Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Now that we know who did it - and now I have your attention...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Now that we know who did it - and now I have your attention...

    Hi all!

    Seriously, what are the main points that exclude Joe Barnett from being Mary's murderer? I'm not looking for an argument - just wanting input from those who are so much wiser and far older than me

  • #2
    A lot more could be said to put him in the frame than to exonerate him. It would be interesting to know if he had any sort of criminal record. I have allways thought that MJK's murder doesn't fit too well with the other murders, what better way to disguise a murder than to make it appear to be the work of JTR.

    Comment


    • #3
      Joe was supposedly at his rooming house during relevant hours. I have made the point before that folks in those days had few clothes, maybe only one suit of clothes, so lack of blood traces should have been helpful. (Of course he could have stripped to commit the crime.)

      Sometimes I think Mary's murder could be different from the others but there does seem to be an escalation across the five murders. Kate Eddowes was very much mutilated and her face was attacked. Mary was mutilated worse and her face was attacked in a worse way but the killer was fairly safe indoors. Organs were taken in both those cases as well as from Annie Chapman. (Yes, I know someone could chime in and say Mary's heart was not missing. I believe it was.)

      It would be unusual for an otherwise normal man to suddenly commit such a horrific crime with no past history of abuse or aberrant behaviour. It has happened in modern times but the killer was severely psychotic. (Herta Caraway case, Colorado Springs, Colorado)

      Those are just a few thoughts I have on the subject.
      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Phillip Walton
        . I have allways thought that MJK's murder doesn't fit too well with the other murders, what better way to disguise a murder than to make it appear to be the work of JTR.
        Can't argue with that.

        P

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Paul,

          Nice title for a thread. I hope you don't mind if I use it.

          Copy cat killings by boyfriends or exs have happened like that. There were at least two in the Boston Strangler case. The police were zeroing in on one when DeSalvo was arrested. Joe Fleming was more the angry one I believe though.

          I agree with Anna and the escalation. Could any ex understand the progress of escalation.

          JtR was more than just a serial killer. He was a Spectacle Killer also in my opinion. He wanted to be the most spectacular. And not be outdone.

          Comment


          • #6
            The police had a certain protocol of investigation that, despite the growing evidence of a possible serial murderer, did not change during this ongoing series. Because close acquaintances and spouses/paramours were often the culprits in murder, they were always prime suspects. The police went after Sadler tooth and nail in the Coles investigation in spite of all the previous murders. We do know that Barnett was questioned for some considerable time. His alibi, which would have probably put him in the presence of other people, likely checked out.
            Best Wishes,
            Cris Malone
            ______________________________________________
            "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

            Comment


            • #7
              Because close acquaintances and spouses/paramours were often the culprits in murder, they were always prime suspects.

              -Cris Malone-

              The police also approached each murder as an individual case ( while obviously looking for links to the previous one/ones). Its for that reason I believe Barnett was scrutinized sufficiently....and not brushed off, for example, because he didn't match the person Mrs. Long saw with Chapman. IMHO, of course.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact [email protected]

              Comment


              • #8
                sense

                Hello Phillip. Your post shows remarkable common sense.



                Transfer your observation to Eddowes, and you can see what I have been thinking for some time.


                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • #9
                  As others have said, Barnett would be a 'sensible' suspect option in a case like this, as in the vast majority of cases it does end up being an associate of the victim. He would have been investigated thoroughly at the time. However, I would also point towards the fact that Barnett and Kelly were known to have had a fairly volatile relationship for quite a length of time - which would be somewhat understandable, given the circumstances. Spitalfields was hardly the place for romance. So why this particular argument for Barnett to lose it? Was it knowing Mary was in her room with a potential client? Surely this wasn't the first time for such a circumstance? It would be an incredibly unlucky piece of irony if MJK just happened to be killed in a manner which fitted with the theme of escalating violence from the Ripper, only for it to be a domestic crime.

                  Cheers,
                  Adam.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Could Barnett have been pimping MJK? Or for that matter could it have been Hutchinson pimping her? If Barnett was a pimp Hutchinson could have been his enforcer and was 'keeping watch' whilst the murder was being commited. I have allways thought that Hutchinsons statement was just to good to be true.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X