|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 6:08 am: |       |
G'day,
The 'Star' November 10 said: 'In a public-house close by Buller's the reporter succeeded in finding Barnett.....He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street and had been kept there for two and a half hours. He saw the body by peeping through the window.'
Other newspaper reports lead to the conclusion that he identified Mary Kelly's body at the mortuary. I believe that he was asked to sign a formal identification after the body had been pieced together.
The above report suggests that he viewed the body first at Miller's Court prior to the opening of her locked door. If so, why didn't he offer the knowledge of his 'hand-through-broken-window' method of unlocking the door?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 11:09 am: | |
Leanne,
Good point. Maybe he was too shocked to remember this piece of information. Are we sure the window was broken whilst he was still living there, because if it wasn't then he may not have known about it.
Of course, he possibly killed her and wanted the police to enter the room later rather than sooner. I wonder if it somehow would have made a difference if they had entered the room earlier.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3159
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
I think it's possible that the police were informed of the window trick, but chose not to use it. At the time that they decided that they could no longer delay entering the room, they hadn't yet thoroughly searched Barnett's (or anybody else's) clothes and bodies for blood. If they had asked, say, Barnett to reach through the window, and he'd cut himself on a broken pane, this would have compromised any blood that they found on him later.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Robert,
If Barnett was marys killer and i repeat If... then he would hardly appeared at the scene of the crime with the slightest trace of bloodstains on his person.
Every part of his body would have been throughly scrubbed, and all the clothes that he wore at the murder would have been discarded.
'Jack the ripper' who ever he was was extremely cunning and most certainly one step ahead of the authorities.
I personally believe Mr Barnett fits that bill.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3161
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 6:09 pm: | |
Hi Richard
The point I was making was that the police wouldn't be thinking "No need to search any of these men - they're bound to have cleaned themselves up." They'd have been obliged to do a search. If Joe, or anyone else, got themselves bloody reaching through jagged glass, such a search would have been compromised.
PS I think the police would have thought it a tad suspicious if Barnett turned up smelling of roses or sunlight soap!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 6:38 pm: | |
G'day Sarah,
The question of why Barnett didn't volunteer his knowledge of how to open Mary's door was first asked in Bruce Paley's book 'The Simple Truth'.
Mary's door, the type of lock it held, how long the key was missing for, which panes of glass were broken and even Mary Kelly's door locking habits have all been discussed to death on several boards under Mary Kelly's message threads, but no one has satisfactorily answered the question of why Barnett let John McCarthy break his door open with a pickaxe if he knew a better way of getting in.
'Maybe he was too shocked to remember this piece of information.' I think it more likely that (if innocent), he would have wanted to get into the room immediately to find the slightest piece of evidence that the body belonged to someone else.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3162
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
Leanne, if I were a policeman at that scene, the last thing I'd have allowed would have been the deceased's partner rushing into the room before it had been carefully looked at. I wouldn't have wanted him picking up any clues he'd left behind.
i don't think Joe can be accused of dragging his feet. The police refused to enter the room until the bloodhound message came through. Then it was a simple matter of McCarthy prising the door open. If they'd known of the window trick, I doubt if the police would have let Joe use it.
They could have tried it themselves, of course, but there was enough blood around that day!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 7:16 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
If the police knew of the hand-through-window method but didn't want to Barnett to get bloodstained, they could have asked one of the police men to reach through!
If John McCarthy or anyone knew of a better, less expensive way of opening the door, I doubt very much that he would he have brought out a pickaxe!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on October 06, 2004) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
If the police knew of the method, why would they even think of letting Barnett in there by himself?
I wouldn't call instructing John McCarthy to prise his door open a simpler method!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 473
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 12:37 am: | |
Hi,
There are also newspaper reports which suggest Barnett was not located until after the body was removed. This is the problem with the newspapers; pretty much anything can be supported and/or contradicted based upon what is found in the papers. What we are sorely missing is some sort of official statement concerning when Barnett was located after the murder, and exactly where he was when he first viewed the body. The newspapers are not consistent, and that demonstrates their unreliability. That makes it unsafe for us to build too much upon them.
Anyway, even if Joe was at the scene, what if he was innocent of the murder and very upset? It wasn't his door being broken down, he wasn't even living there anymore, and would have seen McCarthy break it down (and it's McCarthy's door). Now, if Joe was innocent, and upset, and had just looked through the window to see Mary mutilated as she was, I would think the last thing on his mind he's going to worry about it whether or not McCarthy is about to damage his own door. Why would Joe mention the "window trick" unless specifically asked how they got in the room? And how would the police know to ask such a question until they realised the key was missing? And how could they know the key was missing until they got into the room in the first place?
