the key

[Monty]

As long as you do not have a closed mind, Monty.

Heh, the irony.

Automatically investigating the most obvious suspect, Monty, does not imply a predisposition to perjure.

Without evidence? You are right. It doesnt imply, it is.

I'm sure you'll find the police make cases against obvious suspects all the time, Monty.

If the evidence is presented. (Is anyone out there bored at my repetition yet?)

Apart from Perry Mason, it would be peculiar for the defense to be talking about other suspects especially since they do not usually have such clever detectives as Paul Drake to do the police work for them.
Rather, it is the role of the defense to impeach prosecution witnesses and challenge the prosecution's case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiLXCCMHjfE

Oh Lordy.

The prosecution does not present several cases and suspects for the jury to make a preference, Monty.

I didnt say that. I said, at the start of a case, they look at all logical scenarios and follow the evidence where ever it leads.

The police interviewed Joseph Barnett at the station and, yes, he got away.

He wasnt under arrest, so no, he did not get away at all.

There is plenty evidence against Joseph Barnett in this thread alone. The police had it in 1888 and did nothing with it.

Cite the evidence. And I mean real substantial evidence.

Now, now, Monty; no need to get personal. All members of Casebook cannot be expected to be police officers or lawyers.

I do not expect them to. However I do expect a level of research to be done, some research, anything. You have made a sweeping statement claiming the Police to have been incompetent in not capturing and charging Barnett when, quite obviously, they felt either they did not have enough evidence to charge or enough evidence to suggest that he did not kill her.

The evidence you cite (yes, I know it already really) of Barnett and Kelly arguing etc is flimsey and circumstantial.

From your research, Monty, whom do you suspect for the murder of Mary Kelly and why?

Person or persons unknown.

Paley wrote the best researched book I've read about Jack the Ripper. I would not put myself in his league.

Thats not much of a league to put yourself in. I suggest you buy more books, starting with Evans and Skinners Sourcebook.

Monty

[Monty]

Monty,
Another thread going here on the fora concerns "Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders" by Spiro Dimolianis.

I read part of the preview and noted that in the foreword, Dimolianis stated that it was the ultimate responsibility of Home Office to catch Jack, but that newspaper coverage created the impression that Scotland Yard and the City of London Police Force were weak and incompetent.

He sees this fact as important because current Ripperologists use press reports as primary sources.

So, WAS it the responsibility of the Home Office to catch the murderer?

I don't understand the division of responsibility.

curious

Hi Curious,

The Police are the responsibility of the Home Office. In 1888 the Met Commissioner Warren reported to Home Secretary Matthews.

Looking at the evidence it seems the relationship between these two men was fractious and was partly the reason Warren walked.

And that's it simply put.

Monty

[Heinrich]

The police do seem to have ‘checked out’ Barnett as a potential suspect (as an ex-partner) but were satisfied with what they were told and undoubtedly had corroborated. Job done.

Badly done, Lechmere.

...
Do you honestly want to go toe to toe with me on this?

As long as you do not have a closed mind, Monty.

No, you do not automatically suspect the husband as that is prejudice, and perjury is illegal.

Automatically investigating the most obvious suspect, Monty, does not imply a predisposition to perjure.

No, this is not routine at al. As stated above.

I'm sure you'll find the police make cases against obvious suspects all the time, Monty.

If the defence caught wind of this they would have a field day."Why is the husband the only one questioned?

Apart from Perry Mason, it would be peculiar for the defense to be talking about other suspects especially since they do not usually have such clever detectives as Paul Drake to do the police work for them.
Rather, it is the role of the defense to impeach prosecution witnesses and challenge the prosecution's case.

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

The police hold logical scenarios and do not hold with one. They merely gather evidence and follow that.

The prosecution does not present several cases and suspects for the jury to make a preference, Monty.

They let him go? Firstly he was never arrested.

The police interviewed Joseph Barnett at the station and, yes, he got away.

This because there was no evidence.

There is plenty evidence against Joseph Barnett in this thread alone. The police had it in 1888 and did nothing with it.

You really are making an arse of yourself here Heinrich. I'm afraid your lack on understanding on police matters, and legal matters, is woefully lacking.

Now, now, Monty; no need to get personal. All members of Casebook cannot be expected to be police officers or lawyers.

Go and research for Gods sake.

From your research, Monty, whom do you suspect for the murder of Mary Kelly and why?

...
The only reason you think that is because you've convinced yourself of Barnett's guilt; apparently with no more ammunition than a copy of Paley.

Paley wrote the best researched book I've read about Jack the Ripper. I would not put myself in his league.

[curious]

No, this is not routine at al. As stated above. If the defence caught wind of this they would have a field day."Why is the husband the only one questioned? Why have you solely investigated his movements when you have not presented evidence?"

The police hold logical scenarios and do not hold with one. They merely gather evidence and follow that.


Monty.....who wonders why he bothers.

Monty,
Another thread going here on the fora concerns "Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders" by Spiro Dimolianis.

I read part of the preview and noted that in the foreword, Dimolianis stated that it was the ultimate responsibility of Home Office to catch Jack, but that newspaper coverage created the impression that Scotland Yard and the City of London Police Force were weak and incompetent.

He sees this fact as important because current Ripperologists use press reports as primary sources.

So, WAS it the responsibility of the Home Office to catch the murderer?

