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.
-
Convince me that it wasn't Barnett
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.
Leave a comment: