Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly?

[Harry D]

Pierre does have a point, though. How easy was it for someone to pass off an alibi back then? It's not like there was CCTV or GPS technology to pinpoint someone's movements. Even if someone claimed to see the accused, they could argue mistaken identity. It's one person's word against another. That's why I've always been skeptical about suspects who were taken in for questioning but their stories checked out. Not that I'm suggesting that the police at the time could've done much more than their restrictions allowed them.

[David Orsam]

Pierre does have a point, though. How easy was it for someone to pass off an alibi back then?

Where does Pierre make that point though Harry?

He has done no more than ask if there is evidence that Barnett's alibi was tested and if the police accepted his alibi lightly, before answering his own question by saying that there are no sources telling us how the police handled his alibi.

The point that you are making is rather different. But I suggest that the main way of checking an alibi in 1888 (as it is now) was to confirm with someone who saw a suspect at a different location from the murder scene at the time a murder was being committed. As long as you, as the investigating officer, are satisfied that the person is telling the truth - and also that you know what time the murder was committed (not always an easy fact to establish, as in the case of MJK) - then the alibi has been corroborated.

[Pierre]

So, my dear boy, when you wrote in the OP:

"People used false alibis in 1888 and alibis were of course tested.

you actually meant to say:

"People used false alibis in 1888 and alibis were of course tested in a court of law."

Is that what you meant?

If so, that's odd because you then asked:

"Is there any evidence that Joe Barnettīs alibi was tested?"

That question doesn't seem to follow on from the premise.

Surely we first need to know if alibis were, of course, tested, outside a court of law.

Do you have anything to say about that?

Nono, David. Do not try to change my question. Do not call non existing things "odd". You are odd if you do.

If you are able to read you do understand the question I posed there:

Is there any evidence that the police accepted his alibi lightly?

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Harry D;416370]

Pierre does have a point, though. How easy was it for someone to pass off an alibi back then? It's not like there was CCTV or GPS technology to pinpoint someone's movements.

Yes, indeed.

Even if someone claimed to see the accused, they could argue mistaken identity. It's one person's word against another. That's why I've always been skeptical about suspects who were taken in for questioning but their stories checked out. Not that I'm suggesting that the police at the time could've done much more than their restrictions allowed them.

This is a very interesting research problem in itself.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;416373]

Where does Pierre make that point though Harry?

This is beginning to get embarrassing for you David. Let people have their own points of view. Your point of view is not the center of the world. It is just one of very many.

He has done no more than ask if there is evidence that Barnett's alibi was tested and if the police accepted his alibi lightly, before answering his own question by saying that there are no sources telling us how the police handled his alibi.

You do not understand the value of asking very wide questions. It is inviting. Other people can join in and give their opinions.

But not you. You must always correct people. How come, David?

The point that you are making is rather different.

Judging other peopleīs points. As always.

But I suggest

!!!!!!

that the main way of checking an alibi in 1888 (as it is now) was to confirm with someone who saw a suspect at a different location from the murder scene at the time a murder was being committed. As long as you, as the investigating officer, are satisfied that the person is telling the truth - and also that you know what time the murder was committed (not always an easy fact to establish, as in the case of MJK) - then the alibi has been corroborated.

Of course without any references or sources at all.

Pierre

[Pierre]

If you already know that there are no sources informing us how the police handled his alibi, my dear boy, then what was the purpose of starting this thread?

And, if you don't mind me asking, what was the purpose of quoting the three sources that you did in the OP (i.e. "police investigation source", "inquest source" and Daily Telegraph) regarding Barnett's place of residence?

The POST SPLITTING STRATEGY. The Hydra.

Haha.

[David Orsam]

If you are able to read you do understand the question I posed there:

Is there any evidence that the police accepted his alibi lightly?

My dear boy, you have just posted that "How the police handled his alibi is not left to us in any sources."

If there are no sources as to how the police handled Barnett's alibi then there is no evidence that the police accepted his alibi "lightly" or "heavily" or whatever strange word you want to use.

A better question, and one that certainly can be answered, is why did you quote three sources in the OP pertaining to Barnett's place of residence?

[Pierre]

My dear boy, you have just posted that "How the police handled his alibi is not left to us in any sources."

If there are no sources as to how the police handled Barnett's alibi then there is no evidence that the police accepted his alibi "lightly" or "heavily" or whatever strange word you want to use.

A better question, and one that certainly can be answered, is why did you quote three sources in the OP pertaining to Barnett's place of residence?

A better question

Who decides what questions we shall ask in the forum. You?

[GUT]

My dear boy, you have just posted that "How the police handled his alibi is not left to us in any sources."

If there are no sources as to how the police handled Barnett's alibi then there is no evidence that the police accepted his alibi "lightly" or "heavily" or whatever strange word you want to use.

A better question, and one that certainly can be answered, is why did you quote three sources in the OP pertaining to Barnett's place of residence?

But the great one doesn't worry about a lack of sources, unless they contradict his little non-ideas.

[GUT]

Who decides what questions we shall ask in the forum. You?

Says the one who constantly tells others how they must approach issues, mmmmm "Pots" "Kettles" strange old world,

[David Orsam]

This is beginning to get embarrassing for you David. Let people have their own points of view. Your point of view is not the center of the world. It is just one of very many.

Not at all my dear boy, it's pretty clear that Harry D simply misunderstood the purpose of this thread. If I'm wrong then please direct me to the post in which you referred to how easy it was for someone to pass off an alibi in 1888.

I don't believe you were saying that at all were you my dear boy?

[Pierre]

But the great one doesn't worry about a lack of sources, unless they contradict his little non-ideas.

And here comes the rest. Good for you. Enjoy it.

[David Orsam]

Who decides what questions we shall ask in the forum. You?

Oh my dear boy, I didn't decide what questions should be asked.

I merely pointed out that the question you asked in the OP has already been answered (by yourself).

The one I asked, which I happen to think is a better question, has not been answered.

Indeed, it is the fact that you deliberately avoid answering it which leads me to believe it is a better question.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;416386]Oh my dear boy, I didn't decide what questions should be asked.

I merely pointed out

[David Orsam]

So my dear boy, do tell, why did you quote three sources in the OP pertaining to Barnett's place of residence?