Joseph Barnett:Turning the Argument Around

[c.d.]

On rare occasions, lovers and especially jilted lovers, go off their heads and do terrible things to the other party in the affair. But let's turn that argument around. If there had been no Whitechapel murderer at the time, how likely is it that instead of suspecting Barnett or Fleming, a counter argument would arise envisioning an unknown serial killer as a preferred suspect?

c.d.

[DVV]

Hi CD,

I see where you want to get at, but imo Barnett and Fleming aren't to be compared.
Fleming was already a burglar at age 13, if not before, and spent his last 28 years in a mental hospital. If he was Mary's murderer, he could well be JtR as well.

Kemper killed his mother, but we can't define this murder as an ordinary domestic affair.

Amitiés,
David

[Heinrich]

Had there been no other murders of prostitutes in Whitechapel at the time, Barnett, who admitted being at the scene of the crime the night of the murder and having admitted to being in a row with Mary Kelly then, would surely have been arrested as the killer.

[Abby Normal]

On rare occasions, lovers and especially jilted lovers, go off their heads and do terrible things to the other party in the affair. But let's turn that argument around. If there had been no Whitechapel murderer at the time, how likely is it that instead of suspecting Barnett or Fleming, a counter argument would arise envisioning an unknown serial killer as a preferred suspect?

c.d.

Hi cd
If there was no whitechapel murderer at the time, then why would anyone suspect an unknown serial killer? MK would have been the first and only murder-hence no serial.

if you just meant an unknown killer, then yes barnett probably would be a very strong suspect of course-but only until they checked his alibi, and heard the stories of blotchy, A-man and the next morning "porter".

[RavenDarkendale]

And if there had been no murdered woman in Mary Kelly's room, there is no way that Barnett would be a suspect here at all. The murder at Miller's Court is the only one that could have been Barnett. Did he kill his lover? Was this a crime of passion? Certainly the eradication of the victim's face points to a personal vendetta. Someone didn't just want their victim dead, they wanted her to look like nothing human. If not Barnett, someone else who knew her well.

(Of course you know I wonder if it was Mary Kelly's body at all, or one of her friends she allowed to live there from time to time. Even if this were to be the case, Barnett should be suspected as he moved out of Miller's Court because Mary moved in other women.)

God Bless

Raven

[ChainzCooper]

The problem with Barnett as the Ripper is that he is not the man George Hutchinson describes he saw with Kelly. He would have told police it was her ex not a stranger
Jordan

[Phil H]

One (and i emphasise that it IS only one) of the ideas i play with, is that MJK was killed by someone intimate with her.

I don't see what was done to her body as being an extrapolation of what was done to earlier victims, or facially to Eddowes. It may have been - BUT I perceive it more as the work of someone who had READ about the killings, and sought to hide what he did as the work of the current serial killer.

To me the devastation wrought on MJK's body works better as a crime of passion - someone wanted to eradicate her, make her a non-person, destroy her individuality. Add to that the circumstances - pretty well naked, sleeping - I think she was very comfortable with her assailant.

Whatever others say, Barnett, and also Fleming (was he REALLY six foot seven?) - maybe Morganstone (however spelled) - remain on my list of suspects for that killing. I know barnett was dismissed at the time, by men better placed than I - but just maybe they were too focused on a serial killer and Joe had an alibi for other nights, other murders (no doubt perpetrated by Lechmere/Cross!!!).

But I have an open mind on this as on most aspects of the case and am ready to be proved wrong.

Phil H

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
''Joseph Barnett number one suspect'', was a thread I Introduced to casebook years ago, and at that time, I truly believed it possible, the grave spitting[ alleged] and the mutilation appeared to show hatred of a personal nature, towards Kelly.
But since then , and the discovery of Fleming's records, a much more likely suspect emerged, albeit the 6'7'' is very much against us having the correct man.
If one views the sketch of the funeral of Mary Kelly[ on site] we have the exact number of mourners in attendance six women, and two men, the women can be accounted for , and so can one of the men , ie Barnett.
But who was the other man?
answers on a postcard....
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

I suspect that Fleming was only five foot seven and the entry is a mistake, but we cannot assume that.

I don't rule out the possibility of an exceptionally tall man being MJK's lover, but he would certainly have stood out in crowd! On the other hand, he was said to visit Mary occasionally when she was with Barnett and a familiar presence can often go unnoticed - becomes invisible to others who are used to seeing them.

SPECULATION: If he had heard that she had broken up with Barnett, it is possible that he called on her to see whether she was interested in getting together again, she might have allowed him a stay over for old times sake, but rejected anything more. An unstable man used to "abusing" her even when with Joe (I assume it is verbal abuse rather than physical as Joe would have seen bruising and probably reacted) might have turned violent on her rejection of him.

