|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 6:53 am: |       |
Jeff,
I have to take issue with you saying there are a million ways of someone verifying that Joe was asleep in that room all night. The only way that anyone could verify his story would have been if someone was with him all night and I mean someone in the room wide awake to make sure he couldn't have got up and left. That is the only 100% way of verifying his story. Since he was alone in the room (as far as we know), his story is faulted. I can only imagine that people told the police that he went to bed at whatever time Joe had said and that maybe some of the same or different people saw him downstairs the following morning. This isn't good enough. That's just how I see it. We can't just go on "he was probably in his room all night" and that's all we have. There has to be 100% proof for these things in murder cases. I'm just curious how the police proved 100% that he was in his room all night. Sorry, but the "I heard him snoring" is no good either. The person may have got confused with where the snoring was coming from and I'm sure that person would have slept at some point too. It might not be likely that he snuck out, but as long as his story cannot be 100% verified, then there is a chance that he did.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Sarah
Since he was alone in the room (as far as we know), his story is faulted
Why is his story faulted ?
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 490
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
Ok, what if his room has no window that can open. The only way out is to go through the hall. What if there were people up, all night (different people) such that if Joe leaves he would be spotted. Nobody saw him leave? His door remained closed all night, etc.
What if he wasn't alone? What if he had a lady friend that he doesn't mention. I'm sure we could think of reasons why this detail might not get a mention, even by the police if they knew he was innocent.
Again, the snoring. He was heard to be in his room the whole night. Nodoby has to be in there with him.
Or, someone went to wake him up at 7 am (pick your time), and he was sound asleep, with no bloody clothes, etc. And it was clear he hadn't been up to his armpits in blood recently (his arms and hands were still dirty from something the night before?)
Or, he couldn't sleep that night, so was in and out of his room all night; and talked to various people in the kitchen area at enough time intervals that he couldn't have committed the murder.
Make something up. We have no evidence. Every story that we can make up, that isn't outright ridiculous could be what happened. Would I want to bet on any one of them? No way. If I insisted that "this story must have happened" should you call me on being so specific? Yes, right away, because there is no reason why that particular story should be believed over any of the others.
And, because we have no evidence, we can also make up as many stories that might allow Barnett to get out of that room and to kill Mary. Should we believe any of them? No more than the stories that keep him in the room away from Mary.
Imagination is a wonderful thing. Be creative, and you can tell just about any story you want when there is no data to constrain your story. It only looks like you are constraining your story by the data if you get to pick and choose what data you want to be constrained to.
Anyway, because we should believe both sets of stories, and because the sets are "logically opposite" (He was there; he was not there), we can't even pick which set to believe the "real story" is in. That is all I'm saying; the real story might be in either set.
This is why I'm saying we have to avoid picking and choosing the "good bits" from the paper when there is nothing else to back up our choise except the story it allows us to tell. We're no longer constraining our story to the data because we're only going to pick the data that doesn't interfere with our data. By ignoring all the conflicting data, it makes our story "appear" to fit the data when, in fact, it does not.
And this is so easy to do, and I would be highly surprised if I've not done it myself. It's called having a "confirmation bias"; we are biased to give more weight to evidence that fits our beliefs than evidence that suggests our beliefs are wrong. Logically, disconfirming evidence carries more "information" because it can prove our theory is flawed somehow, while confirming evidence can only support the idea that the theory might be true.
This is what discussions are great for. They give people a chance to find out where they are making these kinds of oversights. When I make these errors, when somebody notices it, they point it out to me. Depending upon the exact situation, I may go "ooops! you're right", or I may suggest "one way around that problem is this: ", which still means I've had to change my statement. This also means I was in error before, but the general theory can be maintained with slight adjustments. But those adjustments might never have been made without someone mentioning a mis-step in my original line of reasoning. And the original line was in error.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Hi,
Lets forget for a moment that i am a Barnett accuser, and suggest that Mrs cox saw the same man at midnight that Hutchinson saw at 2am.
I should now add that the statement released did not suggest a 'Real Toff' however she told her neice that she saw such a person,mentioned words spoken by kelly'Dont pull me along' and in describing his attire mentioned a high hat, but not of silk.
I suggest it is entirely possible that this man returned to kellys room with her, when realizing that she was a good target left her abode, and returned to his dwelling to get his deadly tools, and was on his way back to her room, when he saw her approaching his way, and then asked her if he could return once more as he 'enjoyed her company', and the rest is history.
That would run in harmony with what Cox told her neice, and also Hutchinsons remarks.
I am not turning traitor on Barnett, just giving an exsample of a possible occurance.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3258
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Strange that GH didn't spot his blotchy face, Richard - everything else, but not his blotchy face.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
My point is the blotchy faced man may not have existed, it all boils down to , does one believe the statement that was told at the time, or what Mrs cox told her family years later.
My argument is 'Why should Mrs cox , fabricate such a story to her relatives, why not simply relate the story that she was reported to have made at the time?.
