Violent?

[Sister Hyde]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;172885]Hi
While there is no proof of Joe Barnett being violent, I can't help but think of him as a viable suspect for MK's murder. As a jilted lover and one that had visited her on the night of her death-did he finally realize it was really over for good between him and Mary on that last meeting? Unlike the other victims it was her heart that the killer took away.[/QUOTE

yeah ok, he is viable for MJK, but i think it's a bit like Hutchinson, fits one of the victims, not the others

[lynn cates]

beginning of wisdom

Hello Abby & Sister.

" . . .fits one of the victims, not the others . . . "

Now you're talking. And by extrapolation . . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Sister Hyde]

And by extrapolation . . . .

...I wouldn't bet on that horse...

[Ben]

Another crucial point, if we are to draw inferences from other serial cases, is that the real offender was very unlikely to have had a known history of violence, nor would he have evaded capture for very long if he was outwardly and obviously “dubious”. Neither Dennis Rader nor Gary Ridgway exuded any external menace, which partially explains why both killers were so “successful” for so long. I would be hesitant, therefore, to rule out any suspect who fails (to our knowledge) to meet the “known violent history” criterion. Similarly, and despite my strong reservations about Barnett as a suspect, it would be wrong to dismiss anyone who came under the police radar, willingly or otherwise, because very often in serial cases the real offender turns out to be one such person.

All the best,
Ben

[Sister Hyde]

That I don't argue about Ben, not having a violent past doesn't mean you can't snap and commit the worst one of these days... and I think the reason why Barnett just as Hutchinson came under suspicion was their relation to MJK, and of course when you look at their relation with the woman you think "wow, they really had a very good reason", but still, a very good reason for MJK, not the others, and she was the "last" victim. I think both these men would have been much more viable if she had been the first.

[caz]

I just find it very unlikely that the ripper would have been foolish enough, after his previous successes with women he had picked up in the street, to target one he knew (intimately or otherwise), in the room he knew as hers, and to spend extra time there going to town on her. If he was advertising at all, it was what he did to his victims, not advertising who he was by who he killed.

A guilty Barnett (serial killer or one-off) could have been absolutely certain of the police spotlight falling on him, and being suspected of all the murders considering the method chosen for his nearest and dearest (while a guilty Hutch coming forward for the attention, or out of fear, could not have been remotely confident of avoiding the third degree himself, considering his own claimed relationship to MJK).

In short, I find MJK probably the most unlikely of all the Whitechapel victims to have been ripped apart like that, and at that point in time, by a man who was bound to draw risky attention to himself because of who he was (or claimed to be) to the deceased.

Love,

Caz
X

[richardnunweek]

Hello Caz,
It should be remembered that after the Millers court murder, it was not only rumoured to have been a daylight crime, but also a crime of jealously.
Local gossip proberly took a hand in this, ie Maxwell, and another Joe being fond of the deseased, even so we were not there , so who are we to discredit contempary views...?
Regards Richard.

[Hatchett]

Hi Richard,

I dont think it is a case of discrediting contemporary views, but of taking gossip for what it is. Usually just founded on the fllimiest of perceptions and then embellished by the hoardes of people who pass it on, growing and mutating, almost by the hour.

Best wishes.

[Wickerman]

Re-Hutch

... If someone lies to you once then you don't really believe another word they say....

Ok, well you show me where Hutch lied and I'll agree with you.



Re-Barnett

While there is no proof of Joe Barnett being violent, I can't help but think of him as a viable suspect for MK's murder. As a jilted lover and one that had visited her on the night of her death-did he finally realize it was really over for good between him and Mary on that last meeting? ...

There has always been this interpretation that the lacerations to Kelly's face, her 'removed' heart, and the fact she was dressed in a chemise, make for a reasonable argument that she was attacked by 'a' lover.

Barnett did not like Maria Harvey sharing the room. Barnett had already heard Maria Harvey say that she will not see Mary "tonight", so did Barnet return for a confrontation with his lover?
Perhaps he insisted Mary doesn't see Harvey any more?

Mary may have argued that Maria left some clothing with her so she will have to see her again, so Barnett throws the shirts, jacket & hat on the fire, "there" he exclaims, "she's no need to come back anymore!"
They argue, fight, and things go from bad to worse.

However, MJK appears to have died in total silence, no neighbours heard shouting, no fighting, unless, one of those neighbours is not telling the whole truth...

...not having a violent past doesn't mean you can't snap and commit the worst one of these days...