I don't understand the division of responsibility.

curious

[Sally]

The Metropolitan's woeful record in failing to charge Joseph Barnett is all the more inexcusable in light of their knowledge of Joseph Barnett being no worse than ours, Sally.

What?

Sorry, Heinrich, but that's utter nonsense.

The only reason you think that is because you've convinced yourself of Barnett's guilt; apparently with no more ammunition than a copy of Paley.

[Sally]

Monty.....who wonders why he bothers.

Just as well you do, Monty, in my humble opinion.

[Monty]

Heinrich,

Do you honestly want to go toe to toe with me on this?

No, you do not automatically suspect the husband as that is prejudice, and perjury is illegal.

No, this is not routine at al. As stated above. If the defence caught wind of this they would have a field day."Why is the husband the only one questioned? Why have you solely investigated his movements when you have not presented evidence?"

The police hold logical scenarios and do not hold with one. They merely gather evidence and follow that.

They let him go? Firstly he was never arrested. This because there was no evidence. However, as he was staying at his sisters he never really went anywhere.

You really are making an arse of yourself here Heinrich. I'm afraid your lack on understanding on police matters, and legal matters, is woefully lacking.

Go and research for Gods sake.

Monty.....who wonders why he bothers.

[Lechmere]

The police do seem to have ‘checked out’ Barnett as a potential suspect (as an ex-partner) but were satisfied with what they were told and undoubtedly had corroborated. Job done.

[Heinrich]

So, if you were a Policeman who happened to be investigating a murder of a married woman in her own how, you would automatically suspect the husband and try to prove his innocence?

No, you automatically suspect the husband and try to find the evidence that proves his guilt or otherwise, Monty.

The mind boggles.

It shouldn't, Monty. This is routine procedure.

The Polices duty is to gather evidence, whether it leads to or away from a suspect.

This is true, Monty, but the police do not operate with a blank slate, rather they proceed with a logical scenario in mind which experience helps them to develop. If they begin by believing any Tom, Dick, or Harry could materialize to do the deed and then evaporate into thin air, well, they would all be like the Metropolitan Police in the cases of the Whitechapel murders, i.e. left with unsolved crimes, hoping to find men with blotchy faces or red mustaches. LOL

It is the courts duty to decide if the evidence is damning.

Of course but only if the police bring that evidence before a jury to begin with. No court had an opportunity to try Joseph Barnett because the police let him go.

..what happens when the police interrogate a person of interest for - oh, I dunno, say four hours - and find nothing to suggest any evidence against them.

Nowadays the chief investigating officer would probably be reassigned to traffic division.

... Oh, but I was forgetting, we know so much more about Joseph Barnett than the police of 1888 did.

The Metropolitan's woeful record in failing to charge Joseph Barnett is all the more inexcusable in light of their knowledge of Joseph Barnett being no worse than ours, Sally.

Bugger, they were SO stupid.

I'm with you on this.

[Sally]

I wonder..

..what happens when the police interrogate a person of interest for - oh, I dunno, say four hours - and find nothing to suggest any evidence against them.

Hmm...

I don't suppose they might possibly release said person of interest?

Oh, but I was forgetting, we know so much more about Joseph Barnett than the police of 1888 did.

Bugger, they were SO stupid.

[Ben]

I do lean towards the idea of a "posh" Jack - can´t see anyone trusting a slathering maniac, talking to himself and picking up pieces of bread from the ground.

But there are many shades of grey between those two extremes, C4.

A "posh" punter was just as likely to ring alarm bells as a "slathering maniac", as both would have been conspicuously out-of-place. A popular theory that held sway after the Chapman murder was that the killer may have had surgical skills, and it is likely that prostitutes avoided any well-dressed "posh" outsider for that reason. The "safest" type of client was the tried and tested local, neither posh nor an obvious vagrant.

Regards,
Ben

[Monty]

In domestic crimes (such as happen in people's homes as distinct from public places), invariably one begins by attempting to rule out the partner. In the case of Joseph Barnett, the Metropolitan's alacrity at releasing him is mystifying.

So, if you were a Policeman who happened to be investigating a murder of a married woman in her own how, you would automatically suspect the husband and try to prove his innocence?

The mind boggles.

The Polices duty is to gather evidence, whether it leads to or away from a suspect. It is the courts duty to decide if the evidence is damning.

Its that simple Heinrich.


Monty

[Sally]

In domestic crimes (such as happen in people's homes as distinct from public places), invariably one begins by attempting to rule out the partner. In the case of Joseph Barnett, the Metropolitan's alacrity at releasing him is mystifying.

Only to you, apparently.

[Heinrich]

...
Since when was being "the man who knows you best" the criteria for murdering you ? (let alone mutilating you as Mary Kelly was mutilated).

In domestic crimes (such as happen in people's homes as distinct from public places), invariably one begins by attempting to rule out the partner. In the case of Joseph Barnett, the Metropolitan's alacrity at releasing him is mystifying.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

One at a time is the way to proceed. By attempting to identify one man to meet all the Whitechapel murders criteria, we will be going about in circles a hundred years from now proposing any notion that comes to mind, impossible to prove or disprove. Mary Kelly is a unique case in several ways and the man who knew her best was Joseph Barnett.[/QUOTE

]

I'll start suspecting my Husband, Brother, Sons and male friends of all sorts of things now !

Since when was being "the man who knows you best" the criteria for murdering you ? (let alone mutilating you as Mary Kelly was mutilated).