the key

[Ausgirl]

Hello, noob here.

Just addressing a point raised by Fisherman: serial killers don't need to know a victim to eviscerate and deface them. Lots of them have done so, to women they don't know from soap. But too, they do sometimes stalk their victims for a time before attacking, and therefore come to feel they have some sort of personal relationship with them so the murder looks a lot more personal than it was. Often when the victim is a person who is actually known to the killer they will cover their face or body afterwards. It's crossed my mind that perhaps JTR did stalk some of his victims a bit, studying where they usually took their customers, scoping out the likelihood of discovery at their preferred sites, etc.

Anyway, I was thinking about the back-and-forth that's been going on regarding Barnett being let go by the police. I would figure that after four previous murders, and with the amount of publicity and general public hysteria and so on, that there would have been a tremendous deal of pressure to make an arrest.

It could be reasonably assumed, I think, that a man who so clearly had motive, means and opportunity would have been thoroughly raked over the coals before being let loose. I can't see it being anything but the result of the police being very sure indeed that he was not the man they were looking for. It doesn't make sense to me that they'd have released Barnett otherwise.

[The Good Michael]

If the police questioned Barnett incorrectly, his echolalia could have kicked in in his favor. For example:

Abberline: After 8 pm, you didn't meet her?

Barnett: Didn't meet her.

Abberline: And you say that you had no argument.

Barnett: No argument.

Abberline: Often we look to people close to the victims as suspects. Yet, this murder seems too methodical.

Barnett: Too methodical.

Abberline: Where were you after you left Kelly? Maybe you were with friends?

Barnett: with friends

Abberline: If it is as you say, I assume many can vouch for this?

Barnett: Many can vouch for this.

Abberline: Fine, you may leave.

Barnett: You may leave.

Abberline: No, you first.

Barnett: You first.

Abberline: Fine

Barnett: fine.

Abberline (to no one in particular): This man couldn't have done it.

Barnett (softly, on his way out): Maybe, maybe not.

[Garry Wroe]

I would suggest that you re-evaluate 'opportunity', Heinrich. Mary Jane was seen very much alive several hours after her early-evening encounter with Barnett.

Unless, of course, you are proposing that Barnett administered a slow-acting poison before heading off for a game of whist.

[Heinrich]

.... Barnettīs assertion that she would never have gone wrong again, and his apparent remorse that he had left her to that gruesome fate is very obvious.

You are too kind (gullible), Fisherman.

So, Heinrich, either Barnett lied, or the police did truly find his account of himself to be correct.

Both.

Joe Barnett would have been an interesting bid for the killerīs role, admittedly. In consequence with this, he would have been a man that the authorities checked up on as thoroughly as possible.

You think so, Fisherman?

Believe me, if I had found any good reason to suspect Barnett, I would have, just as I would have suspected him if I had not believed in his words in the interviews and at the inquest. I do believe in him, however.

I have given the reasons why I think Joseph Barnett has to be Mary Kelly's killer in earlier posts on this thread, Fisherman. I also think he spoke more truth than he realized, both to the police and at the inquest. In his half-truths, he indicates his motive, namely a complicated concoction of jealousy, failed-manipulation, and hostility. He had the means insofar as filleting knives were plentiful at the Billingsgate Fish Market where he had worked until his recent sacking. And he had the opportunity, having been left alone in Mary Kelly's company on the night of her murder with the ability to come and go despite a lost key. All this is there to see from his own mouth, Fisherman, notwithstanding his attempt to characterize himself as a benevolent devotee of Mary Kelly.

[c.d.]

...and yet in all this debate about Barnett we seem to have lost site of another suspect, namely the Whitechapel murderer, who was KNOWN to slit the throats of prostitutes and take out their internal organs.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Harry.



Consider though, it is believed that McCarthy's shop sometimes closed as late as 3:00am. So until 3:00am there still may have been the possibility of being noticed while exiting the passage by anyone coming or going or loitering by McCarthy's, as indeed Mrs McCarthy claimed one instance did occur.
So, did the killer wait until after 3:00am on purpose?, or was this just a coincidence?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wickerman

FYI-Debra A recently discovered an article in a contemporary newspaper that quotes Bowyer saying he was in the court at approx 3:00 am the morning MK was killed.

[Fisherman]

I am no psychologist either, Heinrich, but I think this snippet tells us all there is to tell. Barnettīs assertion that she would never have gone wrong again, and his apparent remorse that he had left her to that gruesome fate is very obvious. He was left to ponder over Kellyīs decision to take in fellow prostitutes probably being nothing but a sign of her good-hearted nature, instead of an example of any wish to lead a immoral life, and that obviously tormented him. The implication is that he blamed himself to a significant degree for what happened.

"I last saw her alive at 7.30 on Thursday night (last week). I stopped about a quarter of an hour, and told her I had no money. Next day I heard there had been a murder in Miller's court, and on my way there I met my sister's brother in law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the court, and there saw the police inspector, and told him who I was, and where I had been the previous night. They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally, finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free. Marie never went on the streets when she lived with me. She would never have gone wrong again, and I should never have left if it had not been for the prostitutes stopping in the house. She only let them in the house because she was good hearted, and did not like to refuse them shelter on cold, bitter nights."

So, Heinrich, either Barnett lied, or the police did truly find his account of himself to be correct. The only thing we can be sure of is that they let him go, the way the police do after having been supplied with a story they could confirm or at the very least found no reason to further question, and that tells us that no evidence at all linked him to the killing of his fiancée.

Joe Barnett would have been an interesting bid for the killerīs role, admittedly. In consequence with this, he would have been a man that the authorities checked up on as thoroughly as possible. The only thing that came from it was the coronerīs compassionate words at the inquest about Barnett having given his testimony "very well indeed". He was apparently impressed with the manīs composure in spite of the personal catastrophy Barnett had been through.

To me, this is quite enough to regard Barnett as a very poor prospect for the killerīs role - in spite of his connection to Kelly, and in spite of my own feeling that it WAS a closely connected man that slayed her. Believe me, if I had found any good reason to suspect Barnett, I would have, just as I would have suspected him if I had not believed in his words in the interviews and at the inquest. I do believe in him, however.

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

Yes, but if we entertain the possibility of a 'possessive trait' with Barnett, this 'trait' will manifest itself in other aspects of his life, with other possessions and with other people in his immediate family or friends. ....

I am not a psychologist, Jon, but I question whether the compulsion to control, manipulate, and eventually punish Mary Kelly has to be a "trait" that existed before or after Joseph Barnett became infatuated her.

[Wickerman]

Of course "we" cannot dismiss Joseph Barnett. No one is more implicated in Mary Kelly's murder.
As to his subsequent life ... well, Mary Kelly was dead and gone. He had rid himself of his uncontrollable infatuation.

Yes, but if we entertain the possibility of a 'possessive trait' with Barnett, this 'trait' will manifest itself in other aspects of his life, with other possessions and with other people in his immediate family or friends.
We just don't have anything to work with from that perspective.

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

....
'We' can't dismiss Barnett because 'we' are not in possession of the whole story, though 'we' should give credit for what the police knew, and consider Barnett's subsequent quite life after the fact.
Certain aspects of her murder (facial mutilations, removed heart), could be explained as a result of the 'spurned lover' scenario, but even that may not be limited to Barnett. ....

Of course "we" cannot dismiss Joseph Barnett. No one is more implicated in Mary Kelly's murder.
As to his subsequent life ... well, Mary Kelly was dead and gone. He had rid himself of his uncontrollable infatuation.

[Wickerman]

Reaching through the window to disengage the bolt would require seconds only,then a few seconds to the door and into the room,and the intruder would be in the same stricking distance as anyone using other means of entry.if any noise was made,it would be minimal,and a drowsy Kelly roused from an alcohol aided sleep,would have just a fleeting moment to cry out in alarm.

Harry, the 'what-ifs' which we all propose should be measured in 'degree's of probability'. We have not said the intruder scenario is impossible, just that in a rational debate it cannot be the most likely scenario.
As Fish pointed out, many of the 'silent' steps you offer could equally have been rather noisy, not forgetting creaky door-hinges & creaky floorboards.

