the key

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"The darkness would have been no greater to anyone entering than to a person already inside."

Iīm afraid that is not necessarily completely correct, Harry. When your eyes are exposed to light - as the eyes of an intruder would have been, considering the gas light burning in the streets - then it will take around half an hour before the eyesight has adjusted completely to darkness again.
When you walk into a dark room from a bright room, and close the door behind you, you will initially perceive the room as pitch dark, but then, gradually, your eyes will adjust to the darkness, and after around half an hour, you will see a lot better in the darkness than you did before, guided by sources of minimal ambient lighting sneaking in to the room.

"Whatever way one studies the problem of entry,the inescapable fact is that the killer completed his task without arousing the suspicion of anyone in the court"

That is true!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

In other words to break-in & enter a premises is called "burglary" (British Law), whether the incentive is murder, robbery or just to shelter from the rain

Not quite, Jon. Burglary is defined as breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.

"Thats precisely what the rudimentry evidence suggests"

No.

The rudimentary evidence only suggests that she was in a "relaxed state" with herself, i.e. undressed for bed and sleep.

We cannot safely expunge anything, and a man befitting such a description was seen in "that locality" by three, possibly four people on different nights

Please let's not have this nonsense again. Every one of those "well-dressed" descriptions you refer to was discredited very shortly after it appeared, which was very briefly, and invariably on the 10th November, which was a very bad day for the circulation of bogus information. Some of these "witnesses" do not even appear to have had any communication with the police, and they sank without trace in time for the inquest.

Crime scene evidence? - like what, tea and biscuits

No - like evidence that she was entertaining someone in her room. She was hardly keeping the noise down when she returned initially with Blotchy (she continued singing for well over an hour after the couple entered the room), and was probably drinking more alcohol with him, so why expect silent or unusually hushed entertainment during the "30-40 minutes" prior to her death? As Fisherman pointed out earlier, it is very unlikely that the killer - if the ripper - should wait around for such an extended period of time prior to "making a move".

All the best,
Ben

[Heinrich]

....
Competence, Heinrich, is something we all have to live up to. The Met would not have been an incompetent police organization, least of all if we take a look at the context in which they worked. Plus we know full well that Barnett was subjected to a four-hour interview.

A four-hour interview is short, Fisherman, and we cannot assume that the police were diligent in corroborating Joseph Barnett's alibi. There is no record of their work, only their failure.
Considering Joseph Barnett's so-called alibi; it is manifestly lame. We do not know the exact time of Mary Kelly's death so, his claim that he was playing cards on the night of the murder before going to sleep means nothing because he could have killed her either before or after the card game. He places himself with Mary Kelly in her room before the card game and no one could believe that anyone was watching him having his beauty sleep from about midnight till dawn.

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"A four-hour interview is short, Fisherman"

The Norwegian massmurderer Breivik got seven last week. Four hours is by no means "short", Heinrich. That is just rubbish, if you pardon my French. Besides, if four hours was sufficient to establish that Barnett was in the clear, the police would have had other more pressing duties to see to.

"Joseph Barnett's so-called alibi ... is manifestly lame"

It is exactly the kind of alibi most people would have had. And as far as we know, it could have been strenghtened both by the rest of the cardplayers and any other person who - for instance - may have recalled seeing him come home or get up in the morning, etcetera, etcetera. We donīt know. The one thing that matters here is that the police believed him after having checked both physically and mentally.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Had my next door neighbor been murdered last night and I had been questioned by the police, I would tell them that I had been sleeping. It might be a lame alibit, but it would also be the truth.

The idea that Scotland Yard detectives didn't realize that an alibi needs to be checked thoroughly (especially in this instance) is simply ludicrous.

To call their work a failure simply because you do not agree with their conclusion seems quite unfair.

c.d.

[curious]

Single Rooms??

In light of this discussion, I have to wonder if people had their own rooms in doss houses?

Did they share rooms?

In other words, would Joe Barnett have been bunking by himself, or in a room with other fellas?

Thanks,

curious

[Lechmere]

He almost certainly would have shared.

The police at that time actually had a pretty good record of solving 'domestic' murders - where the victim was known to the killer, or in particular was a partner or recent ex-partner.
The standard process was to sift through the victim's family and close friends, partly to try and establish if any of them might have killed the victim (as is the case with most murders).
You can see this process in operation with all of the Whitechapel murders. I am sure it would have crossed the minds of the police that each of the murders may have been a one off, perhaps a domestic where the killer tried to make it look like a Ripper case.

