the key

[Phil H]

While all your ideas are "possible" there is not a shred of evidence to support any of them.

I could weave similar concoctions around Polly Nichols' new bonnet. But would not. It is a waste of time.

Generations of afficianados have discussed whether MJK was a victim of JtR. A domestic scenario should not be ruled out in any case unless with VERY good grounds. So those - with the fenian possibility in the dim and distant background, are my pair of scaenarios.

I think I'll stick with them notwithstanding your evident ingenuity!!

Phil

[curious]

ME: The issues here are, to my mind, to establish whether MJK was a victim of JtR - as was almost universally argued and accepted for decades; or whether she was a one-off "domestic.

CURIOUS: Or something else . . . there are more than two choices.

I'd be interested to know what you think those are.

I have at the back of my mind a sort of "fantasy" - I wouldn't call it a theory - that MJK (a nom de guerre?) might have been involved in some sort of Fenian shenannigins, and that her murder was either retribution or (if it was not her body) a means of escape. But that is pure speculation, with only the tiniest shards of supporting material - the possibility that the Rumbelow knife was linked to the Phoenix Park murders; her impenetrable past as apparently vouchsafed to Joe Barnett; the presence of Irish Constabulary officers at the scene soon after the murder and a few other fragmants. Not enough to build a house on sand?

So do you see yet more possible scenarios, curious?

Phil

Phil,
You have named my favorite possibility, and it is fascinating to contemplate.

I find it intriguing that a woman supposedly as beautiful and "talented" as MJK suddenly left the more affluent West End to live in the East End. Was she working? Was Barnett with his Irish heritage also part of the "job"? Who in the world was she?

From the beginning of my short-time studying JtR, she has not seemed to "fit" as a JtR victim. This possibility seems to me to be a fairly good fit.

But, there is also a possibility it was something to do with her other "professional" life, and perhaps someone might consider this a one-off domestic, but I don't.

If MJK was a down-on-her-luck prostitute just trying to keep a little food in her body, she may have made one or two major mistakes.

She had been living with Barnett for about 18 months, and apparently another man before that and another before that . . . she did not know the territory where as a newly single woman she was suddenly forced to work. Perhaps she was learning some things from her friends who stayed with her, but perhaps not enough.

She could have stumbled into a pimp's territory and been offed as an example -- perhaps after rejecting said pimp.

Since she was younger and prettier than the other JtR victims, it seems more likely a pimp would want to "represent" her. Perhaps such men would not accept their business proposition being turned down. She was out and about on the night she was murdered. Who knows who followed her home?

OR, she put on the black velvet jacket and Maria Harvey's bonnet and went out to hunt another long-term guy. She could have encountered a former client who was drinking and offered her his business, when she was trying to impress some bloke to take care of her. Said former client might not have taken well to having his business rejected. "I was good enough for you before, why not now?"

Who knows who followed her home?

There may be others, I will have to get my brain to working on it.

[Phil H]

ME: The issues here are, to my mind, to establish whether MJK was a victim of JtR - as was almost universally argued and accepted for decades; or whether she was a one-off "domestic.

CURIOUS: Or something else . . . there are more than two choices.

I'd be interested to know what you think those are.

I have at the back of my mind a sort of "fantasy" - I wouldn't call it a theory - that MJK (a nom de guerre?) might have been involved in some sort of Fenian shenannigins, and that her murder was either retribution or (if it was not her body) a means of escape. But that is pure speculation, with only the tiniest shards of supporting material - the possibility that the Rumbelow knife was linked to the Phoenix Park murders; her impenetrable past as apparently vouchsafed to Joe Barnett; the presence of Irish Constabulary officers at the scene soon after the murder and a few other fragmants. Not enough to build a house on sand?

So do you see yet more possible scenarios, curious?

Phil

[c.d.]

The Metropolitan failed miserably to protect Mary Kelly or the other Whitechapel victims and they also failed to catch any killer. My confidence in their professional judgment when the released Joseph Barnett does not match yours, Phil.

