Finding Mary Kelly

[Abby Normal]

Barnett for the other murders?

It's all predicated on him killing MJK. Didn't he have an alibi for that night?

Assuming, MJK wasn't murdered later on.

yes-barnett as the ripper. he did have an alibi-kind of, maybe his chums lied for him, and or after wards he went back to Marys around fourish and killed her. just possibly in the daylight morning (assuming maxwell was correct in her sighting).

[Harry D]

hi Harry
Ive always thought barnett was a viable suspect. perhaps once mary rejected him for good, he viewed her as just another prostitute and yet with a more personal motive. and the only victim to have her heart removed.

Barnett for the other murders?

It's all predicated on him killing MJK. Didn't he have an alibi for that night?

Assuming, MJK wasn't murdered later on.

[caz]

I agree with Harry here. If Barnett planned to murder his ex and make it look like the ripper's work, he took a real risk by doing it in the room they had so recently shared. The police would inevitably question him because of their relationship, and this was also the first indoor murder, so they would have considered him a prime suspect for just this one, even if he could provide alibis for the others.

Much safer to follow her and murder her in the street, so there would be no obvious connection back to him. As a known prostitute, the natural assumption would be that she fell victim to JtR.

Of course, if it was a spur of the moment crime of passion, that might explain the risky location, but would Barnett then have had the presence of mind to recall the goriest details of the recent murders and systematically take her apart?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

It can't be ruled out, but the Mansfield murder was an isolated incident, whereas MJK's death happened to coincide with a spate of motiveless post-mortem mutilation murders. Now it could (and has been) argued that MJK's murderer used the overkill to disguise it as a Ripper murder, but no one is committing that level of butchery unless they were pathologically driven to. Also, the whole copycat angle has never made much sense, because the police would still investigate those connected to the victim whether they suspected it was a Ripper crime or not.

hi Harry
Ive always thought barnett was a viable suspect. perhaps once mary rejected him for good, he viewed her as just another prostitute and yet with a more personal motive. and the only victim to have her heart removed.

[Harry D]

Hi Jurriaan
I'm not sure the mutilations inflicted on MJK rule out a domestic crime of passion. In 1896 the cut throat murders of a family in Mansfield culminated in the post mortem mutilation of Mrs Reynolds by her long term lodger, her mutilations strikingly similar to those inflicted on Mary Jane Kelly. The perpetrator gave himself up and his pathetic excuse was that Mrs Reynolds had rejected his sexual advances and he felt that if he couldn't have her, no one else should. I agree with something you wrote earlier in that Barnett was probably naive and easily manipulated by Mary Jane, which, to me, would make any rejection of him, by her, very painfull?
Debs

It can't be ruled out, but the Mansfield murder was an isolated incident, whereas MJK's death happened to coincide with a spate of motiveless post-mortem mutilation murders. Now it could (and has been) argued that MJK's murderer used the overkill to disguise it as a Ripper murder, but no one is committing that level of butchery unless they were pathologically driven to. Also, the whole copycat angle has never made much sense, because the police would still investigate those connected to the victim whether they suspected it was a Ripper crime or not.

[Jurriaan Maessen]

Hi Jurriaan
I'm not sure the mutilations inflicted on MJK rule out a domestic crime of passion. In 1896 the cut throat murders of a family in Mansfield culminated in the post mortem mutilation of Mrs Reynolds by her long term lodger, her mutilations strikingly similar to those inflicted on Mary Jane Kelly. The perpetrator gave himself up and his pathetic excuse was that Mrs Reynolds had rejected his sexual advances and he felt that if he couldn't have her, no one else should. I agree with something you wrote earlier in that Barnett was probably naive and easily manipulated by Mary Jane, which, to me, would make any rejection of him, by her, very painfull?
Debs

Thanks for responding, Debs. I seem to have missed it (not logging in often enough, I guess). Anyway: interesting piece of information on that Mansfield post mortem mutilation case, showing that there indeed exists some precedent at least, but I still seem to struggle with the idea that a one time killer would go so far as to ravish a corpse to such a degree that it is almost entirely obliterated, as well as the morbid draping of body parts around the murdered victim (and possible removal of the heart), and also- apparantly- maintaining his "cool" when interviewed by seasoned inspectors like Abberline. But perhaps I struggle to reconcile the person Barnett (or what we think we know of him) with the mutilations performed on poor Mary Jane. I also seem to remember that an inquest report mentioning Barnett "laboured under great emotion" when providing his testimony, prompting the coroner on one occasion to reassure Barnett that he gave his testimony very well, or words to that effect. This would be a piece of deception of almost Shakespearian dimensions, but who knows?

[caz]

I wonder if it was an assumption made that MJK's relatives would no doubt make contact with the authorities on reading about her frightful murder in the newspapers, and this then translated into an expectation that they would soon be arriving in London to attend - and possibly to pay for - her funeral.

