Tell me who JTR was

[Fisherman]

Why is it a given that MJK must have 'known' her murderer?

It´s not, Harry. The reason for thinking Kelly´s killer was an aquaintance of hers lies to a great extent in the facial wounds - when the identity of a murder victim has been obliterated like this, it has often been the result of a wish on behalf of the killer to rub the victim out of his world. That´s how the reasoning goes, and since it has empirical support it is not any bad reasoning at all.

However, in Kelly´s case it was not only the face that got obliterated - the killer seems to have put great effort into carving away as much as he could, so it could also be reasoned that the face was just collateral damage; why would he leave it untouched when he cut into all of the rest?

There are also examples of killers that have caused great facial damage to victims they have not known at all, sometimes to add shock value. It takes all kinds, as you will appreciate ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I understand that Christer, and I also appreciate that you will have done your homework. I really don't feel comfortable in buying into the Crossmere hypothesis just yet.

That´s completely fine, Jon. It´s a good thing we are not all of us running down the same paths!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

likely

Hello Harry. Thanks.

It is LIKELY since Miller's Court is a bit out of the way. Moreover, either she let him in or he knew how to get in. Either way . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Some will argue that JtR killed indoors because it became too risky in the streets. But that makes no sense. If so, why is she the only victim killed indoors ?

Er,....because the streets were crawling with cops, tec's & vigilante's since early October?


Fleming should have been a person of interest, yes Dave, based on what we know, that much is true.
How do we know he wasn't?

[Wickerman]

That is not the only "because" by any means, Jon.

I understand that Christer, and I also appreciate that you will have done your homework. I really don't feel comfortable in buying into the Crossmere hypothesis just yet.

[John Wheat]

Why is it a given that MJK must have 'known' her murderer?

It's not but it remains a possibility.

Cheers John

[Harry D]

Why is it a given that MJK must have 'known' her murderer?

[lynn cates]

known

Hello John. Thanks.

"possibly the killer knew Kelly."

I believe that.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello David. Thanks. Not too bad for an old man.

"I'm indeed pretty confident that MJK isn't a random victim."

Heartily concur. Of course, I'd say the same for Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hi Richard

6'7 is a good enough reason to feel a persecution complex.

I too enjoy bullying Bakkies Botha.
Poor guy.
But I can't resist.

Cheers

[Brenda]

.

.. [apart from the recorded facts of his interrogation and alibi that is]

... is that there is no motive. He was the one who left Kelly - not the other way around. How does that fit into a 'jealous spurned lover' scenario, exactly?

Hi Sally,

Just telling you my thinking....but I feel like a motive regarding "Barnett as JTR" kind of goes beyond just a jealous spurned lover. Once again it would go back to control.

Once Barnett lost his job, he and Mary started falling apart. The loss of the job must have a lot to do with that! Perhaps Mary was only with Barnett because he could provide well. That's a blow to the ego in itself. Plus she was going back out on the streets. She was bringing home other women he didn't approve of. He had lost "control" of her. Throw in some deep-seated rage and sexual issues and put it all under pressure....

He had left her, yes, but he was still going back. I think leaving her may have been a way of trying to regain the control, but she wasn't caring that he was gone. Nothing was working....

As incredible as it is, there are cases of serial killers going dormant. I don't believe that BTK would have killed again, he only got caught because he couldn't overcome his need for some more media attention. I don't understand how a brutal killer goes dormant either, it seems to fly in the face of the rational. But these are not rational people.

Here's a link to an old case from the US you may find interesting when you have a little time:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/list/15.html

Although the John List case would technically be labeled a "spree murder" instead of "serial killing"...it does give a peek into the brain of a murderer that I believe could be loosely similar to arguing a case for Barnett, as List was under a lot of stress and losing control as well.

John List was just a good ol' guy, a religious man. In fact, one might classify him as a bit of a religious fanatic. One day he lost his job and he was hiding this fact from his family. He was getting into deep financial problems. He had found out his wife had contracted syphilis from her first husband, and she had been keeping this a secret from him for 18 years. Also, he was furious with at least one of his children....if I remember correctly she was wanting to go on dates and be a normal teenager, but he wanted to keep the family under his complete religious control. She was defiant towards him. When he couldn't get things under control again, he didn't snap....he meticulously planned and executed the brutal deaths of his entire family...wife, mother, 3 children. Then he went out, began a new life, was happily married, and never killed again. It boggles the mind.

But anyway, I am by no means trying to convince people onto the "Barnett Wagon"....believe me, I know all the arguments against him well enough, and good arguments many of them are!

All I am saying is that after 12 years of studying every angle I can read on this case, Barnett is one suspect that logically I should have left behind long ago, and I just CAN'T DO IT. He feels very very wrong to me, and no amount of logic seems to help me shake that feeling.

Thanks for your comments GUT and Sally...and for listening to the ravings of this woman of illogic...I hope if you have time you can read the John List case and let me know your feelings on things!

[John Wheat]

"Some will argue that JtR killed indoors because it became too risky in the streets. But that makes no sense. If so, why is she the only victim killed indoors?"

To Lynn

Perhaps Kelly was in the habit of using her room as a knocking shop so to speak or possibly the killer new Kelly.

Cheers John

[DVV]

Hi Lynn,

I'm fine, thanks.
I'm indeed pretty confident that MJK isn't a random victim.
It's quite interesting to compare Ed Kemper with Fleming/JtR. A mother in one case, an ex-fiancée in the other.
Kemper killed young students, and finally his mother.
JtR killed old prostitutes, and finally his young lover.

Hope you're fine too, Lynn.

And hope you're fine also, Christer.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello David. Hope you are well.

"Some will argue that JtR killed indoors because it became too risky in the streets. But that makes no sense. If so, why is she the only victim killed indoors?"

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Even if 5 foot 7 inches - which means denying a clear and unambiguous record in a working document - we don't know hat this was the same person known by Mary Kelly.
We don't know that the person referred to as Joe by (off the top of my head) Venturney was Joe Fleming
Also if this person was the same and of he had not been specifically cleared in 1888, then when his name appeared in various asylum registers with an alias, it has to be assumed that the police somehow missed it - when we know that they did check the asylum registers.

The best suspect ever?
Because someone called Joe Fleming was an ex of Kelly?
Because someone called Joe who may have been the same person (but may not have been) ill-used Kelly?
Because someone called Joe Fleming (who may or may not have been the same as either of the above) from roughly the right area went mad and was sent to an asylum?
That is about it.