Convince me that it wasn't Barnett

[Lewis C]

Most of the victims of JtR had "falling out" with their male counterparts within a short time prior to their fate.. This led them to the streets and to the drink even more. I would like to read on some debate as to whether this is something worth discussing or all too common?

Hi Filby,

I think that for most of the Ripper victims, the falling out didn't happen as close to their murders as for Kelly, and usually the falling out resulted from the women's excessive drinking, so there probably wasn't any jealousy involved. The men left the women because they didn't want to continue the relationships. However, I agree with kensei that it seems very unlikely to me that he would have killed Nichols, and same way with Chapman and Eddowes.

[John Wheat]

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.

Interesting post regarding Barnett however your last line is wrong. Bury is a good suspect.

[Richard Patterson]

Harry, Barnett’s case does tick a lot of the surface-level boxes — proximity, motive, quarrels, even a plausible weapon. But if we weigh him against the full scope of what the Ripper actually did, Barnett starts to fall short.

The Ripper removed internal organs with speed and precision in conditions that baffled senior doctors of the day. That isn’t the work of a quarrelsome neighbour with a fish knife — it points to someone with systematic anatomical training. Francis Thompson studied medicine for six years at Owens College, Manchester, where he was specifically taught the Virchow autopsy method — a technique of removing organs one by one with a single knife . The Ripper did exactly that in the dark, under time pressure.

Barnett also lacks a clear stopping mechanism. Thompson, by contrast, was taken off the streets and into hospital right after Mary Kelly’s murder — and the killings stopped. Add in Thompson’s homelessness in Whitechapel at the time, his known possession of a dissecting scalpel (he admitted shaving with it), and his violent, prostitute-hating poetry, and you’ve got not just motive and opportunity, but the very skillset the crimes required.

Barnett is plausible if you want the murders to be explained by personal grudge and proximity. But if you’re looking for the suspect who matches the surgical facts, the timeline, and even the City Police’s later suspect description, Thompson rises head and shoulders above.