When nothing more was heard, it was thought that they had a change of mind, when it could just have been that nobody from her past ever made the connection, because they didn't know her by that name, and had no idea that she had ended up in Miller's Court.

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

Didn't claim they were smart.

Spent many years looking for a suitable screenwriter.

The tension of these women underestimating a shy 5'3" medical officer is immense.

[GBinOz]

He knew all Five.

Nichols and Eddowes as inpatients with Rheumatic Fever.
Stride had a genetic disease which was one of his specialities,hence the cachous.
Chapman,TB. He tried to take her head off.
Mary Kelly was a member of his Church when a child.

Hi Dave,

Your theory is interesting, to say the least. My question would be, when he was killing the blackmailers one by one, wouldn't the survivors have realised that their goal was unachievable and would result in their deaths?

Cheers, George

[DJA]

He knew all Five.

Nichols and Eddowes as inpatients with Rheumatic Fever.
Stride had a genetic disease which was one of his specialities,hence the cachous.
Chapman,TB. He tried to take her head off.
Mary Kelly was a member of his Church when a child.

[GBinOz]

Hi Debs,

So if MJK was killed by Barnett as a crime of passion, does that, in your opinion, reduce the likehood of his also being JtR?

At this stage I am not entirely convinced that MJK was a ripper victim, but the fact that the only facial lacerations that occured were on MJK and Eddows, has me wondering if these two exclusively were by the same hand.

Cheers, George

Alternatively, if the canonical five are all attributable to the same killer, did he know Eddows and MJK but not the other three?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Jurriaan
I'm not sure the mutilations inflicted on MJK rule out a domestic crime of passion. In 1896 the cut throat murders of a family in Mansfield culminated in the post mortem mutilation of Mrs Reynolds by her long term lodger, her mutilations strikingly similar to those inflicted on Mary Jane Kelly. The perpetrator gave himself up and his pathetic excuse was that Mrs Reynolds had rejected his sexual advances and he felt that if he couldn't have her, no one else should. I agree with something you wrote earlier in that Barnett was probably naive and easily manipulated by Mary Jane, which, to me, would make any rejection of him, by her, very painfull?
Debs

Hi Debs,

So if MJK was killed by Barnett as a crime of passion, does that, in your opinion, reduce the likehood of his also being JtR?

At this stage I am not entirely convinced that MJK was a ripper victim, but the fact that the only facial lacerations that occured were on MJK and Eddows, has me wondering if these two exclusively were by the same hand.

Cheers, George

[Debra A]

The alleged grave-spitting incident appears to be an apocryphal invention, and I hope you forgive me for saying the rest of your argument seems tenuous at best. Even if Barnett harboured ill-feeling towards Kelly after his recent departure from Miller's Court (which is by no means impossible), the amount of violence used to slaughter Mary Kelly in my opinion excludes Barnett as a possible perpetrator. The extend of the mutilations would not only be an unlikely possibility for a first-time crime of passion, but a wholly negligible one. Unless of course you would speculate towards a possible ripper candidacy for Barnett, but that would be even more unlikely, wouldn't you agree?

Hi Jurriaan
I'm not sure the mutilations inflicted on MJK rule out a domestic crime of passion. In 1896 the cut throat murders of a family in Mansfield culminated in the post mortem mutilation of Mrs Reynolds by her long term lodger, her mutilations strikingly similar to those inflicted on Mary Jane Kelly. The perpetrator gave himself up and his pathetic excuse was that Mrs Reynolds had rejected his sexual advances and he felt that if he couldn't have her, no one else should. I agree with something you wrote earlier in that Barnett was probably naive and easily manipulated by Mary Jane, which, to me, would make any rejection of him, by her, very painfull?
Debs

[erobitha]

Realistically though, given her age, I would guess she made almost all of her life story up. The other victims, being much older, had a history of husbands and children, etc. And Stride made up a few things of her past. I would bet if Mary had lived just 5 years more we would have a clearer path to her background and life.

Barnett claimed she was married at 16. Which obviously she wasn’t or it would be on the Welsh records as such and she would have had permission from her parents. Does not mean to say she might have wanted others to believe that. James Davies was killed in Risca aged 18. He lived in a place called Factory Tip. Essentially there were some old cottages on the edge of the old factory that was there in Risca. If Davies and she were living in sin, perhaps a white lie of marriage enabled the young couple to rent one of those cottages. Interestingly I have James Davies death certificate- his mother’s address was not the same as his.

[Columbo]

Realistically though, given her age, I would guess she made almost all of her life story up. The other victims, being much older, had a history of husbands and children, etc. And Stride made up a few things of her past. I would bet if Mary had lived just 5 years more we would have a clearer path to her background and life.