the key

[Sally]

I'm not absolutely ruling anybody out, therefore. I just don't consider Barnett a likely suspect.

Then the only difference between our views, Sally, is that between someone who says a glass is half-full and one who says it is half-empty!

Phil

Oh, I'm afraid my glass is always half-empty Phil - unlike Barnett's I suspect!

[Stephen Thomas]

Could someone please remind me exactly where the information that the door could be opened by reaching through the broken window came from.

[c.d.]

No alibi ?,Maybe he was playing with himself?.

No, you're thinking of Druitt.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

No, you're thinking of Druitt.

c.d.

or Kosminski.

[Wickerman]

Could someone please remind me exactly where the information that the door could be opened by reaching through the broken window came from.

Hi Stephen, the comment came from Abberline at the inquest, where he stated his source was Barnett himself.

"An impression had got abroad that the murderer had taken the key of the room away, but that was not so, as Barnett had stated that the key had been lost some time ago, and when they desired to get into the room they pushed back the bolt though the broken window."
The Times, 13 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.
P.S.
In the Daily Telegraph Abberline adds, "it is quite easy", leaving us to assume he might have tried it himself.

[Stephen Thomas]

Many thanks, Jon

It's good to get back to basics now and then. Abberline seems to be talking about a simple bolt whereas all discussion over the last few years has been about a spring (ie Yale-type) lock.

[Sally]

I think this matter was discussed at length on 'The Broken Window' thread.

[Wickerman]

Many thanks, Jon

It's good to get back to basics now and then. Abberline seems to be talking about a simple bolt whereas all discussion over the last few years has been about a spring (ie Yale-type) lock.

Rarely is anything that "black & white" in this case Stephen, the lock was a Spring-type lock,..

"The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer apparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found."
Daily News, 10 Nov. 1888.

It automatically locked as you pulled the door closed. The mechanism (spring-bolt?) could be reached through the broken glass (how fortunate, that the window should have been accidently broken right where they needed to reach the bolt).

All the best, Jon S.

[Stephen Thomas]

how fortunate, that the window should have been accidently broken right where they needed to reach the bolt.

Good thinking, Jon

I've broken 2 or 3 windows in my life after losing my front door key.

[Heinrich]

.... A very experienced Detective Inspector, understandably, found Barnett to be a person of interest and interviewed him. On the basis of the interview, and an investigation of his alibi, the Inspector let him go. A century and a bit later a dilettante decides that he knows better. Makes me laugh.

Maybe Heinrich should write a book about Barnett. It would, by my count, be the sixth.

No need to name-call or mock, The Grave Maurice.
Some people (including the Queen) would not place as much confidence in the police who were investigating the case then as you do now.
With all their experience, as you put it, they failed to protect the victims or catch the killer. That rates an F in my book, if ever I should write one.

[Supe]

Heinrich,

With all their experience, as you put it, they failed to protect the victims or catch the killer. That rates an F in my book, if ever I should write one.

Simple question: With all the forensic and techological advances we enjoy today, not to mention all the added experience of dealing with serial killers, what is the success rate for bringing them to heel before their kill totals go into double figures in the 21st Century?

It is one thing to be critical of certain aspects of the 1888 investigation and quite another to be as contemptuous of their efforts as you seem.

Don.

[Heinrich]

Heinrich,
....

It is one thing to be critical of certain aspects of the 1888 investigation and quite another to be as contemptuous of their efforts as you seem.

Don.

No, Don, rather I do have little regard for those who believe the police at the time were invincible and who think we should disqualify anyone as a suspect merely because he was let go after an interview.

[Wickerman]

Good thinking, Jon

I've broken 2 or 3 windows in my life after losing my front door key.

Try this link, pull it right to the bottom, you'll see Bob's pictures of a lock 'representative' of the type that might have been fitted to Kelly's door.

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/6718.html

We discussed this in detail at the time, I can explain how this one works if you are not clear on reading Bob's notes (I'm assuming Bob is not, available?)

All the best, Jon S.

[caz]

f) much of what we know about MJK's thoughts, fears etc comes to us through Joe - if he was clever enough to embroider the picture to make it seem his ex-lover feared "Jack" he might have further distanced himself from suspicion;

Hi Phil,

But I thought Joe was asked if MJK was frightened of anyone and he said only himself, when they were having a row! Maybe you should put yourself in the shoes of the man who killed this woman and ask yourself what you would say during a four hour interrogation, to save your neck.

Nothing in Joe B's testimony sounds like a guilty man trying to seem innocent. Quite the reverse in some instances!

My points were also meant to illustrate that there was a range of reasons for keeping Barnett in the frame (along with his brother and Fleming, as people close to Kelly). Picking apart the arguments individually rather misses my point - not that you have to take it - none of them are necessarily true on their own, but together (for me) they constitute a view worth pondering.

If you put your points individually, you must expect them to be addressed and agreed/disagreed with individually. If most of them are untrue the house of cards is seriously undermined, and if none of them is true it collapses and there is nothing left to ponder.

It doesn't hurt to keep reminding people that Joe wasn't simply "let go" for lack of evidence; he satisfied his interrogators that he was not in that room when MJK was being murdered. In addition, an early news report speculated that this murder might be of a different character, committed for a different reason. So Abberline would have taken this possibility into account when looking into Joe's movements over the previous few weeks, and would not have presumed him innocent if he could not have murdered one of the others.

If Robert Napper had not been identified as the indoor killer of Samantha Bisset and her daughter, what would justify an armchair theorist putting a boyfriend in the frame years later, with zero evidence?

Keep Joe in the frame by all means, but after all these years there is not the merest shadow of a case that you or anyone else could bring against the poor man. In short, where's the evidence?

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Nothing in Joe B's testimony sounds like a guilty man trying to seem innocent. Quite the reverse in some instances!

An entirely subjective view, if I might say so. You were not there, you did not hear the tone of voice or see his demeanour. Neither do we have Abberline's reasoning for letting him go - with which we might agree or disagree - however thorough he had been.

Please agree or disagree with my points collectively or individually, or upside down if you wish.

I am not trying to accuse Barnett, simply arguing he should not be dismissed from our consideration (whatever Abberline's judgement 123 years ago). If you disagree with that (in that you don't give or want to give Barnett one iota's worth more thought), fine - but we shall continue to differ.

Cordially,

Phil