the key

[Heinrich]

.... They obviously eliminated him as the murderer.
....

But why? On the basis of a leaky alibi involving most of the night of the murder when he claimed to be asleep?
Not good enough.

[c.d.]

Hello Heinrich,

I believe Barnett was questioned for four hours. So in addition to his alibi, the police also observed his demeanor and his consistency in answering questions. They apparently came away satisified that he was not the murderer. That is all we have to go on. We were not present. They were. If you are not satisfied, that is fine but apparently the police were.

c.d.

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich,

I believe Barnett was questioned for four hours. So in addition to his alibi, the police also observed his demeanor and his consistency in answering questions. They apparently came away satisified that he was not the murderer. That is all we have to go on. We were not present. They were. If you are not satisfied, that is fine but apparently the police were.

c.d.

That he was questioned by the police only adds to him being a suspect, c.d.
Profilers nowadays will say that it is likely the killer had been questioned. Having helped the police with their inquiries is often a reason a serial killer will stop his crimes.

[Wickerman]

They apparently came away satisified that he was not the murderer. That is all we have to go on. We were not present. They were. If you are not satisfied, that is fine but apparently the police were.

c.d.

Yes C. D., this kind of nonsense is not new. We've recently witnessed it with Hutchinson, now it's Barnett's turn. What it seems to boil down to is modern armchair detectives thinking they know better than Abberline and his knowledge of Whitechapel and it's criminal ways.
99%(?) of the paperwork generated by the Whitchapel murders has all vanished, what we are left with is rags & tatters.
It is largely because of what 'we' do not know that allows the most fanciful theories to proliferate.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Yes C. D., this kind of nonsense is not new. We've recently witnessed it with Hutchinson, now it's Barnett's turn.

Oh, what bullocks.

In many respects, we do know better than Abberline, not least in terms of serial crime and its perpetrators. Knowing a few petty criminals from the East End is one thing, but it doesn't count for a great deal when the "criminal" in question was a serial murderer of the type that Abberline and his colleagues knew nothing about. You bring up Hutchinson, who was apparently never even considered a suspect, let alone investigated and dismissed as such.

[The Grave Maurice]

Well said, Jon. A very experienced Detective Inspector, understandably, found Barnett to be a person of interest and interviewed him. On the basis of the interview, and an investigation of his alibi, the Inspector let him go. A century and a bit later a dilettante decides that he knows better. Makes me laugh.

Maybe Heinrich should write a book about Barnett. It would, by my count, be the sixth.

[Supe]

Indeed, it is good sport these days to denigrate the efforts of the Metropolitan police, but even today the greatest asset of a large urban police force is boots on the ground and from what we can glean the Met made good use of its numbers.

As Jon suggests, most of the paperwork is missing but as Sugden points out, the material on the Issenschmid investigation is mostly intact and reading that section in Sugden would indicate a rather exhaustive effort by all involved.

Don.

[Scorpio]

Hi
Not sure if he is our man for sure but I think Barnett is a viable candidate. I can't help but think what kind of conversation they had the night of her murder-perhaps he finally understood it was really over. Also, unlike the other victims, with MK only her heart was missing and there is evidence that her face was covered by a sheet (killer did not want her to see him?).

But did he not have an alibi-something about playing wist all night?

Also, I think MK is the key to the murders as It seems that out of all the women, she probably knew her killer and he knew her.

No alibi ?,Maybe he was playing with himself?.

[curious]

That he was questioned by the police only adds to him being a suspect, c.d.
Profilers nowadays will say that it is likely the killer had been questioned. Having helped the police with their inquiries is often a reason a serial killer will stop his crimes.

But would be have been able to stop forever?

On paper, Barnett does look promising. However, it is what he did with his life after 1888 that convinces me that the only reason he was caught up in the WM was because a woman he loved was a victim.

He lived until 1926 -- or about 38 years after the murders and from what I saw when I reviewed the information on Barnett, his life was crime free and ordinary.

There have been some serial killers who quit killing for long periods of time, but didn't they eventually have to do just one more? Wasn't that how they were caught?

