the key

[claire]

Perhaps. But this "simple" explanation seemingly involves staggering out onto the cold, windy and rainy streets in a more or less drunken state, and meeting an opportunist killer that normally pounced at the first chance given, but who this time allowed his victim to take him inside, undress, fold her clothes and then jump into bed before he made his move. I find that more than a tad strange. Why not knock her off immediately? What practical use would be involved in waiting? None, I think - and one thing we can say about our killer is that he was a very practical man.

I think this is key. I've toyed in the past with the notion that he may have subdued her/killed her straight off, and then removed the clothes (notwithstanding the seemingly neat pile of them--it's possible he may have done that). But that makes little sense: there's no mention of the folded clothes being blood-stained, and such an argument would involve him removing garments he didn't need to (one stocking, where the other seems to have been left in place), and leaving another (the chemise), when it would have served him better to have removed that.

The other issue, of course, is that if he had no prior knowledge of Kelly (and therefore no way of knowing whether she was living with someone that might return at any moment), I can't see him lingering to let her undress herself: why bother?

Everything (her position on the bed; the blood spatter) speaks to her already being in bed when she was killed. A murderous chap posing as a punter wouldn't trouble to wait for all that prevarication--why would he? So, to me, I see her as already being in bed when he came into the room; a prowler seeking a random victim couldn't have picked a riskier place, in many ways: if someone surprised him by coming in, the court was a dead-end, and running up the passageway would have permitted any number of folk to be roused by the yelling of the interceptor.

All this suggests to me that Kelly's killer had at least a passing knowledge of her and her circumstances, and such knowledge would make the possession, or otherwise, of a key irrelevant.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"it was clear (to me anyway) this wasn’t a domestic and the police were satisfied about that."

If Barnett needs to be fit into the equation before we can speak of a domestic, then yes, I think you and the police are/were correct in dropping the possibility. I also think they (the police, not you) did so because they had been given an alibi by Barnett that held all the water in the world.
Then again, this does not preclude that Kelly was killed by somebody she knew and who harboured deep feelings for her. She did have a record of very many relationships with men, given her line of business. Some of them would have been regular customers who may have taken a very active interest in her, others, like Fleming, were actually lovers.

"I remember saying on one of the other threads I see no reason why Kelly couldn’t have gone out again – particularly if she was a habitual drunk who can often sober up quickly – a topper!
That is what I presume happened."

Could have - absolutely. But I think the "Whoa, am I stoned and tired, and look at that bloody weather"-alternative is at the very least as useful. One can reflect that nobody came forward to claim they had seen Kelly soliciting in the streets at the crucial hour (but for Hutchinson, and you know my sentiments about all that ...), and maybe that tells us something?

"The Ripper gaining access in such a manner as you describe is a change in MO that is not really necessary to understand what happened and I think is at odds with his profile. For example unless you agree that he was observing and stalking for some time (as some do) how did the Ripper know that she was alone?"

Ah! But you see, the long and the short of it is that I do not think that the Ripper came to Miller´s Court with an intent to kill Kelly. I think that he knew her well, and came to see her, and was let in by her, simple as that. I have expanded on this in a longish article in Ripperologist 97, if you care to see what I mean. In it, I pointed my finger at Joe Fleming as her probable killer, but I am open for other killers too, as long as they were people who knew and took an interest in her.

"Street walkers walked the streets even on bad nights. That is what they did. Often while drunk."

Absolutely! But NOT as a rule, Lechmere! Street walkers would have the same sentiments about foul weather as we do: they may sometimes feel they need to go out into it, but they prefer staying away from it. So it is anybody´s guess here.

"I am fairly sure the Ripper on each occasion followed his victim to wherever they took him, near where they met."

So am I, Lechmere, when it comes to Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes - but not when it comes to Kelly. I think he sought her out, knowing where to find her. She was another type than the others, remember; much younger, prettier, stronger, more able to defend herself, a less easy prey. She does not fit the bill, she does not represent the kind of low-life rundown streetwalker that he otherwise chose. And I for one think that is significant.

"She may well have said, ‘Come back to my place’, and he may have thought ‘That will do nicely’ and so he was willing to wait before doing it. In fact I should say that is the most likely chain of events."

