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

[Stewart P Evans]

Alibi

Surely the salient point here is that Barnett had an alibi for Kelly's murder?
His whereabouts were accounted for; ergo, Barnett didn't kill Kelly.
...
Seriously considering Barnett as a suspect only goes to show how easy it is to turn somebody into one at will. As somebody once said (see below) it doesn't take much.

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.

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.

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.

[Lechmere]

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.

[PaulWilliams]

Clutterbucks' thesis

Lindsay Clutterbuck's thesis can be downloaded for free from the British Library,

http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=7&uin=uk.bl.ethos.247489

[Sally]

Regarding Alex Chisholm’s hypothesis that Barnett may have killed Kelly and only Kelly, and then engaged in post mortem copy-cat mutilations, and that Barnett passed his lengthy interrogation because he had alibis for the other murders and the police were looking for Jack the Ripper.

Against this we have evidence (eg Bernard Davis) that the police were actually open minded enough in 1888 to consider the possibility that Kelly wasn’t a Ripper victim and they seem to have investigated each murder to see if they could have been ‘domestics’, which were and are the most common type of murder and the one they were most used to investigating and solving.

Also how do we know that Barnett read Kelly the stories about the other murders? From Barnett himself! If he had undertaken post mortem mutilations to create a Ripper connection would he have admitted that he was want to red Kelly these stories? Seems unlikely.

I don’t think it’s true that the murders before and after the ‘5’ quickly lost their association with the sequence. This is reading history back to front. 19th century accounts tended commonly to ascribe seven or more murders to the Ripper surely. It was only post 1950s that the ‘5’ became accepted, their cohesion cemented and the association of the others correspondingly weakened – surely?

Surely the salient point here is that Barnett had an alibi for Kelly's murder?

His whereabouts were accounted for; ergo, Barnett didn't kill Kelly.

Regarding the proposed 'differences' between Kelly's murder and those of the other victims; I find the idea that Barnett (could be substituted for A.N. Other) copied what he understood to be a 'Ripper Style' murder from his reading of the popular press less convincing than the idea that a serial killer of women found himself with the opportuinity to fulfil his fantasies at will.

Seriously considering Barnett as a suspect only goes to show how easy it is to turn somebody into one at will. As somebody once said (see below) it doesn't take much.

[Magpie]

No, not a silly question... why do you ask... what difference would it make...?

Just curiosity. I ran across Dorothy while researching something else and idly wondered if they were related. I know it's not an outrageously unique name, but neither does it seem to be particularly common.

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding Alex Chisholm’s hypothesis that Barnett may have killed Kelly and only Kelly, and then engaged in post mortem copy-cat mutilations, and that Barnett passed his lengthy interrogation because he had alibis for the other murders and the police were looking for Jack the Ripper.

Against this we have evidence (eg Bernard Davis) that the police were actually open minded enough in 1888 to consider the possibility that Kelly wasn’t a Ripper victim and they seem to have investigated each murder to see if they could have been ‘domestics’, which were and are the most common type of murder and the one they were most used to investigating and solving.

Also how do we know that Barnett read Kelly the stories about the other murders? From Barnett himself! If he had undertaken post mortem mutilations to create a Ripper connection would he have admitted that he was want to red Kelly these stories? Seems unlikely.

I don’t think it’s true that the murders before and after the ‘5’ quickly lost their association with the sequence. This is reading history back to front. 19th century accounts tended commonly to ascribe seven or more murders to the Ripper surely. It was only post 1950s that the ‘5’ became accepted, their cohesion cemented and the association of the others correspondingly weakened – surely?

Hi Lech, I completely agree. Unfortunately, Stewart and Trevor just don't have the knowledge of or appreciation for police work that you and I possess, so I'm afraid your pleas will fall on deaf ears.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

I cant be bothered to continue these pointless argument ...

Promises, promises, always promises ...

[auspirograph]

Clutterbuck

Silly question, and forgive me if it's been asked before, but is Lindsay Clutterbuck any relation to Dorothy Clutterbuck?

No, not a silly question... why do you ask... what difference would it make...?

[Lechmere]

Regarding Alex Chisholm’s hypothesis that Barnett may have killed Kelly and only Kelly, and then engaged in post mortem copy-cat mutilations, and that Barnett passed his lengthy interrogation because he had alibis for the other murders and the police were looking for Jack the Ripper.