The more I think about it, if Joe were at the scene of the crime, I would think mentioning the "window trick" without being asked about would probably be more suspicious than not mentioning it. It only came up when the police asked about the missing key, which they only knew after the room was searched (and the door broken).
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1495
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 2:08 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Could you please tell us which newspapers reported that Joseph Barnettt was located AFTER the body was removed from the room. I can't find them anywhere!
You don't mean 'The Daily Telegraph' November 10 do you? The one that stated: 'During the day the police succeeded in finding John [SIC]Barnett'
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3163
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 4:20 am: | |
Leanne, my bet is that even if Joe was there before the door was opened, they'd have taken him to one side before opening the door. They wouldn't have wanted him getting hysterical, rushing in, or generally "getting in the way". Don't forget, there were a terrific number of policemen crowded into that court.
I'm not a policeman, but I would have thought normal practice when dealing with a suspect - as Joe must initially have been, given the fact that he was Kelly's partner - would be to whisk him off as soon as possible to the station, where he'd be unable to communucate with anyone until after the interrogation.They woukd have wanted to question him immediately lest he have more time to perfect his story. This would also prevent him from communicating with anyone who might support an alibi. There's also the fact that, should Barnett have confessed to the murder (as some people actually did) then keeping what he'd seen of the crime scene to a minimum would help them distinguish a genuine confession from a false one.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 6:08 am: | |
Robert,
I remember reading somewhere that he looked through window to initially identify Mary and so it appears that he wasn't rushed off straight away to the police station. Also, I don't think Leanne was suggesting that Joe could have opened the door, but more that he could have offered this information and a policeman could have done it. Why did they seem to think that having the door prised open was easier or better police procedure?
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3165
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 7:36 am: | |
Hi Sarah
I was thinking along the lines of Joe turning up, they get him to ID the body, then cart him off to the station.
Surely if a policeman had cut himself this would have clouded all the blood evidence at the scene?
Robert |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Hi All, Sarah,
Regardless of whether Joe told the police about the window trick, or they noticed the latch was reachable from the window themselves, putting one's arm through a broken window to reach something inside is very, very dangerous. There is a major artery running along the underside of the arm. If cut, a person could bleed to death in a matter of minutes. Now put yourself in the position of the police supervisor. You can't ask Barnett to do it, protecting civilians is part of your job. OTOH, you don't want to see one of your own men injured either. So, I don't think it was a case of being easier or better police procedure to have the landlord pry the door open, just much, much safer for all concerned.
Also, I don't get the impression that McCarthy smashed the door to bits. One side of a pickaxe has a flat, fairly thin blade. That blade would fit very easily between a door and its frame, apply a little force and the door would pop right open. There would be some minor, easily repaired damage where the lock engaged the door frame, but the door itself would be intact.
So, the police decide reaching through the window is too dangerous, they send someone next door to fetch the landlord. They had already secured the court and the room at that point, and waited about 2 hours for the bloodhounds. A few minutes additional delay waiting for the landlord really wasn't going to matter.
McCarthy shows up, tells the police he has no key (whether that was true or he simply didn't want to place himself in the frame for the murder is another question), and not wishing to destroy his own property, inserts the flat side between the frame and the door and pops the door open with minimal damage.
My .02, FWIW,
Jim
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Hi,
I agree with the point about the door only being prised open, not smashed in , simply because at the end of the day was not the windows boarded up and the door fastened?.
And police officers were on duty outside the room and at the entrance to the court.
I do disagree that the window posed a threat to the safety of the officers by poking there arm through Kelly and Barnett achieved this act frequenly without obvious damage to their arteries.
Richard. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 188
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Maybe it was simply that nobody wanted to actually go in to the room until they had to , if it was me I personally wouldn't have wanted to go into such a bloody mess !
Also , weren't the police waiting for the bloodhounds to turn up , if they entered the room then maybe they would have contaminated any trail of the killer that remained. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 474
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
The newspaper report that I was thinking of is the New Zealand one (in the thread where we got off topic and you started this one as a result). That report is indicated as being on the 12th of December, and you are quite right in pointing out (on the other thread), that if this date is correct for it's publication, it's a bit hard to put much stock in it unless there's a good explanation for the long delay.
However, I'm hoping Nina can double check on that date. It's possible that it's a transcription error on her part. Easy to do, and easy to check. If it's really from a November paper then it clearly is a report of Barnett not being located until after the body was removed. If it's from December, we would want to know why there's the month long delay in a story that apparently written "as it happens" (i.e., this evening etc).