She may. And it is anything but unlikely. But doing it that way would include taking a walk with her during which he could have been spotted! Of course, the street where he purportedly met her could have been an empty one - but then again, we know that an empty street and a prostitute in companionship with him normally meant a strike out in the open in his case. In your scenario, we need to accept that he quickly readjusted to the new possibility and went for the chance of getting a place in which to expand on his urges for a much longer time. Perhaps so - but not necessarily: It would be a major change. Likewise, why would he, a true blitz-style killer, wait for her to undress, to fold her clothes and put them away and to crawl up in the far end of the bed before he attacked? It offered a poor angle from which to go about his work. Because he liked to build up expectations and tension first? Maybe. But I don´t think it tallies with what we see in the other instances.

"There is often a progression in serial killer brutality"

Absolutely. But is this what we see in the Ripper case? Is it not more a series of murders where we see the same thing - a subduing, a cut throat, an opened belly and the killer scuttling off with some innard/s. I think that he was disturbed in Buck´s Row, and thus did not have the time to get his hand on any innards. Otherwise, it is pretty much the same story in all cases (but for the cuts to Eddowes face). These are all very practical deeds in essence, if we work from the premise that he came to eviscerate.
Kelly - different story.

"Also if you agree that Stride was a Ripper victim (as I do), then he was most likely disturbed then as well. I think you don’t include Stride though?"

I don´t, that´s correct - but for another thread!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Welcome back, Fish."

Thanks!

"I still derive immense pleasure from plucking the odd tench or roach"

So do I - but one thing does not rule the other out!

"I agree very much with your observations."

Again thanks.

"it appears that Mary Cox was also soliciting that night, and yet she does not appear to have serviced any of her clients in her room."

True - but we do of course have Prater on print saying that the ladies of the court would do just that. So it is anybody´s guess. But I think the material fits a lot better when we accept that the killer came to Kelly´s place alone and at his own initiative.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Claire:

"I think this is key. I've toyed in the past with the notion that he may have subdued her/killed her straight off, and then removed the clothes (notwithstanding the seemingly neat pile of them--it's possible he may have done that). But that makes little sense: there's no mention of the folded clothes being blood-stained, and such an argument would involve him removing garments he didn't need to (one stocking, where the other seems to have been left in place), and leaving another (the chemise), when it would have served him better to have removed that.

The other issue, of course, is that if he had no prior knowledge of Kelly (and therefore no way of knowing whether she was living with someone that might return at any moment), I can't see him lingering to let her undress herself: why bother?

Everything (her position on the bed; the blood spatter) speaks to her already being in bed when she was killed. A murderous chap posing as a punter wouldn't trouble to wait for all that prevarication--why would he? So, to me, I see her as already being in bed when he came into the room; a prowler seeking a random victim couldn't have picked a riskier place, in many ways: if someone surprised him by coming in, the court was a dead-end, and running up the passageway would have permitted any number of folk to be roused by the yelling of the interceptor.

All this suggests to me that Kelly's killer had at least a passing knowledge of her and her circumstances, and such knowledge would make the possession, or otherwise, of a key irrelevant."

Claire means "light", right? Makes sense to me! This is the way I see it too. Thanks, Claire!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Several things puzzle me.
The murder scene, depicts Kelly laying on the bed wearing just a chemise, [ possibly a stocking on her right leg].. also rolled up bedding.
Her boots were placed near the fireplace. which would indicate that she was alive when the fire was lit, the rolled up bedding would indicate that although Mary was found mutilated on the bed , it was not a scene which portrays a early am murder.
The most likely event being that she was awake, and either dressing, or undressing, when she was attacked, and also had already made her bed [ hence the bedroll.]
So what do we know?
Maxwell claims to have seen her.
Maurice Lewis ditto..
The former observes her with a man described as a market porter around 845am.
The police had the impression that the murder was committed in daylight.
Why?
The police commented that her velvet jacket and bonnet, were burnt because they were bloodstained.
Explanations please?
I believe the following happened.
Blotchy man happened , but was not her killer.
Mr A might have happened, but was not her killer, leaving around 6am.
Mary Kelly awoke from Catherine P's knock, dressed , lit the fire , rolled up the bedding, and ventured out ,feeling none too good, met Maxwell , then met her killer around 830 am mentioning that she wanted to go to the lord mayors show, but had no one to go with..''Ill take you'' he replied, where do you live , I will call for you.. ''Down Millers court second door , on the right, I will get myself dressed up for the occasion ''
She returns to her room, lays out her black jacket and bonnet on the bed beside her, and begins to undress, a knock on the door '' Are you ready?..Come in .
During the bloodbath her jacket and bonnet are stained, and her killer had the presence of mind to realize that her jacket and bonnet, and the blood on the garments would not indicate a night time murder, as these articles would have been on a chair not left on the bed, so he stoked up the fire with the boys shirts etc, and dispensed of the jacket and bonnet, thus giving the impression that she had met her death whilst in bed, and any alibi the killer had, would be accepted.
I do realise folks that I am speculating, but I am attempting to fit the puzzle to many questions.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

