Was It Personal?

[CraveDisorder]

This is my 1st post, so be kind. Firstly just wanted to say have had an interest in JTR since i was about 13 and came across a book about the murders in a library, I'm now fast approaching 41!!

Anyway one of the things that has always struck me about the murder of MJK was the severe mutilation of the face. I have heard it argued that Jack had more time etc but surely with the other victims he could have done the same??? It seems to me that the MJK was personal, removing the features of the face to take away who she was so that he could deal with what he was doing. I know the others had facial mutilation but nowhere as near to the extent of MJK. It would be really usefull to know which mutilations came first, was the face mutilated at the start???

I think that Barnett was responsible for the murder, now wether that means he was the Ripper is another thing entirely. The fact MJK was a prostitute and lived close by links her to the other victims but to me whoever murdered MJK was doing something to destroy who she was, the others were being destroyed for what they were??

We can speculate that Barnett was in love with her and hated what she did, or he was the Ripper and it was only a matter of time, or they argued, he moved out etc. Perhaps the earlier vicitms were murdered because Barnett hated what MJK did and so took it out elsewhere eventually leading to that final terrible finale where he had to deal with the woman he loved.

It seems to me that a lot of killings in modern times have a lot in common with what happened in 1888 but I personally beleive that Barnett was repsonsible for MJK, I am however not at all convinced he was involved in the killings of the others.

I hope this made some sense.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Crave Disorder and welcome to the Boards.

Yes, it makes perfect sense and I totally agree with you that the murder of MJK appears to be 'personal' in a way that differs it from the other murders.
My only objection is that - although Barnett is a logical suspect since he had lived with her until a week prior to the murder, there also is another viable suspect in another one of her former spouses, Joseph Fleming, and whom she did see while she was still living with Barnett.

All the best

[joelhall]

ive always thought fleming to be a much more likely suspect than barnett, especially with what we know of their history. its also far more logical as barnett would have been easily id'd if anyone had disturbed him.

[CraveDisorder]

ive always thought fleming to be a much more likely suspect than barnett, especially with what we know of their history. its also far more logical as barnett would have been easily id'd if anyone had disturbed him.

I did think about that but didn't Barnett give a description of a man he saw when giving his police statement? If it was Fleming wouldn't he have said so?

[Brenda]

Perhaps the earlier vicitms were murdered because Barnett hated what MJK did and so took it out elsewhere eventually leading to that final terrible finale where he had to deal with the woman he loved.

Hello Crave. You've managed to put in one sentence something I've tried to say many times using way too many words!

There was once a show on CourtTV featuring a man from the US who had killed several women. At the time of the murders, he was living with his girlfriend. When he was finally caught, he confessed that he committed the murders at times when he was angry with his girlfriend, and to keep from killing her he murdered the others!

Here is a summary of that case: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/d...ps/sc90977.pdf

That confession of why he committed the murders is located on page 5.

All of this of course proves nothing. But because I do think it shows that it is not impossible that Barnett could have possibly killed Mary AND the others.

[CraveDisorder]

I read that and that's the sort of thing I was on about when I said about modern cases etc. I just find it strange or conveniant that Barnett moves out the week before JTR commits his 'worst' attrocity.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I did think about that but didn't Barnett give a description of a man he saw when giving his police statement? If it was Fleming wouldn't he have said so?

What man was that? Have I missed something?

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

All of this of course proves nothing. But because I do think it shows that it is not impossible that Barnett could have possibly killed Mary AND the others.

I don't think for one moment that Barnett killed any of the other women; it's a theory that I've never found particularly convincing.

All the best

[Graham]

As I always point out whenever Joe Barnett is cited as possibly being MJK's killer, what he did after the event is not, in my view, typical of a guilty man. He continued to live in the East End, in Shadwell, until his death in 1926.
Unless, of course, he was brassing it out. However, the police gave him a good grilling by LVP standards, and cleared him after checking his clothes, etc. I don't think he did it, not that my opinion carries any weight. More likely is Fleming, but even then that can only really be speculative - but at least Fleming did end up in the laughing-academy, according to at least one researcher.

I've always felt that whoever dispatched MJK was a practised killer and mutilator - which Barnett certainly was not.

Cheers,

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi all,
Now this is my kind of thread, having believed Barnett was the killer of Mary for a considerable number of years.
I am not alone in this belief, at the time it was considered to be a crime of passion [ so to speak] as in old fashion jealousy, albeit this could also introduce one J Flemming into the mix,
We are familiar with Barnetts night time alibi. ie. going to bed after playing whist, however the spanner in the works, is the sighting of the deseased at a time when Mr Barnett had no alibi, however as she was found in a undressed state on her bed, complete with boots by a apparent fire, believed lit by a nightime caller, the obvious suspect was not considered to be number one.
The whole crux of the matter is a question .
What happened to Joseph Barnett after Mjk was buried?, he appears not in the 91/01 census, he simply vanished . ie until Paley appears to identify him around 1908?.
Remember we are dealing with a very primitive police force during this era,even Colombo could not have used 1888 police methods to convict the perpretator.
Regards Richard.

[Graham]

Hi Richard,

Never forget that pre-forensic science about the only way a murderer could be nailed was by confession (numerically far and away the most common) or being caught red-handed. Victorian detective-novels and Sherlock Holmes notwithstanding, very few murderers were caught via deduction.

Cheers,

Graham

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I've always felt that whoever dispatched MJK was a practised killer and mutilator - which Barnett certainly was not.

Hi Graham,

I have to protest against that statement since other crimes very clearly have showed us that mutilation murders on such level as the one performed on MJK or on similar level, does NOT need to be committed by 'practiced' killers and mutilators.
On the contrary, the mutilations on Kelly is pretty much a sloppy job and simple butchery and mostly these types of murders are done by people with no prior crimes on their records. It is a total misconception that such deeds must have been performed by people with previous experience and I would have hoped that this myth was destroyed by now.

All the best

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

I have to protest against that statement since other crimes very clearly have showed us that mutilation murders on such level as the one performed on MJK or on similar level, does NOT need to be committed by 'practiced' killers and mutilators.
On the contrary, the mutilations on Kelly is pretty much a sloppy job and simple butchery and mostly these types of murders are done by people with no prior crimes on their records. It is a total misconception that such deeds must have been performed by people with previous experience and I would have hoped that this myth was destroyed by now.

All the best

Hi Glenn,

Matter of opinion here, I think.

I'd like to know of any other killer who murdered just once yet inflicted the same degree of mutilation on his/her victim as Kelly's killer did on her. I've always felt that the Ripper/Whitechapel murderer 'worked his way up' to Kelly, and had the huge benefit of privacy and, I guess, more or less unlimited time.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

I've always felt the Ripper 'worked his way up' to Kelly, and had the huge benefit of privacy and more or less unlimited time...

...and, lest we forget, reasonably good light. The comparative warmth would have kept his fingers supple too.

[Roy Corduroy]

Welcome CraveDisorder to the discussion,

If Barnett was suspicious, why didn't the police arrest him and try him in court for murder? Like Tom Sadler.

The same would be true for Kidney, Barnett, Fleming, yes even Hutch if you want to go there. That the detectives would be tickled pink to have an easy-to-identify domestic suspect. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe (as Glenn said) they blew it.

I would think it would be "Book-em' Dano"

Roy