I am a great fan of hearsay when it has passages of comments made that spell realism.
'Oh I have lost my hankerchief' All right my love 'Dont pull me along' are just two phrases that spring to mind.'You will say anything but your prayers ' is another
Lotties remarks that Kelly told her 'She had a nightmare that someone was murdering her' is another.
The resident of Dorset street[ name escapes me] who said a man called Lawrence he was closely connected to the dead woman, asked her to accept a summons should it arrive for her in his absence is another.
Hearsay is a dangerous path, but when it contains words or actions that seems to heed truthful recollections it should not be dismissed lightly.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3259
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
But Richard, surely evidence given at the time - first at the police station, then on oath at the inquest - when events are still fresh in the mind, far outweighs stories told to relatives and repeated by them perhaps years later. Unless there is some definite reason why a person might have lied at the time, surely we must go with their original evidence?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 5:27 am: | |
G'day,
The rooms of common Lodging Houses at the time were 8ft x 4ft x 6ft, contained a bed, a chair and a locker/clothes box. Each inmate was provided with his/her own unique key. There were no windows and 'Buller's', (which was near St. Katherine's Dock). It housed sailors and dock labourers, who were up and down, in and out all at differing times. For that reason there were no set meal times.
I believe Joe wore his astracan, his kid gloves and the rest of the stuff he bought at the 2nd hand clothes exchange at Petticoat Lane. That may be too much of a story for you Jeff, but it's as good as some of the stories we've been forced to take notice of. Jack the Ripper wasn't caught so one can look forever through the official files and still remain in the spot they started in.
How do we know that no one saw anyone leave Joe's room that night? No one recorded that fact in the official files. I'm sure that in official files of todays cases, the alibi of a victims partner would appear very clear and verified by someone. In this case we are forced to assume that police had no doubt Joe remained in bed.
Now if there was a recorded interview with the Superintendant of 'Buller's Lodging House' saying that he was 100% certain Joe stayed in bed all night, we'd be forced to believe he was innocent.
RICHARD: Mrs. Cox could have been trying to impress her neice with what she saw! My parents both told me one Christmas that Santa Clause was coming to my house!
'My point is the blotchy faced man may not have existed...'..... "Oh shame on you aunty for telling the Inquest a lie!...Under oath too!!"
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3262
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 9:54 am: | |
Leanne, how do we know that Santa didn't sneak in and out while you were asleep? 
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 11:17 am: | |
Hi All,
If GH had set up the meeting between Mary and her last customer (or had been involved in any other capacity with her comings and goings) and then realised when her body was found that this man - Mr Blotchy Face or otherwise - was almost certainly the ripper, he may have come forward with a deliberately false description, for fear that this highly dangerous man would seek revenge if he knew GH was in a position to give an accurate one, and if he suspected GH had done just that.
Imagine how wary you would be of bumping into this man in Petticoat Lane if you had just given the papers and the police a perfect description of him.
Just another suggestion, which, as Jeff so ably explains, will be easier to drop if flawed, than to run with, if it's just one possibility among several.
Love,
Caz
X
|
V. Lywood
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
I could really use an excellent post mortem/ inquest drawing of any of the Ripper victims done by Dr. Brown or Frederick Foster to be used in a presentation. Could anyone help out? Thanks |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 12:39 pm: | |
Hi all,
I think we should be carefull when trying to build a case for or against someone based on how we think he should have acted. I would not have gone directly to the police station after hearing of the murder. I would have went and checked on Mary if I was Joe. He may very well have gone to the police station but even then he probably would not have gotten the name of the victim. I feel that word came from the street who the victim was and if Joe had not gone to the scene before then he most likely went after he heard it was Mary. I do not believe Joe would have gone to the police station before he went and saw the crime scene for himself and varified that it indeed was Kelly. People tend to go into denial upon hearing bad news. I do not know that if I was Joe I would have gone to the police station at all. I probably would have started to morn. This of course is based on how I would have handled the situation upon hearing the news. Other people would have handled the situation another way. Jeff may have gone across the street to the station and checked. He would have not handled the situation wrong but different then I would have. There is no wrong way to handle a situation like this. People act diffrent under tough situations. I believe no correct inference can be made. The only thing we no for sure is that Joe was asked to Identify the body. He was questioned and released.
You friend, CB |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Leanne,
If Mrs cox had vital evidence which she relayed to the police, would the police inform the press/ the media.of a full description.
This would halt any possible progress the police might be in pocession of.
For simply the man who the description fitted , would either lie low , or alter his description completely.
I Believe albeit through speculation, although taking mrs coxs neice statement into consideration, that the police on the 9th november 88. were looking for a man of respectable appearence , not the shabby type.
And when Hutchinson appeared on the monday, they were convinced that this was the way forward.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3268
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Hi Richard
But didn't Cox give the same description in her police statement? That wasn't a public statement.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 5:56 pm: | |
G'day Rich,
The press were there mate!
The Coroner put an end to the inquest before evidence could be heard from those who claimed to have seen Mary Kelly after her supposed death!
Perhaps that could be considered holding back vital evidence from the press!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 7:27 pm: | |
G'day,
I think the only evidence that the police attempted to keep out of the press and from the public's eyes was the description given to them by Israel Schwartz in Elizabeth Stride's case. They kept him from appearing at Stride's inquest.
I don't think the police would have asked Mrs. Cox to tell the Coroner's Jury a deliberate lie under oath!
CAZ: I respect your sugestion that George Hutchinson could have set up a meeting for Mary with her killer.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
Monty,
His story is faulted because it cannot be 100% verified.
Jeff,
There's one too many "maybes" in that post of yours. I'm not giving maybes, I'm looking at what's more likely. When the police checked his story, they must have noted down somewhere that his alibi was 100% proved. Police can't just go on people saying that they saw him go to bed at midnight (or whenever it was) and then again in the morning and take that as 100% proof of Joe's innocence.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Sarah,
Non verification doesnt mean its false or faulty. I could state the same about the theory Joe murdered Mary. There is NOTHING to verify that is there? so therefore that theory is faulty.....and the only evidence that connects Joe, Mary and Millers court points to the fact (by his own admittance) that Joe was there within the last 48 hours. And seeing as he used to live there its no surprise nor indication of guilt.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
none of the stories can be 100% verified today, can they?
Jenni
We're off to Button Moon, we'll follow Mr Spoon,
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 493
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
Indeed, there are a lot of maybes, and that's because none of the things I've suggested are anything more than theories.
Let's put it this way. We know the police interviewed Joe. We know they dropped him as a suspect.
What we don't know is why they dropped him as a suspect. And that's because what we lack is the transcript of that interview, and we lack the police record of when and where Joe first came into contact with the police.
Now, for a theory to be consistent with what we do know, all we have to do is include:
1) Joe and the police meet
2) Joe is interviewed, during which he tells Abberline of the window trick
3) At some point in our story, Joe must identify the body
4) The Police figure Joe is not their man.
As long as those 3 requirments are met, and as long as we don't defy the laws of the universe, then our story is just another one of the millions and billions of stories, some very similar to each other, some very different, that could be told.
For example, we are not constrained by the time that Joe meets the police. It could be just after the police arrived at Miller's Court or it could be well after the body was removed.
We are not constrained by where Joe has to even meet the police; so he may not even have been to Miller's Court.
He is allowed to identify the body at the mortuary, which means he may not have been to Miller's Court, and since we're not constrained by when or where this identification occurred, we could put him peeking through the window too.
During his interview, we know he tells Abberline "the pipe found in the room" was his, and he mentions the "window trick". Not much else is know for sure, so we are not constrained by what was said during the interview apart from ensuring the above bits get mentioned. There might be one or two other bits that have to get said, but apart from that, we've got anywhere from 2.5 to 4 hours to fill. So, we can pretty much include anything we want to have been said, and still not violate the evidence.
And then, we just need to have the police decide why Joe should be let go. We are not constrained by "their reason", so if we want to tell stories that they let him go because they checked out his story, fine, that doesn't violate the evidence any more than deciding to include the plot line of "they didn't actually check up on his alibi, they just figured it was Jack and Joe didn't look crazy to them". Sure, doesn't violate the evidence either.
In other words, there is so little reliable evidence at this point, any story includes a whole lot of maybes, whether stated or not. I was just trying to demonstrate how easy it is to make up any old story that fits the data we have, and produces the outcome we want the story to tell. What we would rather be able to do, is let the evidence tell the story. To do that, we need more evidence first. There are too many gaps.
- Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1440
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hi all
This seems to be the point Jenni!!!! none of it can be seriously verifird...sad but true!
Readning and readin I cant find a record anywhere serious that Joe actually went to Millers Ct and that all his 'recognition' and statements etc were all made either at the morturary or to Abberline who later that day let Joe go, I assume, because Abberline thought he was innocent at this point and not to further observe Joe's movements...if he did we again don't appear to have any record of that.
The 'evidence' that Joe went to bed after his card game is and always be a tad spurious though....this man disappears!!!!!..A useful attribute I feel!!
Caz
I love your idea of Hutch setting it all up and then waiting(which may explain a lot about the lurking!) to see what happened....'I waited to see if anyone came out' etc etc Hmmmm....Yes 'Mr Blotchy' is almost definately a GH cop out!!!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
Don't you believe that maybe, maybe at some stage of the Ripper investigation police spoke to the real killer and let him slip through their golden fingers? They SHOULD HAVE recorded and kept whole transcripts of interviews with suspects but they failed! The SHOULD HAVE recorded and kept everyone's alibi, but they didn't!
