|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 8:50 pm: |       |
I am becoming less convinced that Barnett had anything to do with the murder.
The answer to the mystery of the locked door is simple.
1) Mary Kelly and Barnett both knew that the key to the door was lost.
2) They devised a way to lock the door WHEN THEY WERE NOT THERE by reaching through the window to both LOCK and UNLOCK the door.
3) MY MAIN POINT: Obviously they kept the door locked when they were not there. Obviously Mary Kelly brought at least one man home with her as a "customer" the night she was killed. Obviosuly she had to unlock the door to let both herself and her customer in. Obviously he watched as she unlucked the door from the outside. There is a chance she may have even explained why if she was doing it in front of him. Therefore the killer watched how she opened the door and would have known how to lock it back up. There is no mystery here.
CONCLUSION: The killer simply watched how MK opened the door and followed her in. When he left, he simply locked the door the same way that she had unlocked it. WHERE IS THE MYSTERY?
Besides this, chances are many people would have seen how that door was opened. The inhabitants were often stone drunk and the street was a high crime area. Anybody could have seen how the door was opened or closed.
In my opinion, there is absolutely no mystery here at all.
Tim |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 233
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Hi Tim,
You wrote:
“CONCLUSION: The killer simply watched how MK opened the door and followed her in. When he left, he simply locked the door the same way that she had unlocked it. WHERE IS THE MYSTERY?”
I do agree with you that there’s no mystery regarding the door being found locked on the morning of 9 November, because it most probably was a spring lock that would automatically lock if it wasn’t ‘on the latch’. In other words, for unlocking a key was needed, but not for locking.
However, I don’t think the Ripper simply watched how Mary opened the door to her room. Because for that he would have to have been in the court at the very moment she opened it for her and the blotchy faced man and I don’t find that very probable since it was but a small court with no place to hide and if he were there I think Mary Ann Cox would surely have seen and mentioned him. There was a light opposite Mary’s door. I can’t imagine that somebody standing in Dorset Street would have been able to see what she was doing and how it worked (opening the door by reaching through the window), because the window was around the corner and the passage leading into Miller’s Court was only about 3 feet wide.
Regarding the lock there is thread called ‘The mystery of the key’ under Victims/Mary Jane Kelly, which might be of interest to you.
All the best,
Frank
|
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 12:20 pm: | |
Hey Guys,
Good call ripperhistorian on the "killer watching Mary" theory. I never thought about that one. He could have very easily watched her open the door and she could have very explained why she was opening the door that way. I would have asked her what she was doing. Best regards.
Paul |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 263
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
Hi RipperHistorian,
Do take the time to read through the old "key" thread. This issue has been looked at from all angles and ends up coming to the same conclusion. There is nothing to suggest that the person who killed Mary Kelly must have had a key, neither did they have to know about the "window trick" of locking/unlocking the door.
Paley's "key mystery" is based upon the assumption that a key was required to lock the door. This assumption is not supported as the evidence points towards a lock that will "self lock" when you close the door. In fact, the evidence also suggests that the lock can be set to "stay open" as well (So, one could leave the room, close the door, and get back in without reaching through the window; if one wished to risk leaving the room unlocked of course).
- Jeff |
girlyracer101
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
hello...have recently read that the most likely suspect was an artist who lived to a ripe old age..his name of which i cannot remember |
Ripperhistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Frank,
What I was implying was that JTR was MK's customer. He was walking right next to her when they arrived at her room to do business. So, he literally watched as Mary unlocked the door RIGHT in front of him.
Tim |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 234
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 7:00 pm: | |
Hi Tim,
Sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you wrote. I thought you meant the Ripper was somewhere in the court while Mary was opening the door for her and her client, maybe even showing to her client how it was opened. But now I see what you meant.