Either way, the wording of the story is such that it is supposed to have been written at the time of the murder, and not a month later. Provided this isn't yet another example of misreporting things, should we worry that it appeard a month later? Well, yes, I think so, but I would want to know why it's a month later, and find out how reliable the information is first.
What we do know, however, is that this report clearly indicates that Joe was not located until after the body was removed. So, unless we can prove one newspaper is right and one is wrong, we have newspaper reports which contradict each other. It's not what we believe, it's what we can prove. With the newspapers being unreliable, as we all know, we can't prove our beliefs are either correct or incorrect.
This is why it would be such a great find if the police reports were found that indicated what they did to locate Joe Barnett. Unfortunately, we know they interviewed him, he identified the body at some point, and he was let go. What is missing is any police statement as to how they found him in the first place. If we could find that, then it would certainly help us all pin down the time line of some of these events.
I know that's what we're trying to do now, I'm just suggesting we be careful about pinning down events when all we have are statements from unreliable witnesses.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 475
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Hi,
Well, there you go. I just had a quick look in the Newspaper section and the New Zealand paper does seem to have quite a delay between the date of the report and when it gets to press in New Zealand itself. I checked a couple articles (don't have time for a more complete investigation at the moment) and it does look like 3 to 4 weeks between "filing the report from London and it's appearance in the NZ paper" is at least not uncommon.
That would mean, the Dec. 12 article saying Joe was not found until that evening was probably written about the time of the actual event. However, it should be noted, that the paper is full of known errors as well. It's no more reliable than any of the others.
- Jeff |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 94
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 6:24 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
I double checked and here is the press report.
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/te_aroha_news/881212.html
I agree that it's no more reliable than the other papers, perhaps even less so.
Nina |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 476
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 8:47 pm: | |
Hi,
Thanks Nina. I hadn't realised the NZ papers were on the site, then after posting my next to last post, I thought I would have a check. Should have mentioned that you had the date correct.
Anyway, it looks like the delay may have to do with the time it took to file stories from London to New Zealand. So, this report was probably written about the time of the murder (as implied by how it is phrased).
And, this report, like so many others in the papers, has a lot of details that are shown to be wrong by the official documents. Unfortunately, what we don't have are any official documents that tell us which of the newspaper reports (if any) have it right. Was Barnett at the scene before the body was removed or was he not? If he was, did he look through the window or did he not? etc. We are either left randomly picking answers, or choosing which newspaper to believe because those reports fit our view of what happened, or we could simply admit that we do not know the answer, ... yet (keeping hope alive that someday we will find some new source of information that is considered reliable, and which sheds new light on the questions for which we need answers, but can't choose between our plausible alternatives).
I guess that just reflects my approach to the case. I'm more interested in seeing how much we can state with reasonable certainty, and at what point to we reach an "impass". Barnett's presence, or lack thereof, at the crime scene is what I would call an "impass". We can't rely on the newspapers, because they are so often plain wrong, and often they offer support for contradictory answers.
What this does, however, is point out to us what the questions are that we need more information about. Also, if we look at the issue from both possible outcomes (i.e., "find out Joe was there" and "find out Joe wasn't there"), would knowing this information actually make a difference?
Barring something like "and, when looking through the window, Joe was heard to say 'I sure did a good job'", probably not (see my post above). It would be good to know, of course, but is it likely the missing link in the whole case that will lead to the "final final solution"? Probably not. But knowing what the events were is always better than not knowing and having to rely on theory or speculation or assumption.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 2:54 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
But even that New Zealand newspaper report didn't state that Barnett wasn't located until after the body had been removed! By saying that anything can be supported and/or contadicted based upon newspapers, alows us to ignore what we don't want to believe!
When I read a reported statement, I ask myself: "Why invent that if it wasn't true?", "Would that sell more newspapers?" That's why I don't trust reports that state that Mary Kelly had a child and was living with her mother.
If Barnett was at Millers Court before the door was opened and was innocent, I feel he would have wanted to help the investigation along as much and as fast as possible.
ROBERT: Police would have wanted to identify the remains as soon as possible.
Unless Barnett said that he was absolutely, 100% possitive who it was on the bed, they would have had to wait until the remains were pieced together as near as possible to obtain a formal, signed identification (an official one for the records).
'....would be to wisk him off as soon as possible to the station...' That's just what I believe they did, after a time, and kept him there for "four hours." (according to him).
That's why the above reporter located him in a pub not far from Buller's Lodging House, (which was opposite Bishopsgate Police Station). Thanks for supporting this theory!