Barnett does not work for me as a suspect because of his life following 1888.

[Phil H]

Just for the record, my reasons for keeping Barnett "in the frame" notwithstanding Abberline's having dismissed him, are as follows:

a) we do not know what Abberline's basis for dismissal was - if he was looking for a man who murdered several women and Joe (having killed MJK but no one else) had an alibi for any/all of the others, he might not have fitted the "profile" (to be anachronistic);

b) we today cannot establish exactly when MJK died so Joe's card-playing/sleeping alibi might or might not fit;

c) as stated above Joe had means, opportunity and motive (and I believe most murders are actually "domestics"); in addition, he was in a position to know more about entry to and exit from the room and could have fixed the lock to delay entry even for a dhort time;

d) many of the assumptions about Barnett are based on whether he was "Jack" and killed several woman in Whitechapel - I see a different logic if MJK is detached from the canonical victims and was a one-off killing by her ex-lover (albeit he tried to make it appear similar to the accounts he had read of JtR's methods in the press);

e) if he was a one-off killer (crime of passion) I discount all the sophistry about what he did in the rest of his life;

f) much of what we know about MJK's thoughts, fears etc comes to us through Joe - if he was clever enough to embroider the picture to make it seem his ex-lover feared "Jack" he might have further distanced himself from suspicion;

g) who knows what his own frame of mind was in the days after the murder, when Abberline saw him. We know he appeared to some to act oddly at the inquest. Any hesitations in his police interview might have been put down to shock or grief - and indeed, if Joe were the killer, he may have been suffering from remorse or genuine grief;

h) finally and relevant to this thread, he was in the best position to have taken the key - only his accounts say it was ever lost.

Phil

[Sally]

Hey Ho...

a) we do not know what Abberline's basis for dismissal was - if he was looking for a man who murdered several women and Joe (having killed MJK but no one else) had an alibi for any/all of the others, he might not have fitted the "profile" (to be anachronistic);

Quite right Phil. However, the simplest solution is that Abberline 'dismissed' Ordinary Joe because his movements were corroborated by others - in other words, he had an alibi. Because obviously, clearly, Barnett would have been a person of interest to the police. How clever does one need to be to work that out? So I think we may be sure the police were quite thorough in their interrogation of him.

b) we today cannot establish exactly when MJK died so Joe's card-playing/sleeping alibi might or might not fit;

Yes, this is true, but it is also true that the same doubt prevailed at the time, so presumably Barnett could account for his movements during the morning as well.

c) as stated above Joe had means, opportunity and motive (and I believe most murders are actually "domestics"); in addition, he was in a position to know more about entry to and exit from the room and could have fixed the lock to delay entry even for a dhort time;

I can agree with the first two, but motive? We've had this conversation before, Phil, so I won't labour the point () but really? You don't think it's a tad extreme for a falling out?

d) many of the assumptions about Barnett are based on whether he was "Jack" and killed several woman in Whitechapel - I see a different logic if MJK is detached from the canonical victims and was a one-off killing by her ex-lover (albeit he tried to make it appear similar to the accounts he had read of JtR's methods in the press);

See above. If Barnett had tried to make it 'appear similar' would he have gone to such extremes? The scene in Kelly's room looks to me like the end result of a fantasy allowed to run riot - I see it as the escalation I would expect to see if a serial murderer had the opporutunity for free rein.

e) if he was a one-off killer (crime of passion) I discount all the sophistry about what he did in the rest of his life;

Agreed - but if it was a crime of passion how are we accounting for Barnett's hypothetical planning element? A crime of passion is a spontaneous thing.

f) much of what we know about MJK's thoughts, fears etc comes to us through Joe - if he was clever enough to embroider the picture to make it seem his ex-lover feared "Jack" he might have further distanced himself from suspicion;

It's hard to guage intelligence at this remove though isn't it? All we can ever have here is pure conjecture.

g) who knows what his own frame of mind was in the days after the murder, when Abberline saw him. We know he appeared to some to act oddly at the inquest. Any hesitations in his police interview might have been put down to shock or grief - and indeed, if Joe were the killer, he may have been suffering from remorse or genuine grief;

Or it was acutally grief, and guilt because his partner had just been horribly murdered and it may never have happened if he[d stayed with her. This was a man who went on to spend the rest of his life with one woman, and who comes across as having been reluctant to leave Kelly - I think he was a pretty domestic type and I bet he was profoundly shocked at what had happened. If we take away the mantle of suspicion for a moment, how would we expect him to react?

h) finally and relevant to this thread, he was in the best position to have taken the key - only his accounts say it was ever lost.

