Was It Personal?

[lynn cates]

price of admission

Hello Caroline.

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

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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]

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

[Rubyretro]

I can't delete this duplicate post !

[Rubyretro]

On the contrary, Rubyretro, as I demonstrated on another thread, everything about Mary Kelly's murder implicates Joseph Barnett.

You failed to demonstrate it (we're not starting all this again, surely ?).

There is no compelling reason to believe all so-called canonical victims were killed by the same person.

I certainly don't agree with you.

But he didn't. Let's stick to the facts.

He might have. I don't know, nor do you

Joseph Barnett admitted to leaving Mary Kelly's home after he failed to control her lifestyle. Mary gave him his answer and since he was freeloading and refusing to give her even the rent money, he got his running orders less than a fortnight before he took jealous revenge.

" freeloading" ? He was certainly paying the rent whilst he was in work. "Jealous revenge" ? That's your own fantasy .

You have no reason to believe, other that Joseph Barnett's account, that they remained friendly for the last ten days of her life. It is more likely that he stalked her and, getting nowhere, decided to finish her off

.

It's very much likelier that when a couple split up they remain friendly, rather than one of them getting stalked and 'finished off' !

[Heinrich]

... There is nothing that points to Joe Barnett as the killer of Mary Kelly

On the contrary, Rubyretro, as I demonstrated on another thread, everything about Mary Kelly's murder implicates Joseph Barnett.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2983&page=20

nor of any of the other victims...and everything does point to the C5 & Tabram as having been killed by the same hand.

The murder of Mary Kelly is exceptional in several respects. There is no compelling reason to believe all so-called canonical victims were killed by the same person.

Well how about the fact that it was the only time that the killer got enough time and privacy to do those mutilations ? And he might have done the torsos too, which were pretty outrageous.

But he didn't. Let's stick to the facts.

How an earth would you know ?

Joseph Barnett admitted as much at the inquest.

Where does it say that she kicked him out ? Maybe he chose to leave because the situation became intolerable ? I think that it was probably by mutual agreement, since they appear to have stayed friendly.

Joseph Barnett admitted to leaving Mary Kelly's home after he failed to control her lifestyle. Mary gave him his answer and since he was freeloading and refusing to give her even the rent money, he got his running orders less than a fortnight before he took jealous revenge. You have no reason to believe, other that Joseph Barnett's account, that they remained friendly for the last ten days of her life. It is more likely that he stalked her and, getting nowhere, decided to finish her off.

[Rubyretro]

Joe did in Mary Kelly alright and it was most persona

You cannot possibly state that as fact. There is nothing that points to Joe Barnett as the killer of Mary Kelly, nor of any of the other victims...and everything does point to the C5 & Tabram as having been killed by the same hand.

nothing else can account for the outrageous post mortem
mutilation.

Well how about the fact that it was the only time that the killer got enough time and privacy to do those mutilations ? And he might have done the torsos too, which were pretty outrageous.

All they ever argued about was her infidelity to him so he put paid to her independence

How an earth would you know ? I thought that he objected to her having her prostitute mates kip in their bedroom for one thing. He might quite easily have objected to her drinking all day and then becoming aggressive towards him, too. Since they were two adults living cooped up in one tiny space, with added financial worries, I wouldn't have thought that they even needed much reason to row. Infact it would have been a miracle if they HADN'T argued.

once she kicked him out of her home.

Where does it say that she kicked him out ? Maybe he chose to leave because the situation became intolerable ? I think that it was probably by mutual agreement, since they appear to have stayed friendly.

[Heinrich]

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.

[Wade Aznable]

I absolutely agree with Ruby.
I tend to think that Jack did choose his victims only to a certain extent, and that he did not choose the places at all (as I see it, he was solicited, then taken to a secluded place for business by the victims themselves, and if he thought "this will do"... then he did. We can not know how many times Jack left his dwellings for action, but decided not to proceed for a variety of reasons). Simply put, 4 out of the C5 (if we believe to the C5, but that's another whole topic) didn't have private lodgings to take customers to; MJK, instead, did.

My tuppence!
W

EDIT: back on topic, I sympathize with Joe Barnett, and for extension with all Casebookers who do not see him as guilty of anything (THE JOES ARE NOT THE MEN THAT WILL BE BLAMED FOR NOTHING, LOL).

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

why only one murder indoors ?[/QUOTE

Because the others that he found on the street lived in lodging houses. If he did meet any other prostitutes that had their rooms, chances were that they lived with other people, and maybe their rooms were much more difficult to get into.

[DVV]

It's past midnight ?

Then I tell you this murder is obviously and undoubtedly personal. If not, why indoors ?

And once you'll have answered this (opportunity, scare in the area, patrols, blablabla, etc), answer that : why only one murder indoors ?

[DVV]

Considering she was the last victim, the only one murdered indoors and the only victim in her twenties (while the ripper was under 30 according to Lawende), yes, it sure can be personal - to some extent.

[ChainzCooper]

I don't think Joseph Barnett is the Ripper because hes not who George Hutchinson saw with Mary Kelly
Jordan

[lynn cates]

Fleming

Hello CW. Welcome to the boards.

You might try below.

Cheers.
LC

http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=108