The police force didn't form and then immediately have all the skills that police have today! The Police force started as merely a concerned bunch of citizens, and when Jack the Ripper appeared apparent motiveless murders were very rare! Police didn't know at the time what they do now about the mind of a serial killer!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 5:43 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
'I can't find a record anywhere serious that Joe actually went to Miller's Court.'
No you can't, you know why? Because they never bothered to record that detail, so we are forced to sift through the press reports!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 494
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 7:06 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Actually, I do believe that the police might have interviewed the real killer. I also believe it is possible they did not every speak to him. I see no reason to believe one of those theories over the other at this point. In some ways, the only way we can answer that question is to first figure out who the real killer was. Then, if amongst the remaining documents we find that he was interviewed, then we could show they "almost had him". Unfortunately, if we find that "person X" is not in the existing files, we can't be sure his name doesn't turn up in the "missing files" (which of course we can't examine, so we still couldn't decide if they just never talked to him or if they did and let him go).
And, how do we know they didn't record full transcripts of the interviews? These seem to be the files that are missing (the missing suspect file, for example, is thought to have contained the details we're talking about. If that ever turns up again, hopefully it does contain some of the answers to our questions).
As for the police not bothering to record the "detail" that Joe went to Miller's Court, maybe they did (if he did) and it's contained in the missing files. That's possible. But maybe, the reason they didn't bother to record that detail is because he didn't actually go to Miller's Court? Without evidence, both possibilities exist in perfect harmony of ambiguity. So, we have to believe either is possible, which means we don't know what to believe concerning this point.
I want to make this clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for Joe to have been at Miller's Court; all I'm saying is that it is equally possible that he was not.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 7:22 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
Well if he didn't show up at Miller's Court that morning, that mere fact should have been recorded! The Coroner at the inquest should have at least asked him what alibi he had!
Here's the newspaper reports that we are left with to draw our conclusions from:
'Star', 10 November (the day after the body was found): 'He himself [Barnett], 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 throught the window.'
'Daily Telegraph' Nov 10: 'During the day the police succeeded in finding John Barnett....'
'Times' November 10: 'The man Kelly was quickly found....'
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 495
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 9:12 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
And if that fact is recorded, it would be expected to be in the missing files. And since the files are missing, we can't examine them to see what was or was not recorded. But I agree, where Joe was, what his full "alibi" was, what the police did to verify it, most definately should have been recorded. If it wasn't, I would say that demonstrates the unfortunate situation that the police in 1888 did not recognise the importance of recording such details. But, if they did as we both agree they should have, then if we can find the files that contains what they recorded, this question will be answered by that evidence. Since the evidence we now have does not give us sufficient information to guess what those missing files might contain (because all answers can still fit with what we know), why should one guess be considered better than the other?
We all know that what is in the newspapers is unreliable to the point where the paper often gets things entirely wrong, describing events nothing at all like how the official files record them. So, without something reliable to compare with, we can only consider the newspapers as presenting one of the things the may or may not have occurred. That's no better than where we are without the newspapers. We could probably have come up with many of those "just so" stories ourselves. Why should we believe a reporters "guess" is any better than ours?
Unless we want to take the view that it is ok if we just go with what is in the newspapers since it is all we have. Ok, dangerous, but ok.
But then, which newspapers? As we've talked about, different newspapers say different things. Upon what basis should we make our selection of quotes? In the ones above, why do you not include the NZ paper which says that Barnett wasn't located until the evening (after the body was removed) for example?
Looking at the newspapers to find quotes that fit one of our "just so stories" will probably produce the results we hoped for. But if we end up ingoring all the newspaper reports that do not fit our "just so story", are we really looking for evidence of what really happened, or are we looking for evidence of what we think happened (which may or may not be what really happened?)
An example of this is the fact that you present 3 newspaper quotes as if they are the only quotes in all the papers that might have bearning on this issue. And, we both know there is the NZ paper which presents a quote which leasd to exactly the opposite conclusion. Why have you left this out? If you say because it is not reliable, how do you know that? The fact that it does not fit your belief is not evidence that the story is not reliable. You're belief could be wrong. Note, I said could be wrong, not that your belief necessarily is wrong.
It might have happend that way. But it might not have happened that way. The papers tell us both. So the papers do not tell one consistent story, and we also know the papers tend to make stuff up. Which, if any, story is not made up? The ones where Joe was at Millers Court or the ones where he was not found until after the body was removed? How can you reasonable be sure that you picked the right one? Usually, the technique is to compare the newspaper version with more reliable source evidence. That "reliabel source", however, is missing.
If you base your selection upon which newspapers fit your story, you are demonstrating what is known as a confirmation bias; we are biased to accept evidence that does not challange our beliefs over that which suggests our beliefs might be wrong. People do this all the time; I do, you do, everyone does.
And this is why I advocate recognising that the evidence really doesn't allow us to choose between the alternatives. It forces us to put our "confirmation bias" to the test. Can we really "prove" what we believe is justified, or at least prove that the known alternatives are wrong?
