Was It Personal?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Brenda,

I truly doubt that the killer of MJK also killed the others, but apart from that I agree with most of what you say in your last post above. Many good points there.

All the best

[Brenda]

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

It is my belief that he simply didn't arouse suspicions when he was questioned. Maybe he played the grieving boyfriend part so well that he was deemed sincere. More than once it has been stated on these boards that he couldn't have done something like that to the woman he loved, which is just plain wrong. Maybe the police bought into that myth though.

Barnett had to have been under incredible stress. His whole life had fallen apart. He'd lost his very good job, his partner, and his home - everything. We're not really sure how he lost his job, but if it had anything to do with Mary, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that he came to blame her for ALL of his problems, as it seems they all happened because of her. People have lost their minds and killed under circumstances much less stressful than what Barnett was facing.

We'll never know whether he killed Mary or the others. But it is NOT AN IMPOSSIBILITY that he did kill the others. If someone is not convinced by that theory, that's fine, but in the end its nothing more than their personal opinion. My previous link before shows that someone killed other people to satiate the need to kill their significant other, so it is not an impossibility that another person would have felt the same way, or acted the same way in the history of the world.

The bottom line for me is, Joe Barnett had to have been either freaking out or very close to freaking out from stress. If he doesn't set off some major alarm bells for you, I urge you to rethink it again.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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.

Barnett was indeed 'interrogated' and possibly treated like a suspect (in contrast to the cases of Kidney and Fleming this is rather evident from the files), according tohimself for four hours. However, since we don't have any information about what was said during the interview it is impossible today to establish whether his alibi held up or not.
He could just as well have been released because there was no evidence against him. Let's remember that this was 1888. As I told you on that other thread, Roy, even if the suspect couldn't produce an alibi you would still have the issue of actually proving someone's guilt when you have neither forensic science or a confession.

As for Fleming, there is not one slightest indication of that he ever was tracked down or investigated. Most likely they didn't find him since he had no firm address (he lived at lodging houses) and he possibly had started to use a false name (although we don't know exactlky when he strated calling himself John Evans).

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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.

Oh come on, Graham.
Not that old tale again. This speculation seems to have been become a 'fact' that everyone's repeating like a parrot. No offense intended.

All the best

[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

[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.

[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

[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 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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.