To elaborate a bit on the situation, I don’t believe the Ripper entered Mary’s room together with her. Mary was almost naked when she was killed and I don’t think the Ripper was the kind of killer that would have waited for her to undress and to neatly fold her clothes. As she must have been wearing some 5 layers of clothes or more, it must have taken perhaps 5 minutes to do this, which I think would have been too long for her murderer. In the previous cases he seems to have attacked his unsuspecting victims very shortly after arriving at the crime scenes.
Five minutes or so seems too long, certainly when you consider that he hadn’t killed for some 6 weeks, which is twice as long as the longest non-killing period until then. Another thing to consider is that obviously the acting out of the mutilations was what gave the Ripper his kicks, that was what he was after. For that he needed his victims dead quickly, so that he could start focusing on what made him tick.
Another set of facts that fits in with this is the large quantity of blood on the top right corner of the bed and under it, the blood sprays on the wall, the stabs through the sheets and the wounds in her arms and in one thumb. And besides maybe the cry of ‘Oh, murder’ there were no signs of a struggle. These facts not only tell me that Mary was alive when she was attacked, but that she was also aware that she was in danger and that her resistance didn’t last very long. Her waking up by some sound or movement on her bed might explain these facts.
All of this makes me think Jack the Ripper entered Mary’s room while she was asleep, either by reaching though the window or, if he was really lucky, by just pushing the door open because Mary had left it on the latch (seems unlikely), that he obviously unintentionally woke her up by climbing on her bed or by making some sound and that he then found himself forced to strike. After finishing he closed the door behind him, locking it automatically.
But this is just what I think, of course it doesn’t mean that it must have happened this way.
All the best,
Frank
|
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 7:29 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
Im not so sure that Mary Jane cried "oh Murder"
like is believed. Why would someone use that
phrase if they were about to be killed by Jack the Ripper. It makes more sense to me that she would have screamed "help" or something like that. But thats just my opinion. Best Regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
Hi Frank,
Like Paul says, we can't be sure of that it was Mary Kelly who cried out those words, and personally I have my doubts. But besides that, if Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim, I think your account of the course of events sounds plausible. I do think there are indications on that she was surprised in her sleep and attacked.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 864
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
Here it was, at last a chance for Jack to do his very worst in the privacy of a victim's own room, after a longer cooling off period than he might have taken by choice. We don't know what stopped him during October, but he may have been capable of holding back because the streets were too hot.
If so, then for the sake of a few more moments, posing as a non-murdering customer waiting for the woman to undress, before striking the fatal blow that would turn him into her murderer, he could have easy and unlimited access to her body, unhampered by layers of clothing he would otherwise have to waste precious mutilating time hacking through, or stripping from her dead body.
If the killer couldn't wait, what stopped him in October?
Love,
Caz |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 235
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
Hi Paul & Glenn,
Like both of you, I’m not sure either that the cry was uttered by Mary Jane. That’s why I put the ‘maybe’ in the ‘And besides maybe the cry of ‘Oh, murder’ there were no signs of a struggle.’, but I admit I could have put it clearer. I don’t know what would have been normal to cry in such a situation in those days, I really don’t.
Hi Caz,
Your point sounds reasonable, but consider this: if the Ripper could actually keep himself from killing because the streets were too hot, he must have been able to push the need to kill away, to control it somehow. When after almost 6 weeks of waiting and holding back he thought the coast was clear again and found himself another victim, I can imagine that, the Ripper already having given in to the need to kill once more, he would not have been able to wait any longer when finally he was alone with his intended victim. Besides, although I’m not completely sure on this, I think a mutilating killer like the Ripper will always kill relatively quickly. But correct me if you think I’m wrong.
All in all, I don’t think a ‘forced wait’ in October due to an increased police activity is necessarily incompatible with the ‘not being able to wait’ when finally being alone with Mary.
But again, my suggested scenario doesn’t have to be what actually happened, to me it just seems the most likely one.
