Location Argues Against Barnett?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

A problem with the argument that Barnett's alibi was good, is that we don't know how it was checked out. This leaves the door open to much speculation. Your argument that no one heard any sounds in the court after 1:30, doesn't mean there weren't sounds. Though I believe Barnett's alibi would have been thoroughly checked and witnesses, such as landlords and tenants checked, or verified against Barnett's statement, I can't prove this. Lack of something doesn't disprove or prove anything in a case this old where we have nearly all that there will ever be.

Location doesn't argue for or against Barnett. Logic can take us in both directions.

A very good and reasonable post, Mike. Well said.

And of course, we don't know for how much time the 'alibi' was covering - since Kelly's time of time isn't even estimated as a fact, then of course any alibi is worthless unless the suspetc's activities can be covered for the whole night or morning.

All the best

[The Good Michael]

Michael,

While I respect your bulldogged determination to espouse your beliefs that MJK was different, I don't know that this is the place for it. Yet, I will use a bit of your argumentation style if I may.

A problem with the argument that Barnett's alibi was good, is that we don't know how it was checked out. This leaves the door open to much speculation. Your argument that no one heard any sounds in the court after 1:30, doesn't mean there weren't sounds. Though I believe Barnett's alibi would have been thoroughly checked and witnesses, such as landlords and tenants checked, or verified against Barnett's statement, I can't prove this. Lack of something doesn't disprove or prove anything in a case this old where we have nearly all that there will ever be.

Location doesn't argue for or against Barnett. Logic can take us in both directions. Of course, I'm a grey area guy, and not just on top of my head.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi David,

For me I think its perhaps a case of a tap on the door or window....diddles upstairs crosses Elizabeths neck....Mary sleepily opens the door...and when she see who's standing there, lit by the gaslight across from her door...she exclaims.."oh-murder" in annoyance.....and she turns away to head back to bed, letting the visitor let himself in. Maybe even leaves him the side of the bed closest to the door to slip in behind her when hes ready. So she is on her right side, on the right side of the bed, spoon position, facing the "partition" wall.

I think spoon, or knees drawn is because when he turns her over on her back, her legs would splay naturally as part of that motion.

Cheers.

[DVV]

Her killer may have been left handed.

...whether he was not, and strangled her first...or stabbed her first...and there are many different scenarii possible...The only one I can't imagine is this one: Jack enters Mary's room, sees the bed near to the "wrong" wall, and leaves her saying: "Sorry Sugar, not tonight, let me go..."

Amitiés,
David

Hello all,

Since the question is really....did the location adversely affect Joe Barnett if he killed Mary Kelly, and the answer of course is no, if he killed her.

For those that are debating the domestic vs unknown murderer........considering that the woman was killed at home in bed in her underwear, I would think it must be excluded before even considering any other options as more viable. And Barnett is only one of the men in her life who, if her killer, might be thought of as a domestic murderer. But I think its prudent to try and rule out the most obvious first place to look based on the circumstantial evidence in this case....men in her life, before we try to affix guilt to a man who kills roomless whores while they solicited on the streets so he could mutilate their abdomens,...... now preferring sleeping ones, in their own room, and he could care less where he cuts. I really think everyone would be better served by closing the anatomy testbooks, and putting down Bonds notes, and really looking at what was involved in this killing,...not just the murderous acts.

The Woman was not out solicting at the time of her death, or rather there lacks any credible evidence to support the notion she left after 11:45pm, Nov 8th.

The Woman was undressed in her own bed.

She did not need to raise any doss that night.

We have a witness who saw her arrive with a man, but none that saw her or the man leave.

She is reported to have spent much of the time in her room from 11:45pm to just after 1:00am singing, as she told the witness she would do when arriving.

Her room is never reported as anything but dark and silent from 1:30am on.

Her room was locked when she was found, from the inside. It means that the door was open at some point to allow the killer access...perhaps at 11:45 on the 8th....the lock was either set, then released for a visitor later, who later again leaves the spring latch "off", so it will lock behind him....or not set to lock, but set by the killer to do so when he leaves.

She has injuries that no other Canon victim has, similar but exagerated versions of earlier wounds inflicted, and the only organ taken from 2 separate other Canon victims, is excised and left at the scene.

Her killer may have been left handed.

