Was It Personal?

[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

[BeckyUK2001]

According to the Psychics Joe Barnett Killed Mary Kelly.

[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]

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?

[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?

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Crystal]

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.]

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.

[Crystal]

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.

[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).