| Author |
Message |
    
Greg James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 12:30 pm: | 
|
If the door to 13, Miller's Court had become locked as a result of a spring lock then why did the landlord John McCarthy need to force his way in on the 9th November? Did he not have a spare key as is common practice among landlords? And why if Mary Kelly had lost the key did she not request from the landlord that a new one be cut? |
Helge Samuelsen
Police Constable
Username: Helge
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:46 am: |
|
The key is actually a very interesting element in the Millers Court incident. Even if McCarthy did not have a spare key, why did he smash the door, ruining his own property, when evidently a window pane had been broken, giving easy access to the lock from the inside?
It is almost as if McCarthy wanted to stress the fact that it was difficult to get in, while in fact it was not!
Perhaps he simply wanted the attention? The strong and resolute landlord breaking the door, giving the police access to the murder scene. Maybe he pictured himself getting some mention in newspapers.
Or maybe not.
Maybe he was simply unaware of the situation with the lock.
Certainly the investigative powers of the police present (including Abberline) can hardly be considered brilliant, as no one evidently even considered the possibility to open the door by reaching through the window.
And why did Kelly, reportedly very afraid of the Ripper scare, accept such an arrangement with the lock in the first place? Would she not have asked, perhaps even demanded, to get a spare key? Reportedly she even had nightmares about the Ripper. A locked door that could not be opened through a broken window would seemingly have been a priority for her in that situation.
McCarthy may not have had a spare key. This is the simple solution. But, as Greg points out, unlikely. Most landlords would never give away a key, without at least making a copy there and then if no spare existed.
Kelly might not have had the resources (money) to get anything fixed on her own, and being in arrears might not have dared to demand it being taken care of by McCarthy. But nothing indicates McCarthy ran such a sloppy business that he did not even have spare keys! Thus his actions is in any scenario hard to explain.
Then there is the question of the window. Was it broken during a fight between Kelly and Barnett, or was it purposedly broken to gain entrance by either Kelly or Barnett?
One might easily believe that the lock might have been removed and, say, a makeshift latch installed (by Barnett if not by Kelly herself). I would expect under normal circumstances these poor people were used to make do with what they had, scrounging bits and pieces here and there. This would have been more likely than a window being broken on purpose. After all, it negated the security of the lock in the first place, and London can be a cold place at times.
Maybe Kelly locked herself out one night? This might have necessitated the window being broken. Or perhaps it was, after all, simply broken accidentally.
As always in Ripperland. More questions than answers.
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 374
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
The key could be everything in this case, or nothing.
These days I tend towards the latter view and the "c**k-up" theory.
In my view, it is entirely possible that McCarthy didn't have a spare key. The East End in 1888 seems to me to be a pretty chaotic place and organised behaviour (like keeping spare keys) inconsistent.
Look at Kelly's room - partitioned off quite crudely as it was - would a substitute door really make much difference. Was the original door very stout?
I have concluded that the windows had been broken for some time, as the coat hanging to cover the pane seems to have been acknowledged by witnesses. But if there were no curtains, then the coat may always have been required to provide privacy and keep draughts out!!
I think also that the police just never thought laterally that morning - the door was locked, no one had a key. maybe they even took the view that, in legal terms, it had to be the landlord who effected entrance.
On the other hand, the whereabouts of the key, and who had it might be a major clue - for instance, if Joe Barnett were in the frame...
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Police Constable
Username: Helge
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Allow me to dispute that last thing, Mr Hill. If Barnett had the key, he would not have been any more likely to be the Ripper, because he must allready have known about the broken window, and could have gained access at any time he so desired. Mary might even have let him in, if he knocked.
But the Ripper could also easily gain access without any key. His MO is fully consistent with looking up prostitutes at random, and following them to their "spots". Had any of the other victims offered him to go indoors with them, then we would have had an indoor killing sooner, and probably more mutilations earlier as well.
Jack was probably "Hutchinsons man", and we all know what was in his parcel?
