the key

[Garry Wroe]

I would suggest that you re-evaluate 'opportunity', Heinrich. Mary Jane was seen very much alive several hours after her early-evening encounter with Barnett.

Unless, of course, you are proposing that Barnett administered a slow-acting poison before heading off for a game of whist.

[The Good Michael]

If the police questioned Barnett incorrectly, his echolalia could have kicked in in his favor. For example:

Abberline: After 8 pm, you didn't meet her?

Barnett: Didn't meet her.

Abberline: And you say that you had no argument.

Barnett: No argument.

Abberline: Often we look to people close to the victims as suspects. Yet, this murder seems too methodical.

Barnett: Too methodical.

Abberline: Where were you after you left Kelly? Maybe you were with friends?

Barnett: with friends

Abberline: If it is as you say, I assume many can vouch for this?

Barnett: Many can vouch for this.

Abberline: Fine, you may leave.

Barnett: You may leave.

Abberline: No, you first.

Barnett: You first.

Abberline: Fine

Barnett: fine.

Abberline (to no one in particular): This man couldn't have done it.

Barnett (softly, on his way out): Maybe, maybe not.

[Ausgirl]

Hello, noob here.

Just addressing a point raised by Fisherman: serial killers don't need to know a victim to eviscerate and deface them. Lots of them have done so, to women they don't know from soap. But too, they do sometimes stalk their victims for a time before attacking, and therefore come to feel they have some sort of personal relationship with them so the murder looks a lot more personal than it was. Often when the victim is a person who is actually known to the killer they will cover their face or body afterwards. It's crossed my mind that perhaps JTR did stalk some of his victims a bit, studying where they usually took their customers, scoping out the likelihood of discovery at their preferred sites, etc.

Anyway, I was thinking about the back-and-forth that's been going on regarding Barnett being let go by the police. I would figure that after four previous murders, and with the amount of publicity and general public hysteria and so on, that there would have been a tremendous deal of pressure to make an arrest.

It could be reasonably assumed, I think, that a man who so clearly had motive, means and opportunity would have been thoroughly raked over the coals before being let loose. I can't see it being anything but the result of the police being very sure indeed that he was not the man they were looking for. It doesn't make sense to me that they'd have released Barnett otherwise.

[The Good Michael]

It could be reasonably assumed, I think, that a man who so clearly had motive, means and opportunity would have been thoroughly raked over the coals before being let loose. I can't see it being anything but the result of the police being very sure indeed that he was not the man they were looking for. It doesn't make sense to me that they'd have released Barnett otherwise.

Nor Hutchinson, nor anyone else, and you are absolutely correct. Yet, you can't tell that to some people because they disagree when it comes to their suspect... fools that they are.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Eddowes's face was mutilated and an organ may have been removed as well. Did Barnett get confused because he somehow found out she had called herself Mary Kelly in the police station or was he practicing?
Or was Eddowes his 'bit on the side'.
And if it wasn't Barnett the same questions go for man mountain Flemming.

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"You are too kind (gullible), Fisherman."

I´ve been called a good many things over the years out here - but this is a first!

"Both."

Ehrm - if Barnett lied AND the police found his story to be true, then something is very much amiss.

"You think so, Fisherman?"

That was why I said so, yes. And I see no reason to doubt it. Or are you of the meaning that the police refrained from taking a close look at spouses in murder cases...?

"I have given the reasons why I think Joseph Barnett has to be Mary Kelly's killer in earlier posts on this thread, Fisherman."

I know. I read it. And found eminent reason to point out what I think is a number of flaws, misconceptions and exaggerations.
If I had agreed, I would have said so.

"In his half-truths, he indicates his motive, namely a complicated concoction of jealousy, failed-manipulation, and hostility."

Nope. It is all you reading it in, without it being there. That is why people disagree with you.

"He had the means insofar as filleting knives were plentiful at the Billingsgate Fish Market where he had worked until his recent sacking. And he had the opportunity, having been left alone in Mary Kelly's company on the night of her murder with the ability to come and go despite a lost key."

It´s a miracle the police did not pounce on him! Filleting knives AND a connection!

... and you still question that the police took an interest in him ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ausgirl:

"serial killers don't need to know a victim to eviscerate and deface them."

... like Kate Eddowes, for example. I know, Ausgirl! But grotesquely over-the-top violence, combined with the element of obscuring the identity by means of hiding the face during the deed IS very much coupled to an aquaintance (and sometimes, I gather, a psychosis on behalf of the killer). Deep water, this ...

