Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Garry Wroe]

We cannot, at this late juncture, confirm that Barnett's alibi WAS watertight. That is simply your judgement of the surviving evidence.

Really? So you believe that when confronted with the latest and most appalling murder in what was an already appalling series of murders investigators neglected to adequately check Barnett’s alibi? The available records insist not. Barnett’s landlady as well as his fellow lodgers confirmed that he was in bed at the time of the killing.

Could he have slipped away unnoticed? Possibly – though this must be considered extremely unlikely given the conditions under which common lodging houses operated during the period under scrutiny.

If that is your view, OK. Your choice. But I do not have to accept, not does anyone else. Please don't try to IMPOSE your view on others.

Not my view. It’s the evidence. And you’d do well to review your own posting history before next accusing a contributor of attempting to browbeat others.

[The Good Michael]

Really? So you believe that when confronted with the latest and most appalling murder in what was an already appalling series of murders investigators neglected to adequately check Barnett’s alibi? The available records insist not. Barnett’s landlady as well as his fellow lodgers confirmed that he was in bed at the time of the killing.

I absolutely agree with this. As I've said before, the police would have checked out all names given and would have questioned all people found. It doesn't mean that all were found or that no one lied or made up alibis, but out of all names, people like Kidney and Barnett would have been as thoroughly checked out as possible for those days. I don't know how this thought could be even questioned.

Mike

[Phil H]

I don't know how this thought could be even questioned.

Well, it might help to be more sceptical.

The point is that, pace Garry's insistence, the "evidence" is the written record we have - and that cannot be dismissed (I have never said it should be). But the information contained in the record is a subjective judgement/an opinion. In my view, and as I have repeatedly suggested, it depends on the time Mary was killed and other assumptions made by the investigators.

Phil

[DVV]

I don't know how this thought could be even questioned.

Mike

Mike, that's because you choose to ignore the most telling fact that Barnett was in his late twenties - the perfect age to start a murdering career.
Not to mention his speech-impediment and his fish-knife.
Strong evidence, as all can see.
Now, as an open-minded person, I don't completely dismiss the possibility that Jack killed MJK.
But that's awfully classical, really not hype enough for my St-Tropez' friends and I, and sounds quite like André Verchuren's accordion.

Cheers

[DVV]

In my view, and as I have repeatedly suggested, it depends on the time Mary was killed and other assumptions made by the investigators.
Phil

I'd be sincerely pleased to learn at what o'clock Barnett becomes a good suspect.

[Phil H]

There's no point in having a dialogue with the deaf, DVV. So I wan't.

[DVV]

So I wan't.

Freudian slip with an apostrophe.

[Phil H]

No - Victorian pronunciation emulated in writing.!!!

Freudian references are not allowed on Casebook as they are anachronistic.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Now now jung man...Freud was born in 1856, so not so anachronistic!

As he seems not to have any particular whereabouts in 1888, can I claim my ten bob and put him down right now as a suspect? (I'm afraid he wasn't 6ft 7ins but does that disqualify him?)

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

Now now jung man...Freud was born in 1856, so not so anachronistic!

As he seems not to have any particular whereabouts in 1888, can I claim my ten bob and put him down right now as a suspect? (I'm afraid he wasn't 6ft 7ins but does that disqualify him?)

All the best

Dave

Don't be ridiculous Dave - you suspect theorists You're all the same.

Of course it wasn't Freud - since when did he eviscerate women, eh?

I'm telling you, it was Killeen.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Its been many years since I discussed Barnett as any kind of suspect.
It is quite right to assume that his alibi for the night of the 8th/9th was verified, however it is not a absolute fact that Kelly was killed during his alibi verification.
If he also had a alibi[ not known] for the hours between 8-10 am on the 9th.then he would be exonerated full stop.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Of course it wasn't Freud - since when did he eviscerate women, eh?

He turned more people inside out than any of our main subjects ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

With a small dark moustache....

Hello Sally

Of course it wasn't Freud - since when did he eviscerate women, eh?

I'm telling you, it was Killeen.

Well that's a fair point...was Killeen vertically advantaged?

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

Hello Sally



Well that's a fair point...was Killeen vertically advantaged?

All the best

Dave

Oh yes, he was 7' 6", allegedly. However, he used habitually to walk on his knees in order to disguise his extraordinary height when he stalked the streets of Whitechapel.

That's what I call suspicious.

[The Good Michael]

Oh yes, he was 7' 6", allegedly. However, he used habitually to walk on his knees in order to disguise his extraordinary height when he stalked the streets of Whitechapel.

That's what I call suspicious.

Absolute nonsense. He was only 7'6" when Toulouse Lautrec was riding on his shoulders. They split up by the way to do the double murders. It was supposed to have been a simultaneous double deed, but Lautrec's little legs failed to get him to Mitre Square on time.

Mike