Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly?

[GUT]

If you had a source I would expect you to tell me what it is.

Why on earth would you expect that.

Contrary to his behaviour so far on these boards, since the day he arrived.

[c.d.]

So are we to believe that in 1888 all that a suspect had to do was come up with an alibi and that that alibi was never checked? Who'd have thunk it?

c.d.

P.S. David and Pierre, you guys might want to think about giving it a rest. I mean seriously, your little back and forth on every damn thread is incredibly juvenile and quite annoying to the rest of us. Just saying.

[harry]

Barnett came of his own free will to Millers Court,the morning of her death,and was interviewed.At that time there had not been a positive identification.There is no record of police or press considering him a suspect at any later date.
A person becomes a suspect after incriminating evidence links that person to a crime,untill then they can be persns of interest.Of course it's possible for him to have been to Millers Court during the night,but there is no evidence of it,and that being so,no evidence of him(Barnett) killing Kelly.
What is incriminating evidence? That's arguable,but being associated with a person while that person is alive,on it's own,is not.

[c.d.]

I would agree with you, Harry. I called him a suspect in a previous post but I should have said person of interest. Actually a big time person of interest. And as such he would have been thoroughly questioned and any alibi he gave thoroughly checked out as best they could. He apparently passed the test and therefore never became a suspect.

c.d.

[David Orsam]

P.S. David and Pierre, you guys might want to think about giving it a rest. I mean seriously, your little back and forth on every damn thread is incredibly juvenile and quite annoying to the rest of us. Just saying.

Hey CD, thanks for the non-juvenile, very mature, unsolicited and - even better - free advice. But, you know what, your advice is quite annoying to the rest of us and, yes, I believe I can speak for everyone else on the forum, even though I haven't been elected to do so, because I'm very arrogant and pompous like that.

Now perhaps when your own annoyance subsides you might want to direct your ire towards the poster who started this thread who repeatedly failed to answer a simple question I asked of him.

But if you don't like my posts then I'm afraid my dear fellow that really is terribly bad luck for you.

[David Orsam]

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

Now my dear boy, let me try a different approach.

If, as you say, people used false alibis in 1888 AND alibis were of course tested, then doesn't that mean that any alibi offered by Joe Barnett would, of course, have been tested?

Do you have any reason to suppose that his alibi would not have been tested in the usual manner?

[Joshua Rogan]

I would agree with you, Harry. I called him a suspect in a previous post but I should have said person of interest. Actually a big time person of interest. And as such he would have been thoroughly questioned and any alibi he gave thoroughly checked out as best they could. He apparently passed the test and therefore never became a suspect.

c.d.

Daily News 10th Nov
"He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct, and therefore released him."

[Flower and Dean]

Daily News 10th Nov
"He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct, and therefore released him."

This doesn't tell us whether they went looking for people who could confirm his alibi or not, though.

[Wickerman]

"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.

[GUT]

Daily News 10th Nov
"He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct, and therefore released him."

This doesn't tell us whether they went looking for people who could confirm his alibi or not, though.

Well how else did they "satisfy themselves that his statements were correct" if they didn't ask those he used as an alibi????

[Varqm]

Records are best but there is none.It's not far-fetched to think they would have visited Bullers lodging house (10-15 minutes away?),checked his belongings,his room or bed,if he can come out at the early mornings - did Buller's have a deputy like Crossinghams and Cooneys ( no register of the time or of the persons coming in was kept but the deputy was on guard),maybe the players in the whist game (a team game),or even if he had a job in that early morning.

[David Orsam]

If, as you say, people used false alibis in 1888 AND alibis were of course tested, then doesn't that mean that any alibi offered by Joe Barnett would, of course, have been tested?

Do you have any reason to suppose that his alibi would not have been tested in the usual manner?

Just to repeat this question which remains unanswered

[Pierre]

Now my dear boy, let me try a different approach.

If, as you say, people used false alibis in 1888 AND alibis were of course tested, then doesn't that mean that any alibi offered by Joe Barnett would, of course, have been tested?

Do you have any reason to suppose that his alibi would not have been tested in the usual manner?

Hi David,

Barnett was not on trial and therefore his alibi was not tested in a court room.

That is also a main reason why we do not have any sources for any testing of Barnettīs alibi.

How the police handled his alibi is not left to us in any sources.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Barnett was not on trial and therefore his alibi was not tested in a court room.

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?

[David Orsam]

How the police handled his alibi is not left to us in any sources.

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?