'Surely if a policeman had cut himself this would have clouded all the blood evidence at the scene?
What blood evidence? D.N.A. profiling wasn't used in the U.K. until 1985.
Thanks to you too SARAH! We think alike on this!
JIM: 'putting one's arm through a broken window to reach something inside is very, very dangerous.'
Is that why Inspector Abberline described the arm-through-window trick as being "quite easy" at the inquest? Another thing: Joe said that he and Mary did it to get in the room, over a period of about a week!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3172
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 6:30 am: | |
Leanne, I never mentioned DNA. But obviously (in addition to the dangers to the police themselves) they wouldn't have wanted policemen bleeding all over the place.
I believe that Joe may have looked through the window. But they surely wouldn't have wanted him in the actual room, until they'd finished their post mortems and investigations. McCarthy apparently did go into the room, but I should think it would have been late in the day.
Re the question of whether Joe was there, I remember a report of an interview with Barnett, where he says that he was at Buller's and heard that a woman had been murdered in the court. So he went along there.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1497
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 6:44 pm: | |
G'day,
I've been trying to work out the most likely time to assume that Barnett arrived that morning, using the knowledge we have.
* Thomas Bowyer found Mary Kelly's body at 10:45a.m.
* The door was forced open around
2:00p.m.
* The remains were moved from the room at around
4.00p.m.
* From the time of the discovery, to time the body left for the mortuary was about
5 and a quarter hours.
* Joe Barnett told the 'Star' reporter that police kept him at the scene for
2 and a half hours. Probably before they took him to Bishopsgate Police Station, near 'Buller's Lodging House', for further questioning.
* We know it took a while to locate him, so he wasn't there at 10:45a.m. and I'd say he wasn't there at 11:00a.m.
* If he went to the pub after the body had been taken away, I'd say he was there at least 30 minutes prior to the forcing of the door.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 8:43 am: | |
G'day,
I just found a newspaper report that does away with your bleeding policeman concern:
The 'East London Advertiser' November 17, explained how: 'The police were sent for and Superintendent Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed.'
I remember now reading how the panes of glass in the broken window were removed entirely to allow the police photograper to take photos of the remains from outside, without needing to enter the room.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on October 10, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3179
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Well, IF this newspaper report is true, then it lets Joe off the hook for his alleged reticence in telling the police about the window trick - for here we have a situation where the police could have climbed in through the window, yet still preferred to force the door!
Robert |
Barry KAY
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
the police might not take the word of others.if they see a broken window its normal to assume that the murderer broke it. then, remove it as evidence |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 477
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:14 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
The passage in the newspaper is:
"The woman had a paramour, a man who sells oranges on the streets, and on whom, as he could not be found, suspicion at once reverted, but he turned up all right tonight, and fainted when he was shown the woman's body."
If, as you indicate above, the body was removed around 4 pm in the afternoon, that would indicate that Barnett wasn't located until after the body was removed (4 pm is hardly "tonight"). If, however, you simply mean the words "Barnett was not located until after the body was removed" do not appear in the text, then you are correct. It doesn't specifically include those words and one could debate about whether or not the phrase "tonight" could be applied to the time of 4pm in the afternoon. However, the words it does include, combined with what we know about the body and it's removal time, lead to the conclusion that Barnett wasn't located until after the body was removed.
Of course, if the newspaper report is wrong, then that conclusion is also wrong.
One should also note that in the same article there is a description of the crime scene. The article claims this description comes from the person asked to identify the body by looking through the window (but it does not name this window looking person). This description sounds more like what Boyer (sp?) is reported to have said in various papers. But, since the paper doesn't actually name this person, I suppose one could argue that this window looking person was Barnett. But, if one makes that claim, then we are left with wondering who the "orange selling paramour" is, since that person didn't turn up until "tonight". If the paramour is Barnett, then it's clear that the window looker in this article is not Barnett.
Also, if they removed the window, as the Star suggests, then as Robert has pointed out, they obviously couldn't be bothered about opening the door through the window as once the window is removed, the opening of the door through the window would be trivial. Unless, of course, they removed the window after forcing the door.
And, as I've mentioned before, why would Joe care one way or the other if McCarthy chose to break down his door for the police? If Joe was innocent of the crime, and if Joe cared for Mary as much as is often stated, probably the last thing in the world he is going to give a concern for is McCarthy's door. I would think he would be a very distraught individual, and probably not much help to the police at all until after the shock wore off. And, if Joe was guilty, I can't see him being concerned about McCarthy's door either. So, whether or not Joe was guilty, I find it hard to imagin any circumstance where Joe should be expected to suggest the window trick.
