Was Barnett guilty after all?

[richardnunweek]

Hello all.
I was just looking through some old posts on Forums, and came across a post I made 8 years ago.
I thought it was quite interesting so am repeating it here on Casebook.
Maybe we have been looking at Barnett the wrong way, lets suggest a scenario that may see him in a different light.
Lets assume one thing, Barnett liked a drink, he met Kelly in a pub in Commercial road, some 18 months previous, and at that time she was actively on the game, He also admitted that Kelly and himself were kicked out of lodgings, for 'Going on a drink''.
After the death of MJK,reporters found him in a pub, and he also retired to a local in Leytonstone,with the other mourners, after the funeral.
The suggestion that Barnett appeared drunk at the inquest, may have been based on truth, but most likely not before he gave his evidence to the coroner,
Did they not stop for lunch back then?
So far I have given a insight to Barnett's liking for a drink, .
But how about a scenario, where Barnett actually enjoyed the company of prostitutes , after all he picked up Mary Kelly,whilst she was soliciting,maybe it was his urges to frequent prostitutes , that Mary strongly objected to, and the rows were the result of that.?
Just suppose one of these pick ups was Tabram, and it was while she was leading him into George yard buildings, she remarked''You naughty boy, i shall be telling your Mary about you'' which touched a nerve in him, and he stabbed her to death.
He found that he got actual pleasure, and satisfaction, by acting out violence on her, it was her punishment for the way she was behaving.
This was to start the series,in which the accosting, lent to increasing violence.
It is entirely possible that JB, really loved Mary , but she could no longer tolerate, his obvious obsession with the local women, and she sent him away on the 30th October,quite possible with a hint of fear,
She had already informed Lottie a resident of the court, that she had a dream that scared her, that she was being murdered.
I wonder if it was Barnett killing her.?
As for her demise on the 9th Nov, it could well be that Barnett had a inkling that his ex was suspecting him, which resulted in her being butchered , on the very bed, she had dreamt .
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

Hello Richard,

Your scenario could be correct. The problem is can we come up with evidence to support it? I remember some time ago somebody suggested Abberline was the Ripper. He could have been but again the problem of evidence rears its ugly head. So vary the scenario and vary the suspect it all comes down to evidence.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi CD.
My theory is very speculative, and tongue-in-cheek.
But It gives a different option.
It was written in 2009, and at the very least is different,,
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

Hello Richard,

Speculation is fine and I meant no criticism of your having a go at it. And if at some point in the future that speculation can be supported with evidence so much the better. If nothing else, speculation is entertaining.

c.d.

[jerryd]

Hi Richard,

I have been curious about Barnett over the years myself. Below I have attached a map of New Street, Bishopsgate. Although I don't know exactly where #24 & #25 was located here(Buller's Lodging House), one can still get the idea how close it was to the Bishopgate Police Station where Eddowes was released on the night of her murder. We also know that Joseph Barnett was playing Whist with some friends here when MJK was murdered and left shortly after to live with his sister.

I have always wondered if Barnett had gone to this location prior to Mary's murder if he had friends there. Even as far back as the murder of Catherine Eddowes about a month before. We have the rumored sighting on the morning after Mary's murder of the man with blood splashes hurrying through Mitre Square and running into another man. Perhaps Joe stayed here periodically when things got heated with Mary? He may have even known Eddowes by sight as she was said to have slept rough in the shed next to 13 Miller's Court.

Food for thought.

[John G]

If Kelly was murdered by someone she knew, personally I consider John McCarthy to be a better suspect.

[Harry D]

So MJK was the apotheosis and Barnett never killed again after that?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Harry,
I am not suggesting that Barnett was Jack The Ripper, but reversing the plot somewhat, instead of Joseph not liking the kind of life Mary was leading, by bringing home fellow streetwalkers, maybe he was the instigator ?
We have only his word about what went on behind closed doors, none of the other character witnesses, revealed one side or the other.
Regards Richard.

