Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and

[Lechmere]

Maybe Barnett nipped out for a fag, bumped into Kelly, went back to her place for old times sake and then she annoyed him.

[Robert]

Hi Stewart

1. No one heard a row - and yet Barnett and Kelly made enough noise on Oct 30th.

2. Barnett couldn't have known, when setting out for Miller's Court, that he wouldn't find Kelly with a client, or one of her female friends. Why drag himself over there in the middle of the night in the rain?

3. Barnett would have known, before commencing the mutilations, that the police would be interviewing him next day, checking his clothing and searching his things. He'd have had to get rid of his clothing first thing in the morning, in the hope that Kelly's body wouldn't be discovered till late in the morning. He'd have had to have a new set of clothing ready to put on. Even if he did the murder naked, one would expect there to be blood on the inside of his clothes, and especially on the insides of his socks/boots. It all seems a terrible risk.

I'm assuming that the idea here is that Barnett flipped and murdered Kelly on impulse, then calmly did the mutilations to make it appear to be a Ripper murder. If however the suggestion is that the murder was premeditated, then it seems a funny way for Barnett to go about it. Surely there would be better opportunities? A quick throat slash down an alley would do very well.

[Lechmere]

Yes that's why I conceded there was a slight possibility that he did it.
However given the particulars of his case - the fact that he was checked out to a substantial degree - the likelihood that he was responsible for any or all of the murders must be minimal. Far below that of numerous other personages who crop up in the case.

If we are to revisit everyone who was cleared by the police then our suspect list will lengthen a little.

[Stewart P Evans]

Many a murderer...

So for Barnett to have killed Kelly he must have confounded the police during his alleged 4 hour interview, managed to avoid getting any blood on his shirt while killing her, and slipped in and out of his lodging house in the middle of the night without the deputy or the sleepers noticing (or if they did they willingly covered up for him, or at best didn't want to get involved.)
I guess there is a slight possibility he did it.

Many a murderer has confounded the police during a long interview, especially if his life was at stake (which it was, dozens of domestic murderers were executed in those days).

You simply cannot say what conditions applied at the lodging house Barnett used, you are assuming things based on a general idea of how other lodging houses operated, nor what sort of bed Barnett had paid for. If he had blood on any of his clothing, which we simply don't know one theory being he was naked, all he had to do was dispose of the clothing before the police saw him.

[Lechmere]

So for Barnett to have killed Kelly he must have confounded the police during his alleged 4 hour interview, managed to avoid getting any blood on his shirt while killing her, and slipped in and out of his lodging house in the middle of the night without the deputy or the sleepers noticing (or if they did they willingly covered up for him, or at best didn't want to get involved.)
I guess there is a slight possibility he did it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Unfortunately...

...
Or if we can, only as an unsubstantiated personal opinion.
I don't think the police were incompetent per se. I'm sure mistakes were made; but that doesn't amount to the same.
I personally find it doubtful that the police would not have checked out Barnett's account considering that he was the recently estranged partner of the latest victim of Jack the Ripper. I'm sure under those circumstances they'd have been very keen to interview him.

Unfortunately much is personal opinion and not fact.

It is human to err, we all make mistakes. I am sure the police checked out his statement so far as they could, the police questioned him for up to four hours and checked his clothing for blood.

Statistically he was the number one suspect for the murder of Kelly, and the police would know that. But, remember the police had no substantive evidence to hold him on.

By the way, I do not think for one minute that Barnett was the Ripper. Did he murder Kelly? The possibility must be there.

[Stewart P Evans]

Statement

...
Yes, but that's a qualitative statement - if P = I then Barnett wasn't checked out. But we don't, and cannot know that that P = I; in this instance or any other; so we cannot say that Barnett's story wasn't, or probably wasn't checked out very well.
...

It's a statement made by Bruce Paley so you'd have to check that one out with him. The statement about the police being inept was mine and was ironic and aimed at other theorists who claim the police were inept. Personally I don't think that they were.

[Stewart P Evans]

...
As to how he could verify that he was asleep in bed all night - in a common lodging house? Surely it wouldn't have been so difficult?
...

Have you thought this through?

What sort of accommodation and sleeping arrangements were offered in his lodging house? Were most of the lodgers, if sleeping near to him, sound sleepers? Would they lie to cover for him by saying he was there all night if they thought he couldn't have murdered anyone? As is typical with such witnesses would they just lie as they didn't want to be involved or to be responsible for his arrest?

You simply do not know, and it would take only one to say he was there all night to foil the police and provide an alibi.

[Stewart P Evans]

In this case...

...
Yes of course, we are reliant on press reports - as so often in this case. But is there actually any specific reason to doubt them here? Fundamentally, Barnett was interrogated by the police and was released - ergo, he satisfied them as to his whereabouts when Kelly was murdered - at least (even if he wasn't asked for an alibi for the other murders, which seems unlikely).
...

