|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 7:17 am: |       |
Leanne,
"If they resolved the issue of the key/door/window at the inquest, how come we're confused about it today?"
I don't really think there's all that much confusion here. It's all pretty straightforward. The key was missing, the door was forced, and the window was broken. The only legitimate confusion is as to which panes were broken and that WAS resolved at the inquest, however they were referring to a diagram we don't have access to.
(And that can certainly be resolved by an examination of the original photograph. Provided that it is dated accurately.)
I don't know offhand how close the edge was to the edge of the bed. But we know that along the wall with the door we have a gap between the corner and the door, the door in closed position, the door as swung open, the table, and the bed. Given that the room is approx 12 feet on a side, it's pretty likely that the door just intersects with the table.
Does anyone know what the "Standard" bed and door sizes were at the time? I would appreciate any information anyone might have.
Regards,
John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 9:01 am: | |
Hi All,
In conclusion then, does anyone still dispute the probability that Mary's habit - at least after the key was lost - would have been to leave her door on the latch whenever she went out? On occasions when she did let the door lock behind her, accidentally or otherwise, the broken pane meant that she could always get Joe or someone else to reach through and let her back in. But securing the room while it was unoccupied is unlikely to have been a priority. The broken windows were enough of a gift to a determined burglar, hoping to find something inside worth pinching, to render locking the door pretty pointless. But if the window method of access proved a pain (sorry!) for returning occupants, and certainly if it was a difficult or positively hazardous procedure, there would have been every reason not to lock the door each time.
And every reason for the method that was finally used to gain official access.
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
G'day Caz,
From what I have researched I found that 'Dorset Street was one of the worst thoroughfares in the East End', for theives and vandalism. That added to Mary Kelly's fear of the unidentified fiend, leaves me to feel that she wouldn't have left her door unsecured.
The man's black coat hanging over the holey window, suggests it was put there not only to keep out the draft, but to block an outsiders view of how easy it was to reach the latch.
No she didn't have much in that room, but it was all hers, (the furniture belonged to John McCarthy, but she used it).
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 159
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 6:58 pm: | |
Hi Caz
I quite like Bob's door explanation. The only thing I am a bit unsure about is, if it was so terribly difficult and dangerous for Barnett and Kelly (and later on McCarthy if he'd wanted to try it) to open the door by reaching through the broken window, why didn't Barnett and Kelly knock a bit more of the glass out, to make it safer for them to reach through? After all, the window was already a goner. I'm having to try and balance the extra convenience against the extra cold that this would have meant for them.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 12:34 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Securing the room while it was unoccupied is unlikely to have been a priority in my opinion. Obviously any fear of Jack, or other unwanted intruders, or a penchant for privacy while entertaining, would mean she secured her door while inside. If she had heard someone trying to reach through the window to open her door from the inside, she could have screamed blue murder a lot louder than anything that was heard on that fateful night, and before he had a chance to get the door open. He'd have been crazy not to do a runner. But if she was sound asleep from too much drink, she may have been unable to take advantage of the few seconds she would otherwise have gained by remembering to lock herself in - if that's the way Jack got to her.
But the broken window is a double-edged sword. As Robert points out, we have to balance the inconvenience and danger of reaching through a limited and jagged gap, perhaps several times a day, with the extra exposure to the elements and more open invitation to intruders that knocking out more glass would give.
But, ironically, the easier it was for anyone to do the window trick, the less point there would have been in locking the door while the room was empty in the first place.
So I guess we can take our pick. But the idea that the killer needed a key doesn't work for me either way.
Love,
Caz |
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Wouldn't it be a bit of a b*stard to lean through a partially broken window and open a dead lock while being as drunk as a skunk, as Kelly so often was?
And looking at the photo of the broken window to Kelly's room and the proximity of the door you would have to lean in and contort yourself to achieve this.
