the key

[Fleetwood Mac]

Here are the two scenariors most likely for me:

1) Kelly and JTR go to Kelly's and in a dunken/semi drunken state just throw clothes on to the fire - together - to warm up.

2) JTR throws damp clothes onto the fire in an attempt to put it out.

Or, as others have said, perhaps he throws clothes on the fire because in some way it incriminates him. I doubt he would have been concerned about being challenged walking through the streets at night, but in the event his occupation was not involved with slaughtering/blood, and he owned only one set of clothes, and he lived in a doss house and people knew he was out that night, then I can see the forethought regarding what to do when daylight comes round.

If they're his own clothes then I think you can rule out him living on his own. Wonder if this fits with Grainger and his claims to have been 'bilked'. Perhaps this is another example of Grainger 'losing' clothes'. I suppose if he had to back to a ship or poor house then questions would have been asked.

[Ausgirl]

If the killer -was- JtR, why would he give a damn about his clothes? He didn't, in any of the other murders. He either bolted off bloodstained or, as I think may be more probable, had a coat handy to sling over the evidence since nobody saw any uncommonly bloody men after the close-call crimes. There was probably more risk in not taking incriminating evidence with him and disposing of it some place else.

To me, it looks like he just wanted to destroy her utterly. Maybe he spotted her wearing the hat and jacket earlier, so those were items he chose to destroy as 'identifiers' of Mary Kelly, in his mind.

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) 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.

Maybe even, for once, he did get his jollies and there was semen on the coat. Kind of a gross thing to think about - but what was unusual here was that he had time and privacy he would not have had in any of the street crimes.

[Heinrich]

If the killer -was- JtR, why would he give a damn about his clothes? ....

I think it is a faulty procedure to suppose Mary Kelly's murderer has to be same same person who killed the other four canonical victims despite the opinion of Dr Thomas Bond at the time. This is not to deny there might be a link to one or more of the other murders and Dr. Bond is credited with the reputation of being the first criminal profiler. Nevertheless, trying to make all the pieces fit together from the other cases at the outset can lead in many and contradictory avenues. I believe it is more productive to take the case of Mary Kelly on its own merits, principally because one suspect does emerge head and shoulders above the rest, namely, Joseph Barnett. I have not read of any other suspect who comes close to meeting the motive, means, and opportunity as does Barnett.

Having identified Joseph Barnett, one can then see if the evidence about one or more of the other murders also points at him. 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.

[claire]

I have not read of any other suspect who comes close to meeting the motive, means, and opportunity as does Barnett.

Ah. Well, that clinches it, then. I can think of at least one more that I'd put in the frame before Barnett for the murder of Mary Kelly. But then, if you've not read of any other suspect who comes close, then case closed, then.

Get your coats, guys.

[Heinrich]

.... I can think of at least one more that I'd put in the frame before Barnett for the murder of Mary Kelly. ....

Who would he be and why, Claire?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sally]

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

[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?

[The Good Michael]

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

It was a representative of Mccarthy.

Mike

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.