Anyway, I still find the situation with the pickaxe rather odd, key or no key. The door was sealed off for quite some time before it was actually breached, due to the infamous bloodhound fiasco. The broken window provided the only acess to the room (visually) for those hours, yet no one ever considered checking the door?
Abberline must have had a bad day
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 377
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
I am not a pro-Barnett theory man personally, so my remark was not particularly seriously intended.
I wonder if morale wasn't low that day - Warren's resignation; another even bloodier murder; the mix-up re the dogs. maybe they weren't thinking straight.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Police Constable
Username: Helge
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
Agree, we should not forget that the police were human back in those days as well. Allthough they probably had seen much, the view through that broken window would have shaken up most people!
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Gaining access to the room by reaching through the broken window was not particularly easy - in fact it was quite tricky.
I built a mock up of the room to test my theory and found the only way to safely do it was to stand on the window ledge, hold the down pipe with your right hand and reach in through the broken pane with your left.
You could just reach the lock using this method. Don't forget Abberline never said he had practical experience of doing this, he simply accepted Barnett's word that it was 'easy'. But 'easy' compared to what? I dare say it was easier than scaling Mount Everest, but less easy than picking a coin off the floor.
There is very little reason for MJK to be too concerned about the missing key. On leaving the room all she had to do was to leave it on the latch. On entering the room she released the latch and locked herself in.
Why the dire neccesity to securely lock an empty room with nothing of value inside?
Don't forget when she returned to the room with blotchy man there was a witness right behind the couple. Witness states they entered the room. She says nothing about MJK going round the corner and swinging off drainpipes!
Bob |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 406
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
Hi All,
I really don't think there is any mystery to the key to Mary's room...as Bob said it was almost certainly always left of the latch as a rule when Mary went out.......this was common practice in the East End until the 1960's.. She would only have needed to use the broken window when she forgot to leave the door on the latch.
Burglary amongst neighbours was almost unheard of, apart from the fact that they had nothing much to steal anyway, it just wasn't even considered for some reason, except in very rare circumstances......maybe it was because it was such a tight knit community...... but everyone just left the door on the latch when they went out.
Mary's room was partitioned off and was originally the back of the kitchen, so the back door was only for access to the dustbins and the pump......it is quite possible that there was only one key to it.........or perhaps it was just that McCarthy just couldn't lay his hands on the key that quickly, it may have been tucked away in a drawer somewhere. After all how often would he have needed it?
He didn't actually smash the door down as I recall, but levered the door open by prising open the lock......which I suppose would have done minimal damage. In view of the state of the room inside, I suspect that was the least of his concerns at that moment.
I also think that the possible reason he didn't put his arm through the window is because of the state of the room inside......the walls were covered in blood and gore....would anyone fancy putting their arm in there?
I don't really see much mystery attached to either McCarthy's behaviour or the police's, I just think that McCarthy was in a state of shock having seen what was inside the room and just couldn't lay his hands on the spare key that readily.
I think even the police officers were traumatised..........they were human and they could hardly have been unaffected by what they saw there.........so I don't personally place any importance on the presence or absence of a spare key really.
Jane
xxxxxx |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1687
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 7:02 am: |
|
Hi All,
I agree with Bob and Jane, and also with this from Helge:
His MO is fully consistent with looking up prostitutes at random, and following them to their "spots". Had any of the other victims offered him to go indoors with them, then we would have had an indoor killing sooner, and probably more mutilations earlier as well.
And Jack would have been particularly delighted to be able to take his work off the streets on this occasion, if he had been a bit spooked by the hue and cry in October following the double event.
Love,
Caz
X |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 12
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Bob, building a mock up? Truly amazing! great job. I have always believed that it was in fact fairly easy to reach through the window and open the lock. After all, Abberline stated "it is quite easy" in an interwiew in Reynold's Newspaper, 18 November 1888.
Bob wrote:
"Don't forget when she returned to the room with blotchy man there was a witness right behind the couple. Witness states they entered the room. She says nothing about MJK going round the corner and swinging off drainpipes"
Best argument I have heard in some time. I agree. Thanks.
