Convince me that it wasn't Barnett

[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.

[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.

[c.d.]

It's a "smoking pipe" not a "smoking gun."

c.d.

[The Macdonald Triad]

If Barnett was MK's killer it would be easy to see how. Imagine walking down the street and a couple of blokes look at you and snicker about just rogering your missus' backside. He would have to have been the biggest cuckold in the history of the world. The other women killed were probably bad influences on Mary and if Barnett was the killer, he was probably trying to scare her straight in his own demented way. That last part is not my idea, I picked it up somewhere, but the humiliation part I've never heard addressed. How could any man tolerate that?

[The Macdonald Triad]

It should be noted that the DC Snipers (the older one) was sniping all those people to cover up a hit on his ex-wife. It's not such a fantastical proposition.

[c.d.]

If Barnett was MK's killer it would be easy to see how. Imagine walking down the street and a couple of blokes look at you and snicker about just rogering your missus' backside. He would have to have been the biggest cuckold in the history of the world. The other women killed were probably bad influences on Mary and if Barnett was the killer, he was probably trying to scare her straight in his own demented way. That last part is not my idea, I picked it up somewhere, but the humiliation part I've never heard addressed. How could any man tolerate that?

Except that he knew she was a prostitute. What did he think she was doing with her clients? If he had the mindset you describe why hook up in a romantic relationship in the first place with a prostitute?

c.d.

[The Macdonald Triad]

Except that he knew she was a prostitute. What did he think she was doing with her clients? If he had the mindset you describe why hook up in a romantic relationship in the first place with a prostitute?

c.d.

But she supposedly quit prostitution when with him. Then he loses his porter's license probably because of her indirectly and she bails quick. However after him moving out and her going back to prostitution she still is in major debt to McCarthy which tells Hutchinson she's not using her Ill gotten gains to pay the rent. I got with what I knew to be a loose woman before with loose friends. She was good looking with a fit body so I didn't care and of course liked playing noble because I was overlooking her looseness. Once hooked up as boyfriend and girlfriend my ego wouldn't let me believe she eventually cheated but she did. Granted I didn't rip her or her friends that covered and enabled her up, but I fantasized about it for 10 seconds.

[Wickerman]

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.

I don't recall hearing that before.
It is true, the court record could suggest a drain pipe, it's just that every press version offers the words: "There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it."
The press were present at the inquest, so it is hard to imagine them all misunderstanding the context?
Interesting.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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

Well, the debate is about Barnett, so...

Barnett knew the victim. He had access to the property. He'd recently ended their relationship and was unhappy with Mary's lifestyle choices. He was unemployed, so was free to move around the area at any time. He was a local. There's a few points.

Maybrick was ... Well, without the diary, nothing at all. Every bit of the "stacks" of evidence comes from the diary.

Barnett's an unlikely candidate, but he is at least a candidate.

And yes, I've researched the subject. And read Ike's brilliant societies pillar.

Welcome to the boards.

[Scott Nelson]

...every press version offers the words: "[COLOR=black]There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it."
The press were present at the inquest, so it is hard to imagine them all misunderstanding the context?

I think one pressman interpreted this verbiage (wrongly) from Abberline's statement and other newspapers copied it.

[Wickerman]

Hi Al.

Well, the debate is about Barnett, so...

Barnett knew the victim.

Ok, but it isn't necessary that the killer knows the victim.

He had access to the property.

Also, not necessary.

He'd recently ended their relationship and was unhappy with Mary's lifestyle choices.

Yes, I'd give you half a point for that, because he did know what she was before he took up with her.

He was unemployed, so was free to move around the area at any time.

Also, not necessary. Many in the East End were the same.
The killer could have been self-employed, a shift worker, or independently wealthy.

He was a local.

Also, not necessary.

Barnett's an unlikely candidate, but he is at least a candidate.

Honestly, there just isn't anything about him that suggests a likely killer, nor is there anything about the killings that points to Barnett.

I think you would agree, he is obviously the first person - as the significant other - the police will look at, that's a given even today. And as he told us he was in their custody 2 hours? They looked him over thoroughly, and dismissed him.