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

[Stewart P Evans]

Silly me

...
Naturally.
...

Silly me, I should have known you had.

[Stewart P Evans]

Can't agree

...
Ok – fair enough; but we’re still left with a motive, aren’t we? Barnett seems to have been on friendly terms with Kelly up to her death. The notion that he was seeking to recommence their former relationship is certainly possible, but unfounded – guesswork at best. We have no idea how either of them felt; or what they wanted at the time – and it’s worth remembering that he was the one who apparently ended their relationship to begin with. There is no foundation for the idea that he ventured to her room at some point during the night, undetected, and killed her; either as a pre-meditated act, or in a fit of jealous rage. It struggles with his personal circumstances and I think it borders on fantasy.
...

I can't agree that 'seeking to recommence their former relationship' is merely guesswork, it's an informed opinion. The break was obviously acrimonious yet here he was just over a week later seeing her in her room. From past experience I should say it's quite common for a paramour to seek to reconcile a relationship after a short break, especially if feelings were genuine.

Of course we don't know how either of them felt, apart from the fact that Barnett had objected to her resorting to prostitution and the fact she had taken in a person who was a prostitute, but claiming they were on friendly terms. This from Barnett himself. Like most couples they 'rowed'. It's fairly safe to say that in most such instances we do not know how the parties actually felt and what they wanted. It is often the party that ends a relationship, in an effort to change what a partner does, who regrets it afterwards.

All this shouldn't need saying when we are agreed that we are in the realms of speculation. Thus it is pointless to say that 'there no foundation for the idea that he ventured to her room at some point in the night' as it is a hypothesis. When building a case for any given scenario various points have to be suggested 'without foundation'. Had there been any evidence that he had left the lodgings during the night I am sure he would have been under arrest.

You obviously do not understand the nature of domestic murders, which may arise out of the most unlikely and petty circumstances if you are saying that the scenario we have with Barnett is bordering on fantasy. I didn't realize that anyone had mentioned 'jealous rage'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculative

...
Yes, but some are more speculative than others. My stance against Barnett the suspect as proposed by Paley is the same as it would be for any other ‘imagined’ suspect – for every ‘guilty’ explanation there is an equal and opposite alternative which requires no guilty action. There is nothing, in short, to distinguish Barnett (or several others imaginatively painted with the same ‘suspect’ brush) from an innocent man unless we choose to look at him through the eyes of the speculative prosecutor. The case against him is purely speculative – that was what I meant; perhaps I should have been more specific.
...

It is obvious that some will be more speculative than others, depending on the choice of 'suspect' and the material available. Aren't most suspects 'imagined'? Do you count Cross/Lechmere as an 'imagined' suspect? As well as contra arguments for innocence there will often be unknown variables and facts at work.

[Stewart P Evans]

Generous

Stewart - thanks for your replies:
I think I did say it was well researched, so far as it went.
...

You are generous with your praise, I'm sure you could have done a better job.

[Lechmere]

Oh dear I'm agreeing with you know Sally.
This case is full of landlords and lodging house keepers dobbing people in.

[Sally]

Interesting thread. While I don't think Barnett killed Kelly, what Stewart says about lodging houses is largely true. I've been reading press reports on them for some time. In one, five men set upon a chap, robbed him, and tossed him out the window, and nobody saw a thing. It reminds me of pubs. Don't you think it's remarkable that publicans and barmaids virtually never gave evidence at an inquest or appear in a police report even though most of the victims were seen in pubs - sometimes quite a few pubs - in the hours before their death? That's always bugged me, and I have to assume the police visited each pub in the area but were told 'I didn't see a thing'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Very interesting, Tom - and I'm sure such things went on. I appreciate that there may have been a marked reluctance to get involved in an act of violence as a witness - such was true then and is true now. Hell, it was ever thus.

But in the case of Barnett there was no witnessed violence in the hypothetical event that he sneaked out of his lodging house in the small hours, did for Kelly and crept back in.