For Kelly to be included in the sequence (which I take as read) it doesn’t make sense to me that the killer (Flemming or Barnett or even Hutchinson) knew her but not the others.
While it was a small area, it was very heavily populated, with lots of street walkers and itinerants. Apart from people in her immediate vicinity I doubt that many people knew her.

If she unclothed herself and went to sleep why did she leave one stocking on?
I think the most likely explanation is she picked her murderer up in the street nearby and took him back. He allowed her to partially undress – it would have been a novel situation for him (in killing terms), so maybe he wanted to see what happened. Maybe she momentarily disarmed him by talking away or even singing.

Would he have been worried about someone else arriving? If a prostitute took a client back to her room for sex then I suspect someone else just turning up out of the blue would be an unlikely expectation.
How long would he have been in there? Half an hour at most?

Incidentally it seems very likely that Nichols met her killer somewhere on Whitechapel Road and walked him around to Bucks Row. It also seems likely that Eddowes met her killer on Dukes Place or Bevis Marks and walked him into Mitre Square.
Kelly meeting her killer in Commercial Street and walking him back to Millers Court is surely the most likely scenario.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"For Kelly to be included in the sequence (which I take as read) it doesn’t make sense to me that the killer (Flemming or Barnett or even Hutchinson) knew her but not the others.
While it was a small area, it was very heavily populated, with lots of street walkers and itinerants. Apart from people in her immediate vicinity I doubt that many people knew her."

Are you not contradicting yourself here, Lechmere? You think that only people in Kellys immediate vicinity would have known her, but you think it strange if the killer did not know all the victims...?

Many serialists objectify the people they kill. They kill strangers that only have a symbolic meaning to them, but no personal meaning at all - it makes it a lot easier to kill. Some of them do not uphold "normal" relationships with women, while others do (like Kürten, Bundy, BTK etc). Typically, these killers target women they do not personally know. They don´t start out with the closest prey - their spouses. Our best bet would be that the Ripper did not harbour any deeper emotions for Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. They would have been prey to him, nothing more, if I am correct. Unvoluntary donours, as it were.
So why would he target Kelly? Well, he didn´t, if my hunch is correct. The Kelly killing was not premeditated, methinks. Once again, she was the wrong age, the wrong type and all that - plus she was somebody the killer felt affection for, trusted in. A good deal of material points to her snuggling up in the far end of that bed, undressed, feeling at ease and safe and moving over to allow space for somebody else ...
Something went wrong, that´s what I think. Ripperologist 97 outlines one possible such scenario.

"If she unclothed herself and went to sleep why did she leave one stocking on?"

IF she did - we don´t know - how about it was November, it was an awfully cold and rainy night and she may have felt cold? How about she was drunk, and it is hard to balance on one leg while you take the stocking from your other foot?

Surely the more important factor is that she DID undress and go to bed, by the looks of things - and she did that while the Ripper sat tight and watched, waiting ...? Not in my book!

"Maybe she momentarily disarmed him by talking away or even singing."

Have another look at Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. No momentarily disruption of the plans there! And that lays down the lines along which I look at him. He seems not to be the waiting, biding type if you ask me. The quicker he got to work the better, seemingly.

"Would he have been worried about someone else arriving?"

Who can tell? But IF he was, then why not be swift about things?

"How long would he have been in there? Half an hour at most?"

Impossible to say, but I remember that Sam Flynn sketched a timeline that was surprisingly short and still allowed for all that carnage.

"Kelly meeting her killer in Commercial Street and walking him back to Millers Court is surely the most likely scenario."

