How the Ripper could have died

[Sally]

I don't think JTR was Barnett.

I don't think Joe was JtR either. But I haven't ruled him out as a possible killer of MJK. That is something different.

Phil H

He was rigorously interrogated by the police. He had an alibi. He was obviously the first in line as a suspect for Kelly's murder - and was cleared of suspicion. Anything is possible, of course, but it seems unlikely in those circumstances that he had anything to do with it.

When all indications point to innocence, it seems a little unfair to continue to point the finger of guilt at those long dead and unable to defend themselves. Yet unfortunately, it appears to be a common pastime.

There is insufficient evidence to point that finger at any one individual with any real degree of credibility.

Still, back to the topic in hand...

[Phil H]

Sorry, Sally, to question your "certainties". I try to keep an open mind.

To me, many of the circumstances of MJK's death speak of the killer as being someone intimate with her (barnett, Fleming or A N Other similar). the fury of the injuries and the apparent ease of access also could support such an hypothesis.

If the police were looking for a killer who could have killed others of the women that autumn, they may not have looked to hard at Joe.

He had an alibi.

Which, of course, depends on the time of death, and that is in question.

Anything is possible, of course, but it seems unlikely in those circumstances that he had anything to do with it.

I'm afraid I'm too cynical to be persuaded by that argument. In how many modern cases have we found weeping relatives were in fact the prepetrators of the most horrendous crimes.

When all indications point to innocence, it seems a little unfair to continue to point the finger of guilt at those long dead and unable to defend themselves.

I'm quite happy to do so. If we want to re-investigate these murders then we have to question everything and re-open lines of inquiry. In fact by looking again at the guilt of those long dead, we have now pretty well excluded Druitt and ostrog and maybe Kosminski from claims made about them at the time!! So the argument can work both ways.

There is insufficient evidence to point that finger at any one individual with any real degree of credibility. So are you suggesting that "Casebook" should shut down , or we focus only on the victims, or the social aspects of the murders.... the statement sounds fine, but I'm afraid carries little weight with me.

Actually, I no longer look for a single JtR (though I remain open to that possibility) but wonder whether some murderers (Kidney? the killer of MJK?) got away because the police were looking for a single murderer at the time to the exclusion of all else.

[Sally]

Sorry, Sally, to question your "certainties". I try to keep an open mind.

That's ok Phil. Nobody said anything about 'certainties'; and so do I.

To me, many of the circumstances of MJK's death speak of the killer as being someone intimate with her (barnett, Fleming or A N Other similar). the fury of the injuries and the apparent ease of access also could support such an hypothesis.

Agreed.

If the police were looking for a killer who could have killed others of the women that autumn, they may not have looked to hard at Joe.

I don't accept that as plausible. I think as the recently estranged partner of a woman brutally murdered a week or so later, it would be foolish to suggest that he wasn't looked at very hard indeed - he's the obvious suspect, surely?

Which, of course, depends on the time of death, and that is in question.

Unless you think Kelly died the next morning, sometime between Barnett waking up in the common lodging house, and the time when he was back again and heard of her death; he had an alibi. Besides, don't you think the police would have checked his whereabouts that morning, considering that there was uncertainty over Kelly's time of death? And besides again, he went to the police voluntarily, and they satisfied thenselves that he was in the clear. good enough for me given the circumstances, and for most people, I suspect.

I'm afraid I'm too cynical to be persuaded by that argument. In how many modern cases have we found weeping relatives were in fact the prepetrators of the most horrendous crimes.

Yes, but that's the point, isn't it? They have been discovered, because their stories didn't add up. Not the case with Barnett, evidently. The only argument against him is the generic one you imply above, Phil - namely that he was the 'weeping relative' - which conversely is exactly why he would have been a suspect in 1888. The Barnett-Suspect path was trodden then, at the time, by the police, and he was cleared of any involvement in Kelly's death.

I'm quite happy to do so. If we want to re-investigate these murders then we have to question everything and re-open lines of inquiry. In fact by looking again at the guilt of those long dead, we have now pretty well excluded Druitt and ostrog and maybe Kosminski from claims made about them at the time!! So the argument can work both ways.

See that's where I disagree. I don't think we do have to 'question everything' because then, I think, we become indiscriminate, undiscering, and we waste our time. Don't think that means that I don't think we should question - that's not the same thing at all.

So are you suggesting that "Casebook" should shut down , or we focus only on the victims, or the social aspects of the murders.... the statement sounds fine, but I'm afraid carries little weight with me.

