Location Argues Against Barnett?

[Sally]

I forgot to say in my previous post that I'd be very interested to know more about Danny Barnett, Joe's brother.

He probably knew MJK well, would have known about the door, and she could have been fond of him. isn't there a possible sighting of them together on the night of her murder? (Lewis?)

Phil

I believe Daniel Barnett lived in Bermondsey with his family for most of his life. I researched all of the Barnett siblings when I was looking for Joe in the record.

I don't suspect Barnett of being anything other than Kelly's boyfriend. His life, and his brother's, appear to have been unremarkable. Both of them lived fairly long lives; both of them lived and worked in the same location for the remainder of their lives as far as we know; both of them had long term, apparently stable relationships.

Yes, the police may have made mistakes - but I tend to think that Barnett would have been scrutinised fairly closely. If he's an obvious suspect to us because of his relationship with Kelly, he was undoubtedly an obvious suspect to them too.

[Phil H]

I don't suspect Barnett of being anything other than Kelly's boyfriend. His life, and his brother's, appear to have been unremarkable. Both of them lived fairly long lives; both of them lived and worked in the same location for the remainder of their lives as far as we know; both of them had long term, apparently stable relationships.

Yes, the police may have made mistakes - but I tend to think that Barnett would have been scrutinised fairly closely. If he's an obvious suspect to us because of his relationship with Kelly, he was undoubtedly an obvious suspect to them too.

With respect all of that is based on "belief" - is there ANY evidence to support your contentions?

Has no apparently "happily married man" ever been convicted to murder? How does a "stable" relationship impact on our discussion?

Joe, at least did not have a "stable" relationship until sometime (maybe a long time) after MJK's death at the earliest - she had been his ex-partner!!

How does an "unremarkable" life relate to anything? No one is suggesting they ever killed again (if they did on this occasion - which is only a supposition I'm exploring).

By the way - there's a good deal "as far as we know" in your post.

You admit that "the police may have made mistakes" - but tend to think that Barnett would have been scrutinised fairly closely.

If the police made the same assumptions you make in your post - would that have been a close scruntiny? Would that have satisfied you? Maybe I have knocked around the world longer than you and have become an old cynic? How do you tell if a man is a killer or not? How do you probe the causes of grief or shock? Barnett was undoubtedly under pressure at the inquest - but do we know exactly why?

Believe me, I am not in any way trying to mock or belittle what you say, but surely it is crucial that we base our beliefs and contentions on a firm foundation? My questions are genuine and you may have deeper cause to support what you say.

Hope to hear from you,

Phil

[Sally]

With respect all of that is based on "belief" - is there ANY evidence to support your contentions?

Yes, I think so Phil

Has no apparently "happily married man" ever been convicted to murder? How does a "stable" relationship impact on our discussion?

That isn't what I said, or even suggested. Obviously yes, apparently happily married men have committed murder. Sure. But where is the evidence, or even the suggestion - apart from the speculations of Paley - that Barnett belonged to that category? There is none.

Kelly's mutilation was the most brutal, most extreme of those generally attributed to JTR - I don't really countenance it as a 'domestic'. If Barnett wanted to kill Kelly he could have done so without any of the subsequent damage to her corpse and still had a pretty good chance of getting away with it - lone prostitute, punter turns nasty - could have been anybody. Why the evisceration?

Joe, at least did not have a "stable" relationship until sometime (maybe a long time) after MJK's death at the earliest - she had been his ex-partner!!

Actually, according to both Barnett and his common law wife Louisa, they got together not long after Kelly's death. Make of that what you will. The relationship appears to have been constant for the remainder of both their lives - they died within weeks of each other in 1926. I think that the apparent stability and longevity of this relationship tends to lend weight to Barnett's assertion that he would never have left Kelly if she hadn't taken prostitutes in to their room.

How does an "unremarkable" life relate to anything? No one is suggesting they ever killed again (if they did on this occasion - which is only a supposition I'm exploring).

See above. If you want to see Kelly's death as an isolated event, why the extremity of the act? I don't see it.