Still, I would have expected Abberline to have tested this, and not have taken Barnett's word for it. Abberline as "supercop"? Not in my book.
Jane, good points. Caroline, thanks for agreeing. Maybe I did get at least something right haha.
But then again Jack might even have known that Mary had a room? It is possible that he was very familiar with the area and the local girls. He must have been feeling the pressure out on the streets by then. Just thinking out loud.
There are so many unknowns in this case that I cannot even agree with myself at times. 
Seriously, I still think Jack was more disorganized than organized, but he probably had a fair amount of street wisdom to rely on, not to mention an (un)fair amount of luck!
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Bob,
I have a question concerning what you mentioned about someone having to get up on the window ledge, and hold on to the drain pipe with your right hand in order to safely get your hand through the break in the window. I have looked over the photo of the outside of Mary's room, and for me, it does not look like the window is very high up from the ground. Obviously I must be missing something. Which side of the door was the lock on? Was it closer to the window, or farthest from? I'm asking this because the way it looks to me, a person would almost have to stoop to get their hand through. Then again, perhaps the break in the window was higher up than I originally thought. I liked your remark about swinging off drainpipes. If you are correct about the safest way to gain entrance by using the window, you made a good point!
Sandy |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 589
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
Hi Sandy,
I've been curious about this, too. Because in the photo you can see that the top of the door is at the same level as the top of the window containing the 2 broken panes. The lower edge of the upper panes can be easily calculated if the height of the door is known.
If we, for instance, just put the door at 6.2 feet high, the upper panes would be about 4.4 feet from the ground. Someone of about 5 ft 7 would not have had much trouble getting his or her whole arm through the broken pane by just standing on the ground.
And that's if we're assuming that the upper pane was broken. If it was the lower right, there would certainly have been no need to 'swing off drainpipes'.
By the way, the lock was on the side of the wall containing the windows. What I don't know is how far from the ground the lock was.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1742
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
G'day,
These questions about why John McCarthy had to use a pickaxe to get into the room have been discussed here before, ages ago. It was eventually accepted by everyone that as Miller's Court provided lodgings for very poor people McCarthy wouldn't have bothered to spend the money to get spare keys cut.
The window was broken when Mary & Joe had the row after which he moved out, 10 days before the murder. I remember reading where someone actually states that fact, but am still trying to find it.
The alternate mode of entry was Mary & Joes little secret.
Mary couldn't have hid the fact that the window was broken because anyone walking past could have seen that, even McCarthy. Tom Bowyer, the rent collector, knew about it, but neither had to know the key was missing, and Kelly was probably too frightened to tell anyone because she would have had to pay for a new one.
That's probably why McCarthy didn't associate the broken window with opening the door and as Bob points out, it wouldn't have been an easy reach, so wasn't obvious to police that morning.
Anyway, if Barnett first viewed the body through the window like everyone else that morning, why didn't he volunteer the information?
The black coat hanging over the broken window was left there when Maria Harvey visited Mary's room the evening before she died. Mary may or may not have had something else hanging up there before that, to block out the draft and so that passers-by wouldn't be tempted to reach the lock.
LEANNE
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 590
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 10:20 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Here's a snippet from The Daily Telegraph of 10 November:
"During the day the police succeeded in finding John Barnett, the man with whom the deceased had cohabited until a week ago, when they separated in consequence of a quarrel, in the course of which the window was broken."
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2453
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Hi all,
Bob-
I LOVE the image of MJK saying to Mr Blotchy 'Hang on mi duck' and disappearing round the corner via the drainpipe!and then returning a tad breathless and saying 'Right where were we......come with me and you'll be comfortable!' Oddly thats a difficult one to shake from mind!
Notwithstanding..........
When Leanne says that reaching through the window was Mary and Joe's little secret thats odd too........odd 'secret' with a patently obvious hole in the pane and the idea of using this as access not exactly rocket science,especially to Mc Carthy an obvious man of the world (East End wise).