Given he's such an obvious first suspect (as noted in the NZ article), I would think his presence at the scene so early would have recieved more press coverage than it did. Personally, I'm a bit surprised at how little coverage there is about Joe's whereabouts. It makes a certain amount of sense if the police were able to clear him relatively quickly since the press, at this point, might figure that a story indicating it "wasn't her boyfriend" was rather unnecessary since the story up to now had always been the "mysterious unknown assassin" type. This is not intended as an argument for Joe's innocence, only one of those random thoughts that one considers when looking at this case.
As for the following "By saying that anything can be supported and/or contadicted based upon newspapers, alows us to ignore what we don't want to believe!", in fact it's quite the opposite! Ignoring what we don't want to believe would allow us to select the information we want and state things as if there were no alternatives.
What I'm saying is we cannot ignore "either" the stuff we "want" to believe or the stuff we "don't want" to believe. I'm saying we have to give equal weight to both possibilities whether we like it or not. Just because what we want to believe is cancelled by what we don't want to believe, doesn't mean we've ignored anything. We've in fact, included all of it (hence the cancellation). What I'm suggesting is that in this situation we should admit "we do not know what to believe" because the evidence is ambiguous and not simply say "Because I believe this happened, I'm going to ignore all the stuff that doesn't fit with that belief". It's not about what we believe, it's about what we can prove.
Until some evidence is found that tips the balance in favour of one or the other we should not base any of our conclusions, or build a theory up on this ambiguous foundation without at least qualifying that the theory is being built upon the assumption that we guessed right about the true state of the ambiguous evidence.
This doesn't mean that we can't move passed the ambiguity though. We might find that if we consider two (or more) alternative theories, and compare how they stand up to either result (i.e., How does "innocent Joe" theory stand up to the finding that he was there? How well does it stand up to finding out he wasn't there? What about "guilty Joe" theories?). If it turns out that both types of theories can adequately deal with either finding, then we can point out how our theory would explain either outcome.
Now, if our two explanations end up converging back to a common thread, then we can just continue with the presentation of the theory from that point on. It is, of course, "bad form" to omit how the alternative theory deals with the same situation as it implies that alternative theory cannot handle at least one of the possible outcomes.
Obviously, if Joe was not there, it has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. If he was there, neither innocent Joe or guilty Joe is going to be concered with whether or not McCarthy breaks his own door down. Etc.
However, everybody would still like to know the answer? Was he or was he not at the scene before the body was removed. Since the newspapers are unreliable, and contradictory, we need evidence from a more reliable source to answer this question. I don't know the answer, and I don't pretend to know. If we were to find this "more reliable source of information", it might provide us with other information that bears on the case.
I don't think we should overstate what we know for sure. We can evaluate ideas even if some of the lines of reasoning have to "cover a few possible situations" at the points where we just do not know. Also, by emphasising where these points are in the evidence chain, it signals us as to what sort of information we need to look for. It may turn out that someone has already found something that resolves the situation, but didn't realise how their finding impacts upon some particular event or question.
In other words, by admitting that the evidence does not allow us to resolve some issue, it prevents us from ignoreing the evidence that goes against what we want to believe by simply picking the evidence that supports what we believe.
At some point, of course, we have to make a judgement about what evidence is reliable and what evidence is not reliable. Once we make that decision, we have to be prepared to justify why we think some source is "reliable", and so why we give it the power to dismiss the contradicting evidence (from sources we obviously think of as "less reliable"). If we cannot produce a solid argument for that choice, then people will not be convinced that we have solved the ambiguity.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 4:54 am: | |
G'day,
CHARLES: If they had a 'situation where the police could have climbed through the window, yet still preferred to force the door', perhaps there were too many who wanted to get in, perhaps one of these people were too large to fit and maybe, just maybe they thought they needed a wider gap to transport the remains out to the carriage to convey it to the mortuary.
BARRY: They wouldn't have removed the window as evidence. They removed it to get a clearer view of the inside of the room, and to enable the photographer to take photographs of the remains, without entering the room and spoiling the scent for the bloodhounds.
JEFF: Here's another passage: 'I visited the scene of the crime at noon today....She parted from him, [Barnett], but THIS MORNING the man appeared.'
'Barnett turned up alright TONIGHT and fainted...' How do we know that reporter was referring to his initial visit to the crime scene? If the reporter stated he turned up 'TONIGHT', when and were was the reporter when he took the notes? How much police and press activity continued around Miller's Court that day after 4:00p.m.?