When faced with a binary situation (either he was there or he was not), we should not believe either version more than the other unless one of those options can be shown false. Once we figure out if he was (or was not) there, we can then concentrate on the theories as to why and when he was (or was not) there, and what he did during that time.
However, unless we can rule out one "set" of our theories, we should admit to ourselves we don't know enough to form a belief, and do research. Hunt for the missing files, look up documents that might contain information that is relavant, etc, because we want to know the "real" answer, not simply to push our "favorite answer".
Like I said, everybody does this. It is the easiest thing to slip into. I do it, you do it, everyone does it. But if we refuse to recognise the dangers of such confirmation biases, we are no longer looking for the truth. To me, looking for the truth and not being able to find it, is more important than being able to find something that is not true.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 3:12 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Do you believe that everything missing from the files we have MUST be in the missing files? How handy!- To be able to blame it on the missing files!...Saved by the missing files! I don't believe that Barnettt's alibi was ever recorded because the Coroner, nor Barnett himself, nor anyone mentioned it at Mary Kelly's Inquest!
I chose those particular newspaper reports because they were the only ones that showed up in a quick search on Casebook of Reports using the word 'Barnett', with an appropriate date.
To say that everything that appears in a newspaper report is wrong and misleading is wrong and misleading! When I read a report I ask myself what could possibly be gained by such an inclusion if it was untruthful? Could the reporter of this story have been innocently mistaken?, in a hurry for time?, confused by all the fuss?. That's why I understand how some of the early reports got the victims name wrong. One called Thomas Bowyer John and said he was the son of the landlady, but I see those as innocent mistakes.
One newspaper told how the victims breasts were placed on the table, but a read of the official report tells me that was not so, (probably not a deliberate lie, the reporter likely thought it so.)
'Why have you left this out?'
The reporter of that New Zealand newspaper probably didn't interview Barnett until the afternoon, but that doesn't prove Barnett didn't show-up on the scene earlier.
The London 'Star', the London 'Daily Telegraph' and the London 'Times' reporters were most likely there at Miller's Court as soon as the press were informed! Reporters of London and international newspapers would have been searching for interviews all day!
Same with that 'Star'report that said the reporter spoke to him at a pub near Buller's. He told that particular reporter that police kept him in Dorset Street for two and a half hours and he viewed the body by looking through the window. Now why did the reporter include that if it wasn't true???
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on October 22, 2004) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 5:46 am: | |
G'day,
The 'Times' November 10 said: 'Mr. Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed.' We all know that was wrong, because the order came for the DOOR to be forced open.
Now before we point an accusing finger at the reporter and say that he deliberately told a lie, consider that the piece was written just after Arnold took his first look through the broken window and before he sent a telegram to Warren asking for the bloodhounds. He probably had to move aside the item that was covering the window and used as a curtain.
Arnold most likely ordered the 'curtain' removed immediately to allow a clearer view of the corpse. The reporter perhaps wrongly took this as an order to remove the glass, and thought it better to get his report to press early than to check it for mistakes!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
To be fair, Jeff wasn't airing an opinion on what the missing files would have contained; he was simply trying to point out that they may have contained details which you argue were never recorded but should have been.
And Jeff wasn't arguing that all newspaper reports are inevitably wrong or misleading; he was just advising caution before you latch onto a detail some journalist has written and try to claim it as an undeniable truth - it may be so, but then again it may not be, for any number of reasons.
I know, from at least three personal experiences, how a finished article can differ wildly from the basic information given to the original reporter, the differences often being a combination of factual error, due to a lack of care and attention, and outright fabrication, to give a paper something spicy that its rivals will lack.
If you have a theory, you could try your best to prove it wrong, or at least consider where there may be flaws, or complete unknowns. Don't forget that your 'more likely' is the next person's 'less likely' or 'equally likely'.
If you can't disprove your own theory, using the known facts or through additional research, it doesn't mean you are right, it just means you stand a chance of being right. But all the speculation and argument in the world won't help prove you right, and will never convince those of us who refuse to make up our minds while the evidence is lacking.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 496
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Caz is correct. I'm not saying that it must be in the missing files, only that the missing files might contain the information we're looking for.
Actually, if there was a transcript taken of Joe's questioning (which certainly seems a reasonable thing to do given how he was interviewed for some time; although it's possible only notes were taken, or notes written down after the fact; who knows? I don't), anyway, if such information was recorded, clearly it is currently "missing". However, I was referring about to the "missing suspect file", which I seem to recall is supposed to contain this kind of information. So I would guess that is where such information would be expected to be, but of course, I can't know it's there for sure until the file turns up (if it ever does).
Now, it could be that Joe's interview was recorded and was "destroyed" over the years (during the war, in a fire, thrown out, etc). That would be a huge loss for us, because then we may never know what that interview contained. Which means, we may never be able to move beyond this point of the mystery with any sense of security.