Still waters run deep....

Regards, Jon S.

[claire]

I'm sorry, but I don't see that being a 'jilted' lover (and, by his account, he wasn't) is sufficient reason to rip someone apart. It may be the justification conjured by a disturbed mind, but it's not a sufficient motive.

I don't discount Barnett out of hand. But, given the question was of evidence of his propensity to violence, I see no direct evidence of that in the information we have available to us. Speculation is something else entirely, and it's always possible to construct a psychological history for Barnett that makes him a likely candidate for, at least, the murder of Kelly. If we want to extrapolate from some of the info we have, the pair (couple? dunno about that) were chucked out of one lodgings for drunkenness and, given the preponderance of drunks in the district, I'd imagine this would be drunkenness of a particularly voluble nature to result in eviction. Similarly, the smashed window hints at a turbulent relationship, although the notes we have only mention Kelly's wildness whilst on the drink. Then again, the euphemism 'ill-use' covers a social predisposition to male to female domestic violence, so ubiquitous it wouldn't have been worth anyone commenting on.

[caz]

Hello Caz,
It should be remembered that after the Millers court murder, it was not only rumoured to have been a daylight crime, but also a crime of jealously.
Local gossip proberly took a hand in this, ie Maxwell, and another Joe being fond of the deseased, even so we were not there , so who are we to discredit contempary views...?
Regards Richard.

But that's exactly my point, Richard. There were bound to be such rumours (even if they were baseless and MJK was killed by a total stranger), therefore anyone known to have had - or claiming to have had - a personal interest in this woman was bound to be a focus for those rumours. Barnett was able to satisfy the police, but he could have been torn limb from limb by those rumourmongers! Does he strike you as a man who liked nothing better than to play such a downright dangerous game?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Bloody hell.

Someone wants to go here again?

Really?"

Yes, Ben - I do. I find Hutchinson (and all the misconceptions surrounding him) quite fascinating. Obviously Hatchett is of the same meaning. And when two people are mutually interested in a phenomenon, I think that any third party may need to accept that they discuss that phenomenon.
I appreciate if you think that your influence and knowledge about it all should be enough to put an effective end to the ongoing discussion, but I just can´t bring myself to agree with it. Sorry about that.

"Hatchett has expressed his entirely legitimate and uncontroversial opinion that George Hutchinson is a dubious character. This, quite frankly, has become a popular perception for a number of years, and there is not the slightest indication of that popularity being reduced any time soon. Nor is there the slightest reason for anyone to be surprised when someone expresses it."

Aha. But does Hatchetts´"legitimate" view in any way make my view less legitimate? And is it "legitimate" for you to step in and shout "Bloody hell" when people´s views differ from what you consider "legitimate"? Or do you need to just accept that not everybody agrees with you? Think it over, please. It may save much time and space fortwith.

And there are very good reasons to disagree with you, as you will know by now:

1. "there are strong indications that he lied to the police"

No, there are not. There are strong CONVICTIONS on your behalf that he did so, but NO evidence at all proving it.

2. "Abberline’s initial approval of Hutchinson was very clearly revised"

No, it was not. His initial approval of Hutchinsons STORY was revised. What his view on the man himself was, we can´t tell. But the faith and stock Dew put in him fifty years later is a good indicator that Hutchinson was never regarded as a liar/time-waster/attention-seeker at any stage.

3. "...we learn from his subsequent interview to the Pall Mall Gazette 1903, where he discussed the eyewitness sightings."

He does not even mention Hutchinson it the Gazette, as you will know, Ben. And that does not mean that he did not believe Hutchinson - it means that Hutchinson´s STORY was ruled out. And, as you once again know, that may well have been due to an honest mistake on Hutchinson´s behalf. What you do, Ben, is to read something into it that is not there.

4. "The reasons for Hutchinson’s discrediting were very obviously concerned with doubts about his truthfulness."

No, no and no again. There is nothing "obvious" about it, but for your attempt to cut a long story short. Hutchinson´s truthfulness is never questioned at any stage by any party involved in the investigation. It is the value of his STORY - once again - that is questioned.

5. "It is clear from the observations made in the Echo that the reservations “the authorities” had with Hutchinson’s account were not limited to the Astrakhan man description alone. Two days after the publication of this article, The Star observed that Hutchinson's account had been “discredited”. This announcement was published in an article which carried the headline “Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents”. Mentioned in the same article was Matthew Packer – the obvious implication being that both witnesses were being lumped into the same category, i.e. probable time-wasters and publicity seekers."

