Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly?

[David Orsam]

What we have is some newspaper articles from the 10th referring to the Central News telegraphing that Joe Barnett voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct and therefore released him.

So his statements were not accepted lightly?

[Pierre]

So the police did not go to Bullers and checked whether a Joe Barnett lived there?

Hi,

What we have is some newspaper articles from the 10th referring to the Central News telegraphing that Joe Barnett voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct and therefore released him.

Pierre

[Varqm]

Actually we don't know for a fact.

But contrary to what some here want you to think, the police weren't idiots and just like today they do the routine very well. So I'm more than willing to accept that in the Jack the Ripper case they did the routine well. They checked things like identities, places of work, where you lived etc.

There's good reason to accept it too, in my opinion. I am yet to look at a case from the 19thC where the papers still exist and find that they hadnt done those basic checks.

Now I'm no historian or even criminologist, but I'm husband to one, father to another, and in every such case that anyone I know has looked at, if the police file is still available the basics have been done.

Any theory that is based on the police not doing the basics will not attract my support unless it can be PROVEN, not just speculated, that the police didn't make the basic enquiries.

Good point.Mention a couple of cases you've read.

Let me go a bit further.

If there is a record that a crowd,strangers and neighbors,had gathered in front of a murder scene,we cannot say it's a fact that one of the crowd asked the question "who died","how did the victim die" because the record is only about a crowd not what they asked.

So there are records the police went to the last lodging houses of Mary Ann Nichol's and Eddowes and interviewed the deputy and residents and if there was no record of the police ever visiting,for ex.,Chapman's last lodging house we can infer that they did because,let's say,she was a victim.Those records can only be inferred for victims.But not Joe Barnett because he was not a victim.

[GUT]

So the police did not go to Bullers and checked whether a Joe Barnett lived there?

Actually we don't know for a fact.

But contrary to what some here want you to think, the police weren't idiots and just like today they do the routine very well. So I'm more than willing to accept that in the Jack the Ripper case they did the routine well. They checked things like identities, places of work, where you lived etc.

There's good reason to accept it too, in my opinion. I am yet to look at a case from the 19thC where the papers still exist and find that they hadnt done those basic checks.

Now I'm no historian or even criminologist, but I'm husband to one, father to another, and in every such case that anyone I know has looked at, if the police file is still available the basics have been done.

Any theory that is based on the police not doing the basics will not attract my support unless it can be PROVEN, not just speculated, that the police didn't make the basic enquiries.

[Varqm]

So the police did not go to Bullers and checked whether a Joe Barnett lived there?

[David Orsam]

No, David.

The three texts are just examples, and the purpose for referring to them is to start a discussion from any point of view.

Very good my dear boy because in the way you edited the quotes some people might have thought that Barnett wasn't telling the truth at the inquest.

But, given that we have established that there was no inconsistency between the three sources, what is it that makes you think that the police accepted, or might have accepted, Barnett's alibi lightly?

We don't know whether the police fully checked his alibi with various different people or if they didn't bother to check it all do we?

There is just nothing in the sources to help us is there?

[Pierre]

Well I was wondering if the fact that the present tense is inaccurate and Barnett was not, in fact, "residing" in New Street at the time of the inquest is what prompted you to wonder if the police had fully investigated Barnett's story.

No, David.

The three texts are just examples, and the purpose for referring to them is to start a discussion from any point of view.

[David Orsam]

So what do you want to say about the present tense?

Well I was wondering if the fact that the present tense is inaccurate and Barnett was not, in fact, "residing" in New Street at the time of the inquest is what prompted you to wonder if the police had fully investigated Barnett's story.

[Pierre]

That's a strange answer my dear boy because I was asking you about the use of the (inaccurate) present tense on this occasion.

So what do you want to say about the present tense?

[David Orsam]

Past tense was common in inquest sources.

That's a strange answer my dear boy because I was asking you about the use of the (inaccurate) present tense on this occasion.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, I have no "strategy", I'm doing no more than trying to understand why you included extracts from 3 separate sources at the start of this thread dealing with Barnett's place of residence and I feel I'm none the wiser. Instead, for some unknown reason, you are now asking me questions even though I have no idea what is going on inside your head.

Let me ask you this though my dear boy. Did you notice that two of your extracts use the present tense in respect of the New Street address, i.e. "now residing" and "I reside" whereas the third source is in the past tense, i.e. "I lived"?

Given that Barnett no longer resided in New Street the present tense wasn't appropriate was it?