Anyway, I don't think it convienient at all that this information is unavailable to us at this time. It's a big annoyance actually. But without evidence it's much more convienient to just make up a story that sounds good and fits our beliefs and stop thinking about alternatives.
I'm not sure there is currently enough evidence to provide what most would call a "solution". But, before I'm even sure of that, I want to see what evidence we do have, how far along the story we can safely get, and at what point does the evidence trail stop and the theory trails begin?
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 1:59 am: | |
G'day,
What exactly do we know about these missing files, which I believe may have been taken over the years by various anonymous retirees as souvineers?
Even if we never find out what Barnett's answers were, is there anyone who can tells us roughly what questions would have been asked? Perhaps they asked: "Where were you at #O'clock a.m. last night?" (even though they hadn't yet established the victims most likely 'time-of-death').
Barnett told the Central News Agency: '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.' That appeared in 'Lloyd's Newspaper' 11 November.
We can safely assume that Abberline asked him about the pipe, the door and the missing key.
Is it possible to look at any transcript of any suspect, dealing with any case around this time frame, to get a rough idea of what an interrigation was like?
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 5:11 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Even without an established likely time of death, the police would have had a good idea of the times between which Kelly must have been attacked, so their questions to Barnett were quite likely to have included the familiar:
"Where were you between the hours of a and b?" (b being the time the body was discovered)
And:
"When did you last see the deceased?"
How they found Barnett's account of himself to be correct is an unknown, but if they did indeed find he had answered correctly (as opposed to being forced to take his word because they could find nothing or no one to contradict it), they presumably found some way to verify what he was telling them.
Once they decided on the most likely time of death (whether they were right or wrong), they would have had ample opportunity to question Barnett again if they had any lingering doubts about his whereabouts during the critical period - ie when the killer would still have been highly vulnerable; not yet clean away from the murder scene, cleaned up and back in a place where none seeing him there would suspect what he had just been up to his ears in.
Maybe they did question Barnett again, and all record of this is lost to us. But he didn't exactly do a runner, did he? So whatever happened he must have been reasonably confident that he could stick around without fear of being hauled in again if the police ever saw a crack in his original story.
Love,
Caz
X |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 6:53 am: | |
G'day Caz,
It's hard to believe that they ever questioned him again. Was any victim's partner/friend/relative questioned following a victim's inquest?
'But he didn't exactly do a runner, did he?'
Looking at his known addresses, after Mary Kelly's inquest he moved to his sister's at Holborn, (where's that?), and from there he moved in with his brother at Shadwell, (1906). All of his addresses prior to the inquest were in Whitechapel/Spitalfields. Was that a 'runner' for someone who never had much money?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on October 26, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3313
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
I think the police would have been failing in their duty if they hadn't ordered a strip search for bloodstains adter a murder like Kelly's.
Leanne, no, Joe didn't do a runner.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 498
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
It's hard to say for sure what they would have asked, but Caz's suggestions are good ones. Things like "Where were you last night until this morning?", etc. I would think they would have asked about his relationship with Mary (were they on good terms, etc). At some point the key and the pipe get mentioned.
I would also think they would have asked where he was during the other murders as well. This is how Pizer was cleared, so I could see them doing the same kind of thing. Mind you, Pizer was hiding with family. If Joe was staying with Mary, his alibi is hard to verify. Then again, how examinable his answers were depends upon what they were; and we can't know for sure the questions were even asked, let alone what his answers might have been.
Probably the best we can do would be to look at how they investigated suspects from other cases. Sadler, Pizer, etc, and how they investigated other "significant others", such as Kelly and Kidney. These investigations might give us an idea of what the standard procedure might have been. For more "upper class" people, it seems simply verifying their identity was enough (based upon the press releases anyway, and we know what that means). Joe, however, would probably need a bit more than that as his social status would not grant him such benefit of the doubt.
Of course, if the police went and found him at Buller's on the morning, and he was there in the kitchen, and people could verify he got up and had been there all morning, they could just check him for blood-stains, check his room, etc., and cleared him upon finding him. (Yes, I know, another just so story; I should stop including these as they often get mis-interpreted as suggesting this must have happened, rather than for what they are; simply stories that get one from fact A to fact B, and so they appear to be based upon fact when all they are are unverified connections).
If they cleared him early (knew and could prove he wasn't involved from pretty much the moment he was located), then they would be less interested in getting alibi information than they would in getting information about the victim. Sort of like a modern case, if you find the husband was out of the country, you don't need to question them at length to prove he didn't kill his wife. Background checks, and other such things, might show that he was involved (killer for hire type thing), but you know that he was not the actually killer.
It is my hope that somewhere such information was recorded, and that this information will eventually turn up. That way, we can examine what information the police based their decision upon. And, if it was good information, Joe is cleared. If it was not good information, Joe remains a suspect.