"It could be reasonably assumed, I think, that a man who so clearly had motive, means and opportunity would have been thoroughly raked over the coals before being let loose. I can't see it being anything but the result of the police being very sure indeed that he was not the man they were looking for. It doesn't make sense to me that they'd have released Barnett otherwise."

That´s a lot shallower - no doubts there, as far as I can see, and I totally concur!

... but Heinrich wil call you kind and gullible, mind you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Eddowes's face was mutilated and an organ may have been removed as well. Did Barnett get confused because he somehow found out she had called herself Mary Kelly in the police station or was he practicing?
Or was Eddowes his 'bit on the side'.
And if it wasn't Barnett the same questions go for man mountain Flemming."

I´ll have a go at the second proposal, Lechmere: Fleming. If he was the killer, then I suspect he killed all four, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. But I think he killed the former three, all unknown to him, for lust, and Kelly for another reason. Fear, paranoia, a feeling of having been betrayed - something along those lines.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

...I´ll have a go at the second proposal, Lechmere: Fleming. If he was the killer, then I suspect he killed all four, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

Always my first choice, I should rightly call him my #1 Person of Interest in the Kelly murder. We need to know more about him, didn't he end up in an asylum ?

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

....
... are you of the meaning that the police refrained from taking a close look at spouses in murder cases...?

The Metropolitan Police were incompetent, Fisherman.

Nope. It is all you reading it in, without it being there. That is why people disagree with you.

Only you disagree with me, Fisherman, and maybe one or two others.

It´s a miracle the police did not pounce on him! Filleting knives AND a connection!

Now you're talking!

[claire]

Always my first choice, I should rightly call him my #1 Person of Interest in the Kelly murder. We need to know more about him, didn't he end up in an asylum ?

Regards, Jon S.

Fleming was removed to the City of London Asylum (at Stone--aka Stone House) in July 1892 after being found on Bishopsgate convinced people were after him. Debra Arif has found docs that seem to show his admission was sponsored (funded) by the parish of Bethnal Green, where Fleming's parents lived for many years. He remained at Stone House until February 14 1895, when he was transferred to Claybury Asylum, where he died in (I'm working off memory) 1920. Whilst at Stone House, he was referred for release on at least one occasion, but demonstrated what was thought of as paranoia at what was to be his final examination, and release was therefore cancelled.

Whilst at the asylums, Fleming went by the name James Evans, and both names were recorded on his death certificate. Fisherman has also referred to a much earlier report of a youth named Joseph Fleming caught trying to gain access to a woman's house (with an accomplice), in possession of (again, from memory) a chisel or some other tool consistent with the building trade.

In spite of the fact that Kelly's Fleming was said to have been a plasterer or someone in the building trade, and this occupation is also alluded to by the Stone House Fleming (Chris Scott managed to access medical notes that include an entry where Fleming insists that the examining doctor was called Isaacs, and that he'd done a bit of work on his house in the Mile End-road), there are some that believe that the Stone House/Claybury Fleming is not Kelly's Fleming, preferring another candidate who is listed in the census as a boot finisher.

(Small potted history of Joseph Fleming )

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“Hence, nothing consistent with a murderous attack from a burglar breaking in”

While I doubt very much that "burglary" was the killer’s primary incentive for visiting #13 Miller’s Court, the cry of “Oh murder” is perfectly consistent with an intruder attacking Kelly as she slept. No evidence whatsoever of her being in a “relaxed state” with her killer. If Kelly was awake during the minutes prior to her death, and in a “relaxed state”, the likelihood of conversation taking place shortly before the cries heard by Lewis and Prater was markedly increased, as were the chances of her becoming aware of her impending fate and crying out/resisting accordingly, and yet the witnesses made no reference to any audible precursor to those cries. A sleeping victim is far easier to subdue than an active one, after all.

As you appear to acknowledge, the “intruder” premise is not dependent on the killer having used any window "trick". He could easily have pushed open the door that Kelly had failed to lock in her tiredness and intoxication. There is nothing to rule out such a premise as the “most likely scenario”.

I think we can safely expunge any consideration of well-dressed “gents” having anything to do with Kelly’s murder. The idea of such an individual venturing into that locality in conspicuously “gentlemanly” attire is very unrealistic, and the likelihood is that any prostitute would have been most wary of an opulent-looking and out-of-place individual at the height of the ripper “scare”. In addition to which, the crime scene evidences affords us no good reason at all to think that Kelly spent any appreciable time with her killer before the murder.

