Was It Personal?

[C W Davies]

Could anyone direct me to more information on Flemming please?

many Thanks and Merry Christmas

[Ashkenaz]

Both Kelly and Chapman had their abdominal areas removed in 3 "panels". As Sam Flynn points out, both murders had visibility, so when he could see, he removed in panels.

The killer began cutting Eddowes right thigh, buttock and right labia in a similar method to the way Kelly`s thigh, buttock and external organs were removed.

Hi Jon
This is fascinating. It strongly suggests that the same man killed both victims. Can I ask where you read this?

[Rubyretro]

Reading all the replies to this interesting thread, I am struck by the fact that people argue either/or when discussing the circumstances of MJK's murder, and whether her killer had a personal motive for mutilating her as he did -or she was the culmination of a series of JtR murders.

Personally, I do think that Mary's death was 'different' to the others -and her killer had a grudge against her in particular -and yet I still agree with Dan Norder that she was killed by the
same hand as the other canonical victims. So why can't JtR have tried to obliterate her so comprehensively both because he had more time, warmth, and privacy, also because he was attracted to her she had rejected him in the past and also because he hated prostitutes ?
All at the same time.

I don't think that Barnett did it -but neither do I think that it's a coincidence that he had moved out a week earlier. If Jack was a local man who drunk in the same pubs hung about prostiitutes in a seemingly innocent way, and was an acquaintance of Mary's, then he
might well have known that she was alone and soliciting again, and Barnett was no longer there to protect her.

As to whether serial killers always have a previous criminal record, well there always has to be a 'first' victim -yet I don't this sort of murderer wouldn't have shown plenty
of aberrant behaviour in the past. Maybe he had started by mutilating animals ? (which wouldn't have got him a criminal record). He may have been in the army
(the way JtR could immobilise his victims silently and fast, could point to this) ? Men in the army would have served at least half their time in the colonies, and I see that
when reading about Burma (for instance), uprisings in villages were 'brutally supressed' -so an army man may have been part of a scenario of murder and mutilation of women (coupled with adrenalin, danger, and sexual behaviour), and all legally.

[mariab]

Barnett as a strong suspect

Originally Posted by Monty:
Different MO, killed indoors, significantly younger victim, uterus not removed from scene, I'd say arguements against Kelly are far from weak.
Killed indoors and removal of the heart instead of the uterus totally fit with Barnett as the killer, both as an individual murder or as the Ripper. Both Barnett's profile and physical description (by the witnesses at the night of the “double event“) also fit. If you'd guys remember, many serial killers have been questioned by the police and let go without suspicion, until they were apprehended years later. (Ridgeway as the Green River Killer, Bernardo for the Scarborough attacks, anyone?)

[ianincleveland]

Different MO, killed indoors, significantly younger victim, uterus not removed from scene, Id say arguements against Kelly are far from weak.

Monty

Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire ripper killed indoors though just the once,though strangely even by his own admission he left her "gurgling but almost dead" .youd have thought he might have spent time absolutely destroying that particular victim(Tina Atkinson).

But doesn't the fact that he had a rocky relationship with his girlfriend mean that he should be a suspect - at least in the first instance? I don't have a theory on who JTR was, incidentally, I do think though that its very easy to miss the wood for the trees. In my view, JTR may not have been targetting prostitutes at all - if he intends to kill, and Whitechapel is his killing ground, which other women are going to be out and about in the small hours of the day? If he is an opportunist, and his victims are random, then it is almost certain that they would be prositutes by way of simple availability at the time - they were in the right place at the right time - for him, anyway. Its just a thought, I don't necessarily think JTR was simply an opportunist.

[c.d.]

Hi Crystal,

Welcome to the boards. I think you made my point for me. Barnett becomes a suspect because he had a rocky relationship with the victim. Now somehow this takes on a unique aspect not really because of the nature of the relationship which would not have been uncommon in Whitechapel but for the simple fact that Mary was murdered. Now that relationship becomes significant. Never mind that there were probably hundreds like it. So why focus on poor old Joe when we know that Jack was also out and about?

c.d.

Hmm..