All the best,
Frank
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 264
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
Hi,
Also, it is common for killers of prostitutes to also engage the services of prostitutes. Of course, we can't know for certain if this applies in this specific case, but if it does then it's possible JtR originally intended to engage Mary Jane for her services. She was much younger, considered more attractive, etc. Something, whether real or imagined, may have set him off and his purpose "changed".
Highly speculative, I know, but as always, there are so few constraints from the data it's hard to be sure exactly what the sequence of events were.
We do know her clothes were found folded.
The attack appears to have her positioned on the far side of the bed.
Her sheets appear to be over her face and cut through (question: does anyone know if the sheet is over her face from the wall side or were the folded over from the room side, or "pulled up along her body"?
She was reported as actively soliciting before her death.
Her position (next to the wall) at the time of the attack, could suggest she was not alone in the bed at the time. Otherwise, one might expect her to be in the middle. If the sheet over her face comes from the "room side", this also suggests the sheet was thrown over her by an attacker in the bed. Her neatly folded clothes would fit with this notion, as does the fact she was soliciting. If her killer bought her the meal of fish and potatoes, then he would appear to be someone who could afford an "overnight stay".
Now, working with the above idea, that might suggest that JtR does something like, get up during the night. His clothes are beside the bed, and he gets his knife. It's dark, so she can't see. She's apparently been drinking acording to some witnesses, so she doesn't wake fully, etc. Gets his knife, throws the sheet over her to hinder her ability to fight back (he can't do his normal attack because she's in a bed, not standing in the street), attacks and kills her. Of course, he's mostly undressed, so any blood will be on his skin or undershirt, etc. Once she's dead, he moves his clothes away from the bed, burns some of the clothes in the room in the fire because he's cold, pulls her closer to "his side", and does his work. Afterwards, he cleans himself up a bit, burns the rag or whatever he used, gets dressed, takes his knife and her heart, leaves, and the door locks behind him.
Did this happen? I don't know. It fits with the data, but so do other explanations. I don't think it's overly fanciful, but it's no way "proven". It doesn't work, for example, if the reported sighting of Kelly in the morning is real. Things to consider.
- Jeff
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 453
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,thats one of the ways I see it although I have also thought Mary could have been asleep when JtR got into her room[having had his eye on her earlier that night possibly] and as she had the sheet drawn up round her chin he stabbed through the sheet at her throat area-and went on stabbing.He then needed to roll her towards the wall so he could position himself in a way as to make it possible to mutilate.He probably knew what he wanted from the start.
I myself cant see JtR with an awful lot by way of social skills with women -or anything much in the way of a "normal" sex drive for that matter.It doesnt ring true given his demented activities.
Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 265
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
What you suggest would also fit. I find it a bit harder to imagine JtR sneaking into Mary's room while she's asleep than him entering with her. But, I don't find it that hard to imagine!
If we go with that notion though, that JtR sneaks in, then this would suggest that JtR may have some burglar skills. Certainly not unheard of in serial murders. I guess what sort of hinders my view of this scenario is that I can't imagine 13 Miller's Court being a target for a burglar. But, now, of course, I'm suggesting that the murder was not the purpose for entering, but rather one of "opportunity".
If, however, JtR uses these proposed burglar skills but his intention is to commit murder, then things probably hang together well enough. It does suggest a change in MO (break and enter to get a victim rather than find one on the street), but even monkeys learn! ha!
Anyway, there are lots of scenarios that fit that don't require a lot of improbable things to happen. These are all theories well worth investigation. If we were the detectives, we would want to try and follow up such different lines to see if they lead anywhere. They are leads, but unfortunately, they are not "solutions".