If Kelly was under the influence when she returned to her room with the ripper could she have said to him " just poke your head through that broken window and open the door love, iv'e lost my key". did the ripper open the door for Kelly? I think it would be quite a feat to unlock that door under the influence of drink, but not impossible though. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 5:10 pm: | |
G'day,
Tommy what a good point! This suggests to me, that if she took the killer home with her, he'd have to have been someone with whom she could trust with her little secret on how to open her door!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 6:33 pm: | |
G'day,
I wont be making a post for the next ten days, as I'm going on holiday/vacation, but I'll be back!
Stay safe,
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 165
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 7:04 pm: | |
"I'll be back." Isn't that what The Terminator said?
Robert |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 3:40 am: | |
Dear Everyone,
I really think we are getting into the realms of Harry Potter here with MJK asking her companion who might or might not be JTR to lean through the window to open the door etc.
Isn't it much easier to use Ochams razor and say that in all probability MJK did what most of us do when popping out for a short time and leave the door on the latch?
With an empty room containing nothing of value wouldn't this be the most logical thing to do? As for the risk of theft I think that is practically non existant. What thief is going to risk breaking in ( or just entering with intent to steal) a hovel?
There was one murder in the series where an inspector was told to secure the area. Within minutes his cordon had been breached in several places. He explained that onlookers were passing through peoples houses into the back yards and gaining access that way. "For it is a fact that people round here do not lock their doors"
By the way it has occurred to me that the English phrase, 'leaving a door on the latch' may not be familiar to overseas posters. With an automatic, or spring lock, the bolt shoots home as you pull the door to and locks the door. There is a bolt retaining button on the inside of the lock which holds the bolt back. So to leave the door on the latch, you retract the bolt and lock it in position with the bolt retaining button. Thus when you close the door the bolt does not shoot home and lock the door. The door is held shut either by friction or by some other means like a barn latch, hence the expression.
It's useful for instance if you are just popping outside for a few minutes and don't want to take your key.
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 3:45 am: | |
I forgot something.
I don't think the police were at all mystified by the key issue. I think they came to the same conclusion that I did, and that is that MJK probably left her door on the latch when she went out.
Don't forget the police at this time would have been ultra sensitive to keys, locks and locked door mysteries because of the Miriam Angel case the previous year, where one of the investigating officers was Sgt Thicke(he of Leather apron fame).
Bob |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 5:38 am: | |
Hi All,
Yeah, I have to agree with Bob on all points. Obviously, if Joe Barnett is to be believed, there was the odd occasion when one of them returned to find the door had not been left on the latch, and this is when the window trick would have been required. I imagine Mary would have got Joe or someone else to reach through, and only done it herself if no one else was around to oblige - that's if she could do it herself.
But as for it being 'her little secret', that she could only tell someone she trusted, I just don't get it. How long would it take anyone intent on getting in that room to notice the broken panes and take advantage of them, if the door was locked?
The simplest solution is that the door was on the latch when Jack entered with Mary, on her invitation, closed while they were both inside, and locked behind him as he left. It's possible that she went to bed alone, too drunk (or too hungover, depending on your preferred time of death) to care about the door still being on the latch, but not too drunk for the automatic routine of folding her clothes neatly - unless this was a compulsion of Jack's, to tidy up her material possessions because of the unholy mess he would be making of her bodily ones.
Love,
Caz |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 5:49 am: | |
Hi Bob,
You say the police would have been ultra sensitive , to keys, locks and locked door mysterys,
I accept that, however we must therefore ask the question, Why did they instruct Mcarthy to break open the door?.They clearly were not that alert if they could not attempt to open the door from the inside via the space availiable in the broken pane, that is why i question if the door was the spring lock sort, the reports that I have read state'We used to reach through the broken pane ,and pull back the bolt, and that to me would interpret that since they lost the key, they could not lock the door, but to safeguard entry they reached through the window on leaving the room and pushed the bolt, and on returning pulled back the bolt.
