Convince me that it wasn't Barnett

[Harry D]

Because having read Dr. Frederick Walker's article here on CB, I think Barnett's the likeliest suspect of them all.

In summary:
1) One of 2 men likely to have had a key -- the other has an alibi.
2) Resembles eyewitness descriptions, down to exact age and height.
3) Lived at Ripper Central, the heart of the neighbourhood.
4) Likely to have known at least 3 of the victims.
5) Violent quarrel with last victim a week before her death.
6) A former next-door neighbour, could have been Eddowes' Suspect.
7) Return address consistent with initials on Hanbury envelope.
8) Working-class Irishman, could have written Lusk Letter.
9) As a market porter, he would have owned an appropriate weapon. (His fish-filleting knife.)
10) Would have washed hands in Miller's Court after double event, then could have easily disappeared. This is only true of Barnett.
11) Left his pipe at the scene of the crime.
12) Doesn't have to be a "psycho." Knowing the victims personally, he could have had a rational motive.

[Penhalion]

1) One of 2 men likely to have had a key -- the other has an alibi.

The killer didn't need a key. He could have either purchased MJK's company for the evening or opened the door through the broken window like everyone else seemed to.


2) Resembles eyewitness descriptions, down to exact age and height.

Eye witness descriptions vary considerably and are general enough to fit a large number of men living in the area.

3) Lived at Ripper Central, the heart of the neighbourhood.

True. As did several thousand other men.


4) Likely to have known at least 3 of the victims.

Definitely knew MJK. Can't prove he knew any of the others. Can't use unsubstantiated 'maybe/likely/could have' as proof of anything.


5) Violent quarrel with last victim a week before her death.

Yet he visited her regularly and was still apparently on friendly terms. No other examples of violent/anti-social behavior.

6) A former next-door neighbour, could have been Eddowes' Suspect.

Speculation not proof. With the population density in the area and the degree of transience, simply having a close address for a period of time proves nothing.

7) Return address consistent with initials on Hanbury envelope.

Hanbury envelope was picked up at random from the flop-house kitchen. It was not directly tied to the victim.

8) Working-class Irishman, could have written Lusk Letter.

Possible. But we don't know that JtR wrote the letter. It is the strongest candidate but still unproven. And dialect can be faked.

9) As a market porter, he would have owned an appropriate weapon. (His fish-filleting knife.)

Many men in that area at the time had a work knife of some sort. We would need to match the blade of his knife (if he had one) to the cuts in the victims.

10) Would have washed hands in Miller's Court after double event, then could have easily disappeared. This is only true of Barnett.

There were public lavatories/spigots in several places in Whitechapel. Blood could have been washed off at any of them. In the dim light of early morning, a quick wipe and hands in pocket would have hidden the blood just as well. They didn't screen everyone on the streets for bloodstained hands

11) Left his pipe at the scene of the crime.

He used to live there and still visited regularly. Perhaps Miller's Court seemed safer than a flophouse for leaving personal possessions?

12) Doesn't have to be a "psycho." Knowing the victims personally, he could have had a rational motive.

We don't know if her knew them. But it is true that he didn't have to be a slobbering maniac. But that is true of anyone, not just Barnett.

[GUT]

G'day Harry

Have to say I agree with Penhalion.

[Harry D]

Hello Penhalion,

Well if the door could be easily unlocked via the window, why were the police forced to knock the door down? There was probably a 'trick' to unbolting it, something which Barnett would've been privy to.

Also, many of the witnesses claim to have seen a man between late 20s early 30s, 5'7" to 5'8" tall, with a fair complexion and moustache, wearing a dark hat and overcoat. Yes, that could apply to a lot of men living in Whitechapel, but it's still a point in Barnett's favour.

We only have Barnett's word for it that the two of them were on 'good terms'. They hardly sound like love's young dream, what with the drunken quarrels and the window being smashed.

[Penhalion]

The police might not have known about the latch but Barnett did, therefore he didn't need a key.

And it was Kelly who broke the windows and apparently was up on drunk and disorderly charges in September so it was MJK not Barnett who had the violent temper. Anybody living hand-to-mouth in Whitechapel with long term unemployment, eviction, drunkenness, and prostitution can hardly be described as living any kind of love's dream. However that same scenario applies to a large percentage of EVERBODY living in that area at the time. Their situation was hardly unique and in a way better off than the other victims who had NO stable address.

Many of the apparent witnesses to JtR described a dark haired man with dark eyes and a dark mustache. Since we don't know for sure who JtR was, we can't know which of the various descriptions was correct.