- Jeff |
asha
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
When Mary Ann Cox gave her witness statement (the one about seeing kelly and the blotchy faced man) she just said that she saw them enter through the door. At no point did she state that she saw kelly leaning through the window to unlatch the door. Kelly must have left it off the latch for ease of use. It may have been one of those locks that had a snib that you pressed up to hold the latch from locking. That way they wouldnt need a key nor would kelly have to lock it everytime she went out. Jack could have locked it on his way out by letting the snib down and hence it locked on his way out. Lucky Jack or knowledgable Jack? What does everyone else think? |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 7:17 pm: | |
Frank,
Your theory is very sound. I am undecided as to whether JTR entered with MK as a customer or entered as she slept.
Either way if he entered as she slept, as you stated, I completely agree with your theory. If he was a customer (or perhaps a past customer) I think he would have seen how she opened the door when they entered together.
However, I tend to think he entered with her as a customer for two reasons:
1) How would he have known that he was entering the dwelling of a sleeping prostitute?
2) If it was dark, how would he have known that she was alone?
Maybe you can shed some light on these for me.
I also tend to disagree that JTR would have been impatient about waiting for her to undress. It seems likely that JTR not only killed prostitutes, but used their services as well. Therefore he must have been made to wait for a prostitute to undress before. On top of the fact that during this murder he essentially had "All the time in the world to finish the job."
Please give me your opinions,
Tim |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Hi All,
Certainly, if the killer had any notion at all that someone (GH) was, or had been, hanging around outside in the court, he would need to be patient and wait until the coast was as clear as he could expect it to be before striking.
I wouldn't put it past Jack to have fancied himself in the role of one of Kelly's customers, whether he would actually have gone as far as having any form of sex with her or not. He may of course have been impotent.
But I can imagine him watching her folding her clothes, enjoying the feeling that this woman was not rejecting him physically, while waiting for the optimum time to make her his forever.
Love,
Caz |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 12:14 am: | |
Caz,
Certainly, if the killer had any notion at all that someone (GH) was, or had been, hanging around outside in the court, he would need to be patient and wait until the coast was as clear as he could expect it to be before striking.
Sure makes it sound more and more like GH was the one in the room, doesn't it? If someone had been following you all the way there and was hanging about outside, if you were Jack, would you feel comfortable killing MJK? Just seems unlikely. I doubt he would take that big of a risk, but he has taken risks before so I suppose anything is possible!
Chris 
|
R.Fazbak
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Hello everyone,
Getting back to the "Locked" door,I think the reason that the door eventually had to we forced was possibly because McCarthy had told the police that a spring type lock had been fitted and the key was lost.
It may then have been obvious to all those present that the only course of action was to force the door open.
Just as most of us today are familiar with the Yale type lock which functions in a similar way.
Regards,
R.Fazbak |
SK
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:24 am: | |
Some questions:
1) The key to 13 Miller's Court disappeared the same night Mary Jane Kelly and Joe Barnett broke up. What's the most plausible? That it went with Joe - or did Mary just happen to loose it?
2) The window was smashed the same night. The days that followed, did Mary use to unlock the door by reaching through the broken glass? (Quite a manoeuvre) Who supports that? The witnesses and neighbours? Or was the door in fact never locked?
Conclusion: If it was Jack the Ripper who locked the door from the outside on the 9th of November 1888, it would be the "key" to the whole enigma.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 439
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 11:17 pm: | |
Hi SK,
Missed this when you first posted it way back when, but just in case you're around still.
The notion that the key went missing, and that the window was broken, on the same day that Joe left is not necessarily true. All we know is that on the day Joe left Mary, they had an argument. We also know that the window was broken during an argument, but I don't think it's actually stated that these two events were a result of the same argument. As such, the window could have been broken before Joe left.
Also, Joe just testifies that the key was missing "for some time". There is nothing to suggest they had the key up until the day he moved out, or that the losing of the key was in any way even related to an argument. In other words, the key could have been lost one day, they have an argument some other day when the window gets broken, and on a 3rd day they have another argument when Joe moves out.
As far as I'm aware, there is nothing to substantiate any connection between these 3 separate events (losing the key, breaking the window, and Joe moving out).
- Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 4:23 am: | |
Jeff
Coincidentally, we've just been discussing this very point on a Maybrick thread.
Abberline's evidence at the inquest included this:
Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy.
If this is correct, and they have put their hand through the broken window since the key was lost, that seems to me to tell us that the window was broken before Barnett moved out. Though for completeness, I should add that Robert Charles Linford has suggested this refers to Barnett's visits to Kelly after he moved out of the room.
Chris Phillips
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
G'day,
It seems to tell me that Mary had no way to lock her door and get back in before the window was broken!
I believe that the window WAS broken on the night Barnett moved out because 'The Daily Telegraph' of November 10 1888 tells us that Elizabeth Prater said: "the man with whom the deceased had cohabited until a week ago when they seperated in consequence of a quarrel in the course of which the window was broken."
Added to that is the fact that the 'Times' of November 13 said: 'A SHORT time ago they had a row and the windows were broken.'
LEANNE
"Mummy, Mummy! I'm sick of learning how to swim!"
"Shut up or I'll flush again!"
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 440
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for that! So there is some suggestion that the window was broken during the same argument that cause Joe to leave. But, as Chris points out, there is some suggestion that the key was lost and the window broken before Joe moved out too; although Robert suggests a resolution to that difference.
I recall, and hopefully not incorrectly, that the window was reported to have 2 broken panes. I suppose yet another possible situation is something like, one window pane was broken before the key was lost, the key gets lost and they can use this single opening to open the door, on the day Joe moves out they have another argument during which the 2nd pane is broken (fitting with Elizabeth's statement).
This means we can't really be sure of the sequence of events. Even if the window was broken on the night of Joe's moving out, it doesn't mean that the window didn't already have one broken pane.
It's also quite possible that Mary lost the key after that night. Nothing evidential indicates that Joe took the key with him when he moved out.
Amd I just thought of something. This is probably not true, but it's an idea I've not heard presented before (forgive me if it has been suggested). What if the argument was in part about losing the key? They come back and find the door locked, and one of them lost the key? Or Mary lent the key to a fellow prostitute, who locked the door and took the key? (I think that to be less likely, as one would expect the key to be returned later; if it was Joe wouldn't have to know about it, and Jack could have taken it!).
Anyway, Mary and Joe have an argument as a result. In order to get into the room they have to break the window to unlock the door. As they have been at odds for some time, Joe leaves that same night.
That also sort of ties all the events together (lost key, argument, broken window, ability to open the door, etc). But again, since we can't actually go investigate these type of possible scenerios, we're left with having to put them in the speculation bin.
What it does mean, however, is that there is nothing in the evidence that decidedly puts the key in Joe's hands. And even if we could, there is nothing that requires that Mary's killer to have to have the key anyway.
- Jeff |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 5:40 am: | |
Hi,
Inquest testimony confirms there were two broken panes. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
No, it's not a mere 'suggestion' that at least one window pane was broken the night Joe left. I'd say it was a fact! The 'New York Herald', 10 November said: 'there was a side window with a pane broken in a quarrel she had A WEEK AGO with a man with whom she cohabited'.
That fact appeared just after the article described how Thomas Bowyer found the body, so I'd bet that he told the reporter.
Mary and Joe did not have that argument over a key! Barnett told the press: 'We lived comfortably until Marie allowed a prostitute named Julia 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 that I would come back if she [Mrs Harvey] would go and live somewhere else....'
LEANNE
"Mommy, Mommy! Daddy's running down the street!"
"Shut up and step on the gas!"
