|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2020
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 4:58 am: | 
|
G'day Harry,
Yes everyone knows now that this was an error, but it was probably the most obvious conclusion at the time. Another example of the press rushing to get stories out, has one or two newspapers printing that Kelly had a little boy living with her. Another one had her room on the second floor.
Abberline must have known that the key was missing for some time and the window was a means of opening the door, but didn't reveal this secret until the Inquest on the 12th.
They probably forced the door open while Barnett & Abberline were away, and when he heard about the window-trick he probably kept it a secret from the press because it would have made them seem stupid.
I still can't work out why Barnett didn't reveal this little secret before he left. You'd think he'd want to get in the room to satisfy himself that it was Mary, hoping that maybe it wasn't!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2021
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
In your opinion why did they just assume that the footsteps heard at 6:15a.m. by Mary Ann Cox were those of a policeman. Why didn't they try to trace the name of this 'policeman'?
If they did, why didn't they record their findings in the official files?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 283
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 3:32 am: |
|
Leanne,
If Aberline was told before the door was forced,of the method used by Barnett and Kelly to open the door,he then had two options,do as Barnett had done or call a locksmith.It seems he did neither.
It was the Coroner who suggested the footsteps might have been those of a policeman,and Cox who described hearing them.
It was the 'daily news' on the 10th who suggested the door had been slammed shut,an absurb statement to make.If that had happened,the whole court should have heard,as the slamming would have sounded like a pistol shot,but only footsteps were reported.Try slamming a door yourself in the early hours of the morning.
The door ws closed quietly,but how?,and I am of the opinion it was by the same method as the door was opened.A hand through the broken window.
The only reason I can give for the police not to have followed the coroners suggestion,is because they knew by patrol reports,that no policeman had been in the court at the relevent time. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2025
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 5:22 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
Mary Ann Cox told the Coroner that she heard a man leave the court at 6:15a.m., and noted that it was too late for the market. If it was a policeman, she would have heard him enter the court as well. No policeman lived there!
I wouldn't mind betting that was 'Jack the Ripper', and I agree with you that he probably reached through the window to lock the door behind him.
I am not convinced, however, that he entered the room this way. Too risk, too noisy. He could have woken the occupant. But it does suggest that he knew about this window-trick!
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 140
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 9:47 am: |
|
Too risk, too noisy. He could have woken the occupant
Why would this method of entry have been noisy? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3526
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 11:55 am: |
|
Hi all
Am sure that the footsteps weren't of a policeman..Would a policeman... ALONE.... wandering down DORSET STREET (Both unlikely suppositions) toddle into Millers Ct which as we know was a dead end just on a 'Lets 'Ave a look in 'Ere then'...NO!
Mary Ann Cox heard someone leave ...or so she said---mind you she was also responsible for Mr Blotchy and 'Only a Violet'etc so I assume she is a responsible 'witness'(Hmmmmmmmmm)
I do wish we had more on Catherine Picket who "nearly went in at 12.30 to complain about the 'noise'"
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3527
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Leanne and Harry
OK, IF Barnett wasn't there prior to 1.30 ,SURELY it wasn't rocket science to work out how to open the door....broken window....proximity of latch etc
Anyone could have got into Mary's room given 2 minutes surely!
Suzi |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 285
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 2:37 am: |
|
Suzi,
I agree with you that in daylight it would be easy to understand the method Barnett used.
Depending how dark the Court was that night,and considering the window was out of sight beyond the door coming down the passage,only someone familiar with the set up would know how the catch was used.If that someone was an intruder,I would say that from the time he entered the passageway he could have been in the room inside of 30 seconds.
I will post another picture of a door catch,even simpler to operate than the last one shown.It will be on the key thread. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2027
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 5:20 am: |
|
G'day Suzi,
'OK, IF Barnett wasn't there prior to 1.30 ,SURELY it wasn't rocket science to work out how to open the door....broken window....proximity of latch etc' EH? I'm not sure what you mean by: 'if Barnett wasn't there prior to 1:30'. Could you please explain?And remember a man's black coat was put over that window. I'd say it was put there for two reasons: 1)to keep out the draft, and 2)To block the view of the latch from outside. The latch that was installed after the key was lost.
OK, as the coat was left there by Maria Harvey when she visited Mary that afternoon, Kelly would have had nothing to block the view of the latch prior to that. Unless she put up something of hers, and as soon as Harvey brought the coat she thought: "GREAT!!!"
The window wasn't broken until 10 days prior to her murder, when Barnett left, so she wouldn't have had a need to block the window or install a latch.
I'd say the key went missing on October 30th went Barnett left. He either took it so that he could 'control' her, or it was in his coat when he left and he didn't bother to return it.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 291
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 4:55 am: |
|
Leanne,
I was under the impression, from what Aberline said,that both Barnett and Kelly had been using the window method to unlock the door,so surely the key must have been lost before they broke up.