Therefore I believe that the lock on Kellys door was a standard lock, and as the police could not gain entry to the room by the same method as Barnett and Kelly used. can assume the door had been actually locked with a key , and the police had no choice but to force the door.
The above account is the only sensible attitude, a spring locked door would have been easy to open through the window, but a locked door fitted with a standard device, and locked would have been impossible, and forced entry was the only method available.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 169
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
Hi all
Bob, I think you're probably right about the door etc.
I imagine people wouldn't have locked the doors of houses like 29 Hanbury Street, as it would have led to a lot of problems (and a lot of keys!). Whether they locked individual rooms would I suppose depend on what was inside them. Kelly had nothing except Harvey's clothes - and they were Harvey's problem!
Richard, although "The Times" 13 Nov mentions a bolt, "The Telegraph" 13 Nov mentions a catch. Mind you, in the Telegraph version Abberline is quoted as saying that opening the door this way was easy! I personally feel that it would have been more natural for the police to force the door. Anyone who tried to reach through the window to open it, would have been trying (when they'd never done it before)to reach into a darkened room, on a dark day, with a man's coat getting in the way and the threat of a cut arm. I don't suppose the police would have wanted to bash any more of the glass in to make entry easier, because they might have wanted to see whether the Ripper himself had done this, and any glass already on the floor inside the room would have got mixed up with the glass they'd just bashed in. And McCarthy knew he wasn't going to damage his door all that much.
Caz, my favourite Kelly scenario is that she was attacked while in bed by an intruder. But I see your point. It's very strange if she was too drunk to lock her door but sober enough to fold her clothes neatly.
Robert
|
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 6:41 pm: | |
Dear Richard,
I don't really see your point about the police. They are faced with a locked door - they open the locked door by getting McCarthy to lever it open, which is exactly what they would do today.
What do you think the reaction of the police would have been on being faced with a locked door? Start looking around for alternative ways to open it, one of which may involve someone getting up to their armpits in broken glass?
You find a door locked - you desire entry - you open locked door. Don't forget there was nothing to indicate from the outside what type of lock it was for all they knew it was a rim lock or mortice lock which required opening with a key. They summon McCarthy 'Have you got a key? No Right open it!'
I think you are also getting a bit confused about the term bolt. The lock was a spring or automatic lock it has been so described. The bolt mentioned is not a tower bolt ie a rod of metal sliding in an open tube and locating in a hole in the door frame, but the bolt of the lock.
I don't see MJK going back with JTR. this is what I see.
MJK picks up a John in the street as witnessed by Hutchinson. She is well stewed at this point. She takes him back to her room. They enter, she probably first and the john pushes the door to, still not releasing the bolt, ie it is still on the latch. She undresses and like most drunks takes exaggerated care placing her clothes on the chair. They do what people do. John gets up and leaves, still not releasing the bolt after all how would he know what type of lock was fitted and would he care anyway.
MJK is now lying asleep, clothes on chair but with the door still on the latch. Enter JTR. He tries to wake MJK and she eventually does he then kills her. Before mutilating her he crosses to secure the door, he wouldn't want ayone else coming in. He slips the bolt the door is locked, he makes a mess.
When he is finished he opens the door by using the bolt retraction knob and walks away pulling the door to behind him which now locks automatically.
Everything is logical, nothing is farfetched, all is possible and it fits with what we know without having to conjour up some fantastic trip into never never land.
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 3:58 am: | |
Hi Bob.
i Cannot disagree with your interpretation of a spring lock device, and even your opinion of possible events leading up to the murder, are highly plausible.
My concern was simply , I Fail to see why the police could not , have gained entry by the obvious method , if it was so easy to do, to send Macarthy for a pick handle, was a rather brutal way of entry , after all they were on the scene for over two hours before giving the order to enter the room.
I am afraid I will have to disagree on the open and shut case[ so to speak!] that you believe.