No, not really Phil. Why would you think that? I'm saying that there is insufficient evidence to convict any one suspect. Suspect theory thus must rely on a great deal of personal speculation to present a case. Because we never have the information we would require to make a strong case, we are obliged to resort to what, in many cases, amounts to little more than fantasy to create one.

It's not for me, I'm afraid - I think it's a waste of time. It doesn't bear fruit. More helpful, by far, is the continuing genuine research into the case undertaken by some. Now, that's not really all that exciting - all that trawling through records, hoping for a break which seldom comes. And that of course is why many prefer to speculate instead - but it is there, in the dull old research, that progress will be made, if there is progress to be had.

Actually, I no longer look for a single JtR (though I remain open to that possibility) but wonder whether some murderers (Kidney? the killer of MJK?) got away because the police were looking for a single murderer at the time to the exclusion of all else

I don't look for JtR at all - although I am more inclined to think there was one than not. I don't think the police failed to catch him because he didn't exist, necessarily, and tend to see that sort of reasoning as a way of maintaining hope that the case can still be solved. Maybe there was a plot, or multiple killers or whatever - but frankly progress in that direction doesn't seem to be forthcoming either - yet.

I can accept that the case may never be solved; even whilst trying to shed new light on some of those involved.

[Phil H]

I don't accept that as plausible. I think as the recently estranged partner of a woman brutally murdered a week or so later, it would be foolish to suggest that he wasn't looked at very hard indeed - he's the obvious suspect, surely?

So it's just your view against mine. I suggest we agree to differ.

[RivkahChaya]

I don't think we do have to 'question everything' because then, I think, we become indiscriminate, undiscering, and we waste our time. Don't think that means that I don't think we should question - that's not the same thing at all.

Thanks you. I don't think it takes an exceptional degree of intelligence to immediately dismiss crackpot theories like freemasonry, or to know that real skepticism doesn't mean that every time the tide turns on something, we have to take the opposite stance: for example, we can accept that the Maybrick diary can be dismissed once and for all; it doesn't have to be re-examined every so many years, are re-demonstrated to be a fraud, just to keep up our credentials as open minds.

We can also accept that just because the police of the time failed to catch the Ripper, does not mean that they did absolutely nothing, and so we have to start an investigation from absolute scratch.

To me, many of the circumstances of MJK's death speak of the killer as being someone intimate with her (barnett, Fleming or A N Other similar). the fury of the injuries and the apparent ease of access also could support such an hypothesis.

To me, they don't. There doesn't seem to be even a speck of remorse, and from what I have read, that is what usually marks a personal killing, unless the killer is a complete sociopath, and since we know that Barnett lived the rest of his life pretty benignly, even banally, I'm going to suggest that he was not a sociopath.

Of course, this doesn't mean that JTR, whoever he was, did not happen to know Kelly. He may have been someone who patronized her regularly, but not the other women. The others may have been first-timers to him, who he did not know. Why he chose that night to kill someone he knew, when he hadn't before, I don't know. He couldn't find anyone else? He wanted to be inside, and she offered him that, Barnett finally being out of the room? she was ill with a virus (stomach problems having been noted, and maybe the reason some people thought she was pregnant), and she turned down a regular, making him mad.

As far as I am concerned, the bigger break in the pattern was Kelly's age, but I don't know what the weather was like then. Was it harder to find women out really late at night in December? It would be around here, but I know the winters are milder there.

[Phil H]

Sorry, RivkahChaya, but I am unconvinced.

As with Sally, your views are your own. I simply beg to differ.

Phil H

[Sally]

Rivkah -

As far as I am concerned, the bigger break in the pattern was Kelly's age, but I don't know what the weather was like then. Was it harder to find women out really late at night in December? It would be around here, but I know the winters are milder there.

It was an unusually wet Autumn and was raining on the night of Kelly's death - in November.

To address your query, no, it wasn't harder to find women out late at night in cold weather - generally speaking those that were out soliciting had no choice if they were going to eat, or indeed drink.

Kelly was in her room when attacked anyway, and the possibility exists that somebody simply let themselves in whilst she was sleeping. If that were the case, that person may well have known her personally.

It is easy to see something personal in Kelly's death - almost the destruction of the person - more so than with any other victims. But then again, it is difficult to know whether the person being destroyed in the mind of her killer was Kelly, or not.

[Cogidubnus]

It is easy to see something personal in Kelly's death - almost the destruction of the person - more so than with any other victims. But then again, it is difficult to know whether the person being destroyed in the mind of her killer was Kelly, or not.