- Jeff |
Brenda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
This whole case, sad but true:
Every turn you take is a dead end...I've given up trying to figure out whodunnit. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 499
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
Hi Brenda,
That is wonderful! Thanks for the chuckle.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 6:15 pm: | |
G'day people,
I looked through my copy of: 'The Ultimate Companion' last night and found the chapter: 'The Missing Suspect Files'.
It says that many files went missing during the 1970s and 1980s, but in 1973 Paul Bonner did research for his T.V. documentary and had access to the files, so it looks at his notes.
Reading ahead I can see that these notes contained full copies of some reports and one of a suspects named was 'John Hemmings', one was 'Dick Austen' and another 'Antoni Pricha'. I'll read through all this today!
JEFF: Could you look at how police investigated suspects like Pizer, Sadler etc?
I like the idea of them asking for alibis on the nights/mornings of the other murders, but how could an ordinary bloke be expected to remember exactly what he did, then find someone to verify it, on several nights/mornings that happened months ago?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3319
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 6:52 pm: | |
Nice one, Brenda. I like that.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 503
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I have this vauge memory of people discussing what was thought to be in the missing suspect file, and had the suspicion that it went missing relatively recently. I didn't want to suggest it since this was a memory based notion (and my memory is not always reliable on such details). Anyway, glad to see that info. I think a discussion was on these boards (or maybe the old ones?) about them. It could be that the information in them wasn't quite the treasure trove we all hope for, but then at the time I don't think Barnett was put forward as a serious suspect. At that time it was either Druitt or the Royals in contention. Oh, what simple times! ha!
Anyway, as for Joe's activities on the nights of the previous murders, it would be the more difficult route to find some sort of verifiable alibi. But, the murders were the "talk of the town", so it's not like he would be asked to remember where he was on some less notable occasion. Still, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes if the police weren't satisfied with his alibi for "last night and this morning" and he had to resort to proving where he was even further back in time! Again, it all depends on specific events for which we have no information. All he would have to do is provide an alibi for one of those nights. For example, let's take the double event since that might be the most notable. It occured at an hour when the pubs were open, or just closing. If he were in his regular pub that night, and word came in of the murder while the regulars were still finishing up, he might be able to confirm his presence at the pub? Or, on Annie's murder, if he were at work on that day, again he may have heard about the murder while at work. Once again, he might be able to confirm things that way. Note the large number of mights I'm using; again, I'm only suggesting things to show it's not that impossible for him. Tough, yes, but not impossible. Personally, I would think if he was cleared easily, it would be based upon his being able to satisfy the police about his whereabouts on the night before Mary's murder. Once cleared of that one, they wouldn't worry about the others since they believed one person committed all of them (rightly or wrongly).
I know for Pizer, once they located him, he was taken into custody. Then, they determined that he was with his family at the time one of the murders occurred (Was it Annie? or the Double Event?) So, once cleared of one murder, he was cleared of the others as well.
I think Sadler was investigated quite closely with respect to one of the post-Mary victims (Francis Coles). His activities of that night seem fairly well documented through questioning him, and those he claimed to talk to (proprietor of the lodging house he wanted to stay at but pay the next day), and others. Much of this information was presented at the inquest hearing (run by Baxter). In other words, it seems when the police felt someone was a "good suspect", they really investigated his story and looked for cracks in it. Although the inquest returned a verdictc of "Willful murder by person or persons unknown", and the charges against Sadler were dropped, apparently the police at the time thought him guilty. Mind you, they didn't seem to then press on (or they did and couldn't find any more evidence against him). The information on Sadler should show up on the site, under Francis Coles. The inquest testimony isn't included under the official documents though. Might be possible to find in the press reports? Not sure if official documents are around. If so, copies should be in one of the research books (Ulitmate maybe?).
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
'The Ultimate companion' shows a file dated 27 Sept. 1888 dealing with a suspected known as "Mary". He was a hairdresser who had been arrested several times for sexually assaulting female customers. "Mary" was found to be serving a 12 month imprisonment at the time of the Whitechapel murders, so was cleared.
A file dated 18 December 1888 reveals that "John Hemmings" was suspected because of his behaviour after he became excited when hearing a conversation about the murders. There is a description of him and is says that his statements were found correct, (alibi?), but it doesn't say what his statements were.
There's an interesting one about "Dick Austen" dated 5 October 1888. It states that he was a soldier who had been a sailor. His description was noted and his character noted. It says that he used to get out of bed at night and walk about in the barrack room. Austen hated women and said that if he had his will he would kill every whore.
The police interviewed his comrades in his regiment about his charater. The report notes his dress as respectable and more like a sailor than a soldier.
Austen's handwriting was compared to facsimiles of 'Dear Boss' and 'Saucy Jacky'. It was found to be 'extremely like' that of both but especially the letter (written with steel pen). There is nothing more to indicate that Austen was ever traced.