Richard.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 12:35 pm: | |
Hi All,
If it is likely that the previous victims encountered the ripper by ill luck, taking the initiative and leading him to a place where he took the opportunity to attack them, isn't it also likely that this pattern was repeated with Kelly, except that she just happened to be younger than the others and took him to a place that just happened to have a roof over it?
If you favour a scenario in which the ripper takes himself along to Miller's Court, enters Kelly's room uninvited and finds her inside, alone and vulnerable, is this because you see Kelly as a special case (eg the ripper had a particular obsession with her)? If not, how do you reconcile this new 'intruder' role with the old one of simply being taken for a paying customer and letting his victims prepare the ground for him, so to speak? Why the departure? Or would you argue that the roles were not that different, and that Jack was watching and/or following them all, making his own opportunities, whether that involved approaching and communicating with potential victims, or being able to do without the preamble?
I have wondered in the past if Jack's method was (as Bob sees it above with Hutchinson and Kelly) to watch a prostitute pick up a customer, follow the couple and wait while they did the business, then attack the woman as soon as she was by herself again, but before she could make her way back to the main road. That way, he may have felt reasonably confident that no pimp was around. But against this is the fact that no signs of recent 'connection' were reported at any of the scenes, although it has been argued that sexual services provided would not necessarily leave the obvious signs.
Love,
Caz
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 188
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 6:56 pm: | |
Hi Caz
Your suggestion about Jack waylaying the victims after they'd finished with a customer is very interesting, and I'll have to ponder it. I suppose one consequence would be that Jack must have robbed them as well as killed them (as they had just serviced a customer but hadn't given the money to a pimp) - but I don't see how that's a problem.
If Kelly was killed by someone who entered her room while she was in bed (I'm not certain that's what happened, it's just my preferred scenario) then I doubt if it was a clear-thinking killer just chancing his luck by entering Kelly's room - he wouldn't have known if he was going to find a man in there. And if Jack was so confused by November time, that he was wandering round opening doors without thinking of the consequences, I doubt if he'd have had the presence of mind to kill Kelly with the level of efficiency seemingly shown. I suppose she may have been killed by someone who'd actually seen a client leaving her room, and deduced that there was no one else inside - Hutchinson's a possibility. Or maybe the killer was someone who blundered into the room, mistaking it for a back entrance to the shed. I think the shed may have been closed to the homeless a short while before Kelly's murder, but Jack may not have known this, or he may simply have thought that he could bypass the locked front door. After all, Jack wouldn't have liked getting wet in the rain any more than anyone else.
One of the things that makes me feel Kelly might have been killed by an intruder, is the sheet, with its stab marks - it looks to me as if Jack was trying to silence her. If Jack had knocked the door against the table when he entered, this may have woken her up. Also, Phillips believed that Kelly's throat had been cut in the top corner of the bed, near the partition. That seems to me to have been an inconvenient place for the Ripper to have done it, especially as he was going at her from the opposite side to his usual one. It just seems to me a bit, sort of, cramped. It's as if he HAD to cut her throat while she was in the corner - perhaps because she was trying to get away from him. Not like his usual efficiency.
But the main reason I tend to think she was killed by an intruder, is that she was undressed. I personally have difficulty imagining a client Jack waiting patiently while she undressed. Whatever motivated this man - sex, misogyny, whatever - surely after 40 days without a kill he would have been quite desperate? Also, he was used to killing in the dark, and taking his victims suddenly by surprise. It's odd if he waited, presumably for her to light her candle, then get undressed, and lie down on the bed, a position from which she would have been able to see everything he did.
Your point about the clothes is a tough one, though. How would she have been sober enough to fold her clothes neatly, but be too drunk to lock her door? On the other hand, Bob says that drunks do take care undressing! Hmm! Maybe she wasn't so drunk that she couldn't be neat with her clothes, but then when her last client left, she put off getting up to lock the door, the lack of sleep and excess of alcohol got the better of her, and she nodded off.