Hi Mike,

“Nor Hutchinson, nor anyone else, and you are absolutely correct.”

A very poor and inapplicable comparison to Barnett, I’m afraid.

Barnett was interviewed as a suspect.

There is no evidence that the police ever contemplated Hutchinson as such.

You can't dismiss as a suspect someone who was never considered suspicious (at least not in a potentially murderous capacity).

All the best,

Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
While I doubt very much that "burglary" was the killer’s primary incentive for visiting #13 Miller’s Court,..

But Ben, burglary is not an incentive, burglary is a means of entry only!
In other words to break-in & enter a premises is called "burglary" (British Law), whether the incentive is murder, robbery or just to shelter from the rain.

...the cry of “Oh murder” is perfectly consistent with an intruder attacking Kelly as she slept.

Certainly, but the contention is, what was the attacker doing before he struck? - was he lying beside her, or did he break in?

No evidence whatsoever of her being in a “relaxed state” with her killer.

Thats precisely what the rudimentry evidence suggests.

If Kelly was awake during the minutes prior to her death, and in a “relaxed state”, the likelihood of conversation taking place shortly before the cries heard by Lewis and Prater was markedly increased, as were the chances of her becoming aware of her impending fate and crying out/resisting accordingly, and yet the witnesses made no reference to any audible precursor to those cries. A sleeping victim is far easier to subdue than an active one, after all.

Bruises on the backs of her hands and 'possibly' the cuts to her arms, can be viewed as defensive wounds, which certainly indicate she had time to fight, therefore advanced warning, if only measured in seconds.

I think we can safely expunge any consideration of well-dressed “gents” having anything to do with Kelly’s murder. The idea of such an individual venturing into that locality in conspicuously “gentlemanly” attire is very unrealistic, and the likelihood is that any prostitute would have been most wary of an opulent-looking and out-of-place individual at the height of the ripper “scare”.

We cannot safely expunge anything, and a man befitting such a description was seen in "that locality" by three, possibly four people on different nights.

In addition to which, the crime scene evidences affords us no good reason at all to think that Kelly spent any appreciable time with her killer before the murder.

Crime scene evidence? - like what, tea and biscuits?

I don't know what you mean by 'appreciable time', 30-45 mins is not out of the question. Some people choose to think that Blotchy waited over 3 hrs before making his move. If the man Hutchinson saw was her killer, then we are looking at about one hour. Alternately, if he left between 3:00-3:30am then another 'client' may have been the culprit. As the cries were not heard much before 4:00am then roughly 20-30 mins may have been sufficient.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Noise would have been a problem for any attacker,but we have evidence from the occupiers of the room above on the absence of noise in the room below.We have evidence from Aberline that it was easy to operate the bolt from outside,so again I do not see noise as a problem.I visulise the killer as someone familiar with the interior,and who would naturally be cautious in his movements.The darkness would have been no greater to anyone entering than to a person already inside.My surmise of an unauthorised entry has no more if's and lack of evidence,than the claim someone entered in her company,or at her request.That she was asleep in bed alone,attested to by her lack of wearing apparell when found,has as much evidential value as the assumption that she was in bed with a client.Whatever way one studies the problem of entry,the inescapable fact is that the killer completed his task without arousing the suspicion of anyone in the court,and perhaps untill the very last seconds,even suspicion by the victim herself.That alone might suggest a lack of noise and a maximum of care,and more to the point,a familiarity with victim,room and circumstances.So if my reasonings lack credability due to the absence of evidence,then before citing the chances of Barnett or any other,at least place him or they in or near 13 Millers court that night.By evidence.

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"The Metropolitan Police were incompetent, Fisherman."

Competence, Heinrich, is something we all have to live up to. The Met would not have been an incompetent police organization, least of all if we take a look at the context in which they worked. Plus we know full well that Barnett was subjected to a four-hour interview.

"Only you disagree with me, Fisherman, and maybe one or two others."

I don´t disagree when it comes to recognizing spouses as useful bids for the killer´s role, Heinrich. I simply think that there is enough in it to make the call that Barnett very likely had a useful alibi for the Kelly murder. And I can see more than just the one or two people concurring with me about that, to be honest. Then again, when we start making our calls on grounds of how many people we think will agree with us, we need to go back and rethink our approach to the material.

The best,
Fisherman