Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Convince me that it wasn't Barnett

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            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

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Rosella View Post
              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?
              Last edited by RockySullivan; 01-05-2015, 03:57 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Batman View Post
                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.
                Last edited by GBinOz; 08-23-2021, 01:06 PM.
                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Fanatic View Post

                    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.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      ....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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Fanatic View Post

                        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.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Fanatic View Post

                            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.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X