It is a useful starting point - but then you run into her undressed state, the folded clothes, the fire, quite possibly started by herself and as such a pointer to her not planning any further nightly excursions, and the position in bed in which she was originally attacked. It all speaks another language.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Kelly meeting her killer in Commercial Street and walking him back to Millers Court is surely the most likely scenario.

I disagree, Lechmere.

Again, there is no evidence from the inquest to suggest that Kelly did anything other than remain indoors after Mary Cox saw her enter the room with the blotchy client at 11:45pm. Kelly was apparently so intoxicated at this time that she was barely capable of saying "goodnight" to her neighbour, and the likelihood is that Blotchy's ale pail contained yet more booze for her consumption, and thus a major disincentive for venturing out into the cold and largely clientless streets again.

If she unclothed herself and went to sleep why did she leave one stocking on?

Because she was drunk.

It certainly points away from a "client" scenario. Why would such a client "disallow" the removal of one final piece of clothing?

There is nothing remotely unusual, incidentally, about a prostitute killer being mildly acquainted with some of his victims. Serialists who target prostitutes are invariably prostitute users, and it isn't remotely unlikely that the ripper encountered some of his future victims under more "contractual" circumstances.

All the best,
Ben

[curious]

I should say not but a sociopath could.



The phrase banality of evil comes to mind.

Good Morning, Henrich,
I agree with you that a sociopath could -- if that word were even still being used.

My research indicates it is now out of favor in the field of psychology, but it's good to know that you and I are both on the same level here.

By what facts of Barnett's life might he be considered a sociopath? Everything in his life screams to me that he is not a sociopath according to the slight amount of research I've done. LaGrand on the other hand . . . if you're looking for a sociopath to suspect.

Here is why Barnett is not:
1. Sociopaths usually have arrest records before they reach 15 and are always in trouble with the law -- not Barnett.
2. Can not sustain long-term relationships. Not Barnett. He had been with Mary Kelly for 18 months and would later marry and stay married.
3. Cannot keep a job -- not Barnett. Had his fish porter license by the time he was 20. Did have job troubles in 1888, but most normal folks can go through job difficulties a time or two in their lives.
4. Not traditional. Barnett seemed very traditional. He was a man who did not want his woman selling herself to other men. A sociopath on the other hand would have been likely to be pimping her out so he could have the money, then beating her when she did not bring home enough money. Joe was still coming around, giving Mary Jane some money when he could. And she is the one who kept the room at Miller's Court. I think a sociopath would have been keeping the best for himself and kicked her out.

Now for banality of evil


You and I must read things very differently. Banality of evil seems the opposite of what was going on in Whitechapel.

That phrase was apparently coined to describe how the German people could be ordinary folks doing such horrible things at the direction of the state during the holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s. Normal people did very evil things because 1. they were ordered by the state; 2. all their neighbors were doing the same thing; 3. therefore their horrible acts were considered "the normal thing to do" because other "normal people" were doing them.

However, in Whitechapel, the murders were considered evil and something only a fiend could do. Something no ordinary Englishman would be capable of.

I can't understand "banality of evil" coming to mind when you consider Joe Barnett or the WM.

I have learned a couple of things I consider valuable, so thanks, Henrich.

curious

[Fisherman]

On the Barnett suggestion:

What Curious writes about Barnett sustaining a long-term relationship (presumably involving sex) with Kelly is important, as is the mentioning of his latter marriage (also presumably involving sex).

Let´s have a look at the Ripper. Was he a person that would reasonably uphold a "normal" relationship, involving normal sex? Does he come across that way?

Of course, people like Ridgway and Rader and Kürten tell us that there are serialists around that uphold a marriage on the one hand while killing heaps of other women on the other. Bundy and Collins also upheld long-term relationships with women they cared for.
Typical for all these men, as far as I can tell, is that they are NOT wife-abusers. Instead they honour their wifes and spouses by treating them affectionately. The sex, though, is not always there in their marital companionships - Kürten and Collins were not keen on sex with their chosen women, whereas they were very sexually oriented when they could add sadism and violence to the agenda - with women THEY DID NOT KNOW OR CARE FOR! Others, like Ridgway, had a voracious sexual appetite in their marriage, and likewise, but with criminal spices added, in their killing sprees.