Hello Heinrich,

I'm not quite sure how the police could have protected Mary Kelly. Should they have made a list of every couple in Whitechapel that had an argument and then conducted a stake out to make sure that the argument didn't escalate into murder? The other victims were willing to go off with a man they presumably didn't know in order to have sex with them. How could the police have prevented that?

You condemn the Whitechapel police for failing to catch the killer. Where I live (Washington, D.C.), there are tons of unsolved murders in addition to unsolved rapes, robberies, thefts, muggings etc. The same is true for New York, L.A., Boston, Chicago etc. It would seem by your criteria that the police in those cities have all failed miserably and that their professional judgment should be questioned.

c.d.

[Rubyretro]

Women neither require nor deserve patronizing approval from any man about their work or friends.

Well neither do men deserve 'patronizing approval' from any woman about their work or friends..
but if my husband decided to become a drug dealer and started hanging out with other drug dealers in the pub all day..and then had them sleeping in house (let alone my bedroom), I think that I'd soon have something to shout about and a few ultimatums to offer..
What's the difference ?

[curious]

The issues here are, to my mind, to establish whether MJK was a victim of JtR - as was almost universally argued and accepted for decades; or whether she was a one-off "domestic.

Or something else . . . there are more than two choices.

[curious]

curious: that was an interesting post. I wish I was familiar enough with the case information to be able to comment properly; I ought to go research a bit before I do. Good point, though, about it being assumed that Barnett was a client. All he said, I think, was that they met in a pub and moved in together the next day -?

Ausgirl,
That's all I've read as well. They met in a pub, then met the next day and moved in together.

I have not read anything that allows us to know that she was working as a prostitute when she met Barnett, or if she was hunting something more long term.

Having been single for many years, I have watched the dance between the sexes for a long time and I can tell you for a fact that people differ greatly in their ability to see through someone "working" them. Some men can be led along by their "you know"s by the biggest bi-tches in the world because they don't see through the giggles, "you're so wonderful" "you're so handsome" lines used to land them (women too by the way. Some can't see a line the size of an anchor cable) Others can see and recognize the lines, then decide whether to participate or avoid the pit.

However, as you so correctly pointed out Ausgirl, the times were very different from today's world when there is actual employment for women. I have noticed that many women even a generation ago were taught to "manage men" in such a way that he comes to believe an idea was his own. When women had no legal control, or in cultures where they still have no control, they have found ways to take some control of their lives and circumstances.

Now, looking at what appears to be Mary's pattern of living with men, she seemed to be a prostitute when she had no other choice.

Mrs. Carthy even said she went to live with a man Mrs. Carthy believed would have married her.

Kelly appears to have wanted to NOT be a prostitute.

So, in order to pick up a nice man, I'm guessing she made herself into the "nice girl" she wished she was or wanted to be. Now, she probably explained her circumstances in such a way that made some big strong men want to rescue her. (Seen it done all the time! Never had enough sense to do it myself because it seems so dishonest. But had it been a matter of survival in a very different time, who knows?)

Some of the nicest guys in the world marry the biggest bi-tches -- and keep supporting them and sometimes adoring them. Silliest thing I've ever seen.

I don't see Joe or Mary Jane as horrible users of the other, but two people doing the best they could in very difficult circumstances. And yes, perhaps he tried to use the newspaper stories to keep her in at night and off the street. In light of what happened, seems that would have been in her best interest. Parents try to teach their children to stay away from fire and other harm. Husbands and wives use little "tricks" to try to get their spouse to do what they want -- it beats nagging. I've never seen a relationship where such things could not be picked up on, even by the most happily married.

Also, earlier on in this thread, I proved that Barnett was not a sociopath. He did not have the main characteristics (I had to research it) -- in trouble with the law before he was 15 and for the rest of his life was the major one, and I don't remember the rest, but I posted four characteristics that prove Barnett was not what Heinrich insists on labeling him. Which according to the research is a term no longer used . . .

