Was It Personal?

[BeckyUK2001]

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.

The Psychics say that Joe Barnett killed MJK. It would also explain why her heart was missing if he loved her but my god what kind of man would do what he did to her?

[Jeff Leahy]

According to the Psychics Joe Barnett Killed Mary Kelly.

According to which Psychics..?

I've spoken to most of them..and the fact is that they all contradict each other...such is the way with psychics

Pirate

[BeckyUK2001]

According to the Psychics Joe Barnett Killed Mary Kelly.

[miss marple]

Age

I think too much stress is placed on the age of the women.The clothes the women wore were the same whether they were 20 or 60. As long as they had good figures, with the long skirts and long sleeves All you would see would be the face and if they had their teeth , nice hair and ok skin it would be very difficult to tell their age, particurally as many East End twenty somethings looked 40.
These women did not start out in the the East End , they had respectable lives before, good homes enough food and no hard labour.
One must not judge them by 21st century concepts of age. Opportunity is what matters. They were on their own late at night.
Mary may have been stalked, if he knew Barnett had left her and she was putting herself about in local pubs, probably lots of people knew she was on her own an touting for business.he struck just a few days later
The Yorkshire Ripper victims were all ages from 16 to 40
Miss Marple

[Monty]

David,

Absolutely, its unwise to stick to a rigid view. Take the Zodiac. Different to Jack but his MO and signature was altered between murders.

That said, our boy had a pattern and I suspect would only change if it had to.
Not sure if he did have to in this case.
Monty

[Jon Guy]

Good points. I have pointed out more than once, that there are many similarities between the wounds inflicted on Kelly and those inflicted on earlier victims, especially Eddowes and Chapman.

Thanks for the link, Rob.

Excellent examples

[DVV]

These are facts, not quibbles, that reasonably support the idea Kelly was killed by a different hand.

Does that mean Kelly should be dimissed outright? Of course not, you state those reasons above. Im just trying to operate an open mind.
Monty

Hi Monty,
understood, and I willingly take "quibbles" back!
I admit I will never understand why some people want to see serial killers as characters from the "invention of Morel", doomed to mechanically repeat the same deeds. I, however, easily understand your "open mind" on Kelly's case, feeling myself something special there (: Flemtchinson's candidacy).

Amitiés,
David

[joelhall]

add to this the time scale. all the other killings were concentrated over about a month. this is not only different it happens in november. i believe the killings stopped in september. obviously the only link is that it was a horrific murder of a woman in the east end.

i wonder how many include the torso as a victim?

plus, if this was a serial killer who changed his pattern, why did he stop rather than carry on his new found routine, or revert back to his usual pattern?

it really seems odder to include this than to exclude it.

[Monty]

Quibbles?

Hi Monty,
I'm afraid you are using quibbles more than arguments. Should I reply: "how do you know he did?"
...
Yes, Eddowes wasn't a prostitute with a prostitute's past like Kelly or Stride, but....she was in the condition of many a poor woman, at the time, in that town...
This said, I respect your doubts about Kelly, but on the other hand, if we use the discrepancies between the murders, we have five "canonical" killers, I'm afraid... Somehow, Kelly's murder has much in common with Eddowes', while it is not very similar to Nichols'...
Anyway, there is something "special" about Kelly...who makes me a Flemtchinsonian.
Don't blame me!

Amitiés,
David

Hey David,

Kelly is outside the age range of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and, for what its worth, McKenzie. The only exception would be Coles who is a disputed victim, as are Tabram and McKenzie.

Kellys killer used a different method of attack to the ones he used on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

Kelly was murdered indoors

Kellys uterus, though removed for the body, was not taken away.

These are facts, not quibbles, that reasonably support the idea Kelly was killed by a different hand.

Does that mean Kelly should be dimissed outright? Of course not, you state those reasons above. Im just trying to operate an open mind.

Monty

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Glenn!

I hope your last comment doesn't add fuel to the conspiracy theories!

Strange indeed. Maybe they were thinking; "Well, since Barnett had already left Mary Kelly..."

All the best
Jukka

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

How do we know for sure that Barnett had moved out the week before? By this I mean is this his word or did the police manage to corroborate this? Also have been interested in the suggestions about Hutchinson, what do we know about his relationship with Barnett, did they know each other only through MJK etc? Did they know each other at all? From what I gather I would assume that Barnett would have a dislike of Hutchinson if he was abusive.

Barnett had moved out one week prior to the murder after a row.
This was most likely also confirmed by people like Maria Harvey and Julia Venturney who both stayed there occasionally. The police would have no problem confirming this. Besides, it would have been rather stupid of Barnett to make that up, since him moving out actually puts him in a suspicious situation and provides him with a motive. He would certainly not have done himself any favours.

As for Hucthinson, we must remeber that the police didn't know about him until after the inquest, so it's possible - from a theoretical point of view - that Barnett may have known him (especially since Banett's brother Daniel, like Hutchinson, also stayed at the Victoria Home) but never found it significant to mention him in this context if he didn't know that Kelly knew him. Quite possible the police may have further interviewed Barnett about Hutchinson after Hucthinson came forward to get a confirmation of this, and that that report hasn't survived.

What will always remain a mystery to me, though, is why yhe coroner never asked Barnett to elaborate on Fleming since Barnett himself admitted in a very short pasage during the inquest that he knew about Fleming's visits and that Mary kelly was fond of him. Since this provides both Barnett and Fleming with a motive, it is questionable to say the least that the coroner or attending police personnell never followed this up.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

i think ive mentioned this elsewhere, but ive always thought it more likely they were chosen because they were unaccompanied women out late, the worse for drink, rather than due to their profession.

just my tuppence.

I certainly think that's a possibility.
As Monty says, it isn't really confirmed that Eddowes was a prostitute. However, on the night of her murder she went off to an area which was a well known prostitute hang-out at night (Mitre Square), and judging from the sighting of her together with the man with the red neckerchief (with her hand on his chest) she appears to be inviting him. Since she had no business there but was expected hom by John Kelly (which was in the other direction) it is hard not to think she trie to sell her body that night, maybe to bring home some money.

But you're right that we shouldn't automatically take for granted as a fact that the Ripper was after prostitutes as such.
If the ripper cared about whether they were prostitutes or not - or simply, as you say, attacked women walking the streets at night and who looked vulnerable - is debatable.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

Monty

THANK YOU, Monty!

All the best

[CraveDisorder]

Sorry, i meant Flemming, was a bit tired when posted that!!

[joelhall]

Who says they did not precede him?

personally i think this is close to the mark, but not in that he approached them as a punter. i believe they were sneak attacks from behind so as to minimise the chances of escape/fighting the assailant off.