A spare key however I think may have been unlikely,but there are a lot of 'unlikely' things here surrounding the 'opening of the room' aren't there?
As to the building of 'mock ups'...... been there done it too......I'm of the opinion that in order to do the window trick Mary would have had to have unnaturally long, thin arms or a hell of a sight bigger hole in the pane!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2454
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
AND...
Reading back here IF Barnett 'like everyone else' as Leanne says viewed the body through the window ...WHY didn't he add,by way of 'helping 'the police,(after his presumed AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! thought!) Er you can actually open the door like so and lets find out what happened to Mary!.
Surely even the shocked but nevertheless 'burly rozzers ' of the day would have worked that out too!.
The time between
Discovery by Bowyer 10.45 am ,
Joe's 'identification'(presumably at some point fairly soon afterwards)
and McCarthy's pick axe performance at 1.30 just do not add up !
SURELY someone would have had the wit to say Hey! lets try getting in by opening the door from the inside ,through this damned great hole in the window....if indeed it was that obvious!
As the police were not letting any of the Court's occupants leave, it seems odd that someone didn't offer this piece of groundbreaking (!)'advice'
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2456
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Or windowbreaking!
Surely someone MUST have noticed the proximity of the window to the lock!....long arms or not!.
It appears that the 'ruck' which involved the window being broken happened on 30th Oct....the same night that Barnett 'left'
I'm sure that the other residents of Millers Court would have looked on that little display as a bit better than the average 'entertainment' "Ooh eh a domestic!" (and that nice Joe's not here any more etc etc )
Suzi |
Greg James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
I have some doubts as to whether the photos of Miller's Court really do show no.13. For example written accounts describe the entrance to no.13 as being just inside the archway and yet in the photos the archway is clearly in the background a further door away. So the actual claimed no.13 would actually have been 'the last on the right' rather than 'the first on the left', this being because the archway represents the entrance to Miller's Court.
Does anyone have any opinions on this? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2468
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Greg
The entrance to Millers Court was from Dorset St and hence down the short alleyway to No 13 on the right of that 'cut' This is well documented and there is considerable photographic evidence ,not only the ones taken at the time but others taken just prior to its ' demolition
Why do you have 'doubts' about these pics !
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 496
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 6:28 am: |
|
Greg:
I haven't checked the reports, but simply looking at the wording you use, there may be an explanation.
For example written accounts describe the entrance to no.13 as being just inside the archway and yet in the photos the archway is clearly in the background a further door away...
In a sense the doorway IS just inside the archway, in that it is just inside the court AFTER the archway.
That said, I have NO doubt by the way that the photographs are of the actual room, and I do not believe that ANY mistake has been made. |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 419
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Hi Greg,,
The first doorway inside the archway was in fact the stairs leading to Mrs Prater's room above. Here are the plans of the court which show this quite clearly.........it confused me when I was doing the reconstruction and someone posted the same pic for me!
Hope this helps.
Love
Jane
xxxx
 \
(Message edited by jcoram on May 10, 2005) |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2474
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Jane,
Ok Praters doorway (not often seen) was more noticeable
AND Dorset street is to the RIGHT as you look at that plan! Mc Carthy's shop and the front of No 26 was on the street.
Somewhere I have a plan where all the residents of Millers Ct are laid out (so to speak) will look it up and post it
Suzi
'Win and flounder...........Lose and grin!'
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2475
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
BUT,................ maybe the door to Praters room was more noticable in real life...... but then of course no one mentions it, because the one about 5' down the alley was that of Mary's room....probably at first just a door into a back end of a room, BUT now into history!......... Actually that's another point....there are loads of pics of the 'windows' with or without holes in the panes... but no pics I can recall of the door (s) in the alley leading to Millers Ct ! Hmmmmmmmmm
Suzi
'Win and flounder...........Lose and grin!'
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 522
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
This is all a bit weird for me here...
Jane - the plan from Tully's book doesn't show a door to Prater's room at all. It only shows a staircase at the back of #26 - which COULD mean the stairs were at the back of the shop reached via Dorset Street.
