Location Argues Against Barnett?

[Brenda]

Personally, I think George Hutchinson and his "Astrakhan Man" story went a long ways toward taking a lot of the heat and scrutiny off of Barnett. I feel like the police would have looked at Barnett at least a second time, but they were by then looking for a man of a totally different description due to Hutchinson's story.

Also, I am always struck by how the police at that time would bypass deep scrutiny on those deemed "respectable".

[Moriarty]

My usual disclaimer that I haven't been following this thread...

Had Kelly been discovered in the road, an alley, a quiet square, a roof-top or wherever, the police would still have hauled in Barnett because his friendship with her was well-known around and about. Unfortunately we don't have any record of his 4-hour interview with the police, but he must have convinced them that he didn't kill her, plus he had an alibi which one assumes was followed up. How it was followed up, and who by, we don't know, but I think we know enough about Victorian police methods to take it for read that it was checked out. I would also expect that the police carried out a good deal of checking into his background, outside his interview with them. Maybe they instructed him not to leave the area, or to report back to the police at some later date - we just don't know. But the police in 1888, crude by today's standards their methods may have been, were not dummies - I'm positive that had they entertained for one moment any suspicion that Barnett killed Kelly he'd have been in custody for a hell of sight longer than 4 hours.

Cheers,

Graham

The logic of this post is the following: we can rule out as a viable suspect anybody who was questioned by the police at the time.

Not a logic I'd personally endorse....

[Moriarty]

Barnett didn't do it.

He was checked out.

End of story.

Just as a matter of interest, was Peter Sutcliffe ever "checked out" by the police over the Yorkshire Ripper murders?

[Sam Flynn]

trawling known pick-up zones is much different than approaching a potential victim in their own home.

We don't know that all the Ripper's victims were patrolling a pick-up zone when he accosted them, Mike - in fact, we don't know for certain that all of them were actively soliciting on the mornings of their deaths. Some might have been shuffling along the back-streets in search of shelter, for all we know.

The thing with the death of Mary Kelly is that she is the ONLY Canonical that the killer may have had to go to specifically...trawling known pick-up zones is much different than approaching a potential victim in their own home. If she was asleep....he has to get in without her screaming. The windows, and the door, are still steps from her bed.

How does a man unknown to Mary do that around 3:30-4:00am?

It is not a known fact that Mary was at home asleep when she meets her killer, but.... it is a very realistic idea based on the courtyard evidence,... and it would represent a fairly signifigant MO revision if so. One that must put into question the possible motive for this murder as compared with other Canonicals.

She may have been killed by Jack, or she may not, but either way it would appear he may have known her. Not likely Joe B.....but there are other Joe's. One of which we know is destined for an asylum.

Best regards all.

[Graham]

My usual disclaimer that I haven't been following this thread...

Had Kelly been discovered in the road, an alley, a quiet square, a roof-top or wherever, the police would still have hauled in Barnett because his friendship with her was well-known around and about. Unfortunately we don't have any record of his 4-hour interview with the police, but he must have convinced them that he didn't kill her, plus he had an alibi which one assumes was followed up. How it was followed up, and who by, we don't know, but I think we know enough about Victorian police methods to take it for read that it was checked out. I would also expect that the police carried out a good deal of checking into his background, outside his interview with them. Maybe they instructed him not to leave the area, or to report back to the police at some later date - we just don't know. But the police in 1888, crude by today's standards their methods may have been, were not dummies - I'm positive that had they entertained for one moment any suspicion that Barnett killed Kelly he'd have been in custody for a hell of sight longer than 4 hours.

Cheers,

Graham

[The Good Michael]

Barnaby,

To piggyback onto Fisherman's reply, I will say that it doesn't appear that the authorities saw any significant difference between a prostitute being murdered outdoors or indoors. The differences between an old, beat up apartment and an alley probably didn't raise an eyebrow. If a killer plied his trade today in, for example, the national parls of the United States, and victims were found in tents, under the stars, and in small cabins, would we say that it had to be different killers? Location wouldn't seem to play a factor in my mind. Similarly, I don't know that it's possible to negate a suspect because of an indoor location in the Whitechapel murders. Perhaps a small partitioned room is a step up from a gate, but only just, and probably devoid of meaning.

