Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly?

[GUT]

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

Actually I rarely enjoy anything you post, other than for its occasional comedic value.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;416384]

Not at all my dear boy, it's pretty clear that Harry D simply misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

It is absolutely clear that you are the one who simply misunderstands the purpose of this thread.

Harry has managed to understand it and to discuss his thoughts in a civilized manner.

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.

Giving order again.

[David Orsam]

It is absolutely clear that you are the one who simply misunderstands the purpose of this thread.

Harry has managed to understand it and to discuss his thoughts in a civilized manner.

Oh I don't think so my dear boy. I think that in your usual charming way you misunderstood the sources you posted in the OP and now you would love to change this thread to a discussion about how hard it was to confirm alibis in 1888, something which was not your purpose in starting the thread.

[David Orsam]

Giving order again.

My dear boy I'm so upset. How can you possibly think that me politely asking you to "please direct me" to a post is the equivalent of me giving you an order.

Goodness my dear boy, it's quite a shocking allegation.

But can I take it, therefore, that you are quite unable to direct me to a post in which you referred to how easy it was for someone to pass off an alibi in 1888?

[Pierre]

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

Seems to be time to walk the dog. Last post for tonight.

Cheers, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Seems to be time to walk the dog. Last post for tonight.

Oh my dear boy, how wonderfully and charmingly evasive of you.

As always.

[harry]

If the police were convinced by Barnett's answers,and a belief in his innocence ensued,would it be necessary to investigate him further.It might,but in my opinion,only if information surfaced that he had not been entirely truthfull.

[Flower and Dean]

If the police were convinced by Barnett's answers,and a belief in his innocence ensued,would it be necessary to investigate him further.It might,but in my opinion,only if information surfaced that he had not been entirely truthfull.

I think so but if the police did their job and investigated him and ruled him out, that would put him further down the list of suspects for me. I'd assume that police at the time would have access to sources and details that we don't.

[GUT]

I think so but if the police did their job and investigated him and ruled him out, that would put him further down the list of suspects for me. I'd assume that police at the time would have access to sources and details that we don't.

Similar reason that I say unless your 100% convinced they're in the clear those contemporary police suspects need the most attention before you go looking at witnesses or (semi) famous people.

[The Good Michael]

Of course he and Hutchinson were completely checked out, their alibis verified.

Mike

[Varqm]

It seems to me when a witness come and his information could be valuable and he appears truthful (not scientific),the police would use it because it might be true and the lead might go cold.
But at the same time they would want to check the witness's story,if they don't, and it turn out to be false, they would be wasting hours/days/months and lots of work.The constables might miss it but how about the higher-ups?

[Varqm]

In any case Blotchy is the better suspect.As in Chapman's and Eddowes's case
JTR pretended to be a client - that was his shtick.

[Bridewell]

"They kept me about four hours, examined my clothes for bloodstains, and finally, finding the account of myself to be correct, let me go free."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/penny_illustrated_press/18881117.html

Four hours is plenty of time to send a constable out to confirm his whereabouts at the critical time. "finding the account of myself to be correct", just may allude to the police investigation of his claim.
It doesn't take four hours to question him and check his clothes.

In the modern era, if a suspect (or person of interest if you prefer) comes up with an alibi, they are routinely held while that alibi account is checked out. Most suspects understand the reason when it is explained to them - namely that an alibi witness's corroboration is effectively worthless if said suspect has had the opportunity to tell him/her what to say.

Barnett was Kelly's former (and recent) partner. It would be extraordinary if he was not suspected.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;416536]

Hi,

this is interesting. You write:

an alibi witness's corroboration is effectively worthless if said suspect has had the opportunity to tell him/her what to say.

If you were a serial killer and you knew that what you say above was a fact, and you also knew that you had had the opportunity to tell someone what to say to protect you (before your last murder), and the police found out that you did have that opportunity, the value of such an alibi would certainly be very low.

I.e. you yourself, as a serial killer, would know that the police would understand that you did have the opportunity to construct this alibi.

Are not alibis generally problematic because of this?

If you were a serial killer like the Whitechapel murderer and you wanted a good alibi - what could you do to construct a better type of alibi than this type?

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

In any case Blotchy is the better suspect.As in Chapman's and Eddowes's case
JTR pretended to be a client - that was his shtick.

Dear friend,

but we do not even know who "Blotchy" was. How could an unknown person be a "suspect" and a "better" one?

Cheers, Pierre