I just wish we knew more about Fleming. Also Morganstone (Morgan Stone?) whom she was familiar enough with and recalled enough to mention in her Miller's Court days. I think someone was identified near Stepney gas works as a possible candidate, but I have seen no more.

I do take on board Barnett's behaviour after MJK's death, but against that I balance that there must be many crimes of passion where the killer is not caught, lives with guilt and regret fro the rest of their lives, but otherwise goes on normally. So I don't rule Barnett out as the killer of MJK, but I don't think for a moment he is a candidate for JtR.

Phil H

[Robert]

I would have thought that any old flame of Kelly's who killed her in such a manner, would have been doing the one thing that would make a thorough, stone-turning police investigation an absolute certainty. He might as well have left a message on the wall reading "Please put all your best men on this case and do not rest until you catch me."

[lynn cates]

Morgestern

Hello Phil.

"I think someone was identified near Stepney gas works as a possible candidate, but I have seen no more."

Yes. A Dutch chap, Morgestern. He was married with children if I recall properly.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Thanks, Lynn

Richard

I would have thought that any old flame of Kelly's who killed her in such a manner, would have been doing the one thing that would make a thorough, stone-turning police investigation an absolute certainty. He might as well have left a message on the wall reading "Please put all your best men on this case and do not rest until you catch me."

But they were looking for a SERIAL KILLER and may have their minds set on that. Did they ever really consider an intimate as killer? or did they ASSUME "Jack" dunnit from the off? They interviewed Barnett, but he was someone who knew about MJK and had lived with her very recently. Did they ever contact Fleming or Moganstone?

I am not saying I have a solution, I am just setting out my instinctive responses to what I read. The killer knew how to move around the room, left no foot prints in all that blood so far as we are aware, may have known about the way to open the door...

Phil H

[Robert]

Hi Phil

I think the police would have tried to trace Kelly's previous boyfriends, just as they tried to trace Kelly's family, and just as the City Police tried to trace Conway. The police are, after all, creatures of habit like all of us, and they would have started by looking at those closest to the deceased and those who had been close to her. If such a person were to come under suspicion for the present crime, there would have been the added bonus that he just might have turned out to be the Ripper. I doubt if Barnett's being able to provide an alibi for the previous murders would have swayed them, if only because I doubt if Barnett could have provided such an alibi. I don't have my books to hand, but I believe the time of Barnett losing his job is traditionally taken to be August. Unless Barnett could point to his doing some kind of (recorded) work on the night of one of the previous murders, or unless he was banged up in a police cell, how could he prove where he was? Lodging house records wouldn't have helped, as he was living with Kelly until the end of October. So I think the police would have questioned him very closely about the Kelly murder. Apparently his story held up. If his story hadn't satisfied them, I'm sure they'd have had him in the frame for the Kelly murder and for all the other murders, but this seems not to have arisen.

[Phil H]

Robert, I don't disagree with you.

But your post begins, "I think..." so it too is supposition. We don't know.

...the police would have tried to trace Kelly's previous boyfriends, just as they tried to trace Kelly's family, and just as the City Police tried to trace Conway.

I am sure you are correct, but...

The police are, after all, creatures of habit like all of us, and they would have started by looking at those closest to the deceased and those who had been close to her.

They certainly seem to have talked to a lot of people locally - IF ONLY WE HAD THE FULL FILES!!!!

If such a person were to come under suspicion for the present crime, there would have been the added bonus that he just might have turned out to be the Ripper.

Again you may be right, but I feel there is room to speculate.

I doubt if Barnett's being able to provide an alibi for the previous murders would have swayed them, if only because I doubt if Barnett could have provided such an alibi.

I doubt it too - but you never know...

I don't have my books to hand, but I believe the time of Barnett losing his job is traditionally taken to be August. Unless Barnett could point to his doing some kind of (recorded) work on the night of one of the previous murders, or unless he was banged up in a police cell, how could he prove where he was?

How did he prove where he was at the time MJK died? When did she die? Presumably he would have done the same for other nights.

I think the police would have questioned him very closely about the Kelly murder. Apparently his story held up.

They did - but WHAT did they ask him. Many murderes have escaped having been interviewed once - did not Peter Sutcliffe (I am no criminologist)?

If his story hadn't satisfied them, I'm sure they'd have had him in the frame for the Kelly murder and for all the other murders, but this seems not to have arisen.

Maybe he was clever.

You are, as I said at the beginning of this post, probably right. But I no longer accept at face value all the old assumptions. I have opened my mind to several murderers (at least two, maybe three for the five canonicals).

There is something about MJK's murder that has never added up for me. I have tried to set down briefly what that those concerns are earlier in this thread. Barnett and Fleming remain in my sights - as does a Fenian connection if one could be demonstrated.

Phil H

[Robert]

Phil, I agree. Nothing is set in stone and we can only go by the balance of probabilities.

I am not an anti-matter version of Heinrich.