HOWEVER - I have understood for some time now that there was indeed a doorway there (this is the dark patch some people have mistaken for a ghost on another thread) anyway. It would make sense.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Hi,
There is a door just before Kellys that leads up to Praters Room which was right above room 13.
Exsample .
if Kelly and Prater entered the archway together Prater would have entered a door first on the right up a flight of stairs and entered a door to the left, and Kelly would have proceeded on a few feet and entered room 13.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2479
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Philip,Richard-
Have looked at that photo from every which way and it SURE LOOKS LIKE A DOOR TO ME!!! This makes a lot of sense....
Suzi
'Win and flounder...........Lose and grin!'
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2480
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Yep we have thread merge chaps....careful you dont trip over the ginger beer bottles either on your way in!!!
Suzi 
'Win and flounder...........Lose and grin!'
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 591
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi Philip,
I’ve found two things that support that there was a second door inside the passage. The first is an article in the Illustrated Police News of 10 July 1909 about the murder on Kate Ronan, who by then had occupied Elizabeth Prater’s room. It reads:
"The room of the tragedy was the top apartment of a two roomed house. There was about half a dozen white walled houses in the court and the opposite houses are only a few feet apart. Two doors away on the right hand side near the entrance, is the house in which one of the last "Jack the Ripper" murders was committed.
Andrew Stevens a 17 year old market porter, who went into the house when the discovery was made told the following story. `I was standing out in the street opposite the court about five minutes to twelve last night and I saw Kitty come down the street with a strange man, pass up the court and enter her house. About 12.20 I saw him come down the court again.’ ”
Here's the contemporary sketch:
Hope this'll put an end to all this weirdness.
Cheers,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 527
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Thank you Frank.
This is what I thought. It does make you wonder why both Sugden and Tully don't have this doorway on their plans, doesn't it?
Mystery of MJK's ghost in the archway over.
Also it makes me wonder if Diddles used the window or the door.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 592
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Hi again Philip,
They probably left out this doorway because it wasn't that important. The important thing was the layout of MJK's room and that's what they seem to have focused on.
By the way, somehow Diddles seems to me to be more of a windows 'person'.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2482
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Hey all!!!!
This Andrew Stevens chap sounds interesting...........where's he been hiding?!!!
Kitty????? .. and if Andrew saw 'Kitty' about 12.20 this must have been Mr Blotchy WOW!.
OK more info here Frank!
Suzi
(didnt notce a cat flap on that door ...dammit!)
'Win and flounder...........Lose and grin!'
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2483
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Philip
Would make a lot of sense though wouldnt it and by the way I agree with the earlier Mrs P's door
pic wouldnt it sod the ghost!
Suzi
Thursday tho!!
'Win and flounder...........Lose and grin!'
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2493
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Frank
OK have spent a couple of days looking in and out of this....-*+ There is so obviously an earlier door in that passage! In lots of pics there is at least a suggestion but in the good pic it can be 'seen' Well there's something there that looks like a door and unless Mrs P went through the 'shed' whatever to find the staircase I find it more than likely that she had her own 'front door'!
Suzi
that looks like a door
'Win and flounder...........Lose and grin!'
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2498
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
To be honest.....
Have had a serious look at the 'passage' and am convinced there's a door there.........
Sorry NO GHOST......... just a door!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2506
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
I it looks like a door,feels like a door and smells like a door ........then the chances are.................
Suzi
|
Greg James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
Back to the original point, if the landlord John McCarthy had considered it necessary at the time to break into no. 13 why couldn't he have used his brain and done what everyone else would have done in the situation? That is break a window and reach in to open the door from the inside? If he had tried this he may have noticed that a window pane was already broken which would not have cost him any further in repairs. Instead he not only broke the door and the lock but also most likely damaged the door frame in the process. Being the owner of a grocers shop I'm sure he could have done better than this?
Mind you having said this it is rather surprising that he was present at the crime scene at all that day and quite evidently assisting in police work. |
