the key

[The Grave Maurice]

Joseph Barnett admitted to being at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder and that he had had a falling out with Mary Kelly. As her domestic partner and living at the same address until recently, he was well aware of how to gain access to the dwelling anytime he wished. As a fish porter he would have had a filleting knife. This gives him the motive, opportunity, and means to be the prime suspect.

Not exactly. Barnett admitted to being at the scene of the crime several hours before her death and to having had a falling out with her a couple of weeks earlier. Several people could have known how to gain access to #13. And why would a porter need a knife? They carry, they don't cut.

As Jon says, Abberline knew all this and let him go. So should we.

[Heinrich]

I think Abberline knew all that...

Jon S.

It is one thing to know something, quite another to act on it.

Not exactly. Barnett admitted to being at the scene of the crime several hours before her death ...

That is, the night of the murder.

... and to having had a falling out with her a couple of weeks earlier.

They had a turbulent relationship involving several arguments. Elizabeth Prater, a neighbor of Kelly, heard her arguing with Barnett on the night the double event (the murder of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes).

... Several people could have known how to gain access to #13.

Especially Joseph Barnett.

... And why would a porter need a knife? They carry, they don't cut.

Actually a fish porter did fillet fish. Besides, filleting knives were aplenty at his workplace.

As Jon says, Abberline knew all this and let him go. So should we.

Since when is letting a murderer get away proof of innocence?
Barnett is our man for sure.

[Abby Normal]

It is one thing to know something, quite another to act on it.



That is, the night of the murder.



They had a turbulent relationship involving several arguments. Elizabeth Prater, a neighbor of Kelly, heard her arguing with Barnett on the night the double event (the murder of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes).



Especially Joseph Barnett.



Actually a fish porter did fillet fish. Besides, filleting knives were aplenty at his workplace.



Since when is letting a murderer get away proof of innocence?
Barnett is our man for sure.

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.

[c.d.]

If Barnett were her murderer, why did he admit to a falling out with her? That doesn't seem wise.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

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

Agreed, and such claims are easy to confirm in lodging-houses where ingress & egress are often recorded.

"Barnett is a porter at the market close by, and he was able to answer the police that on Thursday night he was at a lodging-house in New-street, Bishopsgate-street, and was playing whist there until half-past twelve, when he went to bed."
The Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

Hi
Not sure if he is our man for sure but I think Barnett is a viable candidate. ....

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

No, he said he played cards until after midnight only and then went to bed.
This gave him ample opportunity to go back to Mary Kelly's lodgings and do the deed.

[Heinrich]

If Barnett were her murderer, why did he admit to a falling out with her? That doesn't seem wise.

c.d.

It was common knowledge.
The killer was not especially clever in any case, given the risks he took.

[Phil H]

I don't think we have to assume that Joe murdered all or any of the other women (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes) - buthe may have relied upon what he thought was a copy of "Jack's" methods to deflect attention from him. (Perhaps he has been successful for over 120 years!)

On Abberline and having let him go - I "detect" some double-standards here. As a group - we debate endlessly the defects of the police methods and their failure to make a conviction. We rail against the "pernicious" certainties of Macnagten and Anderson (or some of us do). Yet because Abberline saw and talked to Joe and let him go, he is regarded as "off the hook".

I don't see we can do that - although I understand the NEED to do so on the part of those who have suspects of their own, are irrevocably attached to the canonical five or a single killer etc etc. But that would surely be sophistical - to argue to a conclusion because you need that conclusion?

I agree with those who have said that Joe had means, motive and opportunity (though that other Joe - Fleming - might also have had something similar). The circumstances of the murder - indoors, timing (gap and hour) extent of the mutilations, age of the victim could all argue for a different hand and a wholly different motive from the outdoor murders. (I recognise that one could say that there are other explanations but to argue that would miss my point.)

I believe we should be keeping our options open in regard to potential killers and Joe cannot be ruled out (logically, or in my humble opinion).

On the key - as that is the subject of this thread - the "key" point is that there was confusion over the door - no one could get in. As it defied belief that no one would have tried the door, that the nature of the lock would have been known to McCarthy and (I assume) Bowers at least, and that he had to take a pick axe or some such tool to it, something kept them out. Could it have been that Barnett - as occupant, changed the lock and then removed the key - allowing him to secure the premises.

Finally, is our testimony about opening the door through the broken window pane, only from Barnett? In other words the door may never have been opened in that (to me somewhat dangerous) way.

I do not accuse Joe Barnett - I have insufficient evidence to do so - but I certainly do not think he can be eliminated from OUR enquiries, even if Fred Abberline eliminated Joe from HIS.

Phil

[Wickerman]

On Abberline and having let him go - I "detect" some double-standards here. As a group - we debate endlessly the defects of the police methods and their failure to make a conviction. We rail against the "pernicious" certainties of Macnagten and Anderson (or some of us do). Yet because Abberline saw and talked to Joe and let him go, he is regarded as "off the hook".

What we rail against is relying on memoirs to support feeble arguments, which includes the memoirs of Abberline. What we prefer is to acknowledge the thoughts and actions of all the police, including these same officials, at the time of the murders, not decades later.
No double standard there.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil H]

If you say so, Wickerman.

Phil

[Ben]

I don't suppose for one moment that Barnett was the murderer, but as far as confirmation of his presence in the lodging house is concerned, this would undoubtedly have been provided by his fellow whist players and not by any official record of entrances and exits from the building. This was not common practice.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Obviously no one can be eliminated entirely including Barnett. But unless Abberline and his fellow officers were total fools, they would have had to have realized that Barnett was indeed the prime suspect and acted accordingly in questioning him. They obviously eliminated him as the murderer. I think we have to give that a lot of weight.

I also think that people put way too much emphasis on the whole argument and falling out business. Such events are common then and now and occur regularly without someone having their intestines ripped out.

c.d.

[Sally]

Beat me to it Ben.

Darn it.

[Ben]

Darn it.

Darn it, Barnett!

No lodging house records for you!

[Sally]

Yet because Abberline saw and talked to Joe and let him go, he is regarded as "off the hook".

Phil! I think the point must be that Joe had an alibi. and that's why Abberline let him go. I guess that if Barnett was playing whist in the lodging house until half midnight or so and then went to bed, and then was seen there in the morning by whomsoever saw him - that might have been why he was 'off the hook' as you put it.

'Cos where would the time be to do his old missus in if he was fully accounted for - whenever in the morning one happens to think she copped it.