One thing that bothers me about the candidacy of Joe Barnett as the murderer of Mary Kelly is this: Why kill Kelly in a location where he is a semi-frequent visitor known by neighbors, witnesses, etc? It would be just as easy to arrange to meet Kelly somewhere else, in some dark alley, under false pretenses, no?
Of course, plenty of husbands murder their wives/lovers in their own dwellings...
Is it not possible Barnett may have had a knife on him? I can't make up my mind if I like Barnett as a suspect or not but I do think he shouldn't be discounted. Even if he did kill her and it was premeditated then I don't honestly think he would have thought about the location that much - at least that's my view.
discussing the problem of location (arguing or not against Barnett's candidacy), it is obvious that if he killed Mary with premeditation (as said in the post which I answered), it was a great risk to do so, because a neighbour could easily recognised him (we know from various witnesses' accounts that Dorset ST dwellers used to come and go at night...and Barnett knew this very well).
I am not advocating Barnnet either but I think that it would not be wholly true to say that because he would have been recognised then he didn't do it. We don't notice things we see every day BECAUSE we see them every day. Barnnet may have found it easier to pass by unnoticed because he was seen about so often.