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 214
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Don't take anything in a newspaper report as fact unless there is solid confirming evidence.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2824
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Two panes were broken. Now if they were broken by Mary throwing something at Joe, the question arises, what kind of object would break two panes? A garden fork is the only thing I can think of. Of course, it's possible Mary chucked two objects at Joe, and that this accounts for two panes being broken. But I feel it's more likely that when they discovered the key was lost they were obliged to smash a window to try and get in. The first one they smashed didn't let Joe reach the door handle, so they had to smash a second.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 8:39 am: | |
G'day,
How's this for a suggestion: Perhaps Mary or Joe or both deliberately broke one or more of the window panes to reach to the lock without a key, however didn't want MacCarthy to find out that they deliberately broke his property because they lost his key, so they invented the story that the panes were broken accidently during the argument?
That would explain how two different stories circulated about how the window was broken! Perhaps one was a little 'white-lie'.
I only just thought of that, but haven't really thought about it yet, if you know what I mean!
LEANNE
Q: How do you make a hormone?
A: Kick her in the fanny!
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Your questions and answers are a real delight, they even make a overworked late fifties, over weight, ex used to be,laugh.
We could devote a chapter to this , even if Barnett is ridiculed, the book would end on a high.
Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 441
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I tend to be very cautious about accepting anything as fact when the source is a combination of "eye-witness" and "newspaper reporter". That's while I'll use terms like "suggestion". We've been misled by the papers and eyewitnesses so many times in this case, I take much of it with hearty skeptisism. That aside, with nothing more to go on I agree that it sounds like at least one of the panes was broken on the night Joe left.
But, even so, that doesn't time lock the losing of the key. It could still have been before, during, or after Joe moved out because the other window pane could have been broken at any of those times.
And yes, the idea that they purposefully broke the window, but told others it was during an agrument is not impossible. It's the kind of thing people will do. On the other hand, I'm sure McCarthy would have required them to pay for the window in either case. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he was slow to fix it even if he somehow managed to break the window himself! Slum lords aren't known for their swift and consciencious maintenance scheduals!
- Jeff |
pf arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 4:00 am: | |
I was under the impression from reading another thread, can't remember which one, that people in MJK situation would have slept in the clothes to keep warm. Is this true or have i made it up? because if it is the case then MJK must have been with a 'client' when she was killed/went to bed to have removed almost all her clothes, and not disturbed in her sleep.
|
steve murray
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:29 pm: | |
in reply to R Fazak. the very reason why the door need not be forced open is BECAUSE IT WAS A SPRING (YALE TYPE) LOCK. I can see why the whole JTR mystery can never be solved when people confuse the issue like this, I am a carpenter and have fitted hundreds of locks, why would the door need to be forced open if Mary and Joe could simply slip a hand through the window, you can't tell me the police where stupid enough not to work that one out. If it was a mortice lock (the type you need a key to open and lock) with then Joe to my mind is Mary's killer as he had taken the key which Mary thought was lost! the issue over which type of lock is very important to the case, i would like to know if anyone has sard facts regarding the removal of the window for a photo before the door was opened.}}} |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 7:36 am: | |
G'day Steve,
How did I miss this post! The door had to be forced open by John MacCarthy,(the landlord) with a pickaxe, as soon as it was known that the bloodhounds weren't coming. That's official!!!!
The fact that Joe and Mary could simply slip a hand through the window wasn't brought to the attention of police! Either Joe Barnett didn't volunteer that information, or they hadn't yet found him. I am telling you that they were stupid enough not to work it out for themselves!
LEANNE
Q: Why is a wedding aniversary like a toilet seat?
A: Men miss both!
|
Angel
Police Constable
Username: Angel
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 8:29 am: | |
Hi all,
Why didn't John MacCarthy reach through the window and open the lock? Why force the door? As landlord he would have known what type of mechanism locked the door and that the window was broken. Considering the financial status of Kelly I find it hard to contemplate that she would have had the lock changed.
Was MacCarthy playing dumb or hiding something?
**Angel** |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1427
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 6:18 pm: | |
G'day Angel,
I don't know and can't even guess. As landlord he wouldn't have wanted to damage his property, and with all those intelligent men looking through the window that morning, I would have thought that one of them would have thought to try.