The common factor for these people, though, is that much as they were ready and able and willing to inflict horrendeous damage on strangers, THEY NEVER DID ANYTHING TO HURT THEIR WIVES AND SPOUSES!

Maybe there is the odd exception to this rule - there always seems to be - but that does detract from the general picture: If Joe Barnett killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes out of lust, then he would statistically NOT have killed Kelly. He would have been fond of her and protected her as any normally functioning husband - and that is exactly how he comes across at the inquest and as a married man in later life: A normal, caring husband type of man.

If we look at Fleming, on the other hand, and apply Curious´ four points on him:

1. Have early arrest records - we DO have a young Joe Fleming on record, that may be our boy, in the police records.
2. Cannot sustain long-term relationships - and look at what happened with him and Kelly...
3. Cannot keep a job - and he did go from plasterer all the way down the line of odd jobs, apparently.
4. Not traditional - fits the bill there too, with delusions, namechanges, incarcerations and all.

Just as an example, Fleming seems a far better bid in the Kelly case than Barnett. That is not to say that it was him - any closely aquainted man (or any man who believed himself to be closely aquainted) to Kelly will do nicely for me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

Hi,
Several things puzzle me.

I read your post, richardnunweek, but I am unclear just what is puzzling you.

The most likely event being that she was awake, and either dressing, or undressing, when she was attacked, and also had already made her bed [ hence the bedroll.]

This is too speculative to be of value, richardnunweek. It is just as probable that Mary Kelly had been asleep and the bed cover could have been rolled up and placed on the bedside table by the killer.

The police had the impression that the murder was committed in daylight.

I would like to know where you got this information, richardnunweek.

The police commented that her velvet jacket and bonnet, were burnt because they were bloodstained.
Explanations please?

Actually, Inspector Abberline (not the brightest to be sure) thought Kelly's clothes were burnt by the murderer to provide light, as the room was otherwise only dimly lit by a single candle (Inspector Abberline's inquest testimony, 12 November 1888, quoted in Evans and Rumbelow, p. 185; Evans and Skinner, pp. 375–376 and Marriott, p. 177; Fido, p. 95). Again highly speculative on his part as burning clothing would not provide much light and there was a candle in the room not even half used.

For Kelly to be included in the sequence (which I take as read) it doesn’t make sense to me that the killer (Flemming or Barnett or even Hutchinson) knew her but not the others.
While it was a small area, it was very heavily populated, with lots of street walkers and itinerants. Apart from people in her immediate vicinity I doubt that many people knew her.

But the prostitutes did know each other, sharing dwellings and drinking in the same pubs. Joseph Barnett mixed in their circle and he tells how Mary Kelly would invite them to their shared room.

If she unclothed herself and went to sleep why did she leave one stocking on?

There is no contemporaneous mention of a sock and what looks like a sock in the poor resolution pictures could be something else, perhaps one leg of pulled-down drawers.

Incidentally it seems very likely that Nichols met her killer somewhere on Whitechapel Road and walked him around to Bucks Row. It also seems likely that Eddowes met her killer on Dukes Place or Bevis Marks and walked him into Mitre Square.
Kelly meeting her killer in Commercial Street and walking him back to Millers Court is surely the most likely scenario.

These boots were made for walkin'.

[Lechmere]

Fisherman
Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly - I think it is extremely unlikely that the killer knew the victims or that the victims knew each other - because it was such a densely populated area. What are quite short distances contained populations that today would be in substantial towns in their own right.
(There is no evidence to suggest the victims knew each other Heinrich).
I don’t think the Ripper deliberately chose rough looking women. I think rough looking women tended to be what was available. That explains the Kelly exception.
The other victims were killed in the open. He had to be hurried. Kelly, probably unexpectedly, took him to a relatively safe location. He could afford to slightly bide his time. Maybe the fact that she was attractive was an added incentive to linger.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Heinrich,
The Times November 12TH mentions both the daylight opinion , and the burnt velvet and bonnet, and the reasoning for it being burnt.
Note this edition was published on the Monday, which gave the police ample time to consider that opinion.
Can you honestly imagine a bloodthirsty killer tidily roll up the bedroll, and place what has been suggested as the stocking of Mary's left leg over it., rather then sling away every thing in his way?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly - I think it is extremely unlikely that the killer knew the victims or that the victims knew each other - because it was such a densely populated area. What are quite short distances contained populations that today would be in substantial towns in their own right."