By the way - there's a good deal "as far as we know" in your post.

There is. That is because the historic record doesn't record for us everything that we'd like and we have to work on what we have; which is in fact quite bit in this case - census returns, infirmary records, etc. Porter's licences.

And what we don't have - which is any evidence of any criminal activity on the part of Joseph Barnett - no court appearances, no convictions. I don't see why he can't have been an ordinary bloke who was unfortunately associated with a famous murder victim - and nothing more. That is what the evidence, so far as it goes, tends to suggest.

You admit that "the police may have made mistakes" - but tend to think that Barnett would have been scrutinised fairly closely.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, Phil. I don't think they made a mistake with Barnett. He had an alibi, you know - unless you want to argue that it was a false one, of course.

If the police made the same assumptions you make in your post - would that have been a close scruntiny? Would that have satisfied you? Maybe I have knocked around the world longer than you and have become an old cynic? How do you tell if a man is a killer or not? How do you probe the causes of grief or shock? Barnett was undoubtedly under pressure at the inquest - but do we know exactly why?

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. What assumptions? I've seen the historic record. It is what it is. It's there for all to see if they care to look. There is no evidence of any sort to suggest that Barnett should be implicated in Kelly's murder as I see it. I think the police would have naturally have been interested in Barnett as the recently estranged partner of a murder victim, yes. I expect that they eliminated him from their enquiries because there was no evidence to suggest any involvement on his part.

As for the grief and shock thing - What exactly would you expect?

Believe me, I am not in any way trying to mock or belittle what you say, but surely it is crucial that we base our beliefs and contentions on a firm foundation? My questions are genuine and you may have deeper cause to support what you say.

Whatever. You wanted to know more about Daniel Barnett; I happened to know a bit more about the Barnetts so I answered your post. I'm not interested in a fight, really.

It's not that I 'believe' in Barnett. It's that I don't see any reason to implicate him.

[Phil H]

Sally,

I don't see any point in re-stating what I have already said - but in short I believe your reasoning "complacenbt (if that's not rude). I get the feeling that you don't wantBarnett to be guilty.

Not that I believe he was!

I just think we need to be open-minded about MJK's close-friends and alternative possibilities to JtR being the killer in this case.

If Barnett and "Louisa, they got together not long after Kelly's death" then cynical old me would construe that as potential motive - he was sick of MJK and had someone else in mind! I don't believe it, but you gave me the idea!!

Barnett had potential means and motive and a lot else besides, but so may others.

And it is a circular argument - Barnett convinced police so his alibi must have been good - he convinced them, that is clear? But why should we, today, exhonerate him. If we were tasked to review this as a "cold case" would we - without question?

I don't want a "fight" either (why shouldI and what was there to suggest I did)- but surely we are here to discuss the case and that involved challenge and response?

Don't bother to respond if you think my reply to yours in any way beligerent or offensive. I'm only employing the same techniques as I use mentally to challenge my own assumptions.

Peace?

Phil

[Sally]

Phil..

Yes of course peace.

You are wrong though, in thinking that I want Barnett to be innocent - there is simply nothing to suggest that he wasn't. If further evidence to the contrary emerges at some future date, I will revise my opinion, I expect.

My reasoning comes from what we know. I don't think it's complacent; I think it's informed by the evidence and respective lack of it.

I was surprised by the self-attested longevity of Barnett and Louisa's partnership when I first learned of it - I don't suppose I was the only one. I think perhaps she was a neighbour, in which case they may have already known each other, yes. However, murdering and eviscerating Kelly so that he could be with another woman is a little extreme, don't you think? IF (and that's a really enormous 'If') Barnett was already involved with Louisa at the time of Kelly's death, he could simply have left her, couldn't he?

I'm not endorsing the view that he did leave her for another woman, necessarily; although it's possible.

You say that Barnett had a motive? For murder? What do you see as his motive?

[Phil H]

You gave me the "motive" Sally (at least the one I was referring to in my post) - the woman he spent so many years with.

Barnett may have had other reasons - she had humiliated him by having women stay; she did not wholly return his feelings; she had disobeyed him and gone back on the game... there are a zillion possibilities.