And Phil H -- thanks for the post apologizing for the inappropriate comment. It made me chuckle (I'm glad I was at work at the time the earlier one was made and you redeemed yourself before I got too riled.) :-)

[Phil H]

Heinrich, you made some comments on my previous piost:

I said that "We don't NEED a case for ruling him out - unless wholly evidential - since the police did that at the time." To which you replied:

The Metropolitan failed miserably to protect Mary Kelly or the other Whitechapel victims and they also failed to catch any killer. My confidence in their professional judgment when the released Joseph Barnett does not match yours, Phil.

Your view of the Met is your own, and I don't really care whether you agree with me. However, you missed my point, which was that the argument (at least so far as i am concerned) is not whether Joe didn't do it -as OTHERS argue that the police dismissal of him as a suspect rules him out - BUT that we now need to look again carefully at him as an individual, hence my emphasis should be on why he is a suspect.

If you read my post, a response to Ausgirl, you will see that I was making a specific point, NOT generalising.

I said earlier: "... "let's NOT be so quick to rule Joe Barnett out because there are some reasons for thinking he might be a possible candidate - (he gets several "ticks in the box" ... " To which you replied:

More than anyone else.

Is that really true? It depends of course on whether we are discussing Barnett as a possible JtR or as the potential killer of MJK only. As "Jack", Barnett, for instance, does not meet the criteria of being referenced by Melville Macnaghten, nor is he referenced by name or implication by Anderson, Swanson or Littlechild. Other than briefly and to be dismissed by the Met officers at the time.

I do NOT for a moment believe or contend that Barnett was JtR. I believe he should not be dismissed as a possible murderer of MJK, for the reasons I have given.

You refer to my statement: "We KNOW that that case is weak and that Joe was ruled out at the time, but still.... " To which you replied:

Stronger than you give credit for, Phil.

Is it? Surely the "evidence" against Joe is entirely circumstantial as many posters here on Casebook have pointed out. I would also suggest that there are too many uncertainties about the death of Kelly to make absolute statements (timing, her movements, the lock, the fire even whether the body was that of MJK).

I wrote: "My difficulty with most of the information we have about Joe Barnett (and for that matter MJK herself comes from Joe Barnett!!" To which you replied:

Yes, indeed, Phil. Yet he admits to rows with Mary Kelly about her lifestyle and refusing to give her money on the night of the murder. He incriminates himself with several aspects of his testimony.

Incriminates? Surely not - it all depends on how you read the evidence and on how reliable press reports are.

Finally, I commented: "... although I don't really believe he did it (MJK's murder, that is ... " You asked the question:

If not Joseph Barnett, Phil, whom do you believe did kill Mary Kelly and why?

I think trying to pin blame on an individual for anything in the JtR case, given our present knowledge, lost evidence/files, the lapse of time etc etc is "neither big nor clever" as they say! We should surely have grown out of that.

The issues here are, to my mind, to establish whether MJK was a victim of JtR - as was almost universally argued and accepted for decades; or whether she was a one-off "domestic.

IF the latter, then I believe the likely killer was Not a punter or client, but an intimate acquaintance, and I would nominate three (like Melville Macnaghten) as possible candidates - Joe Barnett, Joe Fleming and Joe's brother, Dan. I think all three knew Mary well enough for her to let them into her room and also perhaps to dose or sleep in their presence. All three could have known about or purloined the key or the alternate means of access, the presence of all three could have gone unnoticed by others - routine can equal invisibility after all.

I have , however, concluded that there is sufficient reason for me to doubt that MJK was a victim of "Jack" (as is my position on Stride) but I am far too old a bunny to rule out that that position could change. So I try to juggle several balls at once and keep an open mind.

I repeat, therefore, that I don't claim, allege or aver that Barnett killed MJK, I don't want to see him ruled out at this stage.

Hope this explains my position,

Phil

[Ausgirl]

Hienrich posted:

I do not believe it was a necessary prerequisite for Mary Kelly's killer to be cunning.