That doesn't mean that ever possible suspect who was known to any of the victims can be absolutely 'cleared' now, but it makes all of them less suspect... in my opinion... as they would have been fairly thoroughly (or as thoroughly as would have been possible at the time) 'checked out'. As Barnett clearly was.

[Hatchett]

Hi Everyone,

I dont think it is a case of being checked out and cleared. I dont think that is the way it went then, or even now. It is a case of whether it could be proved that they were guilty in a court of law.

I also think that it is an important point that at the time of the Kelly murder the police were convinced that they had a serial killer on their hands, so the viabilty of an alibi would not have just concernced the Kelly killing but all of the others.

Therefore if Barnett was the killer of Kelly and not the killer of the others his alibi for each of the other nights would presumably have been weighed in his favour.

Best wishes.

[curious]

Hi Everyone,

I dont think it is a case of being checked out and cleared. I dont think that is the way it went then, or even now. It is a case of whether it could be proved that they were guilty in a court of law.

I also think that it is an important point that at the time of the Kelly murder the police were convinced that they had a serial killer on their hands, so the viabilty of an alibi would not have just concernced the Kelly killing but all of the others.

Therefore if Barnett was the killer of Kelly and not the killer of the others his alibi for each of the other nights would presumably have been weighed in his favour.

Best wishes.

Thanks, I thought it was likely rooms were shared in doss houses.

But don't you think they would have started with Barnett's alibi for Kelly?

They had been accomplishing nothing. Now they have something new to investigate, new clues, a new chance to find the culprit.

They would have struck while people would have known what they were doing that night and with whom they were playing cards without any worry that they had the nights confused. And if there were people he played cards with, then people who shared his sleeping room, and then people with whom he woke up . . . .

Then, IF he had an airtight alibi for the latest murder, less tight alibis would have been necessary for the nights further away. Or not needed at all if he could not possibly have killed Kelly.

They probably jumped on Barnett like a duck on a June bug in their fervor that maybe, just maybe . . . only to discover all his time was accounted for and there were witnesses.

curious

[Heinrich]

....
The Norwegian massmurderer Breivik got seven last week. Four hours is by no means "short", Heinrich. That is just rubbish, if you pardon my French.

Did it escape your notice, Fisherman, that Breivik was caught in the act and he confessed immediately?

.... The one thing that matters here is that the police believed him after having checked both physically and mentally.

While today the Metropolitan Police might be universally admired for their professionalism, (excepting killing innocent people on subway trains, and bashing bystanders to death at a peaceful protest, and taking money for information passed to the press, and top officers having to resign for failing to follow up on evidence), your confidence in the same force of the 19th century is not one I share, Fisherman.

....
The idea that Scotland Yard detectives didn't realize that an alibi needs to be checked thoroughly (especially in this instance) is simply ludicrous.

You have something in common with Fisherman, c.d.

....
It is a case of whether it could be proved that they were guilty in a court of law.

Quite so, Hatchett, and an excellent case for the prosecution of Joseph Barnett could have been made had the police work been more robust.

I also think that it is an important point that at the time of the Kelly murder the police were convinced that they had a serial killer on their hands, so the viability of an alibi would not have just concerned the Kelly killing but all of the others.
Therefore if Barnett was the killer of Kelly and not the killer of the others his alibi for each of the other nights would presumably have been weighed in his favour.

Undoubtedly, their belief that the canonical five victims were all murdered by the same man would have served as a blinker.

Thanks, I thought it was likely rooms were shared in doss houses.

Even if Joseph Barnett had been sharing a room, Curious, it does not follow that he would necessarily have woken up the whole house should he have decided to sneak out in the dead of night.

But don't you think they would have started with Barnett's alibi for Kelly?

Who knows what variety of logic the police used?

They had been accomplishing nothing.

And remained true to form, Curious.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I will not argue your time of half an hour for eyes to become focussed.You will most surely produce medical evidence to back your claim.What can be said is most people experience such situations,some on a regular basis,so i'll let those that are interested come to their own conclusions.I can only point out that a witness claimed the court to be in complete darkness at half past one that morning,and it is probable that it would have remained so the rest of that night,and it is possible that the killer came from a dimly lit street,through a dark passageway, into a completely dark court,and then into a dark room.Hard to assess what reduction in time that would make to focussing,but I think it would be considerable.My own method of overcoming the focuss problem of light to dark and vice versa,is to close the eyes for a few seconds either side of the transistion.Remarkable what a difference it makes.