I think the circumstances dictate a known man as suspect #1, the location being one driver for that...and that night, the first on that list is Blotchy Face Dude. He was there after midnight... in the room,....and we dont know when he left. Then Joe (S).


Best regards all.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes they do, and as has been pointed out, if it was a domesic it was most likely not premidatated anyway. These things often happens as a spur of a moment thing.

All the best

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.

Leave poor old Joe alone..all of you..he didn't do it...

Joe has no record and there are NO recorded cases hat can be conected to Joe after MJK...

It dosnt add at any level..

Joe Barnet is innocent!

Good night all

XX

[Sam Flynn]

If you are going to say it was an unplanned domestic then I am going to say thats impossible.

...or at least extreeeemely unlikely, Mitch. I can't imagine many people would happen to have had a knife capable of inflicting such wounds.

[Mitch Rowe]

That's absolutely nonsense, Mitch. There do exist exceptions, but these types of murders in a domestic environments are rarely premeditated and that is why they look like they do - they are often a result of a temporary psychosis.
Just because the killer may have been affected by the Ripper murders doesn't mean he intended to do these things when he first got there.
Besides, the murder is one thing - the mutilations another, and if it was a domstc murder the actual killing was probably not premeditated. What brought on the mutilations we will never know.

All the best

Well now...If you are going to say it was an unplanned domestic then I am going to say thats impossible. Unless Barnett was JTR. Theres really no way around it. What was done to ACs body and MJKs body is to my mind so absolutely odd and incredible that Im willing to bet it will never happen again!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

If Barnett did it. It must have been pre-meditated. When reading Phillips post mortem report on AC and then reading Bonds report on MJK they describe almost word for word very odd things that have been done to both bodies. It cant be coincidence. If Barnett then he studied MJKs murder intensely. As an example I had to use a computer model of a Woman in order to understand ACs body position on the ground. I dont expect any copy-cat to have been that detailed.

If Barnett kills MJK then Barnett also killed AC.

That's absolutely nonsense, Mitch. There do exist exceptions, but these types of murders in a domestic environments are rarely premeditated and that is why they look like they do - they are often a result of a temporary psychosis.
Just because the killer may have been affected by the Ripper murders doesn't mean he intended to do these things when he first got there.
Besides, the murder is one thing - the mutilations another, and if it was a domstc murder the actual killing was probably not premeditated. What brought on the mutilations we will never know.

All the best

[Graham]

All this has been debated and discussed quite recently, but still good to talk about Joe.

I don't think he killed Kelly because:

- her murder doesn't smack of being a domestic;
- Joe was given as good a grilling by the police as anyone ever got in those days and he was cleared courtesy of his alibi (and also probably because the coppers couldn't get a confession out of him);
- he continued to live fairly locally for the rest of his life.

Doubtless plenty of other good reasons too.

Cheers,

Graham

[Mitch Rowe]

Yes they do, and as has been pointed out, if it was a domesic it was most likely not premidatated anyway. These things often happens as a spur of a moment thing.

All the best

If Barnett did it. It must have been pre-meditated. When reading Phillips post mortem report on AC and then reading Bonds report on MJK they describe almost word for word very odd things that have been done to both bodies. It cant be coincidence. If Barnett then he studied MJKs murder intensely. As an example I had to use a computer model of a Woman in order to understand ACs body position on the ground. I dont expect any copy-cat to have been that detailed.

If Barnett kills MJK then Barnett also killed AC.

[DVV]

Hello Glenn,
the problem here is that nobody saw Barnett, nobody heard a conversation, an argument, etc. Furthermore, a non-premeditated domestic murder can hardly be a "perfect crime", leaving the police at a complete loss.
Mary's murder seems to me the work of a sly killer...just sly as JtR, I guess...

Amitiés,
David

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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...

Yes they do, and as has been pointed out, if it was a domesic it was most likely not premidatated anyway. These things often happens as a spur of a moment thing.

All the best

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Yes Stephen, but his checking out resolved around a night alibi, not a morning explanation, that is the only argument .
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

If you want my opinion, Barnett can't be JtR, and has not killed Mary either. But this thread is about lacation as an argument against, or for his candidacy, my friend, and the question is not stupid at all.

And may be JtR has also been checked and cleared...who knows? Or do you want to put an end to all threads about...hmmm...no names here!

Amitiés,
David