Ah - maybe I simply misunderstood you. With this I agree on the whole. But densely populated town areas are not a hinderance as such for forming friendships! Although most people would have been strangers to each other, just like you say, there would have been networks of friends too. And Kelly would have had an extensive story of male friends and lovers, some jilted, some perhaps missed - who can tell? - behind her. Apparently, she had attraction enough to even go on export to France, and she upheld contact with (at least) two lovers at the same time in the autumn of 88. That in itself spells danger to most people´s ears, I should think.

"I don’t think the Ripper deliberately chose rough looking women. I think rough looking women tended to be what was available."

By and large, that is something I do not agree with, I´m afraid. The East end was swarming with prostitutes of all shapes and forms. Kelly was goodlooking, or so it was said. A girl like Coles did not look bad either, we know that from her photo. And there would have been hudreds of likewise relatively young and goodlooking prostitutes around.
So why did he not choose them?
Of course, prostitution, like all other branches of trade, sets it prices according to supply and demand. If the youngest and prettiest girls had cost the same as the aging women of fading - or no - beauty, nobody but the ones with a flair for old, plain or outright ugly women would take advantage of the latter category. And that would soon put them out of business, right?
So what do they do about this problem? Exactly - they lower their price until they hit a market.

But what about the Ripper? He was not about to pay, was he? And that means that he could have chosen ANY prostitute on them streets - but he opted for middle-aged, drunken, sickly women just the same.

Therefore, this must be regarded as carrying significance!

He apparently chose this category of women for some reason. And that could have been one of many reasons; he could have wanted women he knew he could easily subdue, he could have had a flair for older women, he could have looked for somebody who resembled some woman from his own history etcetera. The main thing to keep in mind here is that he DID opt for this category when arguably given a choice. If he disliked what he saw, he could have waited - he was on the prowl throughout the whole autumn and must have come in contact with lots of younger and better looking girls during that time.

Therefore, once again, Kelly is an obvious anomaly. She does not answer to the type of woman our boy had earlier and consistently proven to go for, simple as that. She was not the right stuff, by the looks of things. And still I say that she WAS slain by the man we have come to know as Jack the Ripper - the medical evidence points a very clear finger at him, I think.

Conclusion? Mary Kelly was killed by the same hand - but quite possibly for another reason. My suggestion is that she was killed by a man from her background, most probably somebody with whom she upheld or had previously upheld a love affair, somebody who had killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, but somebody who did not arrive at Miller´s Court with murder on his mind. But something went wrong, and he lost it totally and killed her.

This would explain the homely scene with Kelly undressed, the fact that she was snuggled up in the corner of the bed when she was attacked - because somebody was taking up the rest of the space in her bed - and it would also perhaps explain why the murders came to an end after Kelly. It would perhaps also explain the total annihilation of Kelly. Anybody who takes a look at the amish killer Gingrich - who killed his wife, stamped out her facial features and cut her open, pulling all her internal organs out and arranging them in a tidy pile, will immediately realize the potential parallel. Most murders where damages on the scale that Kelly suffered are inflicted, are victims of people on whom they have had a deep emotional impact.

If the killer was unaquainted with Kelly, I don´t see him waiting for her to put her shoes away, light a cosy fire, roll up the bedroll and undress, after which he crept in behind her in that bed before he remembered what he was there for. I just don´t. Many uncertain factors, yes, I know - but that is how I read things. And the ordinarily acting Ripper does not fit in - only the Ripper acting in another role and killing for another purpose.

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

Some good points, Fisherman. Although, of course, we can't know the nature of Barnett's relationships, either with Kelly or, later, with the wife that he claimed to have married in the first or second quarter of 1888 (which claim, in itself, speaks to his desire to dissociate himself from any of the events of later that year--although one could hardly hold him culpable on that score).

That said, as you know, I'd prefer Fleming as a more viable candidate than Barnett, for the reasons you list, if I had to choose between the two. There was a man for whom the absence of a key would have meant nothing--he could quite readily have been invited--or welcomed--in. Whereas Barnett, if his record is to be trusted, seemed simply to have assumed a rather more protective role towards Kelly.