The belief that Joe Barnett is Mary Kelly's murderer is based only on solid corroborated evidence as I demonstrated on the other thread.
No you didn't. You didn't demonstrate any such thing (because you have no evidence, that would be impossible). What you did was insist upon your conviction without any supporting evidence. As in fact you're doing now.
The only conviction I have is that a jury would have found Barnett guilty had the police prepared a proper book of evidence for the prosecution.
Then tell the rest of us whom you think murdered Mary Kelly and on what do you base your belief?
Well I can't tell you what Sally will reply, Heinrich, but I'm pretty sure that she will have the grace to qualify her response with " I think", "In my opinion" etc.
The fact is that nobody knows who killed MJK at this remove in time.
Anybody here, however learned they are, or however new to the case, can only offer their opinion.
That Joe Barnett could of killed MJK is based on your fantasies of "dear Mary" (I believe that you said this in a previous post) and their reationship, of which you know absolutely nothing. Oh yes, and the fact that you read one book which evidently captured the restricted imagination that you have.
If you were person with more understanding of human relationships and a lot less blinkered , you would see that neither of them were saints, and Joe's behaviour fits with just the way that one might expect a normal man in his
position to behave...it doesn't appear to be "controlling" nor particularly violent (as you suggest).
Try and step back and see a bigger picture, Heinrich. Stop being so subjective.
Try kicking a door instead of taking all your anger, hate and frustration out on the long dead Joe Barnett.
Just a observation, which needs to be addressed.
Maurice Lewis claimed to have seen Mary Kelly in The horn and plenty, between 10pm-11pm Thursday 8TH, she was with another woman , and Dan, the latter being the man who she had lived with until recently,and who sold oranges in the markets.
According to Barnett, he last saw Kelly around 730pm 8TH, so that being correct would mean it was not him that he saw but Barnett's brother Dan , as he initially said, and Lewis mistook him for Kelly's ex, which is understandable as they most likely would have been all together at times.
However why did not Dan come forward to describe events, we have no knowledge of him being questioned,or giving evidence at the inquest.
Maybe it was Barnett, and he still played cards back at his lodgings , but why did he lie about seeing Mary after 730pm?
Many will say Mr Lewis is a unreliable source, but if one uses behaviour patterns, truth does emerge from a lot Lewis states, for instance..I was playing pitch and toss in the court around 10am, [ an illegal game[.
Why admit that, just for the hell of it?
He clearly knew Kelly had been involved with a Barnett,he knew Julia, and he would hardly involve the man he called Dan in his fairy -tales...
This has not been discussed before, so I have brought it to attention.
I suspect it was Dan with Mary and another woman on Thursday evening. After all, he was like a brother-in-law to her and those family connections don't die immediately when a couple splits.
Just because there is not existing record of what Dan had to say does not mean he was not interviewed by the police and did not tell them what he knew, which was likely nothing much.
The scenario that makes sense to me is that they had run into each other, exchanged a few pleasantries, had a drink and gone their separate ways.
Ever had an exchange like that when you're out and about? Only of course, the person never ended up dead.
The inquest was cut very short. Dan's testimony was not relavent and so he was not called.
Just for the record, I always post what I think and I am in the habit of posting my own opinions.
I think not, Heinrich. I think that you post what you believe. There is a distinction. You know what they say, Faith is the enemy of Reason.
Some of us hold the view that by visiting Casebook and reading the forums we can actually come to a conclusion that the mystery can be solved.
There's more than one of you? Good Lord.
Well, some may, and clearly do, come to the conclusion that the 'mystery' can be solved. In my view, that conclusion is wildly optimistic at best; and pure fantasy at worst. Generally speaking - with one or two notable exceptions - 'suspect' theories tend to exhibit an overly simplistic approach at best, and be deliberately misleading at worst.
Gee, its Best and Worst Day....
Suspect Blindness. Once a person has convinced themselves of the guilt of another; all objectivity is lost, down the toilet
However big, and however many the flaws and holes in their argument, a person who has decided on a suspect will be blind to them - and indeed will typically argue that black is white for the sake of their 'theory'.
Furthermore, many (most, perhaps) such 'theories' are conclusion led; and fuelled by belief, conviction.
I understand, I do. Nobody likes to be wrong, especially when they emotionally invest in something - in this context the 'solution' to the Ripper Case.
But personally, I think its a waste of time. In my opinion, there is no single suspect (to date) for whom the evidence of guilt is strong enough to convict. Some I find more plausible than others; but many suspect 'cases' are the result of selective reporting, wilful blindness and wishful thinking.
Entertaining, perhaps, but ultimately pointless.
We know a lot about Mary and her killer, Joseph Barnett.
Nah. Guess again. I know that Joseph Barnett was a steady sort who settled near the London Docks and suffered from gout in middle age - all of which would have been unlikely to have happened had he been the mentally ill dosser that you imagine. I don't know where he was between 1888 and 1897 - I suspect he was in Ireland for some of the time.
As for Kelly, we don't know anything much about her, again, in spite of what you imagine. We don't know who she was, where she came from - only what she is reported to have said; very little of which has ever been substantiated, in spite of gargantuan efforts by very good researchers over the years. Historically, she is invisible. So no, we don't 'know a lot' about either of them - especially not about her.
You ask me who I think killed Kelly? Somebody that she knew - whether intimately or not. I don't think that Barnett killed her - I think that there is no real case against Barnett, I'm afraid, for reasons already stated: extensively questioned by the police - because he'd be an obvious person of interest, obviously; had an alibi; lived a settled and mundane life until his death in 1926.