But, you know, we actually don't disagree - I don't believe Barnett killed her either. But our approaches differ - I am questioning all my old assumptions, trying to delve into the materia we have (which is incomplete, and to interrogate it as I would any other historical material in some other area whether the who killed kennedy or the identity of the man in the iron mask.

Questioning, turning material over to look at it from the other side, challenging conventional wisdoms or long-standing hypotheses, being iconoclastic, does no harm to the evidence, but can shed new light, bring unrecognised connections to light etc.

This thread is about the location arguing against Barnett being MJK's killer - I don't agree with that. I think the location suggests that her killer knew her and knew her well. Thus it could have been Joe, Danny, Flemming or maybe someone she knew but we have never heard of - we should NOT assume that we have the totality of the evidence or act as if we had!

We've "broken a few lances" tilting at each other - I wonder (as our approaches are so utterly incompatible - whether we should just leave it there.

I neither want to offend you nor challenge your cherished views.

Phil

[Sally]

Ho Ho Ho...

You gave me the "motive" Sally (at least the one I was referring to in my post) - the woman he spent so many years with.

Well ok Phil. I think it's a bit far fetched though, when far less extreme measures would have been easy enough to effect.

Barnett may have had other reasons - she had humiliated him by having women stay; she did not wholly return his feelings; she had disobeyed him and gone back on the game... there are a zillion possibilities.

Shades of Paley? No real evidence for any of that I'm afraid - purely speculative.

But, you know, we actually don't disagree - I don't believe Barnett killed her either. But our approaches differ - I am questioning all my old assumptions, trying to delve into the materia we have (which is incomplete, and to interrogate it as I would any other historical material in some other area whether the who killed kennedy or the identity of the man in the iron mask.

Questioning, turning material over to look at it from the other side, challenging conventional wisdoms or long-standing hypotheses, being iconoclastic, does no harm to the evidence, but can shed new light, bring unrecognised connections to light etc.

Nicely put Phil. But with the greatest of respect, you don't know anything about my 'approach' - and seem to have made the assumption that I've taken some sort of 'orthodoxy' as fact without question. In fact, the reverse is true - I spent a considerable amount of time looking for Barnett in the historic record in an attempt to add to our picture of his life. I also found him - and think that reseach does contribute to our picture of his life. I don't really see how that constitutes complacency?

This thread is about the location arguing against Barnett being MJK's killer - I don't agree with that. I think the location suggests that her killer knew her and knew her well. Thus it could have been Joe, Danny, Flemming or maybe someone she knew but we have never heard of - we should NOT assume that we have the totality of the evidence or act as if we had!

I don't disagree either - and actually do think that Kelly may have known her killer; and yes, you are quite right, we shouldn't act as if we have the 'totality of evidence'. But who is? It's great to question, Phil, and sure, there's often something new to learn from taking a fresh approach - but I think you'll find that much of what we think about the case is the product of hard work and effort, rather than an inherited wisdom without basis in fact.

I neither want to offend you nor challenge your cherished views.

I'm not offended Phil. And I don't hold any 'cherished' views about Barnett - just the ones I've come to through research, which are based on the evidence - nothing more or less.

[Phil H]

As I was once told, no gentleman seeks to contradict a woman who believes she's right.

I yield the field to you, madam.

phil

[Sally]

Very Gallant, but..

As I was once told, no gentleman seeks to contradict a woman who believes she's right.

I yield the field to you, madam.

phil

I'm not sure what gender has to do with the quality of one's argument? I certainly don't expect any concessions just because I'm a bird. Still have it your way. Maybe it's better you bow out gracefully.

[Phil H]

That was the way the advice was given to me years ago.

You clearly believe you are right. What on earth is the purpose of continuing - I'm not here to persuade you and we have both set out our stalls.

Job done.

But condecension really does not become you, Sally.

Phil

[Sally]

I wasn't serious, Phil.

[Phil H]

I know that, and I should have put a "wink" beside the sentence, but couldn't find the smiliey.

Phil