Jason,
The cry of' Oh!Murder'was heard,as were footsteps.The former was not heeded,but it helped establish a possible time of death.Footsteps would not,I suggest,provoke thoughts of a disturbance. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 5:07 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
It was said by several people that the holes in the window occured when Mary and Joe had the argument in which he left, ten days before the murder. Barnett then began visiting Mary on a daily basis, to give her money when he had it.
During this time he and her had been using the hand-thru-window method of entering the room.
Before the night he left when the holes weren't in the window, how did Kelly and he get into the room if the key was lost?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 292
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 3:09 am: |
|
Leanne,
Aberline stated at the inquest that Barnett had told him,that he,Barnett as well as Kelly, had been reaching through the window to open the door by the catch since the key was lost.More than one author states this.Interpret this how you will.
The window may have been deliberately broken to access the catch.Depends on the position of the catch and lock when the key was lost.
So of course we are back to the kind of lock and catch that must have been on the door.
As I told you before,you need to know why a hand needed to be put through the window.Once you have that worked out,you will not need to question it again. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2034
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 4:09 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
'Aberline stated at the inquest that Barnett had told him,that he,Barnett as well as Kelly, had been reaching through the window to open the door by the catch since the key was lost.'
I KNOW, HARRY, that's what I'm talking about!!So, what is it about it that you don't understand?
He told Abberline that the key had been missing for some time, but he wasn't specific about the length of time! If the key was gone before the window was smashed, how did they enter the room?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 4:57 am: |
|
G'day,
Showing that the window was broken the night that Mary and Joe had the quarrel and he left:
The 'Times' of November 10 reported: 'Bowyer, knowing that when the man Kelly..' [Barnett] '..and the dead woman had their quarrel a pane of glass in one of the windows was broken, went round...'
The 'New York Herald' November 10 reported: 'But there was a side window with a pane broken in a quarrel she had a week ago with a man with whom she had cohabitated.'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2036
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 5:36 am: |
|
G'day,
The 'Times' November 13 reported: 'A short time ago they had a row and the windowS were broken.'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2038
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - 7:26 pm: |
|
G'day Harry,
'Depends on the position of the catch and lock when the key was lost.'
This has been discussed over and over again in the past and it was decided that the catch was a seperate mechanism that was installed after the key was lost.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 293
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 2:54 am: |
|
Leanne,
For the last time.It doesn't matter how long they had been putting a hand through the window,all you need to know is why.Now what is it you do not understand?
The Times,The New York Herald or any other paper you care to mention,needed to have a source from whom they received the information.Who was that source?.Why don't you say.
Your last paragraph,'It was decided that the catch was a separate mechanism'.Who decided,and what is their source?.Who was there in 1888 that reported this.Names,dates,places,that is what is needed.
Where is the source that states a catch was fitted after the key was lost.
You make so many assertions,but you give no source. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 6:54 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
'The Times,The New York Herald or any other paper you care to mention,needed to have a source from whom they received the information.Who was that source?.Why don't you say.' Ahhhhh, because I wasn't there? There was alot of people near Miller's Court that morning. The papers don't say who their source was, but let me guess: The 'Times' November 10 report mentioned the broken window in the paragraph that told of Thomas Bowyer's actions that morning, so there's a good chance that Bowyer was their source on this occasion.
The 'New York Herald' report probably wasn't there but pinched their details from other papers. That is all my opinion !
To answer your 2nd question, I'll have to try to find the old posts.
LEANNE |
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Harry,
I have to say that even though there are reports that the window was broken during a fight between Mary and Joe, I do wonder if the real reason why the window was broken had to do with the fact that the key was lost. The position of the hole in the window is right where a person would want it to be if that person needed to gain entrance into the room. Doesn't that seem like too much of a coincidence? I realize this is pure speculation, and I apologize for that. I'd like to know any thoughts on this. Thanks.
Sandy |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2042
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
I've wondered that myself. Hey, perhaps one pane was broken in the fight, (the furthest from the door), and then when Barnett visited the next day he or her thought: "Well, the windows stuffed now anyway, but we can't ask Bowyer to replace it until our rent's paid up", and made the other hole on purpose to solve the problem of the lost key. Who knows?
That's all speculation too. Barnett & Mary took the truth about the window to their graves.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on January 06, 2006) |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 297
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 2:36 am: |
|
Sandy,
Iv'e always thought the window was broken deliberately to gain entrance,or at least one pane.If it was lost after the door was shut and the key was the only means of opening the door from the outside,one can understand.But why continue to put the hand through the window to gain entry?.Follow this train of thought and I believe you will,like I,arrive at an understandable conclusion,and form an opinion that the killer closed the door on leaving,by the same method. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2043
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 4:16 am: |
|
G'day,
'But why continue to put the hand through the window to gain entry?.' Because the key wasn't found or returned. They continued to use the hand-through-window method to gain access, rather than tell the landlord who would have had to buy a new one and possibly charge them for it.
