Was Barnett guilty after all?

[Joshua Rogan]

Tycho Brahe?

That made me chuckle :-)

[Michael W Richards]

Another word for "snitch" was "nose".
That said, can you cite any examples of other people being de-nosed? Aside from Kelly.

I don't have a specific reference at the moment Joshua, but it may have been in Fenian Fire if I recall correctly. It was done by Irish revolutionary supporters to street level criminals who ratted out others. Other facial markings as well. I find that quite interesting when coupled with Kates alleged statement about attempting to collect the reward. That would be a dangerous bargaining chip for her, but potential profit might have led her to the cliffs edge.

I can easily see a meeting to arrange to meet with the person and see if she could negotiate a better windfall. That may have been Saturday afternoon. She is plied with liquor, they learn how much she knows, and arrange to meet her for a payoff. I think her incarceration made her late, and her joy that the person was still waiting is shown by the hand on the chest, perhaps with a sigh of relief. Which would be incredibly ironic.

Why the person would wait would raise another question, did he know she was in jail?

[Harry D]

And that relates how to a murder of a young woman in London in 1888 during what was a string of murders with various bits taken from 2 girls prior?

Because it completely invalidates your theory that MJK must have been killed by someone she knew. You think the murder was personal because she had been extensively mutilated, when there are plenty of horrific examples of murders committed by mentally deranged individuals who had no relationship to the victim.

[Harry D]

Do you think Napper had any prior connection to JTR literature, though? I can't help feeling that he was trying to recreate the scene in Miller's Court.

Possibly, but I don't think any such connection was ever established.

In the States there was Richard Chase, another paranoid schizophrenic serial killer who committed post-mortem mutilation and harvested organs:

Three months pregnant at the time, Wallin was surprised at her home by Chase, who shot her three times, killing her using the same gun he used to kill Griffin. He then raped her corpse while stabbing her several times with a butcher knife. He then removed multiple organs, cut off one of her nipples and drank the blood.

[curious]

If it wasnt so damn pathetic using modern cases to try and make a point about 130 year old murders, it would be funny.

You don't think it might demonstrate "types" or patterns in human behavior?

curious

[Darryl Kenyon]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;427753]I don't have a specific reference at the moment Joshua, but it may have been in Fenian Fire if I recall correctly. It was done by Irish revolutionary supporters to street level criminals who ratted out others. Other facial markings as well. I find that quite interesting when coupled with Kates alleged statement about attempting to collect the reward. That would be a dangerous bargaining chip for her, but potential profit might have led her to the cliffs edge.


Didn't Irish revolutionaries generally cut off the hair of women who where low level snitches and or friendly with the police, rather than the tip of the nose.

[Michael W Richards]

You don't think it might demonstrate "types" or patterns in human behavior?

curious

ink that more modern serial killers are aware of the variables with Police investigations, and that the police have far more scientific means at their disposal than in 1888. Therefore I believe they modify their behavior in order to mislead an investigation.

In 1888 in East End London, very little could be obtained from any forensic review of a crime site or artifacts from one, and the killers of the day knew that. They therefore behaved in a far more natural manner, not confined by what might catch up with them later.

I also believe that what makes someone kill doesn't change, although what they do may. Objectives, motives, I look for consistency within the Canonical Group but I don't see it.

[curious]

ink that more modern serial killers are aware of the variables with Police investigations, and that the police have far more scientific means at their disposal than in 1888. Therefore I believe they modify their behavior in order to mislead an investigation.

In 1888 in East End London, very little could be obtained from any forensic review of a crime site or artifacts from one, and the killers of the day knew that. They therefore behaved in a far more natural manner, not confined by what might catch up with them later.

I also believe that what makes someone kill doesn't change, although what they do may. Objectives, motives, I look for consistency within the Canonical Group but I don't see it.

But aren't we talking about obsessions? Behaviors that gets out of the person's control?

curious

[Pierre]

But aren't we talking about obsessions? Behaviors that gets out of the person's control?

curious

Control is an important element for many serial killers. Their behaviour does not get out of their own control but through their behaviour they control their victims.

[Busy Beaver]

I often wonder if Barnett knew more about MJK than he let on. Maybe the relationship was just comfortable for them both to survive the hardship that was Whitechapel living and Joe felt that he didn't need to know about the woman he made a bargain to live with. Perhaps after MJK's murder he may have had a regret or two about not asking more questions. He certainly never talks about MJK from the time after he was interviewed by the Police to the day he died in 1926. That's a long time to stay silent. IF Mary Jane did NOT go out of her room after 2.00am, then I would consider Joe to be a prime suspect as JRT did not go round knocking on doors to see who was in. And Joe was the only other person who knew how to open the dodgy door and as he had been living in Millars Court for sometime, he would probably have a good idea of who would be coming and going during the day and night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Barnett would have been the first person the police would have wanted to talk to. I’ve always felt that if he did want to killer her he wouldn’t have done it in the room that they had shared until very recently. Also he would have been very well known by neighbours. It would only have taken one of them to have said that they’d seen Joe anywhere near Miller’s Court that night and he’d have been sunk.

I just can’t see Barnett as the killer. I think he was fond of Mary.

[curious]

I just can’t see Barnett as the killer. I think he was fond of Mary.

I don't see Barnett as a killer either. And certainly not to the extent of what was done to MJK.

To me, he seems a soft person -- not a go-getter, nor prideful. He comes across as wounded, mainly trying to get by.

curious

[Busy Beaver]

I never really wanted to suspect Joe either, I feel that he did have a soft spot for Mary and wanted to protect her. Perhaps he felt completely helpless when he found out that she had become a Ripper victim and that he failed her.
And having lost his own father, I think would have made him a stronger person, as he seems to come across as a man who tries to get whatever work he could and takes his responsibilities seriously. He did with Louisa, what he probably wanted to do with Mary- Get out of the east end poverty trap and set up a nice home and be comfortable into the twilight years.

[Harry D]

Poor old Joe wasn't chad enough for Mary Jane.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I started a thread way back about Barnett around 2001, but such a lot has happened since then, I now would say, although he may have been in a love triangle. he was unlikely to have been her killer. his brother Dan , and Joe Fleming more likely suspects, the former being seen drinking with Mary the previous evening in local pubs.
Regards Richard.