Was It Personal?

[caz]

Joe did in Mary Kelly alright and it was most personal as nothing else can account for the outrageous post mortem mutilation. All they ever argued about was her infidelity to him so he put paid to her independence once she kicked him out of her home.

Take a look at Robert Napper, Heinrich. He didn't know the woman he slaughtered in her own home, in a murder every bit as horrific as MJK's. Every murder is 'personal' to the offender, even if he only attacks total strangers.

As Joe is your suspect you have to presume that he would have lied to cover his back. A murderer does not incriminate himself by telling the truth unless he is confessing. In short, if you believe Joe told the truth about his relationship with Mary, you can't use it against him.

It might also help you to watch this new documentary on Steve Wright, the Suffolk Strangler, if you doubt MJK was part of an exceedingly rare series of mutilation murders that was very far removed from the 'jealous domestic':

http://www.channel5.com/shows/killers-behind-bars/episodes/the-suffolk-strangler

When Joe met Mary they instantly became a couple, as was very common in those days among the poorer classes. He was under no illusions about this woman, and if the thought of any girlfriend earning money from prostitution made him murderous, he would never have fancied her in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

[Heinrich]

Take a look at Robert Napper, Heinrich. He didn't know the woman he slaughtered in her own home, in a murder every bit as horrific as MJK's. Every murder is 'personal' to the offender, even if he only attacks total strangers.

Given that Joseph Barnett already had a personal and intimate relationship with Mary Kelly, his motive for murder is more likely to be more personal than that of a sexual deviant.

As Joe is your suspect you have to presume that he would have lied to cover his back.

I believe Barnett's characterization of always being on good terms with Mary Kelly after their constant rows was a lie.

A murderer does not incriminate himself by telling the truth unless he is confessing.

On the contrary, perpetrators are often caught-out by inconsistencies in their statements.

In short, if you believe Joe told the truth about his relationship with Mary, you can't use it against him.

He was not always truthful but where he was, for example when he admitted that they quarreled all the time about his disapproval of her consorting with prostitutes and being one herself, he tried to make himself look upstanding in the judgmental and hypocritical ethos of the time.

When Joe met Mary they instantly became a couple, as was very common in those days among the poorer classes. He was under no illusions about this woman, and if the thought of any girlfriend earning money from prostitution made him murderous, he would never have fancied her in the first place.

He knew what she was like alright but he claimed that he tried to change her. Other witnesses corroborate that Barnett disapproved of Mary's lifestyle. It is not an uncommon mistake that people make, refusing to accept people as they are. When Mary refused to allow the unemployed dosser to control her and they split-up, Barnett decided that if he could not have her then no one could. In Mary Kelly's murder, Joseph Barnett had the motive, means, and opportunity.

[caz]

Given that Joseph Barnett already had a personal and intimate relationship with Mary Kelly, his motive for murder is more likely to be more personal than that of a sexual deviant.

The boyfriend of Napper's indoor victim had a personal and intimate relationship with her too, but it was the sexually deranged Napper who had the motive to slaughter her and did slaughter her, not her wholly innocent boyfriend. You can't go round accusing boyfriends willy-nilly without any evidence, especially when you have several other unsolved murders to consider, all of which appear to be the work of a seriously disturbed individual.

On the contrary, perpetrators are often caught-out by inconsistencies in their statements.

Inconsistencies = lies. I said that a murderer will not tell the truth where the truth could incriminate him. We can only get details of Barnett's life behind closed doors with Mary from Barnett himself. Mary was dead. If Barnett had been her killer he would not have admitted to any quarrels. The very least of his worries would be what others might think of his morals! Only an innocent man would give a stuff.

The rest of your post is mere speculation, not backed up with any evidence. There wouldn't be many young prostitutes left alive if their menfolk routinely took them apart to stop other men getting a look-in.

In Mary Kelly's murder, Joseph Barnett had the motive, means, and opportunity.

Except that the police at the time looked into all three and satisfied themselves that he couldn't have been involved.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

price of admission

Hello Caroline.

"If Barnett had been her killer he would not have admitted to any quarrels."

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC