the key

[Phil H]

Sally

It's revisionism, born, for the most part, of the fact that the case remains unsolved.

Whatever its cause, what's wrong with revisionism?

At what point in Ripper studies did we ever reach a point, either of concensus(hah! in this field?) or time when a particular view became sealed in aspic?

MM's canonical five has been under question for years?

Tumblety came out of left field.

So surely we should be challenging conventional wisdoms all the time? Stagnation, which is how I interpret your alternative to "revisionism" (which is not actually how I personally would characterise my view) is nothing to brag about. It has got us nowhere - so we need to try to look at the facts in different ways (not suspect motivated, I hasten to add after the recent RLS fiasco) and different combinations, adding other suspects (Tabram, McKenzie, Coles, Milward etc) or deducting them.

I have the temerity to call you "stagnant" as you felt able to call me a "revisionist" first, please forgive my boldness.

Phil

[Sally]

Phil

Try to open your mind to new possibilities Sally, rather than taking pot-shots at those striking out into new fields and fresh ideas.

Thanks Phil

But the thing is, this approach hardly constitutes a new field, or a fresh idea, does it? What you're suggesting is that Jack's traditional victiims were killed by different hands. I get it. I don't agree.

It's revisionism, born, for the most part, of the fact that the case remains unsolved.

Darnit (Barnett) I was almosst serious for a second there.

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"The case of Mary Kelly is strikingly special in attempting to piece the evidence together. She was murdered in her own dwelling, a place which she had until recently co-habited with Joseph Barnett! As I mentioned in Post #20, Barnett "was well aware of how to gain access to the dwelling anytime he wished" (the main subject of this thread). Secondly, she was mutilated in a far more gruesome manner than any other victim, suggesting a possible special interest in her, perhaps as the recent partner of Joseph Barnett who was defying his will by consorting with prostitutes and resolving to continue that lifestyle herself. And thirdly, the murders ceased after Mary Kelly's slaughter (provided we keep to the canonical five) and only after Joseph Barnett had been interviewed under suspicion by the police when the heat was on in earnest.
The key, so to speak, is in understanding Mary Kelly's murder and the most obvious culprit has to be Joseph Barnett."

I do like some of the things you say here, Heinrich. Others, though, I am not as keen on.

Putting it otherwise, yes, I concur that a fair case can be made for Mary Kelly having been killed by somebody who knew her, but I do not concur that this somebody would have been Joseph Barnett.

A closer look at a couple of your points will tell you why I feel the way I do:

A/ "Barnett was well aware of how to gain access to the dwelling anytime he wished"

Absolutely - that stands to reason, does it not? Furthermore, in any relationship between two people who live with each other it will hold true. Take me, for example: I know exactly how to gain access to the house in which I live. The snag is that it has (so far) not resulted in any ambitions on my behalf to tear my wife to pieces. Actually, most people would be very disinclined to do so.
Others - very few of us - are instead set on doing just this: tear somebody to shreds. These people will belong to two different categories of potential killers, the ones who would happily tear anybody up and leave the leftovers where the deed was done, and the ones who plan their deeds, in order to stay away from detection. Category 1 here are generally called disorganized killers. They have a very clouded judgement in most things and their intellectual shortcomings are easily picked up on. They are people suffering from all sorts of delusions. I think we can calmly agree that Joseph Barnett was not such a type of person.
Category 2, the organized killers, are not as easy to tell apart from the rest of us - they are planners and they can often disguise their urges very well. These people often choose a type of victim that will maximize their chances of staying undetected. Prostitutes, typically, are such victims, often living lives that few people keep track of or care about.
So, if we must sort Joseph Barnett in under one of these umbrellas, Iīd say that category 2 is the only reasonable option. Which raises the question why a killer who got his urges satisfied by killing apparently unrelated prostitutes in the open street, varying his venue from time to time, thus making it more or less completely impossible to rationally go looking for him, suddenly would lead the police to his own doorstep? It makes very little sense.

To all of this we must of course also add that even if we should accept that Barnett did know how to enter number 13 Millers Court, this may have been a piece of cake for just about anybody - we do not know if Kelly, in her drunken state, even remembered to lock the door from inside. And even if she did, many people may have known about "the window trick".

In conclusion, this point of yours is worth very little, Iīm afraid!

B/ Your claim that Barnett disliked prostitutes.

In this case, we cannot look away from the obvious fact that this claimed dislike of his apparently did not stop him from living together with a former prostitute. That would have been how he would have thought of her - as an ex-hooker. And there is nothing strange about that: the ordinary man would not approve of his fiancée walking the street, would he? But what is a fellow to do if he takes a liking to a girl who IS a streetwalker? Exactly: make her give up that life and come stay with him instead. And that was exactly what Joe did, was it not?
And as long as he had a steady income, he could keep that project up. But when unemployment came his way, this all came to an end. At that stage, he must have realized that Mary Kelly would sooner or later turn to prostitution again, before she starved. And since he would not like that, Maryīs taking in an active prostitute with her would have signalled grave danger to Joe, which would have been why he so disliked the idea - it would have constituted a reminder for Mary that there was always a way out if nothing else worked, and Joe would arguably have been none too keen to have that reminder around.
What all of this means is NOT that Joe would have been a crusader against prostitution and a pathological hater of these women. It instead means that he liked Kelly enough to try and bring her out of prostitution, since he did not want to share her. And people who feel that for a woman do normally not kill that woman - they plead, they discuss, they hope, they may well argue and quarrel - but that is in order to KEEP the woman, not to dispose of her in a thousand bits and pieces. What Barnett disliked was not so much prostitutes as prostitution - and if we work from a wiew (some do for some reasons) that the Ripper hated prostitutes, then we have a guy who looks at it the other way around.

C/ The murders ceased after Barnett had been put under pressure and interrogated.

They did - if we are correct in our estimations. But if Barnett had grown so bold throughout his spree as to confidently kill off his own spouse right under the noses of the investigators, I donīt think that he would have been all that scared by an interrogation that quite apparently did not succeed in any fashion to pin any part at all of the Ripper deeds on him. If he killed Kelly, that would have been a very clear indicator of him playing some sort of cat and mouse-game, in which he was totally unbothered by any risk of getting caught. As such, I fail to see why he would not have carried on afterwards.

Thatīs the criticism, Heinrich - after that, I will once again add that I think that there is every chance that the man who killed Kelly knew her well and harboured deep feelings for her.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Phil ...if you divorce MJK from her sisters in death, then you start to look at the case differently. At least that is what I have found.

Sally: Sure - but why would you? And how could you?

Evidence of a closed mind, Sally?

I have no axe to grind, no theory to promote so I can try and test all permutations. In recent years, since I overcame the shock of first being introduced to the concept,(when I read Turnbull's "The Killer Who Never Was" I think, so around 1996) I have been comfortable with dissolving the canonical view and thinking of a number of hands being responsible for individual killings (Kidney for Stride) and Barnett or someone similar for MJK.

I find that de-coupling Stide from Eddowes makes the "double-event" (that may never have been) much more comprehensible. There is no rush to find a second victim, the frenzy to mutilate because of a failure to do so with the first victim vanishes - we are left with a JtR working as normal.

Similarly, I glimpse more "sense" when I study MJK with a mind that she was killed by someone other than "Jack" than I do when trying to pin her murder on JtR.

Try to open your mind to new possibilities Sally, rather than taking pot-shots at those striking out into new fields and fresh ideas.

Phil

[Heinrich]

....

Could a normal mind guilty of such actions satisfy a four-hour grilling by the authorities?

I should say not but a sociopath could.

We do know that after the events of 1888 Joe Barnett led a very mundane, ordinary life until 1926 -- close to 4 decades of crime-free normal life.
....

The phrase banality of evil comes to mind.

[curious]

But letīs also keep in mind that most of us do what we do since we would like to see some sort of justice be done, no matter how illogical that suggestion may sound in this particular case ...

The best,
Fisherman

I suspect that desire to see justice done in this case is illogical, but I understand and feel that same desire for the crimes to be explained or made sense of so that the culprit will be suitably vilified and the innocent set free.

There are very intelligent people doing bona fide research that allows us to know more of Whitechapel and the era in which these people lived. And who allow us to hope that perhaps someday . . .

[curious]

The key, so to speak, is in understanding Mary Kelly's murder and the most obvious culprit has to be Joseph Barnett.

I understand that anyone first looking at these murders naturally looks at each individually and explores the people closest in the victims' lives. We do get hung up on minutiae and want to explore every facet -- like the key -- in an attempt to solve the crime. Our minds settle first on this, then on that, as we explore the facts. We ask questions, we look at maybes or possibilities or what ifs.

However, how anyone can read and understand what was done to Mary Kelly (not to mention looking at those photographs) then believe for even a nanosecond that the person who committed that atrocity could possibly live nearly 4 decades as a normal, ordinary person . . . . well, it is just unfathomable.

Someone spent hours stripping her flesh from her bones -- hours! and pulling all the organs from her body . . . . removing her face and her identity . . .

We're not discussing a crime of passion here, a sudden fly off the handle and before we realize it someone is dead, but hours and hours of activity so horrific -- could a normal mind survive it?

Could a normal mind guilty of such actions satisfy a four-hour grilling by the authorities?

We do know that after the events of 1888 Joe Barnett led a very mundane, ordinary life until 1926 -- close to 4 decades of crime-free normal life.

Now reread what was done to Mary Kelly. . .

[Sally]

I do not know about this person.

I expect you do. You know her as Catherine Eddowes.

I think it does, ... big time.

Fair enough - but there doesn't seem to be any solid basis for that belief. I guess if you have a conviction, no amount of rational debate is going to make a difference.

[c.d.]

Just a few points...

Mary was a prostitute just like the rest of the C5. The fact that she was killed indoors can easily be explained by the fact that she was the only one of the C5 with her own room.

If Mary opened the door to her room and admitted her killer, the whole key issue becomes moot.

Her extensive mutilations compared to the other C5 can easily be accounted for by the killer having more time and privacy.

We don't know why the murders stopped after Mary Kelly. The reason might have absolutely nothing to do with her.

c.d.

[Heinrich]

.... Kate Conway was a Catholic too. D'you reckon there's a link?

I do not know about this person.

Yes. Well, there are obvious reasons for all of the above which in no way implicate Barnett.

I think it does, ... big time.

[Sally]

Stephen Knight, in his book Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, mentions having interviewed an elderly nun who, in her youth and not long out of the novitiate, was told by a then elderly nun, who in turn worked among the poor of Whitechapel and had a special mission among the prostitutes, that "Were it not for Mary Kelly, none of the others would have been murdered." Mary Kelly was a Catholic and nuns back then got to know a whole lot about the goings-on among the common people.

Stephen Knight, eh?

Kate Conway was a Catholic too. D'you reckon there's a link?

The case of Mary Kelly is strikingly special in attempting to piece the evidence together. She was murdered in her own dwelling, a place which she had until recently co-habited with Joseph Barnett! As I mentioned in Post #20, Barnett "was well aware of how to gain access to the dwelling anytime he wished" (the main subject of this thread). Secondly, she was mutilated in a far more gruesome manner than any other victim, suggesting a possible special interest in her, perhaps as the recent partner of Joseph Barnett who was defying his will by consorting with prostitutes and resolving to continue that lifestyle herself. And thirdly, the murders ceased after Mary Kelly's slaughter (provided we keep to the canonical five) and only after Joseph Barnett had been interviewed under suspicion by the police when the heat was on in earnest.

Yes. Well, there are obvious reasons for all of the above which in no way implicate Barnett. This looks like 2 and 2 making 5 as far as I can see.

The key, so to speak, is in understanding Mary Kelly's murder and the most obvious culprit has to be Joseph Barnett.

No.

[Heinrich]

Stephen Knight, in his book Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, mentions having interviewed an elderly nun who, in her youth and not long out of the novitiate, was told by a then elderly nun, who in turn worked among the poor of Whitechapel and had a special mission among the prostitutes, that "Were it not for Mary Kelly, none of the others would have been murdered." Mary Kelly was a Catholic and nuns back then got to know a whole lot about the goings-on among the common people.
The case of Mary Kelly is strikingly special in attempting to piece the evidence together. She was murdered in her own dwelling, a place which she had until recently co-habited with Joseph Barnett! As I mentioned in Post #20, Barnett "was well aware of how to gain access to the dwelling anytime he wished" (the main subject of this thread). Secondly, she was mutilated in a far more gruesome manner than any other victim, suggesting a possible special interest in her, perhaps as the recent partner of Joseph Barnett who was defying his will by consorting with prostitutes and resolving to continue that lifestyle herself. And thirdly, the murders ceased after Mary Kelly's slaughter (provided we keep to the canonical five) and only after Joseph Barnett had been interviewed under suspicion by the police when the heat was on in earnest.
The key, so to speak, is in understanding Mary Kelly's murder and the most obvious culprit has to be Joseph Barnett.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Agatha Christie wrote a book "Trial by Innocence" that discussed the ordeal of innocent people caught up in an unsolved murder. The loved ones feel the agony of loss and knowledge their beloved endured a horrifying death, perhaps even guilt that they should have been able to do something to prevent it -- then they are subjected to speculation and suspicion until the real culprit is discovered.

For me, that is what is so sad about Joe Barnett (whom I consider a victim as well) and others against whom there is no evidence but whose names are still being bandied about as possible murderers 120+ years after the fact.

Of course, legally, a dead person can not be slandered or libeled, but it is very distasteful. Compassion appears in very short supply for real people who endured a very traumatic, horrific season in their lives as we armchair detectives poke and prod about in all the corners of their lives that we can discover.

And to what real end?"

It is a complex question, Curious; but if we look at it from the other side of the mirror, we can of course theorize that IF we can put a name to the Whitechapel killer, then we would be able to exonerate all the others that have undeservedly suffered the fate of being pointed out as this horrific fiend. I suppose that would be the alibi that some Ripperologists use to justify their theories.

On the whole, I think we sometimes forget that we are dealing with real people as we discuss these crimes. An element (or two, or three, or ...) of fiction has crept in over the years, as the one fantastic theory after the other have been presented. Thus we may perhaps not always treat the persons involved with all the respect they deserve. Then again, maybe we sometimes treat some of the actors in this drama with MORE respect than they actually deserve; who knows? Stereotypes have, I feel, been formed in some cases, and most of us are sometimes guilty of choosing either black or white as we describe things, instead of going for different shades of grey.

At any rate, yours is of course a good reminder not to be too lighthearted about what we propose. But letīs also keep in mind that most of us do what we do since we would like to see some sort of justice be done, no matter how illogical that suggestion may sound in this particular case ...

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

One thing that I always thought belonged to this discussion is what the coroner said when Barnett left the stand at the inquest:
"You have given your evidence very well indeed."

To me, those are words of compassion, felt for a man who had been struck very hard by fate. And I think the foundation for them lay in a stance reached by the authorities after having questioned Barnett thoroughly, resulting in becoming convinced about the manīs innocence. I donīt know of anybody else who received such a line of recognition from the coroner throughout the murder series.

No proof, as usual - but a very fair indicator as far as Iīm concerned!

The best,
Fisherman

Agatha Christie wrote a book "Trial by Innocence" that discussed the ordeal of innocent people caught up in an unsolved murder. The loved ones feel the agony of loss and knowledge their beloved endured a horrifying death, perhaps even guilt that they should have been able to do something to prevent it -- then they are subjected to speculation and suspicion until the real culprit is discovered.

For me, that is what is so sad about Joe Barnett (whom I consider a victim as well) and others against whom there is no evidence but whose names are still being bandied about as possible murderers 120+ years after the fact.

Of course, legally, a dead person can not be slandered or libeled, but it is very distasteful. Compassion appears in very short supply for real people who endured a very traumatic, horrific season in their lives as we armchair detectives poke and prod about in all the corners of their lives that we can discover.

And to what real end?

[Sally]

You forget the "should", Sally - the angle MUST be tried, I feel. Each case on itīs own, and all that. Phil is correct in trying the angle - but others have too, and still, Kelly ranks with the Rippers victimīs for most of them. And sensibly so, if you ask me!

The best,
Fisherman

Agreed. The hiatus between Eddowes and Kelly is one of those things that makes it tempting to see a different hand at work - but that may have many explanations. Kelly is different in that she was killed indoors, in her own room - but although I think that has significance, I'm less sure that the significance lies in a different hand.