Well yes, unless of course the murderer of Kelly was known to her, him, or them both - and took the key himself (or herself, I suppose - Julia Venturney, anyone? )


I enjoyed your post Phil

[Phil H]

Sally Glad you enjoyed the post.

We can only reach our own judgements on these things - you clearly either believe, or need to demonstrate, that it couldn't have been Joe Barnett.

I neither want him to be nor care if he was not, I just don't believe we should shut our eyes to the possibility (much as I argued about Cross/Lechmere).

My points were also meant to illustrate that there was a range of reasons for keeping Barnett in the frame (along with his brother and Fleming, as people close to Kelly). Picking apart the arguments individually rather misses my point - not that you have to take it - none of them are necessarily true on their own, but together (for me) they constitute a view worth pondering.

There is another consideration too - Abberline could simply have got it wrong. He would not be the first policemen to do so.

As I have argued before, I don't think we should rule out anyone (crankish modern allegations - like jsantos' recent posts about R L Stevenson and their ilk) - even Druitt or Ostrog, because we don't have the evidence to do so.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Many years ago, even before Paley/Harrison, I had the view that Barnett was a likely suspect , infact in the early days of joining Casebook I started the thread 'Joseph Barnett number one suspect', which ran a lengthy time, in which Leanne Parry contributed many a post.
However as the years go by , opinions change with acquired knowledge, and one has to admit that he has dropped in the ratings , especially with the history of Joe Fleming coming to light.. a man called Joe abusing her, and that person ending up in a asylum.. all rather incriminating [ if its the right man?]
Of the two original books on Barnett, Paley/Harrison, I find the latter of intrest, especially as it has been assumed that he traced the wrong man, in which case we must ask the question.
Was Paul Harrison's claim, that he traced a nephew of Barnett, and arranged to meet him in a pub, fiction, or lies?
I say that, as it does seem rather strange, that this relation produced, cuttings [ original] of all the murders ranging from Tabram - McKenzie, claiming these were left by JB.
Mr Harrison makes the point [ quite rightly] that only the killer would have known that Tabram was to be the first of a series of murders.
I know personally that 'original ' copies are extremely expensive to purchase.I am not aware of 2011 prices, but when I obtained mine in the late 1980s they were around twenty pounds each, also one could tell the difference between proper storage conditions copies and those kept in some draw at home.
Again was Mr Harrison being totally truthful, about this meeting and this alleged quotation from his informant '' He said [ Joseph Barnett] ''I always felt sorry for her killer, as he could not come forward for fear of being topped''.
What a strange remark? was he saying that ''He'' killed Mary, but was not the Whitechapel killer, therefore even with remorse, he could never admit to it, for fear of being branded '' The Ripper?
Or was that a cowardly admittance ?
Fascinating Thread folks.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Phil..

No no no - I don't have any need to believe anything of the sort - I just don't find it plausible on the scale of plausibility having weighed everything up (everything available, that is) - as I've said before, it isn't a personal faith, not at all - I try not to have those as a general matter of principal

I agree that we shouldn't rule anybody out, for the reason you suggest - and yes, you may be right, Abberline may have got it wrong - indeed, he almost certainly did to some degree, whether his error concerned Barnett specifically or not.

I'm not absolutely ruling anybody out, therefore. I just don't consider Barnett a likely suspect.

[Phil H]

I'm not absolutely ruling anybody out, therefore. I just don't consider Barnett a likely suspect.

Then the only difference between our views, Sally, is that between someone who says a glass is half-full and one who says it is half-empty!

Phil