the key

[Heinrich]

....
"Having a water tight alibi or not having a water tight alibi again is practically irrelevent. If the Police had nothing to actually link Barnett with that room at that time of death then they had no case."

Part of the record of police incompetence is the notion that Barnett could not be linked with 13 Millers Court. The man himself admitted to being the last person seen with Mary Kelly on the night of the murder in the very dwelling he had shared with her until no more than 10 days previously.

They may well have thought they HAD a case - but no means to pursue it.

Cases don't drop in your lap normally but have to be made through proper police investigation.

But if they had held such a belief, then Barnett would not have been let loose after just the one interrogation, I think.

You don't say, Fisherman.

If the police felt he was connected to the killing, he would have been pulled in over and over again, and the pressure would have been piled on, big time.

The Metropolitan Police could easily have made a case against Joseph Barnett. That they didn't is mystifying.

... and the coroner would not have told him that he had given his evidence well indeed at the inquest. There would have been no compassion for Barnett as long as the authorities thought he was their man.

It is not the responsibility of a coroner to identify a murderer and it is a mistake to confuse courtesy with a verdict of innocence. No significance can be put on thanking the first witness at an inquest for answering all questions (even incriminating himself with some responses) other than that the coroner had manners.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It was a very dark corner of Mitre Square, Fisherman."

It was, yes. But that was not what you said, was it? You claimed that it was "extremely" dark. And the only existing extreme darkness is when no light at all is around. This was not nearly the case in Mitre Square.

I often point out passages where I feel you are exaggerating matters, Ben. You do so time and time again, and I guess it´s part of your rethorics. It is however not very useful when trying to study a case in an unaffected and scientific manner.
If we can manage to name things by their correct names - like "very dark", for example - we will gain a better debate.

"I'd be truly amazed if anyone really wanted to waste time refuting that obvious reality."

So would I - and I never did, did I?

"It was probably more dark than Kelly's room, which probably hat a fire lit. When Mary Cox observed that there was no light in the room at 3.00am, she probably meant that the candle and/or fire had been extinguished from earlier, i.e. 1.00am."

That´s two "probablies" and one wishful thinking, Ben. Cox said that there was no light coming from Kellys room, not that the candle had been put out. We do not know when the fire in the room was lit, all probablies aside, and therefore we cannot tell if it played any role as the murder occurred. We only have the information that no light was coming from Kelly´s room at 3 AM, and a lively fire would certainly have produced much more light than the candle. Consequently, it would seem that the fire was not lit, or only smouldering, at 3 AM. And if Kelly was killed closer to 4 AM, then it could well have taken place in the darkest Ripper venue. I will not say that this is "probable", since I think that at least I lack the full knowledge - but I will say that the possibility is a very obvious one.

"But as I've already observed, there are several "shortcomings" associated with the premise that Kelly let her killer in, and they outnumber the objections to the "intruder" premise, as far as I'm concerned."

Then we are concerned by wildly differing things.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"Having a water tight alibi or not having a water tight alibi again is practically irrelevent. If the Police had nothing to actually link Barnett with that room at that time of death then they had no case."

They may well have thought they HAD a case - but no means to pursue it. But if they had held such a belief, then Barnett would not have been let loose after just the one interrogation, I think. If the police felt he was connected to the killing, he would have been pulled in over and over again, and the pressure would have been piled on, big time.

... and the coroner would not have told him that he had given his evidence well indeed at the inquest. There would have been no compassion for Barnett as long as the authorities thought he was their man. Clearly, they didn´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ausgirl]

Lechmere, not tiresome at all; as a newcomer I expect to be corrected constantly and thereby learn things. Thanks for the information.

Ben, thanks also.

[Heinrich]

Hi All..Just a thought-if only to put it out there for elimination-What if Kelly left the room after 'Blotchy' and returned to find the killer already in her room. Granted it would probably be someone she knew, "Hello Luv, opened the door through the window, hope you don't mind... '.

