Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - by RockySullivan 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (50 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Barnett, Joseph

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-03-2013, 10:57 AM
Phil H Phil H is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 2,362
Default Barnett's interrogation

Re-reading "1888: London Murders in the Year of the Ripper" by Peter Stubley, I found this (page 121):

In another case (Glennie) in late 1888, an MP raised in Parliament (12 November) why Glennie was repeatedly questioned by police, "despite the practice being condemned by the courts".

Stubley says, that in 1888 there was no such thing as a recorded police interview and it was not until the 1950s that it became standard practice to interrogate a suspect. [My emphasis.]

The Home Secretary, responding to the MP (the same Mr Matthews in place during the JtR murders note) assured the House that the questions were of the usual sort intended to allow a suspect to clear himself of involvement in a crime. [Again my emphasis.]

So my questions are;

a) what sort of interview/interrogation did barnett face?

b) what police techniques were involved? How much experience did police officers have in this area if it was not standard practice - what notes etc would have been kept?

c) was it just that Joe was allowed to give his alibi and that was it?

d) Joe was not a suspect (in any formal sense) so maybe that final statement did not apply to him.

It seems to me that either Joe was exposed to interrogation techniques that were effectively illegal, or simply asked to explain himself.

Other than relying on Abberline's judgement of character - just how much reliance can we place on Joe's alibi and the assurances that he was utterly innocent (so often espoused by posters on Casebook).

I would welcome views and comments, but in particular those knowledable in police procedures of the period.

Thanks in anticipation,

Phil
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-03-2013, 01:39 PM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,841
Default details

Hello Phil. Good questions.

According to most of the police reports, one was asked to explain himself, but often details of that explanation were checked.

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-03-2013, 02:06 PM
Cogidubnus Cogidubnus is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 3,145
Default Precedent

In the Stride case Abberline says in a report dated 1st November 1888

Quote:
"I questioned Israel Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addressed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say"
Reference is also made elsewhere to "searching enquiries", though some of these may be quite literal.

I suppose it's a case of distinguishing between close questioning and interrogation...a fine distinction if ever there was one!

All the best

Dave
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-03-2013, 02:44 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,901
Default

Seeing as how anything a witness/suspect says in response to interrogation could be used as evidence or to create another line of enquiry, it is only obvious the important details were written down - Scotland Yard didn't function on memory.

We have plenty of written statements from witnesses taken down by police, and yet we are asked to believe that details were not written down in a more important interrogation?

What Stubley may mean is a 'formal' recorded session which only developed later.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-03-2013, 02:47 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,901
Default

Hi Lynn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynn cates View Post
Hello Phil. Good questions.

According to most of the police reports, one was asked to explain himself, but often details of that explanation were checked.

Cheers.
LC
Exactly, and the police could only check them if they were first written down.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-03-2013, 03:50 PM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,684
Default

Since contemporary information is most helpful, lets start with this:

Scotland Yard, of necessity, depends very largely upon "statements" volunteered to it. These statements are generally offered, first of all, at the nearest police station, where they are committed to writing by the inspector in charge. Everyone knows there is an art in putting questions, and some knowledge of it is of necessity acquired by an inspector in the charge-room; but in cases of supreme importance a rough and ready interrogation is not sufficient.

The statement is therefore handed to a detective, who is instructed to verify it, and send a report. In due course to the original, and the observations thereupon, are returned to the inspector in charge of the case, and he uses his discretion as to whether it should be filed for future use of referenced at headquarters. When there is no clue, every tangible piece of information is of course preserved, and during the Whitechapel tragedies extreme care was taken in sifting every tittle of rumour or fact to the police, however trivial.



Excerpt from Police!
Charles Tempest Clarkson (twenty five years policeman)
J. Hall Richardson (journalist)
London, 1889
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-03-2013, 04:07 PM
Cogidubnus Cogidubnus is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 3,145
Default

That's a nice source Hunter!

Cheers

Dave
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-03-2013, 04:09 PM
Phil H Phil H is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 2,362
Default

Very clear and useful. Thanks very much. Phil
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-03-2013, 04:28 PM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,447
Default

For some reason, I kept envisioning the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch where they made the person sit in a comfy chair.

c.d.

P.S. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-03-2013, 04:40 PM
Phil H Phil H is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 2,362
Default

But as Stephen Fry pointed out on QI not long ago - actually people DID expect the Spanish Inquisition because the latter gave several weeks warning of its arrival!!!

Phil
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.