which Barnett was it.

[Sally]

There is nothing "ordinary" about a dosser who wanted to freeload on a local prostitute while attempting to control her movements and associations and who resorted to stalking her after many arguments and leaving her home. He had odd echolalia speech and finally butchered the unfortunate victim.

Great character assassination Heinrich! You know, for a minute there, I thought you were talking about somebody else...

Pure speculation, I'm afraid - good try - but not a word of it can be proven; nor is it suggested by the evidence.

Joe Barnett wasn't a dosser. He had a job. Demonstrably, he had a job for the majority of his adult life. He wasn't one of the idle poor; he was one of the working poor. Fact. Not my opinion. Fact. His siblings were the same, respectable, working people.

You have no evidence therefore that he was 'freeloading' on a 'local prostitute' - because there isn't any. All the evidence is in fact contrary to your position.

'Stalking' her? Evidence please. And he left their home because she had gone back to prostitution (clue - this means that she wasn't working as a prostitute when they were together and he had a job because he was supporting them both)

As for his 'odd' speech - Ah well, that proves it then. Killer.

That isn't a fact, Heinrich. Sorry to have to break it to you, but it isn't. It's the opinion of an author who wanted Barnett to be the Ripper. It is just as plausible - and probably more likely - that his 'speech impediment' was nothing more than nerves - I don't suppose it was very much fun for an innocent man to find that his long term girlfriend had been butchered; for all sorts of reasons. It must have been a terrible shock.

You're barking up the wrong tree Heinrich.

[Rubyretro]

Heinrich -I will second Sally's post.

Stop obsessively stalking Joe Barnett...I'd fear for his life, if he wasn't already dead.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
There was once a time , when Joe Barnett was the ''Number one suspect'' in my eyes, I even started a thread under that heading many moons ago, which was widely debated, I started co-writing a book with Lea, which I opted out of , and was delighted when she published her book on Barnett.
My suspicions go way back to the early-mid 1970s, and I even sent a lengthy article to the News of the world[ which was rejected] and I corresponded with Colin Wilson for some time, and it was during that time that the fictional book ''The Michaelmas girls'' by John Brooks Barry was published, indeed Colin Wilson remarked to me that ''great minds think alike'', as a lot of my theory was also Mr Barry'.
So I go back a long way with the mystery of Mary Kelly , and her common in law Joseph Barnett.

I will admit that a lot of my initial suspicions were fuelled by the [alleged] grave spitting', and I still have not ruled that out..
However as the years have rolled on, and books about Barnett have come and gone, my suspicions have dulled , especially when Fleming/Flemming, has apparently better credentials .
I still have Barnett in the mix, along with Fleming, and even Dan Barnett[ who has never been in the frame?] and what about the man called Lawrence, who used to call on her, not to mention McCarthy's tale of the man he ejected from the court for demanding Kelly gave his property back?
All of these, and more from her past could be responsible...and failing that the last [ alleged ] person Mary was seen with..The middle aged market porter.
The choice is yours?
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

Fleming

Hello Richard.

"my suspicions have dulled , especially when Fleming/Flemming, has apparently better credentials."

Now you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

...
Pure speculation, I'm afraid - good try - but not a word of it can be proven; nor is it suggested by the evidence.

The evidence supports everything I stated, Sally.

Joe Barnett wasn't a dosser. He had a job. Demonstrably, he had a job for the majority of his adult life. He wasn't one of the idle poor; he was one of the working poor. Fact. Not my opinion. Fact. His siblings were the same, respectable, working people.

You are wrong; he had been fired from his porter's job for pilfering.

You have no evidence therefore that he was 'freeloading' on a 'local prostitute' - because there isn't any. All the evidence is in fact contrary to your position.

After he was sacked, Mary Kelly had to return to active prostitution and hers was the only income in their shared home, Mary's rented room.

'Stalking' her? Evidence please. And he left their home because she had gone back to prostitution (clue - this means that she wasn't working as a prostitute when they were together and he had a job because he was supporting them both)

He admitted that in the 10 days he had been dossing elsewhere, he continued to hang around 13 Miller's Court including the night of the murder.

As for his 'odd' speech - Ah well, that proves it then. Killer.
That isn't a fact, Heinrich. Sorry to have to break it to you, but it isn't. It's the opinion of an author who wanted Barnett to be the Ripper.

"Ordinary" people do not speak strangely and echolalia is associated with psychopathology.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lynn,
Fleming has to be the number one suspect in 2012, but only.. if it can be positively proven, that the man calling himself James Evans, is Kelly's ex lover, the other Joe she was allegedly ''Fond of''.
We cannot assume that 6'7'' Fleming was just that, it just is not plausible, maybe the height was wrong , but the weight 164lbs in 1888, would be overweight for a five foot seven Fleming, although that may have given him a short stocky look, hence the broad shouldered appearance.
It would seem too coincidental for another Joe to have been in her life, apart from Barnett, and Fleming, although not impossible.
We appear to have the jealous scenario perfectly in place, the kind hearted Barnett, the dis-satisfied Kelly, and the jealous other Joe?, who ill -used her because of her refusal to get rid of Barnett.
But why did Mary not allow admirer Joe,back in her life after the 30TH[ when Barnett left] she obviously needed a meal ticket, or was she beginning to worry about admirer Joe's behaviour?
Was this the last straw for him, even with Barnett out of the way, she still kept a distance.
Pure speculation, however if Fleming is to be a viable suspect, we have to lay it on the table [ excuse the pun]
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

speech

Hello Heinrich.

