Convince me that it wasn't Barnett

[Wickerman]

can you prove it wasn’t Maybrick?? Far more likely than any of the other suspects

That type of reply demonstrates you have no idea how to research a subject.

The onus, is always on the proposer of a theory to 'prove' their argument.
No proof is required to dismiss a suspect.

Maybrick proposers have been trying to prove their case for over 30 years, yet no serious unbiased researcher accepts their argument.
The only real genuine interest in the 'Diary' is how it was done. Not that it is a mystery, I mean those interested in the book cannot agree how it was faked, but faked it definitely was.

[Fanatic]

....and if you believe that.....there's a nice Bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

can you prove it wasn’t Maybrick?? Far more likely than any of the other suspects

[Wickerman]

There is one thing you are forgetting… Maybrick was the ripper and confessed to it. So Barnett can be dismissed.

....and if you believe that.....there's a nice Bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

[Fanatic]

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.

There is one thing you are forgetting… Maybrick was the ripper and confessed to it. So Barnett can be dismissed.

[GBinOz]

The treatment of Mary Kelly suggests the killer had absolutely no personal connection to her what-so-ever.

Hi Batman,

I respectfully disagree on this point. According to my reading of criminal profiling, the covering of the face with a sheet at the beginning of the attack and the attack on the face indicates that the killer knew the victim.

Remember, when Ted Bundy was arrested there were collections being taken up for his defence on the basis that a nice guy like Ted couldn't have done something like that.

Cheers, George

Didn't notice the date of the last comment on this thread.

[RockySullivan]

Hi, Eighty-Eighter. Welcome.

I agree with you. I don't believe Barnett's a viable killer at all. He was an inoffensive little bloke who had lived with Mary and loved her. He would have been incapable of such mutilations.

Sounds like the running gag when the neighbor goes on the news and says "there's no way joe was a serial killer he was so nice!"

MK is the missing link between torso&ripper. She looks like a combination of both, killed inside, nearly dismembered. The clothes in Kelly's room are of particular interest. Could they have been intended to be used to wrap up Kelly into parcels headed for the thames and the torso ripper changed his mind & took the heart instead?

[Trench_Raider]

In the most unlikely event that he was the killer of Kelly, then chances are it was a copy cat crime.]

I disagree.
I think that whoever killed Kelly almost certainly also killed Chapman and Eddowes at the very least. There are certain "signature" details shared amongst these two earlier murders that were not widely reported in the press at the time. In the murder of Chapman, the flesh of the abdomen had been removed in three flaps. This was also the case in Kelly's murder. But the detail of the flaps of skin does not apear in the majority of press accounts of the inquest. (correctly me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that detail only published in one newspaper and the Lancet?) Likewise the injuries to Eddowes' right thigh and the region around it are similar in nature to that infllicted on Kelly. Again, this small detail of mutilation of Eddowes was not widely reported in the press.

While the "Someone else killed Kelly and then made her up to look like a Ripper victim" theory is interesting, I think it falls apart when you look at the similarities in the details of these three murders. Either the hypothetical copycat killer was VERY familiar with details of the previous crimes that were not highly publicized, or the three murders were by the same hand.

In short, IF Joe actually did kill Mary (which I don't believe...although he is admittedly one of the less far fetched suspects) then he was the actual Ripper and not a copycat.

Thoughts?

Martin

[Rosella]

Hi, Eighty-Eighter. Welcome.

I agree with you. I don't believe Barnett's a viable killer at all. He was an inoffensive little bloke who had lived with Mary and loved her. He would have been incapable of such mutilations.

[Robert]

Hi Eighty-Eighter and welcome.

I too doubt that Joe was in any way involved. However, on a couple of your points :

We used to have a poster called Glenn Anderson who studied crime in Sweden. He assured me that he had seen photos of copycat slayings made to mask a crime of passion, which were even worse than Kelly's. Hard to credit I know, but Glenn was a trustworthy poster and I believe him.