Against this we have evidence (eg Bernard Davis) that the police were actually open minded enough in 1888 to consider the possibility that Kelly wasn’t a Ripper victim and they seem to have investigated each murder to see if they could have been ‘domestics’, which were and are the most common type of murder and the one they were most used to investigating and solving.

Also how do we know that Barnett read Kelly the stories about the other murders? From Barnett himself! If he had undertaken post mortem mutilations to create a Ripper connection would he have admitted that he was want to red Kelly these stories? Seems unlikely.

I don’t think it’s true that the murders before and after the ‘5’ quickly lost their association with the sequence. This is reading history back to front. 19th century accounts tended commonly to ascribe seven or more murders to the Ripper surely. It was only post 1950s that the ‘5’ became accepted, their cohesion cemented and the association of the others correspondingly weakened – surely?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
''Believe it or not there is a life beyond Ripperology''
..IS THERE?
Regards Richard.

[Trevor Marriott]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ0nFQgRApY

But I dont make them up as i go along like others on here I think is called trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

I cant be bothered to continue these pointless argument because as i have stated the blinkers are up, the rose tinted spectacles are in place and they have both been there for many years and will no doubt remain there.

Maybe its time for you and some of the other old sweats in Ripperology to withdraw and retire gracefully, enjoy the rest of your days I certainly intend to now, believe it or not there is a life beyond Ripperology

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, this could well be the case. Alas, as with most things in this case, it is only speculation. The simple answer is, unfortunately, we are never going to know the identity of the murderer for certain.

But we know it wasnt Tumblety thats for sure.

[Trevor Marriott]

Tisn't.

Well you are one who clearly falls into the category of not being able to assess and evaluate fact from fiction because without a doubt most of Tumbletys viability as a suspect is nothing more than fiction.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

Hi Stewart
On the twin assumptions that
1. Tumblety was the Ripper
2. He was at liberty on Nov 9th
then wouldn't any changes to the MO be perfectly understandable? After all, he intended to leave the country (probably never to return) and this was to be his swan song.

Yes, this could well be the case. Alas, as with most things in this case, it is only speculation. The simple answer is, unfortunately, we are never going to know the identity of the murderer for certain.

[Stewart P Evans]

Alex Chisholm

If Alex Chisholm's excellent assessment of the Kelly murder has appeared on these boards before it would have been a long time ago. It is well worth revisiting. Part of his essay 'A Revision of History' runs as follows.

Murders prior to, and after, the canonical five quickly lost their association. I would question whether these five retain their cohesion largely due to their occurrence within the period of great hysteria. I would query Stride's association before raising a more controversial dismissal of Mary Kelly. Again the timing and coverage of this murder seem to provide the central link, although in this instance the press may have played an even more significant role. I would contend that whoever killed Kelly, for whatever reason, need not have murdered the other victims but may simply have taken advantage of the opportunity to evade detection by making the crime appear to be the work of Jack the Ripper.
Much Ripper hunting centres around Kelly, the last victim and the most excessively mutilated, but this is perhaps a distortion of history. As has occasionally been proposed, Barnett may well have killed Kelly (for domestic or other reasons) but this does not require the production of elaborate theories to connect him with the other murders. These murders were a major popular spectacle, the reports of which Barnett read to Kelly. It may well be that following a violent outburst resulting in Kelly's death, he sought to conceal his involvement by making her death resemble what he believed a Ripper killing would look like. In doing so, however, drawing on sensational but sketchy reports of extreme mutilations which provided his only knowledge of the crimes, he managed to create the worst example of Ripper excess. Although the police questioned him they were actually looking for the Ripper, and if Barnett could satisfy them he was not connected with the other murders, then he could not have killed Kelly.
In this way the most notorious act of the Ripper, and therefore his defining moment, could be seen to have been largely a press creation. 'Jack' may have stopped killing for any number of reasons before Kelly's murder but has remained undetected because of it. Such a hypothesis could provide an explanation for the considerable difference between this and the other crimes, with Kelly's mutilation resulting from the partially informed perception of the other murders - her killer being someone whose only familiarity with the Ripper crimes came from nothing more than sensational press reports. And therefore, given the prominent position occupied by Kelly within the Ripper legend, it would not be too implausible to accredit the press as paradoxically being both the creator of Jack the Ripper and also the main impediment to his capture. This would of course mean that throughout the intervening years the search for Jack the Ripper as the murderer of at least five women including Stride and Kelly, has always been doomed to failure.