After 3:00am the light outside Kelly's door was out (Cox?), so the room must have been quite dark at that time. Cox had said there was light in the room earlier while Kelly was singing, perhaps from the fire?
From 11:45pm, when Cox saw Blotchy until the screams(?) around 3:45-4:00am is a considerably long time for anyone to hang around before killing his victim. I think on balance Blotchy must have departed the scene and Kelly once again took to the streets.

If she returned with a well-dressed gent sometime before 3:00am and they settled in for the night, or for sufficient time that she would undress, then such a scenario would at least satisfy the circumstances as best we know them. Any pretentious customer (Gent?) might expect a little more attention for their 'fee' than a quick fling under a raised skirt, so she undressed for an hour or so.

There really is no call to create an intruder and nothing by way of evidence requires the need for such a proposal. By all means we should entertain creative suggestions, but only in response an interpretation of the evidence.
There is nothing about this murder to suggest a breakin, the fact, as Ben suggested, that Kelly may have been attacked as she slept can be entertained in a number of scenario's, it doesn't require a burglar to have broken in as she slept. Her client may have attacked her as she dozed.

While I do not think he can be entirely dismissed,he is not my preferred suspect.

'We' can't dismiss Barnett because 'we' are not in possession of the whole story, though 'we' should give credit for what the police knew, and consider Barnett's subsequent quite life after the fact.
Certain aspects of her murder (facial mutilations, removed heart), could be explained as a result of the 'spurned lover' scenario, but even that may not be limited to Barnett. But then other aspects (severed head, flesh stripped to the bone), appear way over the top for such a solution.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Reaching through the window to disengage the bolt would require seconds only,then a few seconds to the door and into the room,and the intruder would be in the same stricking distance as anyone using other means of entry.if any noise was made,it would be minimal,and a drowsy Kelly roused from an alcohol aided sleep,would have just a fleeting moment to cry out in alarm."

How do we know that any noise produced would have been "minimal", Harry? Coming from the streets outside, with lit gas lamps, the killer would perhaps have been faced with a room in total darkness. Maybe the fire was offering some source of light at the stage of the murder, but this we cannot know, can we? So the killer may have been faced with quite a daunting task -moving through a pitch dark room where he could at any given moment stumble over a chair, a table, stumble over objects on the floor. And if it was that dark, he would not readily be able to make out Kelly in the bed, would he? If he was a total stranger to the room, how would he know where the bed was situated?

Maybe, Harry, there WAS enough light. Maybe he COULD move quietly and swiftly. Maybe Kelly WAS fast asleep as he approached. Maybe he COULD open the door without a sound. But all of these "maybeīs" is something we do not have to concern ourselves with if we make the assumption that the killer did not arrive unannounced, but was instead let in by Kelly, and was able to strike without any of the preludes you suggest.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Reaching through the window to disengage the bolt would require seconds only,then a few seconds to the door and into the room,and the intruder would be in the same stricking distance as anyone using other means of entry.if any noise was made,it would be minimal,and a drowsy Kelly roused from an alcohol aided sleep,would have just a fleeting moment to cry out in alarm.Ben is quite correct in my estimation of Barnett.While I do not think he can be entirely dismissed,he is not my preferred suspect.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"Occams Razor would require us to take the simplest solution, which is that she intended her 'guest' to spend the night - but that simple solution raises a host of questions. Principally because we, over a century later, cannot possibly know every male who Kelly knew well enough to invite back to her bed for the night."

I very much concur with many of your deductions here, Jon. I also find that there seems to have been a consensus inbetween Kelly and her guest, and much speaks for a scenario where Kelly occupied the part of the bed nearest to the partition, leaving the other half to that guest.
After that, one can of course discuss what it would take for a bloke to qualify for this treatment, and how many men would potentially fit into the role - but the only certain thing such a discussion can lead to is that there would have been a collection of to Kelly very closely related men that at least did not end up on the bottom of the list - quite the contrary; MAYBE anybody could buy themselves a nightlong session in room 13 with Kelly completely undressed and the fire lit - but if she was more or less picky about things, then the likes of Barnett and Fleming would have been the safest bets.