Also, it's some time since I read Paley's book but I think he was arguing that the other murders were committed in order to scare Kelly off the streets, which would show a psychopathic mindset but would not necessarily clash with the mild-mannered man image in the case of the first four murders. I cannot remember if Paley included Tabram but if he did, then make that the first five murders.

[Sally]

Hello, Eighty-Eighter

Welcome to the boards

I'm with you on Barnett - there is nothing whatever to suggest that he was involved in Kelly's murder or that of anybody else, for that matter.

[eighty-eighter]

His character doesn't fit for me.

First of all hello everybody this is my first posting.

I can completely understand where Bruce Paley is coming from in his book "Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth". Yes Barnett had a massive connection with Kelly and it was only natural that the police should suspect him first. Though we have to remember that after 4 hours or so they released him and he was apparently no longer a suspect for the Whitechapel killings. Why? Did he provide one or more alibi(s) for the other murder(s) that we don't know about?
But for me the real killer (excuse the pun) was the treatment of Kelly's body after the slaying. Yes I could understand a simple crime of passion under the circumstances which Barnett was going through, I could even stretch to him cutting her throat whilst holding the sheet over her face, but the hours of dedicated mutilation, the skinning, gutting, slicing off of breasts etc. followed by the almost ritualistic positioning of body parts around her butchered torso I simply cannot believe was the act of a mild mannered man whom was so devoted to her.
No that is simply too much for me, had he killed her in a fit of anger then he would have immediately felt deep remorse directly after in my opinion, and would NOT have sat down beside her and proceeded to carve her up like a slaughtered animal, and for quite some time too.
Remember this girl was the love of his life and he simply worshipped the ground that she stood on, regardless of whether she was prostituting or not. If he had of been the killer then he would have broken down after the murder and felt enormous remorse, he would have wept and left the scene straight away, perhaps even handing himself into the authorities, or in a worse case scenario even have taken his own life.
Instead the killer of Kelly continued his rage unabated even AFTER the killing. Consequently my feelings are that he had NO emotional connection to Kelly whatsoever.
Barnett also doesn't fit the characteristics of JtR; by all accounts Barnett was a mild, almost meek man with exemplary manners and who took care of himself very well, despite his lowly class - always appearing well groomed and dressed. For him to turn into a raging, psychotic maniac would be almost a real life Jekyll and Hyde. Always possible of course, but I'm currently not convinced that Barnett killed even Kelly, let alone the other victims.

[Batman]

If it was Barnett he would have to have gone against his natural instinct to 'cover' the body of someone he knew who he just killed to leave her exposed like that. Crimes of this nature where people know each other well usually involve covering the deceased by their killer with sheets or something like that (jacket etc.).

The treatment of Mary Kelly suggests the killer had absolutely no personal connection to her what-so-ever.

[The Good Michael]

Barnett theories continue to hold sway simply because they satisfy a need to make sense of Kelly's death; not because there is a strong case against him.

Yes, exactly like Hutchinson.

Mike

[miss marple]

Hear, hear. Excellent post Sally.
Miss Marple

[Sally]

I can understand why romanticising Kelly is attractive to some - by making her special in some way it's possible to imagine a resolution, which is more comforting than the thought that she was just another woman in unfortunate circumstances - one of countless in similar circumstances - who met her meaningless death in a horrific manner.

Thus, she can become a spy, or an activist; or an evil artist's muse; or a woman once of noble and important birth fallen on hard times - and on we go.

Barnett is absorbed into the romanticisation of Kelly by dubious virtue of having been cast as the jealous boyfriend killer by the writers of popular suspect books - a premise that is not well supported by the known facts. In order to get around the known facts - e.g. his lengthy interrogation at the time as an obvious suspect; his alibi - it has been necessary to resort to invention and create a Barnett who is little short of being an evil genius - another premise that is not supported by the known facts. Barnett theories continue to hold sway simply because they satisfy a need to make sense of Kelly's death; not because there is a strong case against him.