No. But it would be, to being a sociopathic control freak, who could -let's say - slaughter his common law wife, set up an alibi, and then blithely speak lie upon lie to police immediately after.

Women neither require nor deserve patronizing approval from any man about their work or friends.

In Victorian England, they assuredly did.

You're pasting modern feminism over entrenched Victorian social mores, which to me seems an ill fit. The man was, ideally, the head of the house, the end.

Although Joseph Barnett made unreasonable demands on Mary Kelly, he was neither irrational nor psychotic but assuredly a sociopath.

I'm sorry, I don't see any proof at all of sociopathy. I see how he might not fit into your (modern) ideals of how a man should treat women, re my comment above, but I cannot see 'sociopathy' anywhere. If there were reports from Mary's friends - which one might expect after a heinous murder - pointing to his being cruel or uncaring, then I'd have to rethink it. But there's nothing at all, aside from the fact that he behaved according to the general social values of his day and insisted that she quit being a whore. He did not stop her seeking other kinds of work or other kinds of friends, as a sociopathically possessive man would likely do.

As to his reading her the stories: what's to say that she didn't want them read to her? Perhaps she couldn't read?

Phil, no worries. I'm a poet. I sometimes get flowery and impassioned, even when talking about facts.
I agree, Barnett's guilt would tie things up almost neatly. Almost. But to make him appear to be guilty - it seems to me at this point - requires a deal too many suppositions and stretching of the available information to fit. As curious points out, we don't even know for sure if Joe -was- a client prior to their moving in together.

I've read more on other suspects, at this point, but I think my next port of call is to see what, exactly, was said about Barnett and Mary by other people compared to what was said by Barnett himself. If he was a sociopathically possessive man, as claimed in this thread, there ought to be some rather obvious inconsistencies between the two - if there's enough statements to go by.

I'm not arguing for his innocence so much as objecting to some of the reasoning for his guilt put forward.

curious: that was an interesting post. I wish I was familiar enough with the case information to be able to comment properly; I ought to go research a bit before I do. Good point, though, about it being assumed that Barnett was a client. All he said, I think, was that they met in a pub and moved in together the next day -?

[Heinrich]

...
This says to me that Joe wasn't very cunning at all.

I do not believe it was a necessary prerequisite for Mary Kelly's killer to be cunning.

Mary was happy to let Joe Barnett pay the rent as long as he wasn't there to annoy her. She couldn't stand the man, she openly admitted, but took his money anyway. Isn't that a -teensy- bit manipulative?

She appears to have humored him until he became a dead weight and issued her with an ultimatum. This is not manipulation on the same scale if at all.

If he'd tried to get her quit a job like cleaning or sales work and threw a fit over her friends who had decent jobs too (and this is what men who are as controlling as you say Barnett was actually do) then sure, I'd peg him as a lot more likely to have flipped out enough to cut the flesh off her down to bone and slice her face to ribbons.

Women neither require nor deserve patronizing approval from any man about their work or friends.

The only friends I -know- he complained about were prostitutes. Does it not make any sense to you at all that a man (whether he'd paid for sex at any stage or not) might not want to them in his home (which was what? all of one room?) or that he might think she could actually do better for friends, or that he might be concerned they'd lead her right back into a bad (and at the time particularly dangerous) kind of life?

No one forced Joseph Barnett to hook-up with Mary Kelly, knowing her to be a prostitute but having done so gives him no authority to control her life.

...
However, there is an important difference. We don't NEED a case for ruling him out - unless wholly evidential - since the police did that at the time.

The Metropolitan failed miserably to protect Mary Kelly or the other Whitechapel victims and they also failed to catch any killer. My confidence in their professional judgment when the released Joseph Barnett does not match yours, Phil.

... "let's NOT be so quick to rule Joe Barnett out because there are some reasons for thinking he might be a possible candidate - (he gets several "ticks in the box" ...

More than anyone else.

