the key

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

Ah, yes. I remember reading about Warren's resignation. Thanks, Monty. The responsibilities of the various governmental divisions remain "foreign" to me.

And about the other part of this threat you are responding to . . . you are just feeding a troll who trots out "motive, method and opportunity" as though he is the only person who ever heard of the concept and as though, with it, he has invented the cure for cancer.

He does not seem to be able to comprehend what "evidence" is.

Good luck.

curious

[Heinrich]

...
Person or persons unknown.

After you do some research, Monty, why not return to suggest a suspect? I think you'll find your visits to Casebook more rewarding by offering ideas about the killer rather than taking pot shots at those who do.
Instead of believing Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly, you might have a good reason to suspect Tom. What about Dick's alibi? And did you think of Harry?

[Sally]

Heinrich - I mean this in the nicest possible way - but do some research mate.

Seriously.

[Monty]

After you do some research, Monty, why not return to suggest a suspect? I think you'll find your visits to Casebook more rewarding by offering ideas about the killer rather than taking pot shots at those who do.
Instead of believing Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly, you might have a good reason to suspect Tom. What about Dick's alibi? And did you think of Harry?

Heinrich,

As Michael Caine once famously asked, do you want the killer or will anyone do?

I work in facts and logical conclusion, which annoys some (Hi Phil....wait he won't see this, someone say Hi to Phil for me). There is not enough evidence on any suspect for a certain conclusion to be drawn.

Bottom line is I do not do suspect Ripperology. What I do 'do' is not tolerate ill conceived and unfounded comments about Police matters as these words influence and lead to myth.

You see it as pot shots (which is exactly what you are doing by the way, towards the Police of the day), I see it as pointing out the facts and leave others to draw their own conclusion.

Monty

[Heinrich]

...
There is not enough evidence on any suspect for a certain conclusion to be drawn.

Read over this thread again, Monty. You will see sufficient evidence to convict Joseph Barnett.

Bottom line is I do not do suspect Ripperology.

Were I of the same mind, Casebook is the last place I would come.

What I do 'do' is not tolerate ill conceived and unfounded comments about Police matters as these words influence and lead to myth.

In that case my comments leading to the guilt of Joseph Barnett, as they are based on facts, should test your tolerance level little.

You see it as pot shots (which is exactly what you are doing by the way, towards the Police of the day)

The Metropolitan Police, then as now, have had worse criticism from others besides myself, Monty.

I see it as pointing out the facts and leave others to draw their own conclusion.

Members will appreciate being allowed to draw our own conclusions without being mocked, Monty.

How about dealing with the issues (facts as you put it) in future posts rather than argumentum ad hominem condescension, Monty.

[Monty]

Ok Heinrich,

Let me respond point by point.

1) There is no convicting evidence at all else you, I, all the nice ladies and Gents would not be here. As Barnett would have indeed been convicted and this thread dead.

However, he wasn't. Why? Because the evidence you cite is hearsay, provided by the man himself. Yes, he provides the very 'damning ' evidence you state convicts. However, here we are.

Convicting evidence indeed.

2) Thankfully we are not of the same mind. If you think casebook is solely suspect based then you have not explored an nth of this wonderful resource.

3) It certainly does test my tolerance level Heiny. My sarcasm restraint deteriorates as it happens. However, calmness is restored as I soon realise your facts are really based on the word of one man only. The same man you condem. Bet he was relieved der polis were dumb.

4) They sure have, and in some instances rightly so....however not this one.

5) How about you provide facts instead of your opinions ad nauseam (ooh, looky, latin makes me look right clever) and maybe I will.

Monty

[Heinrich]

...
1) There is no convicting evidence at all else you

I am unfamiliar with the term, "convicting" evidence, Monty, but siffice it to say there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I, all the nice ladies and Gents would not be here. As Barnett would have indeed been convicted and this thread dead.

It is not nice to hijack a thread about the missing key and Joseph Barnett by engaging in personal insults for your own entertainment while avoiding the discussion of the conclusions based on the evidence.

... the evidence you cite is hearsay, provided by the man himself. Yes, he provides the very 'damning ' evidence you state convicts.

Since the testimony regarding Joseph Barnett about his rows with Mary Kelly, his attempts to control her life, his reason for leaving her no more than ten days before her dead body was found, his admission that he was with her on the night of the murder, being the last person who admits being seen in her company, his familiarity with the ease of access to 13 Miller's Court, and so on, is all provided by Joseph Barnett himself, the hearsay rule does not apply as he is the declarant (not quoting another) and such statements are admissible in court since all this testimony is inculpatory.

... I soon realise your facts are really based on the word of one man only. The same man you condem.

A good deal but not all.

[claire]

Oh, no no. This is off-topic and I apologise, but I'm somewhat disturbed by the suggestion that Casebook is a place to discuss only suspects, that those who wish to discuss other matters are 'in the wrong place.'

Really, I'm not picking on you, Heinrich, but this is the one matter where I am quite adamant: the lives of the victims, and those around them, are at least as important as the twazzock who murdered them. Frankly, I couldn't care two damns who 'the Ripper' was--but this site is jammed with people who've far more knowledge and interesting things than I to say on topics other than the blinking suspects, and I imagine they're right at home here.

Oh, and Barnett weren't the flamin ripper, fer pity's sake. Poor b@stard.

[Heinrich]

Oh, no no. This is off-topic and I apologise, but I'm somewhat disturbed by the suggestion that Casebook is a place to discuss only suspects, that those who wish to discuss other matters are 'in the wrong place.'

Although I was falsely accused of claiming that Casebook is only to discuss suspects, Claire, I do hold that threads in the "Suspects" section should remain on topic. It is how the forum is organized. Members who claim that it is impossible to identify a suspect by examining the documentary evidence and using our wits would pay the rest of us a courtesy by refraining expressing mocking skepticism of members who are making a good faith attempt to solve the mysteries.

Really, I'm not picking on you, Heinrich, but this is the one matter where I am quite adamant: the lives of the victims, and those around them, are at least as important as the twazzock who murdered them.

There is a section on "Victims", Claire where I have posted on Mary Kelly.

Oh, and Barnett weren't the flamin ripper, fer pity's sake. Poor b@stard.

By all means, Claire, do tell us why you believe Joseph Barnett is innocent. Perhaps there is some evidence overlooked by myself and perhaps others.

[Monty]

I am unfamiliar with the term, "convicting" evidence, Monty, but siffice it to say there are none so blind as those who will not see.



It is not nice to hijack a thread about the missing key and Joseph Barnett by engaging in personal insults for your own entertainment while avoiding the discussion of the conclusions based on the evidence.



Since the testimony regarding Joseph Barnett about his rows with Mary Kelly, his attempts to control her life, his reason for leaving her no more than ten days before her dead body was found, his admission that he was with her on the night of the murder, being the last person who admits being seen in her company, his familiarity with the ease of access to 13 Miller's Court, and so on, is all provided by Joseph Barnett himself, the hearsay rule does not apply as he is the declarant (not quoting another) and such statements are admissible in court since all this testimony is inculpatory.



A good deal but not all.

'none so blind as those who will not see.'

You are full of ironies Heinrich.

It was you who stated the evidence on Barnett was convicting....that is convicting evidence.

Now to state it is I who hijacked the thread smacks of hypocrasy. Do you really want me to list the number of posts by you which force this theory of yours?

Tell you what, I'll leave you be to peddle your theory, enjoy youself. I'm off to pull teeth, as that is more pleasurable.

Monty