Tweet
Originally posted by Phil H
View Post
Supposition perhaps, but in cases where those in the best position to know secretly suspect "the [ex] boyfriend" probably did it, it generally seeps out and becomes an open secret, even where there is absolutely no evidence of guilt. Barnett appears to have bucked this trend by evoking only sympathy across the board, and not the merest hint of the usual whispering campaign. We all know of murder cases where a certain individual has become the natural focus of suspicion and has continued to arouse it, while resisting any attempts to make the mud stick.
To me it's significant that Barnett didn't even provoke the desire to throw mud, yet one could argue that, at the very least, he had deserted MJK just when she needed a man about the house to keep her safe from the maniac who was picking off lone unfortunates. And still no criticism came his way.
Touching on what Sally has said, while there's nothing wrong with looking afresh at the 'conventional wisdom' of the "canonical five", there would be everything wrong with throwing it out because it feels wrong today, or just because the solution remains beyond our grasp. There's a very good and painfully obvious reason for that if one man killed a series of strangers over a period of weeks, then stopped.
Are we not able to learn anything from recent cases, and project this new wisdom back in time to men made of exactly the same mental and physical cloth as they are now and always have been? In a hundred years from now, if the Ipswich Strangler had not been caught, would they be right to throw out the 'conventional wisdom' of five victims of one man, in favour of individual domestics, "political" involvement, or even a Royal connection? It would seems nuts, wouldn't it, looking forward from our perspective, having lived through those days and weeks of the Ipswich series?
Love,
Caz
X
Comment