Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly?

[Bridewell]

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

Something on which we agree, Pierre. "Blotchy" is a description, not a person, so could be pretty much anyone as we don't know what many of the people involved looked like.

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Pierre;416540]

Hi,

this is interesting. You write:



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

If a so-called alibi is 'constructed' it's not an alibi.

[Wickerman]

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.

Agreed.
The 'significant other' (common-law partner/spouse) is the most obvious person to check out first, before looking at others.

There is no reason to believe the police of 1888 were imbued with a different set of common sense values. Naturally, in my view, Barnett will be held until his alibi is checked out.

[harry]

It is evident that in the ripper killings,there were numerous persons who became persons of interest.It is also known that the investigating group of officers were insufficient to immediately check every alibi or piece of evidence,that was presented.So some had to be taken at face value.I believe Barnett was one of those.Such persons would not be held unless there were reasons to suspect those persons would abscond.That is procedure even today.

[Varqm]

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

Hi Pierre..

At least better than Barnett in Kelly's case.Whoever he was as described by Cox.Barnett's alibi was,after leaving Miller's Court, he returned to Buller’s Lodging House where he played whist until he went to bed at 12:30 AM.Not the most complicated to verify,see if he really was asleep and could he have left unnoticed.
I think post #41 would have happened,it wouldn't have taken a long time to check,unless the tenants sleeping closest to Barnett were unaccounted for and can't be questioned and barring there was no deputy or deputy was not on duty.I have not read much about Bullers. The officers would have had a better sense of it than we do.The police did not suspect him.

But it could also have been a client before Blotchy who came back and even remotely after Blotchy (although I believe Kelly would have been heard if she came out to solicit and brought back a client after Blotchy - examples, Cox : At a quarter- past six I heard a man go down the court,the Oh Murder cry).I believe in the intruder theory,the lurking man as seen by Lewis,it's to me the simplest interpretation.
As far as who was Blotchy I do not know.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Varqm;416614]

Hi Pierre..

At least better than Barnett in Kelly's case.Whoever he was as described by Cox.Barnett's alibi was,after leaving Miller's Court, he returned to Buller’s Lodging House where he played whist until he went to bed at 12:30 AM.Not the most complicated to verify,see if he really was asleep and could he have left unnoticed.

Hi,

Well, personally I believe that Barnett is one of the best suspects for the Kelly murder.

After 12:30 AM he had no alibi you say.

This means he could have killed and mutilated Kelly.

And if so, his alibi was accepted lightly.

Do you happen to have a source for the whist statement?

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;416617]

Hi,

Well, personally I believe that Barnett is one of the best suspects for the Kelly murder.

After 12:30 AM he had no alibi you say.

This means he could have killed and mutilated Kelly.

And if so, his alibi was accepted lightly.

Do you happen to have a source for the whist statement?

Cheers, Pierre

Surely not better than your own my friend?

After all the ideas of of beds being moved and doors opening in walls and unknown women crying murder that cannot be the case?


Or is your point that the police did not need to check because at the highest level they knew who had done it?


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;416620][QUOTE=Pierre;416617]

Surely not better than your own my friend?

Hi Steve,

I think you will not be surprised when I tell you that I am open to all possibilities. That does not mean that I have "favourite suspects" or anything like that. The only interest I have now - i.e. in the case of the Whitechapel murders - is history.

And for a sociologist and historian, both social issues and historical ones (often combined of course) concearning a person who was close to the victim is of course interesting. Mind you, I did write that Barnett was interesting in the case of the Kelly murder, but not for the others. And of course, what I think is that the murders were done by a serial killer.

As you see, I have no problem isolating one murder hypothetically and stop there - or go on if there are interesting sources. Just like yourself.

After all the ideas of of beds being moved and doors opening in walls and unknown women crying murder that cannot be the case?

The idea of the bed (not "beds") and/or table(s) having been moved is not mine. It is in the sources. You know that, Steve.

The idea of the door (not "doors") opening "in walls" (please exclude the s) is not mine either. It is to be seen on Goadīs Fire Insurance Map.

And of course one always has problems of validity and reliability when handling sources - but as you can clearly see, I do refer to them and it is no secret what sources I am referring to.

The idea, finally, of what you call "unknown women crying murder" is, I regret to say, not backed up in any reliable way by the sources - i.e. the two sources has "a woman" and not "women".

And if you really want to use simple addition with two witness statements and add the statements, that is not a reliable way to add a woman to another woman and make two women of them.

Or do you think that is a valid interpretation: if so, you will probably go by the differences in the two witness statements, but research shows that they often differ. I do not have a good source, i.e. a review, for this at hand now, and do not have time to sit and search for it today, but I believe that you have seen that type of research also.

Then of course we have the problem of deducing from metadata or other research studies to one particular, idiographical case, as I think you know.

Or is your point that the police did not need to check because at the highest level they knew who had done it?

I did understand that you would ask this question. And since you ask it, I think you know the answer.

Honestly Steve, you are to good for an internet forum.

Cheers, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

the real mystery is why pierre is the only poster on casebook whose quote function is all jacked up. LOL!

[David Orsam]

The idea of the bed (not "beds") and/or table(s) having been moved is not mine. It is in the sources. You know that, Steve.

Oh my dear boy, what is in the sources is the idea that the beds and/or tables were NOT moved.

Thus:

"Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about ? - None whatever." (Daily Telegraph, 13 November 1888, inquest evidence of Elizabeth Prater)

And note the word "beds" in the question so when you say "not "beds"" you are contradicting the sources.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, what is in the sources is the idea that the beds and/or tables were NOT moved.

Thus:

"Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about ? - None whatever." (Daily Telegraph, 13 November 1888, inquest evidence of Elizabeth Prater)

And note the word "beds" in the question so when you say "not "beds"" you are contradicting the sources.

Oh my dear boy, what is in the sources is the idea that the beds and/or tables WERE moved.

Thus: "Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about ?" (ibid.)

[David Orsam]

Thus: "Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about ?" (ibid.)

Yes, my dear boy, a question, from someone who wasn't there at the time, with the answer, from someone who was there at the time, being "None whatsoever". I did try and highlight the actual evidence in bold so you wouldn't miss it.

[Pierre]

Yes, my dear boy, a question, from someone who wasn't there at the time, with the answer, from someone who was there at the time, being "None whatsoever". I did try and highlight the actual evidence in bold so you wouldn't miss it.

The question is based on an idea from the coroner. That idea was first.

If Prater did not hear the sounds he asked about, it did not mean the idea of the coroner was wrong.

Here are some questions you can ponder over:

Was Prater sober?
Was she awake?
Was the murderer sloppy?

[David Orsam]

The question is based on an idea from the coroner. That idea was first.

If Prater did not hear the sounds he asked about, it did not mean the idea of the coroner was wrong.

Here are some questions you can ponder over:

Was Prater sober?
Was she awake?
Was the murderer sloppy?

I've got some rather better questions for you my dear boy.

What were these beds which the coroner asked about?

And

Was the table in Mary Kelly's room in a natural position when Dr Phillips made his entry to that room, according to his evidence at the inquest?

I don't want you to ponder these two questions, I want you to answer them, but I look forward to your charmingly evasive response.

[GUT]

the real mystery is why pierre is the only poster on casebook whose quote function is all jacked up. LOL!

Totally understandable in my opinion.