""Ordinary" people do not speak strangely"

Well, I consider myself quite ordinary. Someday, perhaps we can share a cuppa and then you may confirm the other part of your thesis--or disconfirm it. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

London Bridge is . . .

Hello Richard. Can't disagree.

For my part, I would like to know more about John Fleming who was blown up under London Bridge. So far, not a trace.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi Heinrich.
A few points to mention,
Barnett's sacking, is unknown, and speculation is all we have, albeit Pilfering, and being drunk are two possibilities.
Since he was sacked Barnett had worked selling oranges/fruit,we have no information, that he was ever without some income,
The rent arrangement is not clear, according to the landlord, in Feb 88, Mary Jane , had come to live with a man called Kelly, and as she posed as his wife, was known as Mary Jane Kelly.
We know that this man who McCarthy had initially known as Kelly was actually Barnett, however when that became knowledge is unclear.
The ''came to live with'' would imply that Barnett was the rent payer, and therefore the majority of arrears would have been down to him, it appears that good hearted Joe, was still giving her money when he could, to keep a roof over her head.
He even called on her on the evening of the 8TH, to say he was sorry he had none.
I agree that echolalia is associated with psychopathology, but I would have the opinion that Barnett was extremely nervous, and although not illiterate , hardly well educated, he would have been terribly upset and bewildered by the inquest, and may have repeated the last line of a question, simply because he wanted,and needed, to understand what he was expected to say.
Regards Richard.

[Heinrich]

...
Barnett's sacking, is unknown, and speculation is all we have, albeit Pilfering, and being drunk are two possibilities.

But he had lost his job and continued to live with Mary Kelly who was the renter.

Since he was sacked Barnett had worked selling oranges/fruit,we have no information, that he was ever without some income

This is not consistent with his statement to the police at the time of the murder when he stated that he had not worked for as much as four months.

The rent arrangement is not clear, according to the landlord, in Feb 88, Mary Jane , had come to live with a man called Kelly, and as she posed as his wife, was known as Mary Jane Kelly.

The rent had not been paid in over two months so the unemployed Barnett was no help.

The ''came to live with'' would imply that Barnett was the rent payer, and therefore the majority of arrears would have been down to him

This doesn't follow but it mattered not to the landlord where the money was coming from as long as he got paid. He seems to have been tolerant of Mary not coming up with the rent and he sounds as if he never had any dealings with Barnett.

it appears that good hearted Joe, was still giving her money when he could, to keep a roof over her head.

Only Barnett's own self-serving statements are in agreement with this scenario.

He even called on her on the evening of the 8TH, to say he was sorry he had none.

While attempting to make himself look caring, Barnett unwittingly admitted in this statement that he once again refused to give Mary money and placed himself at the murder scene on the night of the killing.

I agree that echolalia is associated with psychopathology, but I would have the opinion that Barnett was extremely nervous, and although not illiterate , hardly well educated, he would have been terribly upset and bewildered by the inquest, and may have repeated the last line of a question, simply because he wanted,and needed, to understand what he was expected to say

Instead of concocting an imagined reason for the echolalia based on the nervousness of a manifestly innocent do-gooder, I prefer to see his speech impediment as something that fits the FBI profile of the killer.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

But he had lost his job and continued to live with Mary Kelly who was the renter.

Oh..so if your partner lost her job, you'd show her ( or him !) the door would you ? Or expect her to walk away, head bowed ?

Do you have a partner Heinrich ? -forgive me for asking..

[Heinrich]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;228547]

Oh..so if your partner lost her job, you'd show her ( or him !) the door would you ? Or expect her to walk away, head bowed ?

Only if he continued to nag at me about my associates and my livelihood and otherwise attempt to control me in his hours of idleness.

[lynn cates]

Imagine all the profiles, burning for one day, hey, hey.

Hello Heinrich.

"Instead of concocting an imagined reason for the echolalia based on the nervousness of a manifestly innocent do-gooder, I prefer to see his speech impediment as something that fits the FBI profile of the killer."

But is that not an imagined reason as well?

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

The other problem with the Evans Fleming is that he was in the hands of the police as Evans. Then his Fleming name came to light. Where he Kelly's Fleming and had he not been eliminated from their enquiries in 1888, then it is implausible that the police would not have taken any interest in him when he was sent to the insane asylum.

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich.

"Instead of concocting an imagined reason for the echolalia based on the nervousness of a manifestly innocent do-gooder, I prefer to see his speech impediment as something that fits the FBI profile of the killer."

But is that not an imagined reason as well?

Not really, as it is based on experience and statistical probability. There is an art to profiling which surpasses creativity alone.