Although I've not read this book but I don't think he's in this book. Nor have I read the new Drew on Hardiman. Yet here I am posting right after breakfast. Go figure.

                        I read the Hillis essay of Hardiman and it was OK. James Hardiman is a local. I really don't find him suspicious, but that's OK. He was not connected to the case files. He is local.

                        The others however are my least favorite part of Ripper study - Barnett, Hutch, Mann, Lechmere. Good hardworking honest researchers who search and ponder, yet in the end are not happy with any of the police suspects and who, after overstudy and becoming maybe a litttle jaded - pluck a name out of the case files and - voila - make that person Jack the Ripper. Oh dear.

                        Fleming is different. The police never spoke to him eye to eye. Then he went mad later. Still doesn't make him the killer either though. But no one has written a book, or done a TV show of him, so anyway.

                        I like suspect theory, though. I've sat through, what, tens of thousands of Hutch & Lech posts over at CB. Christer alone had tens of thousands of posts arguing against Hutch until he found his own Hutch in Lechmere. Eureka! It's like he struck gold and I don't begrudge him or anyone who wants to just show up at the boards, tag along on the ingrown toenail suspect threads, then before long they can join in too.

                        In fact, I've buried all my grudges in a hole in the backyard!

                        This is a ramble which now ceases for your convenience

                        Your observ,
                        Roy

                        Comment


                        • Thanks Jon. I meant to add to my moral that I also pointed out that accidental use of another's work is understandable and generally a friendly apology is sufficient. In this case there was no suitable apology, just an attempt to diminish and evade the responsibility.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                            In this case there was no suitable apology, just an attempt to diminish and evade the responsibility.
                            As the rebranded H Division page has used Andrew Firth’s photographs without permission and has copied and pasted from other websites without attribution just within this past week, we should all accept the fact that responsible behavior just isn’t in this particular offender’s DNA.

                            JM

                            Comment


                            • By the way, did anybody discover the identity of Keith Stride?

                              Comment


                              • Hello Roy – Here’s about as far as I can go with you & Hardiman…it centers around the events at No.29 Hanbury.

                                Many years ago, in the USA, a young woman was found brutally raped and murdered in the snowy side-yard of a residential home. I forget the city, but the case was written up by the crime writer Nash.

                                The police obviously needed to talk to the homeowner—a middle-aged woman.

                                She claimed to have heard nothing, seen nothing, and knew nothing about how a dead, half-naked woman could end up in her yard in the snow. For a time, it remained a complete mystery.

                                As it eventually turned out, the homeowner had been renting a room to her daughter’s fiancé. This creep had brutally killed the young woman, but the homeowner---the man’s soon-to-be mother-in-law--lied to the police and covered up the whole thing, even though she was completely aware of what he had done.

                                Why?

                                “Because I didn’t want to spoil my daughter’s wedding!”

                                It sounds impossible, but the story is true. It gives you a sense of what the police are up against.

                                So, though I don’t particularly ‘buy’ Annie Chapman’s murder being connected to someone in No. 29, it is within the realm of precedent, which would put Hardiman (and Richardson) in the frame. My emphasis on ‘frame.’

                                One ‘difficulty’ I have with the local man theory is the Ripper appears to have stopped. Some dispute this, of course. There is also now a common wisdom that so-called ‘serialists’ can simply stop and live normal lives. This supposed truth is vital for those who wish to implicate Barnett, Lechmere, etc.

                                Personally, I don’t buy it. There are degrees of everything and there must be degrees of murder. I can’t believe the person guilty of Miller’s Court later turned into a model citizen. If Inspector Moore was quoted correctly, there was flesh hanging from nails, and Robert Anderson alludes to blood on the ceiling. We know the rest from Bond. Maybe I’m wrong, but I feel this atrocity was too extreme for our boy to have simply retired to a nice cozy job in a quiet village with a wife and three kids, taking up bird watching as a hobby. I guess that makes me a Macnaghtenist.

                                If you read the book, check out Mick Priestley’s chapter on Albert Bachert. I thought it was my own observation, but Priestley beat me to the punch--noticing that Bachert was living just up the street from Malvina Haynes (‘8 doors down’) who was beaten into a coma on the same night that Emma Smith was brutalized. What he didn’t seem to know, or at least didn’t mention, is that Bachert had been found guilty of a violent assault some years earlier.

                                Bachert isn’t my man, but he’s interesting. Many people make the claim that their suspect was violent, used aliases, had sociopathic tendencies, had an affinity to some of the crime scenes, “injected himself” into the investigation, etc., but these claims usually evaporate on examination. With Bachert, they are true.

                                Sorry for rambling. Enjoy your coffee. RP

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X