I can see from these that police were very interested in a suspects appearance and character. Alibis were checked, but words in the reports were nothing more than: 'Enquiry was made and the man's statements found to be correct, and he was at once let go.'
Paul Bonner noted that there at least 100 men enquired into.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Yes there is plenty of information about Sadler in the 'Ultimate Companion'. I'll look at these reports tomorrow.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 506
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
It sounds like all that might have been kept on file are the "summary reports", where they take note of a few things, and conclude with the indication that his statements were verified. The "statements" would have to be written and then checked, but presumably, after the person was "cleared" they may have tossed them to save space? (If not at the time, then over the years) I don't know what the normal procedure would have been. If so, we may be finding indications that the official transcripts and notes that we woudl like to find, may no longer exist. That would be a great shame. But, it's possible in some letter somewhere, waiting to be found, someone talks about Joe and how he was cleared? Not great evidence, especially if it's not from Abberline who interviewed him, as it would be 2nd hand at best, but it might provide some sort of idea of what went on.
Why can't there just be a nice box of stuff in the police station basement. You know, someting labelled "beat cops notebooks and other files containing tiny details: Fall/Winter 1888"
- Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Leanne/Jeff et al
Brilliant stuff here!!!!
Leanne ..
I love the 'Mary','John' and 'Dick' story above!!!
Hate to say it though but there seem to have been a lot of statements taken from dubious characters who were let go after 'insufficient'evidence etc etc
God there were a lot of em though!!!!!!Mr Sadler .....I rest my case......dodgy looking character that one!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
A N D !!!!! Is there any other statement apart from Joe's own..backing up the Bullers story??????????
??
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
The end of the 'Missing Suspect Files' chapter the 'Ultimate Companion' says: 'Many men, at least 100 in the file, were taken to police stations just for carrying black bags, having foreign accents, accosting women or talking about the Ripper in pubs, but released on being able to prove their identity.'
It shows me that at this early stage of a developing police force, they were too concerned about matching the descriptions given in possible sightings to a suspect. Then all the suspect had to do to be set free was to prove his name wasn't Jack!
People were brought to the attension of police, simply because individuals weren't happy with their appearance. That must have wasted so much time, because the police had to check every one of them.
All the Whitechapel Murderer would have had to do to avoid detection, was to alter his appearance, (ie change his hair colour or darken his complexion). That tactic would have also made victims more comfortable and relaxed with him.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2163
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 6:38 pm: | |
Jeff,
"It sounds like all that might have been kept on file are the "summary reports", where they take note of a few things, and conclude with the indication that his statements were verified. The "statements" would have to be written and then checked, but presumably, after the person was "cleared" they may have tossed them to save space? (If not at the time, then over the years) I don't know what the normal procedure would have been. If so, we may be finding indications that the official transcripts and notes that we woudl like to find, may no longer exist."
Actually, I think you could be on to something there, but I am only basing this on, that this actually seems to have been the procedure here in Sweden at the time. So why not?
I have also myself -- while reading the Ultimate Companion, been a bit surprised over the abrubt ending of the investigations, with no detailed information whatsoever on why a suspect was dismissed or not followed.up.
Leanne,
"All the Whitechapel Murderer would have had to do to avoid detection, was to alter his appearance, (ie change his hair colour or darken his complexion). That tactic would have also made victims more comfortable and relaxed with him."
Yes, but something tells me the Ripper was not that kind of person who would do that. Can't prove it, but it doesen't ring true with the character that committed the murders, unless you believe in a Bundy type of killer -- which I don't.
All the best
Glenn L. Andersson, crime historian
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 12:00 am: | |
G'day Glenn
What or who tells you these things? Please explain!!!
People then and now think he wrote all these letters to tease police, yet he didn't have enough sense of self-preservation to try to hide his looks! Exactly what 'rings true' to you?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on October 30, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2164
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
Just hunches, Leanne, just hunches.
You have heard of this in connection with police work, huh?
"People then and now think he wrote all these letters to tease police, yet he didn't have enough sense of self-preservation to try to hide his looks! Exactly what 'rings true' to you?"
It is my firm belief, that he didn't write any of those letters, possibly with exception of the Lusk letter, which is clearly written by a rather twisted individual and not by someone with self-preservation or a bright mind of a genius.
If you've read my posts throughout the sessions here over the last couple of years, you would know by now what "rings true" to me, and that is that do NOT believe in a smart psychopath character a la Bundy, but in a more disorganized offender, although I am a bit more unsure about the paranoid schizofrenic thing.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, crime historian
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 8:21 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
He didn't have to be a 'smart psychopath character a la Bundy' to desire a little camoflage(SIC?). It occurs as a SURVIVAL INSTINCT with certain species of animal, as a defence against preying enemies.
Don't you think the author of the 'Lusk Letter' was teasing George Lusk a bit with: 'Catch me when you can Mishter Lusk', as if he was confident that he'd never be caught?
Read ya later. It's 11:30p.m. here,
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on October 30, 2004) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