The non-existant commotion also speaks for a scenario where the two were in the room from the beginning. Of course, a nightly intruder could have been successfully silent, but just like you lead on, it calls for some good faith that we do not have to spend with the man in the room from the outset.

About the cuts to the sheet, Claire writes:
"I was simply referring to the question of whether she was under, or on top of, the sheet when first attacked."

We can see that she is on top of the sheet in the photo, at least. And I find it hard to believe that she was first killed and cut to pieces with the sheet over her, after which the killer lifted her out of the bed, put the sheet in place, and arranged her on top of it afterwards. Surely, the best bet would be that she was always on top of it?

"Others are more concerned with this notion of her killer slashing her face with the sheet over it, since it permits reference to known cases where the murderer knows the victim."

And rightly so! The reference cases are there, as is Bonds suggestion and belief that this was what happened. I fail to see why the discussion would be in any way faulty or premature. Itīs another thing altogether that alternative explanations can - and should - be offered. Problem is, these alternative explanations really do not have a lot going for them; you mention that "it is possible (given that the sheet cuts could not have been matched to face wounds) that the sheet just got in the way of things--particularly if it was partially tangled beneath her--and could have been cut when he was cutting any other part of her upper body", but this predisposes that there would have been an area on her body where the knife travelled through her and into the sheet, making it "much cut". Furthermore, this would only have happened as an isolated occurrence and at one cutting spot only. Plus, there is no mentioning of the mattress being extensively cut at a restricted area, corresponding to the sheet cuts. To further elaborate, it would also predispose that the corner of the sheet was underneath her at some other space than where it was later found, that is to say over the corner of the mattress - where sheet corners are normally found. Are we to speculate that the sheet found itīs way to that intended spot only after having been cut through somewhere else in the bed?

Anything is possible, at least in a very wide definition. But when we find a corner of a sheet where most people would look for it, then why would we not accept that the best explanation is that it was there throughout? And when Bond suggests that it had been used to cover her face as her killer cut it, then the reasonable thing to suggest is that there were no corresponding cuts to the mattress underneath it in that corner. To my mind, it all points in the direction of us better giving related cases with a close connection between killer and victim some long, hard afterthought!

"I believe the issue had also arisen with regard to Bond's checking whether cuts on the sheet matched those on her face."

That would have been a very hard task. The textures of skin and fabric will react totally differently to a slash of a knife, leaving nothing conclusive to deduct from. And the more extensive the cutting, the lesser the chance of connecting things. Normally, more evidence is better than little, but not here - the confusion would be total. The one reasonably safe bet, I think, would be that the area which was "much cut" roughly corresponded sizewise to the area of Kellyīs face, and that the cuts to it were very many. If not, Bondīs suggestion would have been a strange one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
But more likely still is the premise that Kelly was attacked as she slept, and that the ensuing arterial spray towards the partition was merely a by-product of the cut commencing on the right-hand side of her throat and/or Kelly having "rolled over" to face the partition.

Which is all quite consistent with what I said, namely:
"someone else was on the bed with her prior to the attack."

There is certainly no evidence that she was right up "against" the partition.

Is this the best way you can think of to have a disagreement, is to change what people say?
I did not say "right up against" the partition, what I said was, "over against" the partition. That is on the side of the bed nearest the partition, not central, not nearest the door, but over against the partition.

Occams Razor is certainly welcome, but I don't see how it leaves us with the conclusion that she took her killer home as a guest for the night.

It's already been explained a thousand times, nightdress, clothes, no obvious displacements as in signs of violence, no rowdy banging, pushing, bumping against walls & fixtures. Prater, relatively speaking heard nothing until the 'claimed' scream. Hence, nothing consistent with a murderous attack from a burglar breaking in.
What we have is consistent with her being in a relaxed state with her killer. As much as we might not like it, there we are.

Regards, Jon S.