LEANNE |
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Leanne,
That's what I am thinking. Mary owed rent. She (or he) loses the key. They don't want to go to the landlord for another, or to have another one made because they owe money. It just seems like too much of a coincidence that the key is lost for a time, and then there just happens to be a hole in the window at the right angle to be able to utilize it to gain entry.
Harry,
If the window was broken deliberately to gain entrance, they would have continued to use this method because they would not have been able to tell the landlord, or replace it themselves until they had money, either for the window (without telling the landlord about it), or making amends on their rent first, and then requesting a new key and maybe also to have the window replaced.
They didn't have any money, and it seems like when Mary did have money it wouldn't have been much, and she would have spent it on something to eat, as well as to drink.
Sandy |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 1:01 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
That's how we came to the conclusion that the latch was a cheaper, seperate mechanism installed to allow Mary to keep her door locked.
I read in a newspaper that Mary hung items over the hole in the window 'for some time', so before she was given that black coat by Maria Harvey to hang there, she was using her own rags.
That reporter probably got that information after interviewing neighbours.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 299
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 2:40 am: |
|
It all depends on the type of lock,(there were literaly scores of designs),whether the lock could be catched,(if it was a spring one),whether it was a spring lock incorporating a catch lock,or whether it was just a catch lock.
Did the lock have an extension handle to the outside?.Was it a bar lock with a spring catch combined.
Was there a thumb latch or hook latch or ring latch on the door?.These are just some of the things to consider.Losing a key even today is not a rareity,but it is of no great concern.I am still waiting to hear why it was neccessary to put the hand through the window to open or shut the door.
Informing the landlord or covering up the hole doesn't really enter into it.There is a simple explanation.Barnett said it was easy.Keep trying. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2049
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 7:05 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
Barnett did not say it was easy! It was Inspector Abberline who told the coroner at the Inquest: "It is quite easy." Some researchers believe that was enough to prove that Abberline tested the method himself and gave his opinion. But I believe he was merely quoting Barnett's words, as Barnett attempted to end the missing key issue.
'It all depends on the type of lock,(there were literaly scores of designs).' I'd choose the cheapest and simplest lock available to the East End of London in 1888, that was commonly fixed to wharehouse doors. No extensions, no combined catches, no rings.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 303
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 2:20 am: |
|
Leanne,
So Aberline quoted Barnett.Doesn't that mean that Barnett passed the information to Aberline?
But leanne you didn't choose the lock,and whether it was the cheapest or dearest doesn't enter into the reason why it was neccessary to open the door in the manner described,after the key went missing. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2050
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 3:58 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES! Everyone know's that Abberline was telling the Coroner what Barnett had explained to him!
'But leanne you didn't choose the lock...' Awwwwwwwwww! That's not fair! But I'd say it was the cheepest lock available to Bowyer when his shed was built, because Kelly's room was partitioned from his shed/wharehouse.
I don't understand what the problem is. Barnett explained to Abberline that the key had been missing for "some time", therefore it wasn't taken by the killer. Abberline must have asked what they did to solve that problem, how then did they get in? Barnett must have said: "Easy, we reached through the hole in the window to move the catch."
But if Abberline was 'on-the-ball' he would have worked out that the method would have been impossible before the window was broken during their fight. Unless one hole was made on purpose to reach the door, before or after the other hole was made when Mary threw something at him.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5529
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 7:31 am: |
|
Might it not be that the row was precisely over the key getting lost, and that Barnett was obliged to break the window as a result. The row then continued, and he moved out.
Is there anything in the press reports about Kelly throwing anything? I've a very vague idea there might be, but I'm not sure.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2052
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 8:10 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
NUP! Barnett explained that the row was over a second prostitute, Maria Harvey, being invited to stay in the room as soon as the first prostitute, Julia Ventruney, had found her own room. It was not over the key!
Let me look up press reports and statements about that row. I don't know when I'll get around to that because I'm attending my grandmother's funeral tomorrow.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5530
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
|
Leanne, my condolences. No hurry, it's not important.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2053
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 2:55 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
Joseph Barnett told the Central News Agency on the 9th of November, a statement that appeared in 'Lloyd's Newspaper': 'We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute to sleep in the same room, I objected and as Mrs. Harvey afterwards came and stayed there, I left and took lodgings elsewhere. I told her I would come back if she [Harvey] would go and live elsewhere.'
Harvey stayed in Kelly's room from the night Barnett left on the 30th of October, till the 6th of November when she took a room in New Court, Dorset Street.
When Barnett visited Mary the evening before she died, Maria Harvey left to go to her new room, and Barnett wasn't allowed to move back in.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5532
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:47 am: |
|
Thanks Leanne. I imagine Abberline also questioned Harvey about the door catch, but if he did, we'll never know what she said.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page