the key

[Ausgirl]

Heinrich, thank you for the clarification.

Wasn't it this Fleming fellow and not Barnett who treated Mary badly prior to her death, though? I suppose it could feasibly be said that Barnett killed her in a fit of jealousy or out of some warped desire to protect her. But he just doesn't seem very warped on the whole, and there aren't any comments at all that I have found as to his owning a dangerous or terribly suspect disposition despite more than a century's opportunity for people to muckrake those details from associates and relatives and descendants thereof, as has happened with other suspects. I have read of some terrible one-off 'crimes of passion' - notably one in Australia in which a woman killed, decapitated and skinned her ex-lover, cooked bits of him and hung his skin up like a windsock in the entrance hall. But then she, like all the other perpetrators of very gruesome murders and mutilations I have ever heard of, suffered extreme mental illness that manifested quite clearly to all who knew her.

A very, very few killers capable of that degree of mutilation can and do live outwardly normal lives, because they are sociopathic (do forgive my apparently archaic usage of the term) and masking themselves is part of the thrill, or part of their general psychopathy. But they are a rarity. People who can murder, then flense and gut, another human being have something -seriously- wrong with them. If Barnett -had- done this to the woman he loved and claimed to have given up on due to her low-life habits, then imagine what an utterly cold monster he'd have to be to stay so cool-headed and polite through police interviews and in front of all the people who must have thronged about him afterward asking questions.

My point being, nobody's ever stepped forward to say, as far as my admittedly very limited knowledge of him goes (please do correct me if I'm wrong), "Oh yes, that Barnett chap, I never did like him, gave me the willies," or "He used to set fire to cats as a boy," or, "He's not so nice when you get to know him," and the like, which is what I'd expect to hear in regard to somebody who could be so dispassionate after committing such an unspeakably heinous crime. Barnett seems all in all quite affable and eager to help, which really is not a get-out-of-suspect-lineup-free card, I must admit. But Mary wasn't just strangled or stabbed in a garden-variety passion murder, she was --gutted and defleshed and her face was hacked off -- and people who commit one-off crimes of passion, especially very horrible ones like that, are generally less inclined to keep their heads together under pressure, let alone for years and years afterward.

So - as I see it, Barnett either really was Jack the Ripper, serial killer par excellence. Or just a man who loved Mary enough to forgive her shady past, but not so obsessively that he'd let her drag him down into the gutter with her.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Curious,

Like I have said before it does not necessarily follow that Barnett was not charged because he had an air tight alibi, it would have been because the police did not believe that they had the evidence to convict him. If they were attempting to charge him with being Jack the Ripper his alibis for the nights of the previous murders would have been just as important as his one for the Kelly murder.

Another point to take into account is that there is serious concern as to the actual time of death of Kelly. Certainly the murderer would have definately known what time she died.

If the police were asking questions about the wrong time then anyone could create an air tight alibi for a time time when the murder wasnt actually committed.

Best wishes.

Hi Hatchett
I agree and good point.

Also, whereas I don't neccessarily agree with Heinrich on the police being incompetant-How do we know they checked out Barnett's alibi? If there is not any evidence they did then we are just assuming. You would think its a no brainer they did but perhaps they were impressed enough by his 4 hour interrogation, that he came forward himself and his inquest testimony.

So, I don't think its a given they went to his doss house and questioned people. Or maybe they did but just not that in depth.

On the other hand, at the height of the ripper scare, I am sure that folks would be chomping at the bit to help solve the case (get there 15 minutes of fame) so If someone noticed Barnett missing or sneaking around in the middle of the night they would have told the police.

[Hatchett]

Hello Curious,

Like I have said before it does not necessarily follow that Barnett was not charged because he had an air tight alibi, it would have been because the police did not believe that they had the evidence to convict him. If they were attempting to charge him with being Jack the Ripper his alibis for the nights of the previous murders would have been just as important as his one for the Kelly murder.

Another point to take into account is that there is serious concern as to the actual time of death of Kelly. Certainly the murderer would have definately known what time she died.