I may be wrong.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi Barnaby!

My own feeling on the question you ask, is that if Joe was her killer and planned the crime meticulously as a copycat strike, then it stands to reason that he would want to be able to control as many parameters as possible. His mindset would be of a totally different kind than that of the Ripper, who either enjoyed risks or couldn´t care less about them.

Therefore I would say that killing her and cutting her up in the middle of Flower and Dean Street would involve huge risks, risks that I think would not suit the thinking of a very controlling killer. To kill her in the privacy of her own room would be a much better opportunity, and the way to get away with it for a controlling and planning killer would lie in the alibi part: With a strong enough alibi and no physical evidence left at the crime scene, a strike in her own room would allow for control of a maximum of parameters.

In the end, however, I do not think that Joe did it – but that was not what you asked about, was it?

All the best, Barnaby!

Fisherman

[Barnaby]

Hi all,

Thanks for all of the great replies. Here was my thinking behind the initial post: If Joe wants to pull off a copycat Ripper crime, then why not kill her in the streets like all of the previous victims? Why draw unnecessary attention to yourself by killing her in a place that you frequent? Of course, this assumes premeditation. To those of you who believe that Joe did kill Mary AND that it was premeditated, do the advantages of the relative privacy outweigh the risks that Joe could easily have been identified by neighbors? Of course it mattered little in the end, but would this be classified as a tactical error?

Cheers!

[Red Zeppelin]

Barnett didn't do it.

He was checked out.

End of story.

Peter Sutcliffe wasn't the Yorkshire Ripper.

He was checked out.

End of story.

Considering a lot of incompetence of the police in both cases, I don't place too much faith there.

[Red Zeppelin]

Barnett is in my view not the most interesting suspect.........

That's the way it usually goes though isn't it?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hello Glenn,
That a domestic murder can be the most horrendous one can imagine, and horrendous just like Mary's, is obviously undisputable. You showed it so many times, even years ago, and you are perfectly right about this.
Of course, that is not enough to prove that Miller's Court murder is a domestic one, and Barnett's candidacy is another (and partly subsequent) problem.

Amitiés très sincères,
David

Hello David,

We are unfortuantely not in the position to be able to prove anything one way or the other. All we're dealing with here is circumstancial scenarios. Barnett is in my view not the most interesting suspect, but as the victim's spouse (leaving her one week prior to the murder and in connection with a quarrel) we has to be up there on the list just the same, just as any spouse to a female murder victim in a domestic environment.
But as I said, there are suspects of bigger interests.

All the best

[Celesta]

Hello

If Kelly`s death was due to a domestic, the killer just happened to have on him a six very sharp knife.

If this was a domestic that got out of hand no-one heard a quarell between two, or even one person, and the room was in order.

If her murder was premeditated to look like Jack surely she would have been slain in a place other than her room which would draw attention to people in her life.

Especially as she was singing her drunken little heart out---no distasteful pun intended---just shortly before her death. It could certainly have been a domestic killing. However, nothing is known of MJK after Cox left shortly after 1 am, while Blotchy was still there. Kelly was still singing at that time. If it was a domestic feud, it was a quiet one, other than "oh murder". Joseph would have had to wait until Blotchy left and would've had to avoid being seen by Prater, Lewis, Cox, and possibly Hutchinson. By now means impossible, of course.

[DVV]

Hello Glenn,
That a domestic murder can be the most horrendous one can imagine, and horrendous just like Mary's, is obviously undisputable. You showed it so many times, even years ago, and you are perfectly right about this.
Of course, that is not enough to prove that Miller's Court murder is a domestic one, and Barnett's candidacy is another (and partly subsequent) problem.

Amitiés très sincères,
David

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn, just get real, go back and study the photos. read the autopsy report again.

This was not a crime committed by a jealous lover.

Then it is you who need to stoyd a lot more crime scene photos because obviously you're living in the dark. There is no excuse for naivety.

All the best