'Why would Joe care one way or the other if MacCarthy chose to break his door for the police?'
NO, NO, NO. I agree his concerns wouldn't have been for MacCarthy's door, but for Mary, for getting in that room as soon as possible to look for proof that it wasn't her. Why did he wait for MacCarhty to return with an axe?
'his presence at the scene so early would have received more press coverage.' - Only if he wore a sign on his shirt that said: 'Deceased's Paramour!'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 5:03 am: | |
continued.....
'...the person asked to identify the body by looking through the window...' - The 'Daily Telegraph' November 10, (which was included with the official files, so I'd say it was pretty correct), said: 'Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She confirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday.......DURING THE DAY the police succeeded in finding John, [sic], Barnett....'
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3180
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 5:21 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Charles? I thought I was Robert. You'll be calling me Joe next.
I wouldn't have thought the door was any wider than the window. Besides, how many fatties were there in the Met?
Re removing the remains, yes, the door had to be open for them to do this. But if they couldn't open the door from the inside after climbing through the window, that would mean that Bob Hinton's argument was wrong, and that the door couldn't be opened from the inside because it was locked and the key was missing. I tend to think that Bob Hinton was actually right on this, but I guess such a discussion would belong on a different thread.
Charles  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
hi.
I have always thought that Barnett was on his way to Dorset street when he encountered his brothers sister in law? who informed him of a murder in the court. one would imagine that on arriving at the cordoned off street, he soon learnt that the victim was in a room at the end of the passage, and would have informed a constable that it sounded like the woman he used to live with, the constable would have informed the officer in charge at the scene, and Barnett would have been escorted to the room.
It would have been there after finding out who this man was, that he would have been asked to view the body as to identify the victim.
the above scenerio looks the most likely as it comes from Barnetts account.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 7:03 am: | |
G'day Rich,
That 'Daily Telegraph' November 10 report I mentioned in my last post is in 'The Ultimate Companion', and further along it said about Joseph Barnett: 'He was indoors yesterday morning when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset Street, but he did not know who the victim was. He voluntarily went to the police, who, after questioning him, satisfied themselves that his statements were correct.'
I remember now reading something, somewhere about his brother's sister-in-law telling him. That would fit with the above report. Can you please point out the source of that?
If he did hear about it 'yesterday morning', would it have taken him all day to get there?
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 478
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Thank you for providing a couple more examples that seem to indicate we have no idea of where Barnett was during the morning of the murder. The passage you mention suggests he was there in the morning, the Daily Telegraph tells us that he was inside that morning (obviously they don't mean Miller's Court, so inside somewhere else), and the Daily Telegraph suggests he never went to crime scene, but rather went to the police on the day he heard of the murder. Of course, the Daily Telegraph has Eliabeth Prater tell us that during the day the police found him, but since it also tells us that Joe went to the police, we could reasonably suggest that these two statements are not really inconsistent (they "found him" because he went to them; all Elizabeth might have heard is that Joe was questioned by the police, etc). Strict literal interpreations, however, means that these all can't be true, and we can't know which is true, or even if any are actually true. The papers could simply have made up their own versions; especially if the police were being tight lipped on the subject (either to protect an innocent Joe, or because they hadn't yet cleared him and thought he looked pretty good as a suspect but wanted to avoid the Leather Apron problems).
And, since you suggest the Daily Telegraph article is "probably accurate" since the police held on to it, that would rather suggest that the idea that Barnett was at the scene is one you wouldn't accept (that same article indicates he went to the police without going to the crime scene, as you point out in your later post). So if you think this is a reliable report because the police held on to it, then this report seems to indicate that Joe was not at the scene (Elizabeth doesn't say Joe was there).
In reference to the idea that it took him "all day" to get to the police, if he heard of a murder in the morning and he didn't know it was Mary, why would he be in a rush to go to the police right away? If he's innocent, and was indoors that morning, asleep the night before, he would have little to tell them. Knowing he would have no information, and possibly hoping that it wasn't Mary (and by not finding out one keeps hope alive), he might be reluctant to get involved. On the other hand, the fear that it might have been Mary could be expected to play on his mind, so he may have gone to the the police to find out. Or, he may simply have heard about it while working, and wasn't available to go to the police until after his day was done (but I think the daily work hours might not quite fit with that idea all that well).
Of course, a guilty Joe might also wait awhile, working on his "cover story" let's say. He finally decides it looks better if he goes to the police rather than to wait for them come "get him".
Seems to me it works both ways in terms of guilty/innocent behaviour. It also seems to me that the papers have no idea about Joe's whereabouts on that particular morning. And since the police haven't recorded anything official on the subject that we currently know about, I think we are pretty much stuck with not knowing where Joe was.
And, if Joe was at the crime scene, I would think that would be something the press would have heard about from the people who knew Joe and Mary, and who were there, and who were interviewed by the police. They would have seen Joe, they would have recognised him as her boyfriend, etc. I don't think they would have hesitated to tell the press he was there, that he was being questioned by the police (Elizabeht didn't seem to think mentioning Joe being questioned by the police was "a secret"), etc. I find it hard to believe his presense at the crime scene wasn't mentioned in special detail to the press during one of their many interviews. It's just the sort of thing someone would mention, even if in a way that made Joe look innocent (i.e., he was so upset, etc).
And, if he was there, which may not have been the case, but if he was, it's not hard to imagine why he wouldn't be trying to get into the room. If he was already assured it was her (McCarthy, and others had looked in already; the police could have assured him "It's her, no you don't want to look", etc. He may have been too upset to think of doing anything. But again, such a distraught individual would have drawn attention to himself, but there's surprisingly little mention of such a scene. And, if he just was there being cold and unemotional, the police would have been more suspicious of him than they apparently were. I find it hard to really see anything definitative no matter how I look at it. Everytime I try and "fit all the pieces together", but once I put one piece in, another doesn't seem to fit right.
However, if Joe wasn't there, these problems don't seem to occur. That doesn't mean he wasn't there of course, but I don't see anything compelling in the evidence to put him there. This is why I think we can't be sure of where he was. He may have been there, and if so why is he not mentioned more in the press. He may not have been there, but then where exactly was he? He whereabouts is a question which at this time we have insufficient evidence to suggest a solid answer. And, depending up what the answer is in reality, opens up further questions that don't apply if we get the first part wrong (wondering where he was doesn't make much sense if we find out he was there; but wondering why the press didn't make much noise about his presence at the scene doesn't make much sense if we find out he was working elsewhere). Notice that I'm not leaving out any information when I come to this decision of "nondecision". I'm trying to use all the evidence we do have, and what I find is that no firm conclusion can be drawn yet. And the primary reason for this is because the evidence we do have comes only from unreliable sources; the newspapers. Unfortunatley, it's all we have at this time, and they contradict themselves. So I am hoping some other information will be found that is from a more reliable source as this might help clear up this question.
I'm just far more conservative than you are when it comes to drawing conclusions. That's fine, as it would be rather dull if we all were as hesitant as I am. I just suggest caution, try and explain why I suggest caution, and leave it to everyone else where to place their criterion on what evidence they deam sufficient. I may not agree with the conclusion they draw, but then the converse is also true; nobody has to agree with the conclusion (or lack thereof) that I draw. We just present out ideas, our ways of thinking, and from this we hopefully see the evidence in ways we wouldn't have otherwise. That's how we all learn things.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 12:00 am: | |
G'day,
Oh come on Jeff, don't you understand mate???? Can't you work it out?
How does the 'Daily Telegraph' tell us that he never went to the crime scene? It tells us clearly that he was elsewhere when he first heard that a woman had been murdered. That's all!
'He voluntarily went to the police...' doesn't prove that he voluntarily went to the police STATION! The police cordonned off Dorsett Street that morning. He would have approached the police outside of Miller's Court, because that's where they were!
The police were so inexperienced with serial crime that they failed to record sufficient details, and you believe that they were concerned for 'protecting' the innocent. None of them knew the true identity of the killer, so the last thing they would have thought about was protecting someone's reputation!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 12:13 am: | |
G'day,
Barnett told the Central News Agency and it was reported in 'Loyd's Newspaper' on November 11: "I heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court and on my way there I met my sister's brother-in-law', (not his brother's sister-in-law), and he told me it was Marie. I went to the court and there saw the police inspector and told him who I was and where I had been the previous night."
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 479
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 12:52 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Well, sure, that's one way to interpret it, and it makes sense. And the way I presented it is another way that also makes sense but now leads to the opposite conclusion. Meaning the evidence is ambiguous, which is what I have been saying all along. Couldn't you work that out from what I said before?
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1504
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 1:01 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
No, it doesn't make sense mate! To assume that Barnett went to Bishopsgate Police station when all/or at least most of the officers were cordonning off Dorsett Street, or inside Miller's Court!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 3:47 am: | |
Hi,
We should assume that word of mouth spread rapidly and Joe Barnett heard of a recent discovery at millers court after 11am that morning, where joe was at the moment of that imformation is not clear.
would he have been in his lodgings at that hour of the morning?.