You can be sure that some members will dismiss your idea out of habit, Robert, but do not let that stop you expressing your opinion.
As for Blotchy, I do not believe he even existed as he is mentioned by only one person, never seen before nor since. Whereas Joseph Barnett was a fixture in Mary Kelly's life at this time and places himself in her dwelling on the night of the murder, having been left alone in her presence by one of Mary Kelly's neighbors. Here we have and eye witness and his own testimony. I'm inclined to believe he did the dastardly act at this time, before he went to play cards.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere - There can be little doubt that the mason's plasterer Joseph Fleming from Bethnal Green - located in the census records, son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming, mental patient and alias James Evans - was Joseph Fleming the mason's plasterer from Bethnal Green who knew Kelly. He died in 1920, and is buried in Mount Chingford Cemetery just a few feet away from the Krays.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Hatchett
“Like I have said before it does not necessarily follow that Barnett was not charged because he had an air tight alibi, it would have been because the police did not believe that they had the evidence to convict him.”

The police did not have a surfeit of suspects. It is inconceivable that a suspect who was not cleared would just ‘walk’ without the police maintaining an interest (for example the police did maintain an interest in the Green River killer, Ridgway). Maintaining an interest would mean following, staking out and so forth.

Ausgirl
At risk of sounding tiresome, we don’t really know that Fleming mistreated Kelly.
Mrs Vanturney said someone called 'Joe' did – we don’t know it was Fleming.
In fact Fleming’s provenance purely comes from Barnett recounting what Kelly had told him. Most of Kelly’s background details as she told them to various people do not seem to add up. Have any been verified? That is not much of a basis for establishing the true identity of ‘Joe Fleming’.
Women often make things up to their current boyfriend about their various exes. Or so I am led to believe.
The two Joe Flemings that have been found don’t seem to me to fit Mary Kelly’s Joe Fleming very well. It must be quite likely that neither is the one Barnett mentions and it has to be equally likely that Kelly was spinning Barnett a yarn.

Gregbaron
The various medical experts give unrealistically lengthy estimated timescales for virtually all the attacks. They seem to base their estimates on how long a trained medic would take to make the various incisions. So I doubt the murderer spent anything like 2 hours on Kelly.

Fisherman
While Ed Gingerich badly mutilated his wife’s body the murder and mutilation was part of a longer term mental breakdown – the nature of which is absent in the case Fleming. The Gingerich case is a very particular case. I am shocked to read that he was released after I think only 5 years.

[Ben]

The corner of Mitre Square was nowhere near "extreme darkness", Ben - it was a very small square (which you frequently point out yourself), and there was a gas lamp burning in the opposite corner.

It was a very dark corner of Mitre Square, Fisherman.

I'd be truly amazed if anyone really wanted to waste time refuting that obvious reality.

It was probably more dark than Kelly's room, which probably hat a fire lit. When Mary Cox observed that there was no light in the room at 3.00am, she probably meant that the candle and/or fire had been extinguished from earlier, i.e. 1.00am.

"all the POTENTIAL shortcomings that relate to an intruder scenario...are not there if we work from the suggestion that Kelly let her killer in volunteerly"

But as I've already observed, there are several "shortcomings" associated with the premise that Kelly let her killer in, and they outnumber the objections to the "intruder" premise, as far as I'm concerned.

Regards,
Ben

[GregBaron]

Just let myself in...

Hi All..Just a thought-if only to put it out there for elimination-What if Kelly left the room after 'Blotchy' and returned to find the killer already in her room. Granted it would probably be someone she knew, "Hello Luv, opened the door through the window, hope you don't mind... '.

Not a silly thought at all Robert Newell and welcome to the boards.

Greg

[Hatchett]

Hi Curious,

It is irrelevent whether there is anything in the very thin Kelly file to say that the police thought that Barnett was the killer and that they didnt have enough information to charge him. As you have said he was the person that they would have latched onto first, as it is done today, the first steps of a murder enquiery.