If the police were asking questions about the wrong time then anyone could create an air tight alibi for a time time when the murder wasnt actually committed.

Best wishes.

[curious]

Even if Joseph Barnett had been sharing a room, Curious, it does not follow that he would necessarily have woken up the whole house should he have decided to sneak out in the dead of night.



Who knows what variety of logic the police used?



And remained true to form, Curious.

Heinrich,
Nor does it necessarily follow that he would NOT have awakened people as he tried to sneak out. Sharing a room with people makes it extremely unlikely he could have left without being noticed as people had to sleep with one eye open to be sure their bunk mates were not robbing them. Then there are creaking floorboards, etc. Then there is actually being there as people woke up . . . no having to check back into the house and again make his way through a crowded room back to his bed. Any of these actions would have destroyed his alibi.

It would have been easy to know that if he was not there in the morning, someone would have noticed and said so as they themselves were arising.

Nope, he was with people and someone could account for him. It is really simple, Heinrich, if you simply open your eyes and examine things logically.

I have yet to see you display any logic and think it is funny you question the logic of the police.

Have you checked the definition of logic or is it like you accusing Barnett of being a sociopath when you did not understand that no facts of his life support that or even that the word is no longer in use?

The police were chasing a serial killer (I'm not sure Mary was part of that series for many, many different reasons than you can fathom, Heinrich). Even with today's more enlightened procedures, a child killer roamed the streets of Atlanta, Ga., for much longer than the Ripper cut through London. Police equipped with much better knowledge and equipment still don't solve cases.

Heinrich, I suspect you enjoy being perverse just to see if you can make people forget their manners.

more kindly than you will ever suspect (or likely deserve),

curious

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"He wasn't going anywhere, Fisherman; the Norwegian police had their man and, unlike the Metropolitan Police, there was no chance they would be letting him go home."

Which was why they really did not need to ask him about accomplices, other bombs, planned deeds, other terrorist cells, who had provided the explosive stuff etcetera, etcetera...?

You see, Breivik admitted what he had done already out on Utøya. And that was not the focus of the policeīs seven hour interrogation afterwards. They had more pressing questions to ask, and for all they knew, time could well have been very much of the essence.

It is in that light that you should look upon the four-hour interrogation of Joseph Barnett. It is in no meaning a short interrogation, but instead quite an extensive one. And very early in it, the question would have been asked about an alibi. And we can of course not be sure, but guessing that people were sent out to check up on that alibi immediately would not be very bold. And so, after four hours, including many a question that would help the police in their work even if Barnett was NOT the killer, and including an extensive search for signs on his clothes of being the killer, he was let loose.

As for my manners, Heinrich, I think you will find that they improve immensely once you refrain from suggesting that I am not informed about what I speak of.

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

....
I think, on the issue of Barnett, that he'd have killed Mary long before he left her, during one of their many arguments, if he was the sort of monster who could do such horrendous things to a person.

Remember, Ausgirl, that there had been a major deterioration in their relationship no more than 10 days previously when Joseph Barnett stopped living with Mary Kelly in 13 Millers Court. Their partnership had ended and there was no future in it for Joseph Barnett any longer.

....
No. Did it escape YOUR notice that he [Breivik] was a terrorist, with potentially more bombs planted (this was true) and potential co-conspirers and potential more mayhem around the corner?

He wasn't going anywhere, Fisherman; the Norwegian police had their man and, unlike the Metropolitan Police, there was no chance they would be letting him go home.

Thinking longer than your nose reaches, Heinrich, is something one sometimes forget. But thatīs okay, as long as you refrain from mocking other people and backing it up with ignorance.

Now, now, Fisherman, mind your manners.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"i'll let those that are interested come to their own conclusions"

Me too, Harry. But if the conclusion is potentially flawed, I take time to point it out.