[Ausgirl]

I think I actually addressed this in the wrong thread... what a dufus.

Anyway, so Mary had half a candle stub in her room. I seriously doubt the killer could do anything much in pitch blackness, so maybe the candle was lit - prior to or during the crime, who knows? But a candle is enough light to see by. A coat or blanket hung on the window would do to block dim candle light from the street.

Did Mary have a curtain? If so, then that'd solve the no-lights-seen issue. If not, I can see the killer hanging something over the window, to avoid passersby glancing in. I realise the Ripper killed in the open street, and obviously enjoyed the thrill of the risk of being caught, so if the person who killed Mary Kelly -was- the Ripper, maybe he wouldn't bother. Or maybe he would, seeing as he was inside, out of his comfort zone and more at risk of capture for being inside.

I think, on the issue of Barnett, that he'd have killed Mary long before he left her, during one of their many arguments, if he was the sort of monster who could do such horrendous things to a person. She wasn't acting like a woman afraid for her life, nor have I seen anything to suggest she was treated badly by Barnett, to the degree a man who loathed women of her status that much probably would have.

[Fisherman]

Heinrich:

"Did it escape your notice, Fisherman, that Breivik was caught in the act and he confessed immediately?"

No. Did it escape YOUR notice that he was a terrorist, with potentially more bombs planted (this was true) and potential co-conspirers and potential more mayhem around the corner? Whereas Barnett, if he had been the killer, would have been in custody with the police during them four hours, ensuring that nothing more could happen, Breivik had just proven capable of planning terrorism massmurder.

So, which of these guys do you reckon it would be more pressing to interview at lenght? Hmm? And do you think the only thing they asked Breivik was whether he was the killer?

Thinking longer than your nose reaches, Heinrich, is something one sometimes forget. But thatīs okay, as long as you refrain from mocking other people and backing it up with ignorance.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"i'll let those that are interested come to their own conclusions"

Me too, Harry. But if the conclusion is potentially flawed, I take time to point it out.

"I can only point out that a witness claimed the court to be in complete darkness at half past one that morning,and it is probable that it would have remained so the rest of that night,and it is possible that the killer came from a dimly lit street,through a dark passageway, into a completely dark court,and then into a dark room.Hard to assess what reduction in time that would make to focussing,but I think it would be considerable."

The court would not have been completely dark, Harry. The street light would have sneaked in to some small extent. It would perhaps have SEEMED completely dark to somebody entering it, though, but giving it time would have helped.

You are quite right that every second, every minute of darkness helps in the process of regaining night sight, but the full process takes half an hour. We must also take into account that even if we give ourselves that half hour, a closed unlit room under a cloudy sky, with a pilot coat over the window, will afford us very little sight anyway. And that means that any intruder would have been at a very obvious disadvantage looking for Mary Kelly in that room. A man lying by her side in the bed, though, would very easily find her. And he may have had the distinct advantage of a candle burning on the table, mind you. And thatīs why I am saying that I much prefer such a scenario to the intruder ditto, which, albeit awkward, of course cannot be dismissed - but must be questioned, I feel.

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

....
I think, on the issue of Barnett, that he'd have killed Mary long before he left her, during one of their many arguments, if he was the sort of monster who could do such horrendous things to a person.

Remember, Ausgirl, that there had been a major deterioration in their relationship no more than 10 days previously when Joseph Barnett stopped living with Mary Kelly in 13 Millers Court. Their partnership had ended and there was no future in it for Joseph Barnett any longer.

....
No. Did it escape YOUR notice that he [Breivik] was a terrorist, with potentially more bombs planted (this was true) and potential co-conspirers and potential more mayhem around the corner?

He wasn't going anywhere, Fisherman; the Norwegian police had their man and, unlike the Metropolitan Police, there was no chance they would be letting him go home.

Thinking longer than your nose reaches, Heinrich, is something one sometimes forget. But thatīs okay, as long as you refrain from mocking other people and backing it up with ignorance.

Now, now, Fisherman, mind your manners.