In this case a press report.

There is nothing to doubt in the detail as it is merely quoting Barnett himself, and he probably did say that. Many suspects were released on verification of some sort or other of their statements. If he claimed he was in bed all night and someone saw him go off to bed, then saw him emerge in the morning that would be sufficient as the police would have nothing else to contradict his claims.

[Stewart P Evans]

As far as...

...
Yes, I have it. An entertaining read, and well researched, as far as it goes; although I'm not sure I'd agree that it's excellent. As a theory, it's highly speculative, with a somewhat implausible motive that doesn't fit with the reported evidence at the time. There isn't really any evidence that Barnett had anything to do with Kelly's murder. We are talking about a man who was never, so far as can be ascertained, in trouble with the police and who lived an utterly pedestrian life as far as can be ascertained.
...

As far as Ripper suspect books go it is excellent. It contained many new press reports at a time when digital searching did not exist.

All suspect books are 'highly speculative', they have to be as there is no hard evidence against any suspect. It is the very reason why I did not want to write a book about a suspect. This should be obvious.

Many murderers have never been in trouble with the police and have lived 'an utterly pedestrian life' until they murder. I know I have dealt with some of them, especially domestic murderers.

[Lechmere]

Sally
I'm sure we agreed about something else once before, can't remember what though.

[Sally]

Crossed posts Ed - look! For once we are in agreement!

[Sally]

Stewart - thanks for your reply:

Well, Bruce Paley considered Barnett as a very likely suspect for all the Ripper murders, including Kelly, the case for which he set out in his excellent book Jack the Ripper The Simple Truth, London, Headline, 1995.

Yes, I have it. An entertaining read, and well researched, as far as it goes; although I'm not sure I'd agree that it's excellent. As a theory, it's highly speculative, with a somewhat implausible motive that doesn't fit with the reported evidence at the time. There isn't really any evidence that Barnett had anything to do with Kelly's murder. We are talking about a man who was never, so far as can be ascertained, in trouble with the police and who lived an utterly pedestrian life as far as can be ascertained.

No police reports have survived regarding Barnett's interview with the police, so we are left to rely upon press reports based on what Barnett said himself in interviews. As regards an alibi all Barnett stated was that 'on Thursday night he was at a lodging house in New Street, Bishopsgate Street, and was playing whist there until half-past twelve when he went to bed.' It's difficult to know how Barnett could supply corroboration that he was actually asleep in bed all night.

Yes of course, we are reliant on press reports - as so often in this case. But is there actually any specific reason to doubt them here? Fundamentally, Barnett was interrogated by the police and was released - ergo, he satisfied them as to his whereabouts when Kelly was murdered - at least (even if he wasn't asked for an alibi for the other murders, which seems unlikely).

As to how he could verify that he was asleep in bed all night - in a common lodging house? Surely it wouldn't have been so difficult?

So his alibi was that he was in bed and Bruce Paley states, 'If the police kept any records of their interview with him or of their investigation into Barnett's activities, they have not survived, so there is no way of knowing how thoroughly the police checked out Barnett's story.' If the police were as inept as certain theorists claim when pushing their own theories, probably not very well.

Yes, but that's a qualitative statement - if P = I then Barnett wasn't checked out. But we don't, and cannot know that that P = I; in this instance or any other; so we cannot say that Barnett's story wasn't, or probably wasn't checked out very well.

Or if we can, only as an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

I don't think the police were incompetent per se. I'm sure mistakes were made; but that doesn't amount to the same.

I personally find it doubtful that the police would not have checked out Barnett's account considering that he was the recently estranged partner of the latest victim of Jack the Ripper. I'm sure under those circumstances they'd have been very keen to interview him.

[Lechmere]

If Barnett hadn’t been checked out to the degree he told the press then it seems likely that the police would have read those stories and, even if they were a little slow on the uptake, a light would have come on in their heads. But maybe not.
Common Lodging Houses entailed communal living – no privacy. I rather doubt Barnett could have sneaked in and out unnoticed by his bedfellows. But maybe not.

There isn't any account whatsoever, in any source, of Charles Lechmere being 'checked out' and we know he was still being referred to by his false name in an internal private police report dated as late as 19th October 1888. The suggestion that Charles Lechmere wasn't 'checked out' is not based on pure conjecture, and certainly not on conjecture that flies in the face of the known facts.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sounds...

Yes Sally
Though the square shaped Barnett theory is bashed into a round culprit hole with the assumption that the police didn't properly 'check out' his alibi.

Sounds a bit like the square shaped Cross/Lechmere theory being bashed into a round culprit hole with the assumption that the police didn't properly check out who he was.