"I can only point out that a witness claimed the court to be in complete darkness at half past one that morning,and it is probable that it would have remained so the rest of that night,and it is possible that the killer came from a dimly lit street,through a dark passageway, into a completely dark court,and then into a dark room.Hard to assess what reduction in time that would make to focussing,but I think it would be considerable."

The court would not have been completely dark, Harry. The street light would have sneaked in to some small extent. It would perhaps have SEEMED completely dark to somebody entering it, though, but giving it time would have helped.

You are quite right that every second, every minute of darkness helps in the process of regaining night sight, but the full process takes half an hour. We must also take into account that even if we give ourselves that half hour, a closed unlit room under a cloudy sky, with a pilot coat over the window, will afford us very little sight anyway. And that means that any intruder would have been at a very obvious disadvantage looking for Mary Kelly in that room. A man lying by her side in the bed, though, would very easily find her. And he may have had the distinct advantage of a candle burning on the table, mind you. And thatīs why I am saying that I much prefer such a scenario to the intruder ditto, which, albeit awkward, of course cannot be dismissed - but must be questioned, I feel.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"Did it escape your notice, Fisherman, that Breivik was caught in the act and he confessed immediately?"

No. Did it escape YOUR notice that he was a terrorist, with potentially more bombs planted (this was true) and potential co-conspirers and potential more mayhem around the corner? Whereas Barnett, if he had been the killer, would have been in custody with the police during them four hours, ensuring that nothing more could happen, Breivik had just proven capable of planning terrorism massmurder.

So, which of these guys do you reckon it would be more pressing to interview at lenght? Hmm? And do you think the only thing they asked Breivik was whether he was the killer?

Thinking longer than your nose reaches, Heinrich, is something one sometimes forget. But thatīs okay, as long as you refrain from mocking other people and backing it up with ignorance.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ausgirl]

I think I actually addressed this in the wrong thread... what a dufus.

Anyway, so Mary had half a candle stub in her room. I seriously doubt the killer could do anything much in pitch blackness, so maybe the candle was lit - prior to or during the crime, who knows? But a candle is enough light to see by. A coat or blanket hung on the window would do to block dim candle light from the street.

Did Mary have a curtain? If so, then that'd solve the no-lights-seen issue. If not, I can see the killer hanging something over the window, to avoid passersby glancing in. I realise the Ripper killed in the open street, and obviously enjoyed the thrill of the risk of being caught, so if the person who killed Mary Kelly -was- the Ripper, maybe he wouldn't bother. Or maybe he would, seeing as he was inside, out of his comfort zone and more at risk of capture for being inside.

I think, on the issue of Barnett, that he'd have killed Mary long before he left her, during one of their many arguments, if he was the sort of monster who could do such horrendous things to a person. She wasn't acting like a woman afraid for her life, nor have I seen anything to suggest she was treated badly by Barnett, to the degree a man who loathed women of her status that much probably would have.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I will not argue your time of half an hour for eyes to become focussed.You will most surely produce medical evidence to back your claim.What can be said is most people experience such situations,some on a regular basis,so i'll let those that are interested come to their own conclusions.I can only point out that a witness claimed the court to be in complete darkness at half past one that morning,and it is probable that it would have remained so the rest of that night,and it is possible that the killer came from a dimly lit street,through a dark passageway, into a completely dark court,and then into a dark room.Hard to assess what reduction in time that would make to focussing,but I think it would be considerable.My own method of overcoming the focuss problem of light to dark and vice versa,is to close the eyes for a few seconds either side of the transistion.Remarkable what a difference it makes.

[Heinrich]

....
The Norwegian massmurderer Breivik got seven last week. Four hours is by no means "short", Heinrich. That is just rubbish, if you pardon my French.

Did it escape your notice, Fisherman, that Breivik was caught in the act and he confessed immediately?

.... The one thing that matters here is that the police believed him after having checked both physically and mentally.

While today the Metropolitan Police might be universally admired for their professionalism, (excepting killing innocent people on subway trains, and bashing bystanders to death at a peaceful protest, and taking money for information passed to the press, and top officers having to resign for failing to follow up on evidence), your confidence in the same force of the 19th century is not one I share, Fisherman.