Yes Sally, I think you're right...it is very easy to see Kelly's murder as somehow more intimate and personal, simply because it happened in her own bed...

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

Also because whomever it was had access to her room, knew she was alone, and (apparently) she was confident enough to go to sleep in his presence. There is also the question of knowing the rather arcane entry system she and Barnett employed.

I will only say that those of you who go on insisting that MJK MUST be a canonical victim, may well find yourselves misled in identifying the perpetrator. Be prepared to think outside the box.

Whatever the police did at the time, whatever their views, they do not appear to have identified the killer, do they?

Phil H

[Sally]

Also because whomever it was had access to her room, knew she was alone, and (apparently) she was confident enough to go to sleep in his presence. There is also the question of knowing the rather arcane entry system she and Barnett employed.

Perhaps - but not necessarily. She may have let her killer in, if she knew him. She may have left the door on the latch - she was apparently drunk after all; Blotchy may not have shut the door properly when he left, etc. - numerous possibilities.

[Sally]

Thanks you. I don't think it takes an exceptional degree of intelligence to immediately dismiss crackpot theories like freemasonry, or to know that real skepticism doesn't mean that every time the tide turns on something, we have to take the opposite stance: for example, we can accept that the Maybrick diary can be dismissed once and for all; it doesn't have to be re-examined every so many years, are re-demonstrated to be a fraud, just to keep up our credentials as open minds.

Hi Rivkah - sorry, I hadn't seen this post until just now. I agree. If we re-examined everything ever proposed, we would be indiscriminate. In this particular context - that of Ripperology - we'd be obliged to treat all suspects and theories as having the same degree of credibility - by logical extension that would include R.L. Stevenson, Walter Sickert, C.S. Lewis and Vincent Van Gogh.

I don't say that we shouldn't develop new theories - quite the opposite in fact. There is nothing wrong with revisionism at all - when there is reason - new evidence is usual, I believe.

[Phil H]

that would include R.L. Stevenson, Walter Sickert, C.S. Lewis and Vincent Van Gogh

Do you imply, Sally, that you don't consider these eminent gentlemen as realistic contenders for the "Strictly come mutilating" competition this autumn?

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

Also because whomever it was had access to her room, knew she was alone, and (apparently) she was confident enough to go to sleep in his presence. There is also the question of knowing the rather arcane entry system she and Barnett employed.

I'm guessing anyone who knew her at all knew she was alone, and she probably mentioned it to anyone she tried to solicit. Being able to offer a bed and a room on a rainy (Thanks Sally!) night must have been selling point. We don't know he wasn't someone who turned her down for business earlier, then went back.

Also, "arcane" entry system? Locked door? broken window...hmm...maybe I can get to the lock through the window. You don't have to know that is how Kelly and Barnett got in to have that occur to you.

I will only say that those of you who go on insisting that MJK MUST be a canonical victim, may well find yourselves misled in identifying the perpetrator. Be prepared to think outside the box.

I don't know that investigating the husband/boyfriend/recent ex of the dead woman is "outside the box" thinking. That seems to me to be pretty much dead center of the box.

Also, this isn't a TV show. In real life, the more likely something is, well, the more likely it is, and the person with the good alibi probably didn't do it. In real life, police check every inch of the box before they start poking around outside it.

The way I see it, a lot of Ripper study, and non-crackpot theory, has to do less with outside-the-box thinking, than with what belongs in the box changing as general knowledge improves. In 1888, police had trouble conceiving of a psychopath who wasn't obviously a raving lunatic. Now we know that there really are Ted Bundys, and Rodney Alcalas out there. (Go to the link, if you have 5 spare minutes.) It's a youtube video of a serial killer, in the midst of a series of murders (and at the time, a convicted rapist, albeit, one who had served his time), becoming a contestant on, and winning () The Dating Game.)

The woman, fortunately, had some Spidey sense, and after getting to know Alcala a little, refused to go on the prize-date with him. He killed two other women shortly thereafter.

[Sally]

that would include R.L. Stevenson, Walter Sickert, C.S. Lewis and Vincent Van Gogh

Do you imply, Sally, that you don't consider these eminent gentlemen as realistic contenders for the "Strictly come mutilating" competition this autumn?

Phil H

Not at all Phil - I understand that they're all rumoured to be taking part, allegedly. My money's on Van Gogh.

[RivkahChaya]

Not at all Phil - I understand that they're all rumoured to be taking part, allegedly. My money's on Van Gogh.

Nah. That's like starting strip poker with your pants already off.