If we bring the subject of Mary's door/lock/key up again, all these expert locksmiths will get into the debate and say that Mary's door must have had a lock that locked automatically once it was shut, therefore the killer didn't have to possess the key!
LEANNE
Q: What has 100 legs, but can't walk?
A: 50 pairs of jeans!
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 459
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 7:38 pm: | |
The evidence for a "self locking" door is fairly wide actually.
The only description of the lock we have describes it as a "spring lock" (which can lock itself when you close the door; can be left such that it does not lock when you close the door; and if locked, can be unlocked from the inside without a key). This description is in one of the newspapers, which is of course unfortunate since they aren't exactly known for their reliability.
Bob Hinton has presented his research into spring locks of the era, and has found that inexpensive versions were around. Since we wouldn't expect McCarthy to put an expensive lock on the door, this finding is important because it demonstrates that spring locks were not necessarily expensive.
Barnett describes his window trick, which would also fit with how a "spring lock" works. Whether or not he's making this up is irrelevant. Why irrelevant, because whether or not they actually used the "window trick" is immaterial with respect to what his story tells us about the kind of lock that was on the door. Let's start with the idea that Barnett is lieing. They never actually used the window trick. But, even if he's lieing the lock must have been of a kind where such a lie "makes sense" (meaning, you don't need a key to unlock the door from the inside). Think of it this way, if the lock did require a key to open the door from the inside, why would Barnett even think to mention such a thing as the window trick? He could leave it at "Jack took the key" and offered no explanation; certainly not offer an explanation that was obviously impossible. Barnett would never have made up such a story if the lock couldn't be opened in this manner. Of course, if Barnett is not lieing, then by definition the lock could be opened as he described. In other words, whether or not Barnett is telling the truth, we are drawn to the conclusion that the lock must have been "unlockable" from the inside.
Finally, at Mary's inquest, Abberline testifys that Barnett told him that since the key was lost they would reach through the broken window and pull back the catch. And then adds the qualifier "It is quite easy." (See inquest testimony here on the Casebook). Abberline's testimony suggests that either he himself, or someone by his instruction, tested out Barnett's explanation (the window trick), and determined that what he described was not only possible, but also plausible (it was easy).
In other words, evidence from many sources indicate that the lock on Mary's door did not require a key to open the door from the inside. And since Barnett indicates that they had to sometimes unlock the door by reaching through the window, the lock must not require a key to lock it either. So, either they had to lock it the same way (reach through the window), or it was an inexpensive spring lock (as described in the paper, and as shown by Bob Hinton to be available). If it's a spring lock (as everything indicates it probably was), then one didn't have to reach through the window to lock it; only to unlock it.
So why didn't the police and/or McCarthythink to unlock the door this way? Who knows. We know they didn't, since the door was forced. But we also have enough evidence to know they could have (to the extent we can "know" anything in this case, of course).
- Jeff
|
jmd@nelefa.org
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
"1) How would he have known that he was entering the dwelling of a sleeping prostitute?"
I don't think the fact that some/all of these women were prostitutes has anything at all to do with the entire affair. I don't think there's any "holy crusade" going on here - I think Jack just liked to kill women and the only women who were (a) accessible at that time of night and (b) were willing to follow a strange man to a quiet place *if they werent already in one* were prostitutes. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hi jmd,
I agree I think he was killing prostitutes for the same reason serial killers target them today because they are accessible. I agree that they were willing to go with a strange man because they were desperate for money but I believe what made it easy for him is they took him to the place that they knew interuption was less likely and they probably knew the times the police walked there beats.
There are theories that sugest that the ripper targeted prostitutes because of personal reasons and I must admitt I have considerd them.
John Anderson, He Targeted prostitutes because a prostitute had robbed him and he wanted to get even. It has been sugested that he might have even been suffering fron syphiliss that he contracted from a prostitute.
Prince Albert, He had syphiliss and he in fact died from the affliction. It of course again has been sugested that he targeted prostitutes because of this.
Rev. Barnett, Vassily, and even Tumblety have been said to have targeted prostitutes.
Vassily believed that the only way to save the unfortunate's soul was to in fact murder her.
Rev. Barnett wanted to shed light on the awful plight of the unfortunate women of the eastend and he thought a string of brutal murders would bring attention to this.
Tumblety was said to have been married to a prostitute and she later broke his heart when he discoverd this fact. latter on he was set up by a 19 year old prostitute for tring to give her an abortion. so he developed a great hatred for prostitutes.
So religion and revenge have often been sugested as a motive for the killings. Right now I agree with you and I believe the ripper was motivated out of a hattred of all women witch may have been brought on because he feared them. I think the ripper was very uncomfortable around women.
Hi Ripper historian, jmd misunderstood your question because you used the word prostitute. I think your quetion was How would he have known that Mary Kelly was asleep and How would he have known she was alone?
Good questions! The only way he would have known she was alone was if he was watching the place for a good lengh of time. He would have had to have seen the the customer enter the room with Kelly and then waited for him to leave or he would of had to have seen Kelly enter the dwelling alone. He had to have known that she was a women who lived alone because how else would he have known that she did not have a roommate or a boyfriend. The time he spent mutilateing the body tells me that he did not think he was going to be disturbed the rest of the night.
I do not know how he would have known she was sleeping. I believe he would have been taking a huge risk because even if he knew Kelly was alone and that she was retired for the night and that the lights were out he still would not have known she was asleep. Alot of things could have gone wrong Kelly could have been a light sleeper and she may have awoke when he opened the door. She could have been a woman who had a hard time sleeping and she could have been awake when he opened the door. If either one of this was the case then she would of had time to screem I believe more then once and she may of had time to take a defencive position. If the ripper pulled this off he was lucky. Kelly was drinking and this may have caused her to sleep sounder then normal and may have caused her to pass out quickly, this could have worked in the ripper favour. I believe Kelly was awake when her killer struck because of the defencive wounds and the cry of murder.
the most probable scenerio is that Kelly brought her killer home with her.
All the best,CB |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 160
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
Hi all,
Reading the earlier posts on this thread I started to consider an MO that I had never really considered before. I have always believed that Jack approached his victims claiming to be looking for sex. He allowed them to lead him to an appropriately secluded location and then murdered them.
What I am now considering is that JtR waited and watched his intended victim, specifically striking immediately after a client had left his victim. In this way many of the risk factors are assessed before striking, and also there would be a high chance that witnesses would have seen someone else with the victim shortly before their death. What I mean by risk factors is this. In my original MO, if he has not watched his clients movements then he cannot be sure where she might lead him. If he's watched her take a client to a particular spot, then in the few minutes it takes her to service that client he can decide whether that spot is appropriate for what he has in mind. He can then pounce as soon as the client leaves or if that is unworkable, he can approach her himself safe in the knowledge that he knows where he will be led.
This might explain the witness statements regarding the events immediately prior to Stride's murder. The man on the other side of the street may not have been connected to the assaulter at all, but rather been JtR who had been watching Stride after having selected her as an intended victim. This scenario still does not explain why the first man was seen to assault Stride, but that could be just coincidence, especially if that man was for arguements sake Michael Kidney. What a perfect set of circumstances might have been layed before Jack, someone else seen to be assaulting his victim shortly before he murders her.
The relevance to this thread and Miller's Court is that if Jack had watched, let's say blotchy faced man, go inside with Kelly, he would have known that once he left she would be alone. And let's say he did need to know the window trick, watching her enter with another client might have afforded him the opportunity to know this. It might have been blind luck for him that he had happened upon a prostitute who seemed to live in a room alone. Once again there was also a witness to Kelly going into her room prior to her death with a completely different man.
Anyway, just thinking aloud really.
Scotty. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
