the key

[Heinrich]

I’m sorry that is not evidence, that is pure conjecture. Using your parameters anyone who had a quarrel with MJK during her lifetime, owned a knife or who had ever used one and had access to Dorset Street would be a viable suspect.

It is evidence to use the statements given at Mary Kelly's inquest and not at all conjecture, pure or impure, Bob. Not "a quarrel", Bob but a pattern of rows up to within a fortnight of the murder and probably on the very night itself. There is no need to go back to Mary's childhood and add to the list of suspects anyone who had had an argument with her. Not "access to Dorset Street", Bob, but the ability to come and go from 13 Miller's Court at will, until lately the shared address of Joseph Barnett and Mary Kelly.

No MJK was not murdered on Thursday night Friday morning, unless the killer started cutting her throat at one minute to midnight on Thursday and completed the task at one minute past. All the reliable evidence points to her being killed on Friday morning, therefore the night of the murder would be Friday night. I’ve no idea why you’re bringing Wednesday into this. Please don’t try and rearrange the calendar – we had enough trouble when they did that last time.

We do not know the time of Mary Kelly's murder; it could have been before midnight. Had she been murdered by Joseph Barnett at, say 2 a.m., that would be the middle of the night (Thursday) and, it would certainly not be taken to mean Friday night by any native English speaker. The night of the murder then, was indeed Thursday even if it was technically Friday morning and Joseph Barnett was with her then.

I’m afraid this sentence “ when Joseph Barnett was the last person who admits being seen in her company by Maria Harvey.” Is gibberish.

Actually, you quoted a clause, Bob, not a sentence and it appears you overlooked Post #482. It is unfair to members to be repeating the same information already posted in the thread.

...
Heinrich, it could equally be seen that Barnett was refusing to be controlled by Mary Kelly.

I do not believe that possibility matches the facts, Ausgirl, because Mary Kelly was already a prostitute when Joseph Barnett picked her up as one of her customers. He then tried to get her to quit her livelihood and her friends. That is manipulative whereas there is nothing to suggest that Mary Kelly was pressuring Joseph Barnett to change anything about his life, not even to get a job after he got himself sacked. She was prepared to get customers and provide for herself and him while he dossed about complaining about her lifestyle. I am prepared to believe that Joseph Barnett left her as he claimed but Mary Kelly would have been well within her rights to tell the possessive Joseph Barnett to get lost and might well have done so.

[Ausgirl]

@Bob Hinton:

When you have a suspect it is wrong to find evidence that implicates him, that way you only look at the points that establish his guilt. You must try and exonerate him.

I just wanted to say thank you for that.

Wickerman, thanks also, for the correction on the hat & shirts. I did mean to say *hat and jacket* not 'jacket and coat'; posting while half asleep holds ill for clarity. Where was the coat (if it's not the same garment that was burned), by the way? I couldn't find any information on where it was in the room.

In any case, I really cannot see blood being the reason for burning those items. It makes absolutely no sense, in context with the crime scene.

It is interesting that the shirts were never recovered. Had Mary - desperate for her rent- sold them? I doubt it, seeing as she likely had more valuable items at hand, unless they were very fine shirts and worth more than a velvet jacket. But if the killer took them - why all three? So yes, quite possibly they were used on the fire.

Heinrich, it could equally be seen that Barnett was refusing to be controlled by Mary Kelly.

He wasn't the one bringing prostitutes into their home against his partner's wishes, or having sex with others, or spending the rent on drink (which why I assume a young, pretty prostitute was broke, unless she wasn't working all that often in that capacity). Seems to me that Kelly was fairly bent on doing exactly what she wanted, and is reported as stating that she couldn't stand him when he was home - perhaps she was stringing him along, using poor old smitten Joe as a rent machine and a bit of security until something better came along, rather than having any genuine feeling for him. Which would be more manipulative, imo, than Barnett's simple desire that she clean her life up.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

There is more evidence against Joseph Barnett in the murder of Mary Kelly than anyone else, Bob, and I have gone over it earlier in this thread. Principally the evidence relates to motive (admitted rows with Mary Kelly's and her refusal to be controlled by him), means (familiar with filleting knives from his workplace), and opportunity (the ability to come and go at will at 13 Miller's Court).



Mary Kelly was murdered on Thursday night/Friday morning, the very same time (not the previous night of Wednesday) when Joseph Barnett was the last person who admits being seen in her company by Maria Harvey.

I’m sorry that is not evidence, that is pure conjecture. Using your parameters anyone who had a quarrel with MJK during her lifetime, owned a knife or who had ever used one and had access to Dorset Street would be a viable suspect.

No MJK was not murdered on Thursday night Friday morning, unless the killer started cutting her throat at one minute to midnight on Thursday and completed the task at one minute past. All the reliable evidence points to her being killed on Friday morning, therefore the night of the murder would be Friday night. I’ve no idea why you’re bringing Wednesday into this. Please don’t try and rearrange the calendar – we had enough trouble when they did that last time.

I’m afraid this sentence “ when Joseph Barnett was the last person who admits being seen in her company by Maria Harvey.” Is gibberish.

[Sally]

Ah..

It was a representative of Mccarthy.

Mike

So McCarthy didn't attend himself? Interesting...

[Heinrich]

No the police had absolutely no evidence at all that BARNETT was in any way involved with MJK's murder. If you think there is evidence then let us know what it is.

