Convince me that it wasn't Barnett

[Scott Nelson]

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

I've argued before that there was no pipe used for smoking found in her room. The verbiage used by Abberline during the inquest -- "I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & that they opened the door by reaching through the window, a pipe was there & used by him." -- implies that Barnett used the exterior drainpipe to balance himself as he reached through the broken window to unlatch the door.

In another version of Abberline's statement by a police recorder, the pipe "was there and smoked by him." But this latter version makes no sense in the context of trying to get into the room. The recorder misunderstood the intent of the statement and created a smoking pipe found in the room instead.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi,
I think Barnett makes a reasonable suspect but only in the case of MJK.
This of course would mean the other murders weren't committed by the same hand.
I've often wondered if the MJK murder was completely seperate from the others for many reasons.
Having Said that, I still doubt Barnett killed her.

On balance, I think it is a stretch to claim there was more than one man mutilating women in broadly the same manner, in the same location and at the same time.

I've read the case against Barnett several times, and for me there really isn't a case of note to answer.

[spyglass]

Hi,
I think Barnett makes a reasonable suspect but only in the case of MJK.
This of course would mean the other murders weren't committed by the same hand.
I've often wondered if the MJK murder was completely seperate from the others for many reasons.
Having Said that, I still doubt Barnett killed her.

[Fleetwood Mac]

A point aside on this:

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

I have read several accounts of publicans giving free clay-pipes with a pint of beer during the Victorian period, although I can't find a quote directly relating to East End London. Either way, these clay pipes were inexpensive and so it wasn't a precious item that must be on your person at all times otherwise you couldn't have a smoke.

[Wickerman]

There is stacks of evidence against Maybrick… he is the only one who could be brought to trial realistically…, I won’t clog up this thread but I ask you to PLEASE do some research for yourself

Sure you would, because you don't know I was involved and debating the Diary since Casebook began.
Eventually, I learned it was a lost cause, I won't waste my time on that rubbish anymore.

As this is a Barnett thread, another in a long line of Barnett threads, we can discuss him if you like. Or perhaps you should look up all the previous Barnett threads to see what has been proposed, and how he was reasonably dismissed by most. At least he is a more legitimate person of interest.
Bruce Paley's No.1 fan Leanne, tried for years on Casebook to promote Barnett as a suspect.

Theories just don't get out the gate with Barnett.
He claimed to be staying at Bullers lodging house, where he played whist until 12:30am, then went to bed.
The police knowing this will obviously check if he could leave without anyone knowing. Had there been any cause for suspicion they wouldn't have released him. They did question him for about 2 hours, and checked his clothes for blood.

Any theories about Barnett only amount to 'what-ifs', its all conjecture.
There are no decent suspects.

[Fanatic]

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.

There is stacks of evidence against Maybrick… he is the only one who could be brought to trial realistically…, I won’t clog up this thread but I ask you to PLEASE do some research for yourself

[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.