Was Joe Barnettīs alibi accepted lightly?

[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?

[Varqm]

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

[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]

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.

[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

[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 his statements were not accepted lightly?

That is the question: How valid are the articles - what do the statements from Central News mean?

[David Orsam]

That is the question: How valid are the articles - what do the statements from Central News mean?

My dear boy, I'm happy to oblige:

"after questioning him"

means after they asked him questions

"satisfied themselves that his statements were correct"

means they concluded that he had told them the truth

"and therefore released him"

means they let him go.

If there are any other simple words or sentences you need explained my dear boy I am at your service.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, I'm happy to oblige:

"after questioning him"

means after they asked him questions

"satisfied themselves that his statements were correct"

means they concluded that he had told them the truth

"and therefore released him"

means they let him go.

If there are any other simple words or sentences you need explained my dear boy I am at your service.

Good. Then you can probably tell the us all the correct details of how they

"satisfied themselves that his statements were correct"

and then you can probably also tell us all the correct observations they had obtained, based on which methods, on which

"they concluded that he had told them the truth"

?

[David Orsam]

Good. Then you can probably tell the us all the correct details of how they

"satisfied themselves that his statements were correct"

and then you can probably also tell us all the correct observations they had obtained, based on which methods, on which

"they concluded that he had told them the truth"

?

My dear boy, I can't tell you that at all I'm afraid because there is no data available about it.

So that's this thread over really.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, I can't tell you that at all I'm afraid because there is no data available about it.

So that's this thread over really.

And still you suggested that his statements were not accepted lightly?:

So his statements were not accepted lightly?

[David Orsam]

And still you suggested that his statements were not accepted lightly?:

Yes my dear boy because the information you posted was that the police "satisfied themselves that his statements were correct and therefore released him."

What I can't tell is how they did it, but the info you posted was that they did it. They satisfied themselves.

[Pierre]

Yes my dear boy because the information you posted was that the police "satisfied themselves that his statements were correct and therefore released him."

What I can't tell is how they did it, but the info you posted was that they did it. They satisfied themselves.

So, as you can see, every conclusion depends on the sources at hand and their interpretation.

Therefore, there is no "fact". Facts are social constructions.

But there are better and worse facts, David.

Last post for tonight.

[Bridewell]

According to Christopher J Morley's book, 'Jack the Ripper : A Suspects Guide':

"Barnett was questioned by Inspector Abberline for four hours (my italics) and had his clothing checked for bloodstains. When he was questioned it was reported he was in an agitated state, though the police appeared to be satisfied that he had nothing to do with the murder, and he was released."

I conclude that his alibi was not "accepted lightly".

[GUT]

So, as you can see, every conclusion depends on the sources at hand and their interpretation.

Therefore, there is no "fact". Facts are social constructions.

But there are better and worse facts, David.

Last post for tonight.

There are no facts.

Now I've heard everything.