Well, One reason Barnett may not have run off from Whitechapel was that he had no need - if he did kill MJK, or even if he was the Ripper, he got away with it, didn't he, since he was cleared by police? Why would he leave, when he didn't have to? Far easier to get work in a place you know than a place you don't. Besides, if he was JTR, we assume he was of reasonable intelligence and may well have realised that leaving suddenly might have aroused further suspicion. No, I don't think Barnett can be ruled out at all, either from killing his girlfriend or of being JTR. Of course, they were not the only couple in Whitechapel, and yes, every couple argues, etc., but the difference here is surely that one half of this particular couple was shortly after murdered and mutilated in an extreme fashion. The partner is always the first suspect, right?

[c.d.]

Were Mary and Joe the only couple in Whitechapel at that time? If there were any other couples, what are the odds that they quarreled from time to time? What are the odds that they had money problems? What are the odds that alcohol was a factor in their relationship? What are the odds that jealousy was a factor in their relationship? I think you get the point. So how does poor old Joe get singled out? You would think the women in Whitechapel who were part of a couple would have been dropping like flies.

c.d.

[Marty_23]

i dont think barnett was jack the ripper but i do however think that he killed MJK, just because it was a frenzied killing and something in which a lover could do and it seems like perfect sense for him to kill her as she went out on the streets again when he lost his job, it would make anyone angry.

but heres another theory, what if he was the ripper, if you look at MJK's killing, the ripped off face, mutilated and if you take Martha Tabram as the first victim the killings would seem to get more frenzied as they go on starting with the stabbing of tabram and ending with the entire mutilation of Kelly's body.

he does seem to have alot of bad things happen to him in the past, his father dies, mother left him. his mother leaving him could have been the start of it for him, he may have killed MJK the way he did because he was scared incase she would leave him like his mother did.

just a theory
i'm new on here too, so sorry if anyone has already said this.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, I believe that Barnett arrived on site at around mid day after hearing of a Murder in Dorset Street.

Thanks, PV, but his arrival at the scene didn't necessitate his being inside the police cordon or, if he were, that he was actually "in" Miller's Court itself. He might conceivably have been in #27 being consoled with cups of tea from Mrs McCarthy, waiting to be interviewed by the police, whatever. I don't recall any tangible evidence that places either him or John McCarthy in the middle of the police operation in the courtyard. Apart from McCarthy and Bowyer's early view of the crime scene that morning, the closest we can definitively place any civilian to the action is when McCarthy was brought in to force open the door.

[PLUCKING VIOLETS]

Graham. That makes a lot of sense although in the 2/3 hours that the police paraded up and down the court someone must have noticed thsat the window was broken and within easy reach of the door. I am sure that at any level of intelligence it would have been noted and / or suggested.

Sam, I believe that Barnett arrived on site at around mid day after hearing of a Murder in Dorset Street.

[Sam Flynn]

...assuming they'd have felt inclined to intrude on police business at all, that is. Bearing in mind their social status, not to mention the horror that had confronted them, I shouldn't wonder if both Barnett and McCarthy were somewhat benumbed by the whole experience.

Besides - was Barnett actually there on the spot whilst the police operation was underway? I can't recall that he was. As for McCarthy, he might well have been in his house next door, awaiting further news and instructions from the police.

[Graham]

My main objection to Barnett being MJK's nemesis is this: after he was cleared by the police, why didn't he hot-foot it away from the East End as fast as his feet could carry him, rather than staying in the general vicinity of Whitechapel for the rest of his life?

Reference the locked door, had I been Barnett or McCarthy on the morning MJK's remains were discovered, I would sure as hell have kept my trap shut regarding any knowledge of the 'easy' way to open the door...and any other 'interesting' knowledge of her living arrangements. I think that both of these gents did just that.

Psychics? - pshaw!

Graham

[PLUCKING VIOLETS]

Barnett. If only we were allowed to question him now. If you could ask him one question (and not the obvious one) what would it be?

I have thought for a long time that the strangest feature of this murder was the fact that although Barnett and McCarthy wree present prior to the forced entry, why did no one suggest that they simply reach through the window and unlock the door?

Barnett must have mentioned this to the police on the day of the murder. Anyway, thats my question. Any thoughts?