[pinkmoon]

Hi,quite possible he had an alibi and I think the fact that he lived happily ever after and didn't butcher any other poor unfortunates can rule him out let's face it when you look at the photo of Kelly who ever did that wasn't going to walk away and live a normal life and all of a sudden get better.People always forget to ask the simple question "what prevented him from killing again" I think any credible suspect has to be either dead or locked up somewhere .Also there seems to be an obsession that our killer lived locally it is more than possible that he only visited the area to carry out his awfully work I'm not saying that he didn't have any connection to the area or he hadnt frequented the area at some time but to rule anyone out purely because they aren't local is wrong.

[GUT]

G'day Pinkmoon

Hi,quite possible he had an alibi and I think the fact that he lived happily ever after and didn't butcher any other poor unfortunates can rule him out let's face it when you look at the photo of Kelly who ever did that wasn't going to walk away and live a normal life and all of a sudden get better.People always forget to ask the simple question "what prevented him from killing again" I think any credible suspect has to be either dead or locked up somewhere .

While I, in general, agree with you on this the one exception could be if our killer had a specific goal, he might be able to stop when that goal was achieved.

Also there seems to be an obsession that our killer lived locally it is more than possible that he only visited the area to carry out his awfully work I'm not saying that he didn't have any connection to the area or he hadnt frequented the area at some time but to rule anyone out purely because they aren't local is wrong.

Agree.

[lynn cates]

#2

Hello Harry. Good questions.

Regarding #2, aged 40 and foreign looking?

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

While I, in general, agree with you on this the one exception could be if our killer had a specific goal, he might be able to stop when that goal was achieved.



Agree.

Hi gut,These murders went far and beyond simple murder by mutilating his victims our killer was greatly increasing his chances of been caught this theory about Mr Barnet simple dosnt wash.when people keep mentioning the word witness we never seem to take into account the lighting conditions and the time the so called witnesses had to view our killer I don't really think any suspect can be ruled out purely because he dosnt tally with a description ......except for the elephant man and the lost tribe of American Indians theory.

[GUT]

Hi gut,These murders went far and beyond simple murder by mutilating his victims our killer was greatly increasing his chances of been caught this theory about Mr Barnet simple dosnt wash.

Oh I agree that Joe doesn't wash to my way of thinking.

[The Good Michael]

I find it funny that someone would write in an accent. Obviously, they wouldn't.

Mike

[GUT]

G'day Pinkmoon

Hi gut,These murders went far and beyond simple murder by mutilating his victims our killer was greatly increasing his chances of been caught this theory about Mr Barnet simple dosnt wash.when people keep mentioning the word witness we never seem to take into account the lighting conditions and the time the so called witnesses had to view our killer I don't really think any suspect can be ruled out purely because he dosnt tally with a description ......except for the elephant man and the lost tribe of American Indians theory.

But wasn't the Elephant Man a local? ...

[moonbegger]

Hello Harry , Yes I also read Dr Frederick Walkers dissertation on Barnett , its very well put together , and I think its the only one that has an answer to the odd similarity's regarding victims names .. something that has bugged me since day one . but I still think the fact that he was arrested at the time of the Miller's Court affair, and interrogated for four hours has got to go a long way to erase suspicion .. but yeah , pretty compelling article .

All victims, real and intended, are named Mary, Ann, or Mary Ann. Two are named Mary Ann Kelly. Recent genealogical evidence published in Ripperana suggests that "Ann" was Mary Kelly's real middle name, and not an alias. Only Barnett is likely to have known this at the time. And, added to the coincidence of the addresses, the coincidence of the names suggests that somebody was obsessed with "Mary Ann Kelly, the Dorset Street whore," killing her again and again, until he finally killed the real one, and then stopped.

cheers
Moonbegger

[kensei]

I've long been a defender of Barnett. I can't convince anyone that he wasn't the Ripper, but to me he and MJK fit a classic profile of a dysfunctional couple with alcohol heavily involved who didn't actually split up but were "on a break" and needed time apart. He still visited her after moving out, the sure sign of a boyfriend who was hoping to put things back together. I think he was essentially a stupid boy in love with a very flawed woman. Their heated argument that broke the window means nothing- there were probably hundreds of such incidents throughout Whitechapel/Spitalfields on any given night. I can't see any way that his frustrations with Mary make him go out and kill Polly Nicholls. Makes no sense to me at all.

[miss marple]

Totally agreed with your analysis Kensei. Joe always was on the look out for Mary even after he left. A fool in love......

Miss Marple