Violent?

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your kind words, Jon - very much appreciated!

All the best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Hello Fisherman and all,

What about this quote from Barnettīs statement at the inquest: "she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly." Odd, I think, to say the least. Why did she say she was afraid of him when they quarrelled?

Regards,
C4

[Wickerman]

Hello Fisherman and all,

What about this quote from Barnettīs statement at the inquest: "she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly." Odd, I think, to say the least. Why did she say she was afraid of him when they quarrelled?

Regards,
C4

That might not be what the line intends, it could also read that MJK admitted, while arguing with Barnett, that she feared someone.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It occurs to me that while many tout Barnett as a suspect (Please note that I keep an open mind) I have not found a reference to him being violent with Kelly. I would expect to find some indications that they did more than argue. I ask because there is a reference to the couple arguing and a window getting broken but Kelly could have easily been the violent one in that instance if she was in her cups. What say all of you?

Violent or otherwise, you need to jump through a few hoops to paint Barnett as the killer, and then to either paint him as being JTR or not being JTR.

Occam's Razor - the simplest solution, with least assumptions, is most likely.

The simplest being this: Kelly's killer was JTR, he picked her up on the street or in the pub and it turns out she had a place of her own. The face mutilations and organ removal? Eddowes had her face cut. This time, JTR simply had more time to indulge himself.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
In recent weeks, thanks to the wonderful work with the kelly photograph, one possible clue could have presented itself.
The removal of kellys left bicep.
The bicep represents strength, and acording to Barnetts own account, the broken window was caused when Mary ''pushed me in it''.
We have no physical description of JB, but a fish porter, and according to McCarthy a 'coal porter', would have hardly depicted a weak person, and its quite possible that Mary kelly poccessed great physical strength, , infact if one takes the sketch drawn from 'friends that knew her'', she hardly looks the dainty type.
What I am suggesting is, kelly may well have shown great resistance against her attacker, and the removal of the bicep, was to take away her strength.
It is quite possible that ''Jack'' was a victim of a dominant woman in the past, and took his revenge out on defenceless woman, but if that was the case why take on Mary Kelly?
But if she was the typical copy cat /overkill work of ex lover Barnett, he may well have not only deprived her of her facial looks, but also the physical part of her that helped push him into the window.
It would appear that the bicep removal symbolized simething.
Regards Richard,

[jason_c]

I don't rule out Barnett as her killer, but I do not see Barnett as the Ripper.

The broken window, actually two broken pains in the same window.
Strange how they happen to be close to where they need to reach the lock, at least one of them was - convenient?
I had to wonder if the suggested "argument which resulted in the broken window" was an excuse, because they had actually lost the key and broke a pain intentionally so as not to be charged for another key.

Regards, Jon S.

I agree with you. Its very likely these were broken deliberately.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jason,
That being the case, if broken intentionally would kelly and Barnett have not been concerned about being charged for new glass?
As the key [according to Barnett[ had been ''missing for some time'' it does seem rather convenient for the pane nearest the door to have received a hole big enough to reach through to the bolt.
Its a pity we are not aware of approx when the key was mislayed, and approx when the window was broken, what occured first ?
Regards Richard.

[curious4]

That might not be what the line intends, it could also read that MJK admitted, while arguing with Barnett, that she feared someone.

Regards, Jon S.

Well, the concensus seems to be that JTR was the last person anyone would suspect..... I am certain that she did mean Barnett - at least that she was afraid of him when they quarelled - and he did dislike prostitution and prostitutes.

[Ben]

Hi Fleets,

No, if you're using Occam's Razor properly, then you'd be hard pushed to come up with "he picked her up on the street or in a pub" as the simplest solution.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Apologies for the late reply.

I have no problem whatsoever with you or anyone else wishing to discuss Hutchinson - quite the reverse. I simply question the wisdom of reproducing identical arguments at length from other threads in the full expectation that someone else will respond with the very same counterarguments they posted on those other threads. I’m sure Hutchinson’s name will crop up “legitimately” in many discussions, but it is folly to pounce on every negative reference to him with long follow-up posts that are guaranteed to derail the thread. That is not to dismiss your opinions themselves as not “legitimate”, but try to cultivate a better awareness of the more suitable locations for lengthy Hutchinson debates if you really want to start another one.

Again, I’m afraid you have been very inconsistent in your thinking concerning Dew, and this inconsistency is one of the many factors that serve to injure the credibility of the theory that Hutchinson was “honestly mistaken” as opposed to a bogus witness who lied to the police. For example, you are now of the opinion that:

“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.”

…Which is in very stark and conspicuous contrast to your earlier assertions that his book is “riddled with mistakes”, and that he got “lots of things terribly wrong”.

I brought Dew up on an earlier thread, and you cautioned me against “listening” to him (citing age, mistakes etc), but as you began to formulate your “honest mistake” theory in accordance with Dew’s theory, all your previous criticisms of Dew were quickly supplanted by glowing endorsements. It is clear, however, that the old inspector was merely offering his own personal speculations with regard to Hutchinson, and there is not the slightest indication that these speculations mirrored the views of the contemporary police as a collective, otherwise he’d have said so.