[Varqm]

So what you are saying is after 4 hours of interview/interrogation Barnett passed the truth test and that was that.
But in actuality he sneaked out of his lodging house and murdered MJK.
And the police did not bother anymore to go to Bullers,checked out his alibi - that he played whisk until 12:00 AM.,and slept afterwards and therefore had nothing to do with the MJK murder-asked the residents,lodging house deputy,whisk players,and find out if any resident could vouch Barnett did not leave .

Or if nobody vouched Barnett did not leave,it was just impossible or the police were not bright enough that they could not
have been able to assess Barnett could have left without somebody noticing.And therefore the police not suspecting him was misguided.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,Varqm,
According to The Times Nov 12 88, the police believed the murder happened in daylight.
So although Barnett had a alibi for the hours of darkness, would that have applied for the early daylight hours?.
If the medical reports were wrong, then the entire Kelly case , could take on a new prospective.
Regards Richard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Richard.

Nothing wrong with a hypothetical scenario as far as I'm concerned. I've been known to partake of a few myself.

One of the main points that I've had against Barnett as the killer of Kelly is that he would have been a well known face around Millers' Court and so more likely than most to get recognised. Also as her ex he would have been one of the first to get official attention? Doesn't completely count him out of course.

I wonder if George Hutchinson knew Barnett? If Hutchinson was acquainted with Kelly as he claimed it must at least have been possible that he also knew Joe. If only by sight or name.

Regards
Herlock

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Richard,

The notion that Barnett may be more culpable in this murder is intriguing of course, but I suggest you refrain from making this about a story that also might tie him in to other alleged Ripper murders, like in post #8.

The evidence points to someone Mary knew, she was involved in a triangle with another Joe...which is often a catalyst for violence when discovered, its a distinct possibility that the killer was allowed by Mary to enter the room, whether he arrived alone, or as some believe, she later that night brought home a client. Since there is no precedent at all for the latter, and a real possibility that since she now had the room alone paramours could slip into the court and tap on her window or door at any time day or night, I defer to the first scenario. Which also might tie in well with the cry out near 4am.

Barnett knew about the latch method, he may have had a grudge if he discovered she had been seeing someone else... while he was living there and supporting her, and he would have been allowed by Mary to enter that room if he knocked late at night.

The issue with this premise is that the same circumstances might exist with her and Joe #2. A Joe may have killed her, which one is a puzzle.

[Harry D]

The evidence points to someone Mary knew, she was involved in a triangle with another Joe...which is often a catalyst for violence when discovered

There's violence and then there's violence, Michael.

[Michael W Richards]

There's violence and then there's violence, Michael.

There is evidence of everyday violence there Harry...her defense wounds and the facial slashes for 2 examples. The utter destruction of Mary need not have been a motive at all, it may only have occurred because her killer deteriorated mentally during this attack...or it may have occurred to create a scenario where an unidentified killer suspected of other mutilation murders is the obvious suspect. Thereby directing suspicions away from her personal acquaintances.

Thing is...these mutilations were not focused on the abdomen, (Polly and Annies were), these extractions led to the removal of organs previously sought but strangely left behind in odd placements..(under her head, by her feet),...and there is quite a bit of removal of flesh from bone, something not seen in any other alleged Ripper murder.

The carnage was not focused at all, but some angry wounds were.

[Harry D]

There is evidence of everyday violence there Harry...her defense wounds and the facial slashes for 2 examples. The utter destruction of Mary need not have been a motive at all, it may only have occurred because her killer deteriorated mentally during this attack...or it may have occurred to create a scenario where an unidentified killer suspected of other mutilation murders is the obvious suspect. Thereby directing suspicions away from her personal acquaintances.

Thing is...these mutilations were not focused on the abdomen, (Polly and Annies were), these extractions led to the removal of organs previously sought but strangely left behind in odd placements..(under her head, by her feet),...and there is quite a bit of removal of flesh from bone, something not seen in any other alleged Ripper murder.

The carnage was not focused at all, but some angry wounds were.

Catherine Eddowes' killer also mutilated the face. Not to the same extent, sure, but this trajectory fits with a serial killer whose violence was increasing with each victim.

Furthermore, don't you see the contradiction in claiming that MJK's murder was a copycat on account of the extreme overkill, whilst arguing that the killer butchered her to this extent to frame the Ripper?