Having a water tight alibi or not having a water tight alibi again is practically irrelevent. If the Police had nothing to actually link Barnett with that room at that time of death then they had no case.

I would suggest that certainly at that time the worse fear that the Police had was to bring a charge against someone who they thought was Jack the Ripper that would be thrown out in court.

There is no real certainty that Mary Kelly was killed in daylight.

All I was saying was there is controversy over the actual time of death.

It may not have been day light. But it may have been a time when only the killer really knew it and the police were out by a few hours.

Best wishes.

[robert newell]

Hi All..Just a thought-if only to put it out there for elimination-What if Kelly left the room after 'Blotchy' and returned to find the killer already in her room. Granted it would probably be someone she knew, "Hello Luv, opened the door through the window, hope you don't mind... '.

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"How about this one:

Joseph Flemming: Mary, I love you

Mary Kelly: I love you too

Joseph Flemming: I have a confession to make

Mary Kelly: what is it love

Joseph Flemming: I am Jack the Ripper

Mary Kelly: What?

Joseph Flemming: Run away with me-better yet lets kill ourselves

Mary Kelly: your mad, bugger off

Joseph Flemming: YOU WHORE!!!

(SLASH)

Mary Kelly: Oh Murder!"

I like it, Abby! Can I borrow it? Of course, I would prefer the "Oh Murder" BEFORE the "SLASH", but that´s a very minor objection. On the whole I find it´s a useful scenario! Good thinking!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Thanks! its all yours! (literally). Please feel free to amend as needed. : )

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"How about this one:

Joseph Flemming: Mary, I love you

Mary Kelly: I love you too

Joseph Flemming: I have a confession to make

Mary Kelly: what is it love

Joseph Flemming: I am Jack the Ripper

Mary Kelly: What?

Joseph Flemming: Run away with me-better yet lets kill ourselves

Mary Kelly: your mad, bugger off

Joseph Flemming: YOU WHORE!!!

(SLASH)

Mary Kelly: Oh Murder!"

I like it, Abby! Can I borrow it? Of course, I would prefer the "Oh Murder" BEFORE the "SLASH", but that´s a very minor objection. On the whole I find it´s a useful scenario! Good thinking!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Greg:

"Thanks for your thoughtful reply".

You are ever so welcome, Greg!

"Your scenario is certainly plausible"

It is, I know!

"... although I find it a bit melodramatic"

I know that too - but keep in mind that the Victorians were the perhaps most melodramtic people that have walked the earth!

"I'm not sure we can equate a missing heart to some Hallmark moment."

Nor am I - but I would have felt a lot more troubled if I needed to equate a missing uterus to a love affair!

"Organs had been taken before, perhaps the increased time gave him the idea to take home the heart 'to fry it up nise'. It might taste better!"

The overall idea that the Ripper ate his victim´s innards is something I think is quite plausible. And that would go for the heart too, even if it was taken as a token of love.

"Again, speculation can run rampant."

Yes - and I am the first to realize this. My scenario is a suggestion, led on by my feeling that the killer knew Kelly, and was also the killer of three other women that he did NOT know.

"It is easier for me to believe that MJK is the culmination of a series by a sick boyfriend than a one-off domestic I must say....."

Me too, Greg! And thanks for listening!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

C.d:

"Police: Do you have an alibi for the night of the murder?

Suspect: Yes.

Police: All right then. Next!"

Did Monty Python try that one? Should have, leastwise...!

Good to see you out and about, C.d. And a fair, fair point!

The best,
Fisherman

CD, Fish thats very funny

How about this one:


Joseph Flemming: Mary, I love you

Mary Kelly: I love you too

Joseph Flemming: I have a confession to make

Mary Kelly: what is it love

Joseph Flemming: I am Jack the Ripper

Mary Kelly: What?

Joseph Flemming: Run away with me-better yet lets kill ourselves

Mary Kelly: your mad, bugger off

Joseph Flemming: YOU WHORE!!!

(SLASH)

Mary Kelly: Oh Murder!