....
The idea that Scotland Yard detectives didn't realize that an alibi needs to be checked thoroughly (especially in this instance) is simply ludicrous.

You have something in common with Fisherman, c.d.

....
It is a case of whether it could be proved that they were guilty in a court of law.

Quite so, Hatchett, and an excellent case for the prosecution of Joseph Barnett could have been made had the police work been more robust.

I also think that it is an important point that at the time of the Kelly murder the police were convinced that they had a serial killer on their hands, so the viability of an alibi would not have just concerned the Kelly killing but all of the others.
Therefore if Barnett was the killer of Kelly and not the killer of the others his alibi for each of the other nights would presumably have been weighed in his favour.

Undoubtedly, their belief that the canonical five victims were all murdered by the same man would have served as a blinker.

Thanks, I thought it was likely rooms were shared in doss houses.

Even if Joseph Barnett had been sharing a room, Curious, it does not follow that he would necessarily have woken up the whole house should he have decided to sneak out in the dead of night.

But don't you think they would have started with Barnett's alibi for Kelly?

Who knows what variety of logic the police used?

They had been accomplishing nothing.

And remained true to form, Curious.

[curious]

Hi Everyone,

I dont think it is a case of being checked out and cleared. I dont think that is the way it went then, or even now. It is a case of whether it could be proved that they were guilty in a court of law.

I also think that it is an important point that at the time of the Kelly murder the police were convinced that they had a serial killer on their hands, so the viabilty of an alibi would not have just concernced the Kelly killing but all of the others.

Therefore if Barnett was the killer of Kelly and not the killer of the others his alibi for each of the other nights would presumably have been weighed in his favour.

Best wishes.

Thanks, I thought it was likely rooms were shared in doss houses.

But don't you think they would have started with Barnett's alibi for Kelly?

They had been accomplishing nothing. Now they have something new to investigate, new clues, a new chance to find the culprit.

They would have struck while people would have known what they were doing that night and with whom they were playing cards without any worry that they had the nights confused. And if there were people he played cards with, then people who shared his sleeping room, and then people with whom he woke up . . . .

Then, IF he had an airtight alibi for the latest murder, less tight alibis would have been necessary for the nights further away. Or not needed at all if he could not possibly have killed Kelly.

They probably jumped on Barnett like a duck on a June bug in their fervor that maybe, just maybe . . . only to discover all his time was accounted for and there were witnesses.

curious

[Hatchett]

Hi Everyone,

I dont think it is a case of being checked out and cleared. I dont think that is the way it went then, or even now. It is a case of whether it could be proved that they were guilty in a court of law.

I also think that it is an important point that at the time of the Kelly murder the police were convinced that they had a serial killer on their hands, so the viabilty of an alibi would not have just concernced the Kelly killing but all of the others.

Therefore if Barnett was the killer of Kelly and not the killer of the others his alibi for each of the other nights would presumably have been weighed in his favour.

Best wishes.

[Lechmere]

He almost certainly would have shared.

The police at that time actually had a pretty good record of solving 'domestic' murders - where the victim was known to the killer, or in particular was a partner or recent ex-partner.
The standard process was to sift through the victim's family and close friends, partly to try and establish if any of them might have killed the victim (as is the case with most murders).
You can see this process in operation with all of the Whitechapel murders. I am sure it would have crossed the minds of the police that each of the murders may have been a one off, perhaps a domestic where the killer tried to make it look like a Ripper case.

That doesn't mean that ever possible suspect who was known to any of the victims can be absolutely 'cleared' now, but it makes all of them less suspect... in my opinion... as they would have been fairly thoroughly (or as thoroughly as would have been possible at the time) 'checked out'. As Barnett clearly was.

[curious]

Single Rooms??

In light of this discussion, I have to wonder if people had their own rooms in doss houses?

Did they share rooms?

In other words, would Joe Barnett have been bunking by himself, or in a room with other fellas?

Thanks,

curious