Robert
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 6:09 am: | |
Hi Caz, Robert,
A couple of points to make, It is entirely possible that Caz, you may be right, the Ripper may well have followed prostitute and client , until they had finished their business, in the case of Stride highly likely , if so the man with the pipe who stood opposite Stride, could have been ready to make his move on her when she was accosted by the intoxicated man, who proberly ran off as soon as he was threatened.
In the case of Tabram , that is also possible, for she had been in the company of soldiers during the evening, in the case of Kelly that is also possible. In all these cases the victims should have had some money on their persons, and it is entirely likely that violent theft was a strong motive.
However in the case of Nichols ,we do not know of any recent encounter with a client. also Chapman , And Eddowes, although he may have reconized the latter, as the woman having money to get drunk earlier in the evening, and tried his luck with her.
A possible solution , just the same.
Regarding Kelly undressing, and folding her clothes neatly, two points spring to mind.
According to Hutchinson in his opinion she was only a bit spreeish, not rip roaring drunk,certainly able to function.
The fact that her clothes were folded neatly suggests to me that , she was not in the presence of a punter at that moment, but was simply retiring to bed, either that or her killer folded up her clothes on a chair?.If so for what reason?.
All the evidence I have amassed seems to point to her time of death somewhen after 9.am on the morning of the 9th, and I believe she returned to her room with someone?[ she knew] and simply got undressed , and folded her clothes in the normal fashion, and got into bed.
The rest is history!.
Richard. |
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
I don't want to go on about the lock but it seems to me as if the lock in question is a dead mans lock, the type that when you leave the room, you slam it behind you and it locks. Entry is then achieved by placing a key in the said lock and entering. You can open the door from the inside by turning a knob and the lever then opens, but once you have slammed it behind you, you can only gain entry with a key. This type of lock would fully explain, because of the loosing of the key, the reason of why Kelly and friends leaned through the widow to open the door.
So Kelly could have slammed the door behind her when she left the room and it would have locked. Upon returning with a client, and she did go out that night and return with a client, the blotchy faced man, she would need to get into her room, without a key to the room and also without a knob or handle to gain entry they gained entry by reaching through the window and turning the dead lock to gain entry, we know they used this method as it was reported thus.
This type of lock was very popular in England, and featured in the old Victorian houses i lived in as a kid,and as a young man, and many's the time iv'e slammed the door behind me only to find i'd left my key indoors, and effectively locked myself out. The loosing of one's keys to this type of lock and the failure to obtain a copy, can only result in one action, the breaking of the door down, which is what happened to Kelly's door, and a new lock being fitted.
By the way Mr Hinton sorry i havn't replied to you about the Punch bound volume but i was given an offer i couldn't refuse for it about a month ago. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 5:25 am: | |
Hi Tommy,
Still the question arises, if entry was easy , given the broken window pane, why did the police not gain access by the way you described kelly used to?. surely only if the window was in one peice, and the window was locked , would they had to force the door!.
Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 6:30 am: | |
Herwith pictures of type of lock I believed was fitted to MJK's door. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 6:33 am: | |
ok what went wrong there? |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 6:40 am: | |
     |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 6:51 am: | |
oops!
Anyway.
Picture 1 shows the exterior of the door. as you can see there is nothing to indicate what type of lock is fitted. The knob is attached to the door only - it is not connected to the lock in any way.
Picture 2 This shows the interior of the lock. The two knobs are: Large left for withdrawing the bolt by slicing to left, Small right: for locking bolt in either open or closed position. This picture shows the bolt in the locked closed position. If the door is pulled to in this position it will not lock this is known as leaving it on the latch.
Picture 3. Shows the key.
Picture 4 Shows the lock with the bolt in the open position ie fully out. If the door is pulled to with the lock in this position it will automatically lock the door.
Picture 5 Shows the door with the lock in the normal locked position. The bolt has shot home into the keeper and it can only be opened by From the outside using the key, from the inside pulling back the bolt by sliding the large knob
on the left to the left.
Hope this is clear. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Lock1