It is clear from the articles that appeared in the Echo and the Star that Hutchinson came to be discredited because of doubts about his truthfulness. Amongst the more obvious indicators in this regard is the fact both he and Packer were mentioned in the same article dealing with discredited witnesses and "worthless" leads. As you would expect, the terminology is somewhat guarded, and you’ll find no press/police report stating “Packer is a liar”, but there is little doubt that the police arrived at this conclusion and dismissed him accordingly, and the same was almost certainly true of Emanuel Violenia and George Hutchinson.

I never denied you the right to consider Barnett suspicious, but I do wonder why those who claim that Hutchinson "must have" been investigated as a suspect and "must have" been ruled out as a consequence don’t seem to find this an obstacle to Barnett’s candidacy, despite their being actual evidence of retracted police suspicion in his case.

“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.”

Quite possibly, Fish, and my next (on-topic) post will address this very issue.

Anyhoo, derailment over and back to Barnett.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

In my view, Kelly and the other victims are already connected criminologically, i.e. by virtue of the similarities in mutilations, victimology etc. A viable suspect for one murder should therefore be considered a viable suspect for the others, with the possible exception of Stride. One of the longest standing myths about serial killers – particularly prostitute killers – is that they only target strangers, never family members or acquaintances. Gary Ridgway was already hugely successful at murdering prostitutes and getting away with it when he chose to target a woman he knew, and in the aftermath of that particular murder he made himself know to the police. John Douglas outlined the circumstances:

Despite not catching him at any of the dump sites, investigators had a fair amount of contact with Ridgway. As mentioned above, we indicated the UNSUB would inject himself into the investigation. Ridgway did so by providing information about one of the victims, whom he knew. That victim was killed differently than the others. A bag was placed over her head, an empty wine bottle and a pair of dead fish placed on her body. My analysis to police was that the killer knew this victim due to how the killer posed her after death. Ridgway came forward to “volunteer” information on this one because I'm sure he was afraid police would come across his name during the investigation.

Obviously, there is a slight difference with Barnett inasmuch as he was the boyfriend of the victim, rather than a casual acquaintance, but the foregoing surely demonstrates that serial killers have shown themselves capable of both murdering acquaintances and voluntarily placing themselves in the limelight. In Ridgway’s case, the two went hand in hand, and the same may be said of Nathaniel Code, a serial killer whose last victims were members of his family and who made himself known to the police shortly after their murders. It happens, and it takes a lot more than “I find it unlikely” to offer any compelling reason for ruling out the possibility of it happening with Kelly and her killer.

[claire]

Ben, I agree with much of what you've said here. But I'm not sure that Barnett made himself known to the police in a clear and distinct way--his account, that he went to Miller's-court because he'd heard there had been a murder (but didn't know who had been killed) seems perfectly plausible: most people would do the same, particularly if there was no easy means of having the info communicated to them. Further, even if he had reason to imagine it was Kelly, it is perfectly reasonable of him to make his way to the murder site. Not to do so would be simply odd, and rather suspicious in itself. As a recent live-in (and I'm reserving here, because I don't know that they were living in as any sort of couple; that's simply been the supposition, hasn't it), he'd be tracked down by police as a matter of course, and being pretty local would make it impossible for him to evade that (and make him look very suspicious if he tried to).

I don't discount Barnett, but he's also not right at the top of my list. If he's to move up it, it needs to be on firmer ground than I think we have.

[Ben]

Agreed all round, Claire.

Barnett doesn't top my list either, but judging by some of the earlier comments in the thread, I was a bit concerned that he was being ruled out for the wrong reasons, i.e. that he was known to the police and knew one of the victims. Given the above serial killer examples, it would be a mistake to rule out any suspect who meets either or both criteria on the assumption that the real killer was an untraceable ghoul who targeted strangers only.

All the best,
Ben

[claire]

Can't agree more. Thanks for the clarification; it's so easy to skim over possibilities in the blind pursuit of 'what we know' (ie. what 1970s profilers say). Cheers

[Fisherman]

Ben"

"you are now of the opinion that:

Quote:
“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.”
…Which is in very stark and conspicuous contrast to your earlier assertions that his book is “riddled with mistakes”, and that he got “lots of things terribly wrong”."

Like I said, the discussion with you on the topic itself is over for now on my behalf. But I would like to point out to you that you are not correct in the assumption you make above. A book can contain more than 90 per cent correct facts and STILL be riddled with mistakes and things that are terribly wrong. If, for example, Sugdens book had contained 90 per cent reliable facts and 8 per cent grave mistakes and misrepresentings, we would never have listened to him the way we do. As it stands, a more correct weighing of that book may tell us that the relation is 99,98 as opposed to 0,02, meaning that it is a very reliable source. In Dewīs case, we may ( suggestingwise, for the sake of clarifying) have 98-99 per cent as opposed to 1-2 per cent, meaning that the mistakes would count in tens or twenties, perhaps. That is a lot of mistakes - but it still does not leave us with a source that should be discarded. Most of it is correct - AND from a source that worked the case, mind you!

I think I have explained this to you before, though, Ben? If you find it very hard to understand, please inform me, and I will make a renewed effort. I would not wish us to get this wrong. Otherwise, letīs get on with the discussion and treat this as finished business.

The best,
Fisherman