We KNOW that that case is weak and that Joe was ruled out at the time, but still....

Stronger than you give credit for, Phil.

...
Heinrich is supposing that Mary was manipulated by Barnett, who was a control freak and therefore more likely to be the sort of man to have committed her murder.

Not so much supposing as making sense of the evidence, Ausgirl.

I'm pointing out that there are facts and statements on record which strongly indicate that Mary was more so the manipulative party in their relationship, as shown in her general attitude toward Barnett. So I am supposing that Heinrich has chosen not to examine those statements.

I have read your interpretation, Ausgirl, and I have answered all your points. I am not persuaded by your reversal of roles in the relationship Joseph Barnett had with Mary Kelly.

I have not come across any statements which irrefutably indicate that Barnett was irrationally controlling in the manner Heinrich insists he was.

Although Joseph Barnett made unreasonable demands on Mary Kelly, he was neither irrational nor psychotic but assuredly a sociopath.

My difficulty with most of the information we have about Joe Barnett (and for that matter MJK herself comes from Joe Barnett!!

Yes, indeed, Phil. Yet he admits to rows with Mary Kelly about her lifestyle and refusing to give her money on the night of the murder. He incriminates himself with several aspects of his testimony.

... although I don't really believe he did it (MJK's murder, that is ...

If not Joseph Barnett, Phil, whom do you believe did kill Mary Kelly and why?

[curious]

he probably could have made a better choice of partner than a girl he paid for sex the day before.

Do we know for sure that is what happened?

Apparently the night she was killed, she dressed up in her black velvet coat and bonnet and went about looking respectable. Only after she was seen returning home alone did she go out, dressed differently, to prostitute herself.

Perhaps she picked up guys who wanted to take care of her and lived with them. That probably created a better life for her than she could create for herself.

It seems that she had lived with three different men: a Morganstone, another Joe and Barnett.

That appears to me as though she was trying to leave prostitution.

Joe was apparently trying to help her not have to engage in work she hated, from her own words.

So, do we know for sure that Joe was a client that first time they met? Because we know her past and that she was one of the prostitutes killed by Jack the Ripper, WE jump to that conclusion. But what did she tell Barnett that first day? What did they really do?

Did Joe ever discuss the details?

Did they meet one day and she really "worked" him about how wonderful he was, how handsome he was, everything that makes a guy feel great and love the woman who makes him feel that way.

Then, when they met again the next day they decided to live together.

So, are we the ones making the leap that he was her client, when that may not have been the case.

Do we have any real evidence either way?

curious

[Phil H]

My difficulty with most of the information we have about Joe Barnett (and for that matter MJK herself comes from Joe Barnett!!

I'm not sure he need have been so "gullible" as he is represented. At least one writer believes the evidence support Barnett as manipulative in using the murders and newspaper reports (which HE is said to have read to her) to try to keep Mary off the streets.

My problem is that, although I don't really believe he did it (MJK's murder, that is, I certainly don't think he was JtR), we know so little about him. We can paint a rosy picture and assume that because he appears to have led a blamesless life henceforth, as some here have done, or we can conclude he may have struck out once in a crime of passion and we have no idea of his internal life thereafter (i.e. whether he was filled with remorse or not).

Barnett's guilt would, in my view, make a lot of things easier - explain the gap between Eddowes and Kelly's death (there would be no direct relation between the crimes); resolve the key and access issues; explain why Kelly gave the killer access and/or remained sleepy in bed; perhaps help to resolve the time of death (later rather than earlier?). But I am not asserting, as I have already said, that he did it.

Sorry if my emotional and sentimental reference was a shade inappropriate.

Phil

[Ausgirl]

Phil - I don't think it's supposition to suggest that if one is to suppose things about a suspect - or a victim - and there's actual record of what was said and done between them, it might make for more sound reasoning to take all of those records into account rather than casting out the bits which don't suit.

Heinrich is supposing that Mary was manipulated by Barnett, who was a control freak and therefore more likely to be the sort of man to have committed her murder.