But is it fair to say that this tells us nothing about the police accepting Barnett's alibi lightly or otherwise?

Past tense was common in inquest sources.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

This strategy is your usual one,

My dear boy, I have no "strategy", I'm doing no more than trying to understand why you included extracts from 3 separate sources at the start of this thread dealing with Barnett's place of residence and I feel I'm none the wiser. Instead, for some unknown reason, you are now asking me questions even though I have no idea what is going on inside your head.

Let me ask you this though my dear boy. Did you notice that two of your extracts use the present tense in respect of the New Street address, i.e. "now residing" and "I reside" whereas the third source is in the past tense, i.e. "I lived"?

Given that Barnett no longer resided in New Street the present tense wasn't appropriate was it?

But is it fair to say that this tells us nothing about the police accepting Barnett's alibi lightly or otherwise?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;416823]

Oh my dear boy, I have some great difficulty in understanding what you are talking about.

If none of the sources deal with Barnett's alibi then how can they suggest that the police accepted it lightly?

Noting the word "if".

Aren't the three sources that you quoted all doing no more than saying that Barnett's place of residence at the time of the murder was in New Street?

You are trying to make me say "yes" and then you will say: but why analyze the statements as an alibi, and you are trying to make me say "no" and defend the position that the sources describes an alibi.

This strategy is your usual one, dealing mainly with dichotomous categories, trying to make an answer from your opponent impossible. This strategy is merely a strategy leading your opponent to a situation of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" and you use if very often here in the forum.

So as you can see you get no answer from me, since your only interest is to destroy the arguments you are dealing with here and not taking the case forward.

That doesn't even mention his alibi unless he was saying he was there at the time of the murder but that's not what the sources actually say, so what is their relevance?

That, on the other hand, is an interesting question. What do you think is their relevance?

And what do the sources tell us about the way the police accepted his alibi?

Yes, indeed. What do you say about this?

Surely we learn nothing from the sources about it. Isn't that right my dear boy?

Yes, we learn that if you treat the sources as I treated them now, on your demand - remember it was you who asked me to discuss these three sources - that is what we get.

[David Orsam]

Oh my dear boy, I have some great difficulty in understanding what you are talking about.

If none of the sources deal with Barnett's alibi then how can they suggest that the police accepted it lightly?

Aren't the three sources that you quoted all doing no more than saying that Barnett's place of residence at the time of the murder was in New Street?

That doesn't even mention his alibi unless he was saying he was there at the time of the murder but that's not what the sources actually say, so what is their relevance?

And what do the sources tell us about the way the police accepted his alibi?

Surely we learn nothing from the sources about it. Isn't that right my dear boy?

[Pierre]

Let's stick with the three sources you quoted in the OP.

What's the answer?

Sure. So letīs analyze these three sources now.

And your question to me was:

Do you accept that there is absolutely nothing in the sources to suggest that the police accepted Barnett's alibi lightly?

And the texts in the sources were:

"...now residing at 24 & 25 New Street Bishops gate..."

"I reside at 24 and 25 New Street, Bishopsgate..."

"Until Saturday last I lived at 24, New-street, Bishopsgate, and have since stayed at my sister's, 21, Portpool-lane, Gray's Inn-road."

And the analyze is:

There are three verbs in the texts describing where Barnett might have been on the night of the murder:

reside - live - stay

The three verbs are wide categories which do not describe any details.

Alibi means "elsewhere" in Latin.

The three verbs show that Barnett:

1. Resided elsewhere
2. Lived elsewhere
3. Stayed elsewhere

From the analyze of the data I conclude that

A) Barnett resided/lived/stayed elsewhere and that he did not reside, live or stay at Millerīs Court.

B) Barnett was not arrested at the time of the murder/in a prison and he was therefore free to leave the address where he resided/lived/stayed.

Summing up: The evidence that Barnett resided/lived/stayed at an address does not show us that he was at the address at the time of the Kelly murder.

ANSWER:

No, I do not accept that there is absolutely nothing in the sources to suggest that the police accepted Barnett's alibi lightly.

On the contrary.

Barnettīs alibi was accepted very lightly.

And if you note that the police source is first and the other two are later and at the same time hypothesize that the police did investigate the claim of Barnett - do also note that the following two sources (in theire entirety) say nothing about any result of such an investigation.

Now, lack of data is not evidence, do also note that.

(Have to finish now, have to see wife in hospital. Again. But will get back).

Pierre