There is more evidence against Joseph Barnett in the murder of Mary Kelly than anyone else, Bob, and I have gone over it earlier in this thread. Principally the evidence relates to motive (admitted rows with Mary Kelly's and her refusal to be controlled by him), means (familiar with filleting knives from his workplace), and opportunity (the ability to come and go at will at 13 Miller's Court).

Maria Harvey did not place Barnett at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder. She placed him at the scene the previous night, Thursday - MJK was murdered on Friday.

Mary Kelly was murdered on Thursday night/Friday morning, the very same time (not the previous night of Wednesday) when Joseph Barnett was the last person who admits being seen in her company by Maria Harvey.

[Bob Hinton]

It is the job of the police to find evidence and see who that points to most which, in the case of Mary Kelly's murder, would be Joseph Barnett.

One witness, Maria Harvey, did put him at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder as he admitted himself while Joseph Fleming was nowhere to be seen.

No the police had absolutely no evidence at all that BARNETT was in any way involved with MJK's murder. If you think there is evidence then let us know what it is.

Maria Harvey did not place Barnett at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder. She placed him at the scene the previous night, Thursday - MJK was murdered on Friday.

[Wickerman]

If she was wearing different clothes when she went out later, why wouldn't he burn those? Why the hat (okay I can see a straw bonnet being good fuel)

The remains of a hat consisted of a piece of wire-frame, if I recall correctly. So, not a straw bonnet.

...and the jacket (which would not burn well at all)? If the answer's 'her other clothes were damp' or the 'shawl is wool' - well, okay. But that velvet jacket wouldn't burn much easier. Not like dry cotton sheets, or petticoats, or an apron, or something else that -would- burn well. He had a variety of things to burn - and chose the coat and jacket.

There had been three shirts left there by Maria Harvey, none of which were found.

Maybe even, for once, he did get his jollies and there was semen on the coat.

The coat was a pilot-coat, seamen wear them - sailor's? , but they are worn by other people too. The coat was also left there by Maria Harvey.

[Heinrich]

....
When you have a suspect it is wrong to find evidence that implicates him, that way you only look at the points that establish his guilt. You must try and exonerate him.

It is the job of the police to find evidence and see who that points to most which, in the case of Mary Kelly's murder, would be Joseph Barnett.

For example Barnett was fairly well known in the area, don't you find it strange that not one witness came forward to say he was in the immediate area at the time?

One witness, Maria Harvey, did put him at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder as he admitted himself while Joseph Fleming was nowhere to be seen.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Mike,
Yes but we do not know that the other male was the representative Of McCarthy, it could have been one of the six women, that were according to reports, witnesses at the inquest.
So lets list them.
Mrs Cox
Mrs Lewis
Maria Harvey
Mrs Prater
Mrs Maxwell
That is five... any others that we know of? was the representative of McCarthy the sixth woman, it does not have to be the other male, I have always formed the impression that the two men were the chief mourners.
The priest is not a runner, as the sketch does not depict correct attire.
So a short list may Include Dan Barnett, Joe Fleming, or someone representing the family.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Was it McCarthy, Richard? I think I read that somewhere.

It was a representative of Mccarthy.

Mike

[Bob Hinton]

For example, he lived in Whitechapel. He also took a special interest in how the murders were reported in the press and he read these accounts to his last victim. The spate of murders attributed to Jack the Ripper stopped after Barnett murdered Mary Kelly with whom he had been most involved. And so on.

Reading accounts of the killings - as well as about 3 million other people all over the world.

Murders stopped - which could be for a thousand different reasons. He could have emigrated, he could have been one of the 3500 people killed in traffic accidents in London each year, he could have caught typhoid - and any other fatal disease - and died, he could have been murdered himself, he could have been imprisoned, and so on and so on.

When you have a suspect it is wrong to find evidence that implicates him, that way you only look at the points that establish his guilt. You must try and exonerate him.

For example Barnett was fairly well known in the area, don't you find it strange that not one witness came forward to say he was in the immediate area at the time?

[Sally]

Was it McCarthy, Richard? I think I read that somewhere.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
We are all aware of the sketch made at the funeral of Kelly, it depicts six women and two men, one being Joseph Barnett.
Any thoughts on who the other male was?
clearly there are eight persons present, the same number as rode in the two carriages.
Regards Richard.

[Heinrich]

Joseph Fleming. It seems he had form for breaking and entering (although this isn't 100%, admittedly), he entered an asylum with delusions of persecution around 3 or so years after the murders and remained in an asylum until he died, he still saw Kelly, she said he had 'ill-used' her. Far more viable than Barnett, imo--she'd've let him in the door, too, even if he didn't pocket the key.

But I'm not sold on it; frankly, it could have been anyone.

I don't think we need concern ourselves with every Tom, Dick, and Harry, Claire, but I will certainly take a look at Joseph Fleming and how his motive, means, and opportunity compares to those of Joseph Barnett. It gives me a line to pursue.

[claire]

Joseph Fleming. It seems he had form for breaking and entering (although this isn't 100%, admittedly), he entered an asylum with delusions of persecution around 3 or so years after the murders and remained in an asylum until he died, he still saw Kelly, she said he had 'ill-used' her. Far more viable than Barnett, imo--she'd've let him in the door, too, even if he didn't pocket the key.

But I'm not sold on it; frankly, it could have been anyone.