I'm pointing out that there are facts and statements on record which strongly indicate that Mary was more so the manipulative party in their relationship, as shown in her general attitude toward Barnett. So I am supposing that Heinrich has chosen not to examine those statements.

On the other hand, I have not come across any statements which irrefutably indicate that Barnett was irrationally controlling in the manner Heinrich insists he was. In the records I have read, Barnett's behaviour and character seem more generally gormless than malevolent.

So, therefore, it seems to me something of an injustice to suppose that Barnett was 'controlling' and 'manipulative' and therefore the type of character who might have murdered and mutilated a woman he clearly cared for.

Of course, records which demonstrate Barnett being habitually and psychotically controlling and manipulative might indeed exist, in which case I'll probably change my mind and write something emotional and sentimental about that, too.

[Phil H]

Ausgirl

You make a very articulate case for Barnett having been a complaisant lover and not dangerous, but it is as suppositional as the case for him having been the killer.

However, there is an important difference. We don't NEED a case for ruling him out - unless wholly evidential - since the police did that at the time.

What some of us (probably in differing ways, to differing extents and with different motivations) are seeking to do is to say "let's NOT be so quick to rule Joe Barnett out because there are some reasons for thinking he might be a possible candidate - (he gets several "ticks in the box" against standard criteria for being a killer, including one of the last to see the victim; a recent partner, knew the layout/domestic arrangements; may have had the key; could have gained access etc). We KNOW that that case is weak and that Joe was ruled out at the time, but still....

A suppositional case is no use to us, it does NOT address the point about taking Joe seriously and unsentimentally (your case it seems to me is full of emotion and sentiment) to see where it takes us. It is speculative, but positively so.

Som well-written though ity was, I tregret that your post held nothing of value for me.

Phil

[Ausgirl]

Heinrich, without trying to saint or damn either of them - Barnett was remiss in losing his long term job for what might have been stealing, he probably could have made a better choice of partner than a girl he paid for sex the day before. He probably should've realised he was a mealticket sooner than he did. But he did not. This says to me that Joe wasn't very cunning at all.

If there were not a million possible ways to passively manipulate someone, too, I'd probably not be skeptical about Mary's sublime victimhood to the standover man you present Barnett as being.

"Keep me in cash or look what I'm forced to do" isn't out of the question. Maybe that was her way of making him leave, without the culpability of "I don't want you anymore". Who knows? I don't. But if we're going on sheer guesswork, it's just as, if not more, possible a thing as Barnett being the abusive ass you make him out to be.

Mary was happy to let Joe Barnett pay the rent as long as he wasn't there to annoy her. She couldn't stand the man, she openly admitted, but took his money anyway. Isn't that a -teensy- bit manipulative?

If he'd tried to get her quit a job like cleaning or sales work and threw a fit over her friends who had decent jobs too (and this is what men who are as controlling as you say Barnett was actually do) then sure, I'd peg him as a lot more likely to have flipped out enough to cut the flesh off her down to bone and slice her face to ribbons.

Mary -did- have other work, which Barnett (as far as I can tell) encouraged her toward. What he actually did complain about was her having sex with other men - and you know, if I was Barnett? I'd probably do the same, because hey, syphilis was a take-home bonus in those days, and there was a Ripper on the streets, never mind the 'sex with other men' part.

The only friends I -know- he complained about were prostitutes. Does it not make any sense to you at all that a man (whether he'd paid for sex at any stage or not) might not want to them in his home (which was what? all of one room?) or that he might think she could actually do better for friends, or that he might be concerned they'd lead her right back into a bad (and at the time particularly dangerous) kind of life?

I don't mean to become entrenched in equivocation over it - but to me there's very clearly not a lot of logic in depicting Barnett as a slavering bully and Mary as some sort of noble suffragette struggling for independence, given that what was -actually- documented about their relationship shows that she didn't give a damn what he thought or felt about her risk-taking - nor much of one for Barnett himself.