There was only the egress and ingress of a man who may or may not have been known to his fellow lodgers. Denial in that case could've been tantamount to covering for a murderer - risky and unecessary.

Besides, who wouldn't want to be the Ripper Catcher? That'd be a story to tell in the pub.

[Sally]

Stewart - thanks for your replies:

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.

I think I did say it was well researched, so far as it went.

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.

Yes, but some are more speculative than others. My stance against Barnett the suspect as proposed by Paley is the same as it would be for any other ‘imagined’ suspect – for every ‘guilty’ explanation there is an equal and opposite alternative which requires no guilty action. There is nothing, in short, to distinguish Barnett (or several others imaginatively painted with the same ‘suspect’ brush) from an innocent man unless we choose to look at him through the eyes of the speculative prosecutor. The case against him is purely speculative – that was what I meant; perhaps I should have been more specific.

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.

Ok – fair enough; but we’re still left with a motive, aren’t we? Barnett seems to have been on friendly terms with Kelly up to her death. The notion that he was seeking to recommence their former relationship is certainly possible, but unfounded – guesswork at best. We have no idea how either of them felt; or what they wanted at the time – and it’s worth remembering that he was the one who apparently ended their relationship to begin with. There is no foundation for the idea that he ventured to her room at some point during the night, undetected, and killed her; either as a pre-meditated act, or in a fit of jealous rage. It struggles with his personal circumstances and I think it borders on fantasy.

Have you thought this through?

Naturally.

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.

I take your point. You are asking the unanswerable, of course – and you are quite right: we cannot know the explicit details of Barnett’s lodging house; nor its exact domestic arrangements; nor the sleeping habits and patterns of its inhabitants; nor the moral proclivities of those same people.

But since we can’t know these things, we are left with a generalisation – a reasonable one in this case – which is that such places typically offered an overcrowded environment with little or no privacy. In general, it would’ve been next to impossible to keep one’s comings and goings undetected . Whether or not the men he played cards with on the night of Kelly’s death would have lied for his sake – and realistically we have no way of guessing that at this remove; somebody would’ve have noted his movements.
For him actually to have slipped out in the night, killed Kelly and slipped back in to be a realistic possibility, we’d have to assume that any number of men – who may or may not have played cards with him - who saw him leave and return were willing to cover for him.

I’m personally inclined to see Kelly as the victim of a serial killer of women who found himself with the opportunity to fulfil his fantasies. I could entertain the idea of Kelly as a domestic murder, but in that case I think it unlikely, all things considered, to have been Barnett responsible.

[Tom_Wescott]

Interesting thread. While I don't think Barnett killed Kelly, what Stewart says about lodging houses is largely true. I've been reading press reports on them for some time. In one, five men set upon a chap, robbed him, and tossed him out the window, and nobody saw a thing. It reminds me of pubs. Don't you think it's remarkable that publicans and barmaids virtually never gave evidence at an inquest or appear in a police report even though most of the victims were seen in pubs - sometimes quite a few pubs - in the hours before their death? That's always bugged me, and I have to assume the police visited each pub in the area but were told 'I didn't see a thing'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

Hi Stewart

Yes I remember you saying that Dew's remark about it being the most gruesome sight of his police career was disingenuous, as he'd have seen worse sights than that by the time he wrote his book. I'm glad I wasn't a policeman.

[Stewart P Evans]

Unpleasant

Hi Stewart
Just saw your latest post.
Well I dare say such things do happen. In this case it would mean that Barnett was as cool as a cucumber - or cold as a fish.

Yes, we used to get some pretty unpleasant jobs in the police force, I lost count of the gruesome jobs and autopsies that I attended. Domestics always figured high in violent crimes.

You mentioned Dew slipping on blood on floor but this is from his (possibly fanciful in places?) book. Dr. Phillips was quite specific in stating that there was a 'large quantity' of blood under the bedstead, indicating that that was where the majority had gone although there may well have been some on the floor beside the bed. It must be remembered that Dew was very young, and presumably impressionable, at the time and writes in a very sensational manner about the scene. Added to which he was writing about the crime some 50 years after the event.

