Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly?

[GUT]

That does not mean that I have "favourite suspects" or anything like that.

So you no longer "think I've found him" interesting.

Or was your first ever post BS just I like I, along with most others, thought.

[John Wheat]

So you no longer "think I've found him" interesting.

Or was your first ever post BS just I like I, along with most others, thought.

Haven't you finished doing your research yet Pierre it seems to be taking rather a long time. It's about time you named your suspect.

[Pierre]

So you no longer "think I've found him" interesting.

Or was your first ever post BS just I like I, along with most others, thought.

Hi GUT,

I would appreciate if you do not put words in my mouth, thanks.

And I do not agree with anything in your post.

Cheers, Pierre

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

I would appreciate if you do not put words in my mouth, thanks.

And I do not agree with anything in your post.

Cheers, Pierre

Well if you've found him, which everyone here doubts, you must have a favourite suspect surely.

Or is it just more of your constant BS.

[Pierre]

Well if you've found him, which everyone here doubts, you must have a favourite suspect surely.

Or is it just more of your constant BS.

OFF TOPIC.

[GUT]

OFF TOPIC.

Well so must have been your claim that you don't have a favourite suspect.

Not sure who made you the Forum Police.

[GUT]

Haven't you finished doing your research yet Pierre it seems to be taking rather a long time. It's about time you named your suspect.

Do you honestly think he has one.

And

Even if he does do you think he's likely to stop playing his funny little games.

[David Orsam]

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 above question was very much on topic.

Still didn't get an answer though.

[Varqm]

[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

I do not understand.Barnett said he slept,therefore has nothing to do with the murder.
The police then has to verify whether he actually did,or could able to get up and leave the lodging house by interviewing the residents of Bullers and maybe the deputy - most likely Bullers had a deputy (read Frederick Wilkinsons testimony (Eddowes case),John Evans and Timothy Donovan(Chapman's case) or anything about lodging houses - there is a lot on this site .The police took him seriously enough to spend 4 hours interviewing/interrogating Barnett,some could have went to Bullers while doing that.They were satisfied enough they did not suspect him.

Whist? Begg The Facts,read around the site.

[GUT]

The above question was very much on topic.

Still didn't get an answer though.

Don't hold your breath

[Pierre]

The above question was very much on topic.

Still didn't get an answer though.

To give examples for what we know about that Barnett said.

Why are you so interested in that?

[David Orsam]

To give examples for what we know about that Barnett said.

Why did it need three examples though my dear boy?

Why was one example not enough?

[Pierre]

Why did it need three examples though my dear boy?

Why was one example not enough?

Because there are different sources.

Why the interest, David?

You read too much into this.

You know, here in this forum people are obsessed with suspicious things, and everything is interpreted as suspicious.

[David Orsam]

Because there are different sources.

Why the interest, David?

You read too much into this.

What do you think I am reading into it?

[Pierre]

What do you think I am reading into it?

Why should I think something about that? Now you are reading something into that statement as well.

You seem to have a lot of time to waste here.