He then most proberly made his way to Dorset street along with hundreds of others, and found that both entrances to the street were heavily policed, one would imagine that the constables were stretched to keep law and order.
On his way he was told that the victim was his Marie' therefore he would have reached the nearest police officer eventually, and he would have been esorted along to millers court.
I find that scenerio most probable, the only question is was he a innocent poor soul?.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 4:49 am: | |
Leanne,
Just a little off topic I think, but I was confused about that report stating that Joe's sister's brother in-law told him about the murder. This doesn't make sense. For a start, I was under the impression that Joe had only one sister. For someone to be your brother in-law he would have to marry your sister. This would mean that this man was married to Joe's sister's sister. (This is getting confusing). But surely this same women would be Joe's sister, which would show he had another sister. Also, why did he call this man his sister's brother in-law and not his own brother in-law? It's just really confusing.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3185
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 5:36 am: | |
Sarah, I took it to mean that Joe's sister (from memory, I think her name was Catherine), who was married to a man called Joseph Beer, had a brother-in-law (i.e. Joseph Beer's brother). Joseph Beer would have been Barnett's brother-in-law, but Joseph beer's brother would have been nothing to Barnett.
What's nore, Barnett was his own grandpa.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
Robert's right there. To make it simpler: the report was referring to the brother of Catharine Barnett's husband.
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Gosh!
Right the main thing here I think is that where was Joe at the time or at least in the morning (!) of the discovery!
according to sugden..After the Thurs night visiting to say he had no money episode...'he was indoors yaesterday morning(WHERE?) when he heard that a woman had ben murdered in Dorset st,but he did not know at first who the victim was.he voluntarilly went to the poluice,who after questioning him satisfied himself that his statements were correct'
This has probably been out on before but I think it may have a point!
Cheers
Suzi |
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 5:00 pm: | |
Gosh!
You have 1419 posts. Maybe ten or eleven are worthwhile.
From the last post:
"yaesterday, voluntarilly, poluice
This has probably been out on before but I think it may have a point!"
You are giving Assistant Commissioner a bad name!!!
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
If he did what Jeff thinks and went to Bishopsgate Police STATION to report his 'alibi', that would be VERY suspicious. How many people state an 'alibi' when they aren't even sure that they knew the victim?
The only existing contemporary reference to where Barnett was that night appeared in a press report, so Bruce Paley believes it was his 'alibi', that he gave the police! The 'Daily Telegraph' November 10 reported that he was at Buller's Lodging House playing whist until half past twelve when he went to bed.
I've researched the lodging houses near those Dock-whearhouses, (that were for the employees at the docks), and people came and went at all hours depending on their various jobs, so there was no specific lock-up time and no one manned the door!
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Robert!!!!!
If I was Barnett!!!!!!...I'd have gone on the beer I feel!..Sisters/Brothers,Cousins, and Aunts/Uncles I feel! Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry G&S!!!!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3192
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
Let's suppose that Barnett heard of a murder in Dorset Street, maybe even Miller's Court, and went there to check on Mary. Perhaps the police let him into the Court because of who he was. They may have asked him to look through the window. But I feel that's where it stops. They wouldn't and couldn't have conducted a proper interview in the Court - they'd have taken him off to a station to do it. They wouldn't have wanted him inside the room getting under their feet, or seeing things that only the murderer would know. They'd have wanted to grill him straight away in controlled conditions.
I'm not a policeman. All I can say is, if the police did let him hang around inside the Court, then they didn't deserve to solve this or any other murder.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 480
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 9:05 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Well, that's fine. As far as I can see, the newspapers are both ambiguous in what they tell us, and often what they tell us is simply wrong. I guess I prefer my belief selection to be guided by the data rather than to guide my data selection by my beliefs.
- Jeff |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 197
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 12:26 am: | |
Suzi, so you cant spell, but I luv your points. Brad |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1507
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
I understand what you are saying, and I agree! The official files are the only source we can trust to be 100% correct, but unfortunately they are lacking in some of the facts that we desire. We can study them for another hundred years, but the identity of Jack the Ripper will never appear.
One other source we have are the newspapers, so we should study them enough to sort out the facts from the fiction.
From studying them and comparing them to the known facts I have worked out that Mary Kelly was not living with her mother, so I assume that the reports of her having a child living with her also are very likely wrong. Even if the newspaper tricks us into believing that Joseph Barnett actually said that.
'and often what they tell us is simply wrong,'.
I'd say that often the way we interpret what they say is wrong. You took: 'he voluntarily went to the police..', as meaning that he voluntarily went to the police STATION.
LEANNE
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