Much ado ´bout nothing, Ben - and the outcome is precisely the same: Ample evidence that Hutchinsons STORY was discredited, and no evidence at all that Hutchinson himself was. Honest mistake, anybody?

6. "Dew’s book is “riddled with mistakes” and he “got lots of things terribly wrong”. It is for this reason that virtually nobody has sought to advance his speculative musings on Hutchinson as correct, and these are memoirs that have been in the public domain for many decades."

...and it is for the reason that Dew is and remains a top authority with a past involving a powerful link to the Whitechapel murders that his view must be considered. Yes, he makes mistakes in his book - but when a thread was started to list them, VERY little came from it, and some of the things that came up did not belong to the department at all. If we were to start counting the rights and wrongs of the facts presented in the book, we would undoubtedly come up with more than 90 per cent rights.

7. "The chances of Hutchinson both noticing and memorizing all that he alleged of his Astrakhan man description are..."

...totally impossible to estimate. Correct.

8. " Anything less subtle is difficult to envisage."

Don´t start me, Ben ...!

9. "I find it very revealing, and tremendously annoying, that those with a demonstrated eagerness to claim that Hutchinson was secretly ruled out by some mythical alibi (no evidence whatsoever) are quite happy to accept Barnett as a candidate, despite the evidence that he was dismissed as a suspect by the police."

Here we go again - you are annoyed. Can´t have that, can we? Not "legitimate", eh?

Try and get this straight, Ben: The Ripper case was never closed. The killer was not caught. The "traditional" views on the case may be right or wrong, thus. And if you think that anybody who wants to discuss the case must adjust to these views, then think again. If I am not allowed to regard Barnett as a viable suspect since the police "dismissed him as a suspect", then how come you are free to call Hutchinson a killer when he was never even suspected in the first place?
It does not work that way.

I think there is a (very) small chance that Hutchinson was the killer. I think he may have been dismissed as a timewaster/attention-seeker, but I regard that chance as a very, very, very slim one, bearing in mind that nothing was ever published about such a revelation and considering that Dew puts him very much above such suspicions fifty years later.
The evidence speaks for itself. The probability that his story was dismissed as a misconception of dates is the much larger one.

As for Barnett, I am much more in favour of him being not guilty than the other way around. But I am of the meaning that the Kelly killing differed from the other ones in the respect that the killer KNEW his victim personally, as revealed by his knowledge of where to find her, and as revealed by his covering her face with the sheet before he cut away her identity.

I could be wrong, though. The killer may have chanced upon Kelly in the punter´s role, or he may have known her whereabouts without being aquainted with her. There are very few certainties to be had. One such certainty, however, is that no matter if you cry "Bloody hell" for having had your views challenged, I will reserve the right to do so - not least if I am discussing Hutchinson with ANOTHER poster who has introduced the topic! And I could not care less if you take it upon you to make the decisions which views and posts are "legitimate" and which are not, the reason being that I am of the conviction that if I was to allow that, no other view than yours would ever surface, and George Hutchinson would suffer the fate to forever be called a killer and a liar on these boards. These threads are not about keeping you content and unannoyed, strange though it may sound.

Now I will do the exact same thing I did the last time over: leave the last word to you. Make of that what you wish. I challenged a common and quite possibly very faulty vulgar view of Hutchinsons veracity presented by ANOTHER poster, and had no wish to see any assertion on your behalf that you were ready to "outstamina" me. And now that I have once again pointed out the flaws in your reasoning I have no wish to pursue anything but my original intention. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I just find it very unlikely that the ripper would have been foolish enough, after his previous successes with women he had picked up in the street, to target one he knew (intimately or otherwise), in the room he knew as hers, and to spend extra time there going to town on her. "

Agreed. Which is why I think that he did not intend to kill Kelly as he payed her a visit on that evening, but for some reason he did it anyway. A sudden rage, a panic, an unplanned killing, that´s what I suspect here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sister Hyde]

Still waters run deep....

they're the worst

[Wickerman]

Good post Fisherman (#27).

I never joined in on the Dew exchanges, I think I have all the relevant Memoirs, they all have mistakes. Memoirs are not known for facts so I leave them aside.

As for Hutch as a suspect, I have no conviction on suspects at all, none. We don't know enough about anyone alive in 1888 to seriously label them as a suspect.

Other than that, I think I agree with every point you raise.

Regards, Jon S.