[Robert]

Hi Stewart

Just saw your latest post.

Well I dare say such things do happen. In this case it would mean that Barnett was as cool as a cucumber - or cold as a fish.

[Robert]

Hi Stewart

Don't worry, I understand your position, and that you're not actually advocating Barnett as the killer. I wouldn't say that Barnett has been ignored - there was a time around 8 years ago when the boards were awash with Barnett threads, and there were many discussions involving Leanne and Richard, who were very keen on him as a suspect. Shannon Christopher also chipped in. As you know, two of these three wrote books on Barnett. And as you say, Paley's book was very good. I think in the end the Barnett threads ran out of steam because no new info on Barnett was being discovered, although there were some tantalising possibilities.

Re the absence of a row, I do believe that the "Oh murder" cry was from Kelly, but what I meant was, there were no raised voices leading up to it. Barnett must have flipped in a matter of seconds.

I'm afraid I do understand the idiocies of love, having been a sufferer, and I did wonder whether Barnett might have won some money at whist and hurried over to present it to Kelly. But the timing of the murder cry goes against this rather - if he went over there straight away, then we'd have to consign Hutchinson's sighting to the realms of fantasy, for Kelly would hardly have taken Astrakhan back to her room if Barnett was there.

Re the blood, didn't Dew slip on the floor when he entered the room? In any case, surely the piling up of the flesh on the bedside table couldn't have been done without some spillage? Then there's the question of the heart - why take that?

I think Barnett is a legitimate suspect, but it would help a whole lot if traces of violence could be found in the rest of his life, either before MJK or after.

[Stewart P Evans]

In addition...

In addition to the above, we had a domestic murder once where the offender had cut his wife's head off with a very small kitchen knife. He had very little blood on him.

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculation

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.

I'm not trying to make a case here, just stating possibilities which everyone seems to ignore.

We know that Barnett had been there with Kelly in her room that very evening. One presumes that he was trying to get back with her and that he was being rejected. Did he feel there was still some chance for him and was he keen to see her again that night? The questions are always there. So we are, again, deep in the realms of speculation, which I don't like. To address your points.

1. The row when they parted at the end of October was a typical high tempered domestic and a window was broken as well. When she was murdered that night she apparently was able to call out (scream according to Prater and Lewis) 'Oh murder' before being silenced.

2. Obviously he wouldn't know whether he was going to find her with anyone or not (you have apparently never been 'on heat' over, perhaps I should say in love with, a woman to know what some men will do - I can assure you that rain won't stop them) and we don't know (if he did this) what might have motivated him, perhaps a hint from her earlier of a possible reconciliation.

3. The question of blood on clothing is arguable. For a start the killing cut was to the right carotid artery and the initial blood spurt would be to her right (the partition) side and away from the killer. She then bled into the bedding and onto the floor the floor under the bedstead, the palliasse, pillow and sheet being saturated. Thus the blood actually on her murderer would be minimal. Once 'bled out' there would be minimal blood that would actually get onto the murderer, apart from his hands and possibly arms.

Obviously there would be risks, but doesn't every murderer take risks of some sort or another? And he would have plenty of time to clean himself up and change any clothing that might need changing. He may have got her into bed only to suffer a final rejection and then 'lost it' and killed her, as in many domestic type killings. And who is to say, if it was he, that he carried out the mutilations 'calmly'. I would have thought it would have been desperately given those circumstances. The question of better opportunities comes in only if it were a premeditated murder, which I don't think it would have been. And how many domestic murders are committed 'down an alley'?

I should just finish by saying that I am providing only a hypothetical scenario for a domestic killing by Barnett (as I was asked), not putting out a theory which I believe to be the case. There is every possibility Kelly was another murder in the Ripper series. But, at the end of the day, we simply do not know for sure and we must examine all possibilities.

[Robert]

Nip out into the cold and rain when he could smoke in the kitchen?