Archive through April 19, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through April 19, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion: Mary kelly: Archive through April 19, 2000

Author: Simon Owen Friday, 14 April 2000 - 05:48 am
At the Inquest , Inspector Abberline stated that the key had been missing for ' some time '( Rumbelow p.94 ) while Barnett confirmed the window had been broken in a quarrel on October 30th , and that he and Kelly used to open the door by reaching through the broken window and pulling back the bolt/catch. Barnett himself offered no alternative method of locking or opening the door so it was either left unlocked and pushed to before the window was broken , or the key was lost after the window was broken. Tully visited the houses in Duval Street ( earlier Dorset Street ) and found the doors to have a Yale lock and a heavy ' mortis ' lock as well ; the Yale lock was actually invented in 1844 and was coming into common usage in the early 1880s , contrary to what I said before. If Kelly's door didn't have a Yale then it would probably have a bolt and a mortis lock , Kelly and Barnett would then have been using the bolt to lock the door.
Author: Scott Nelson Saturday, 15 April 2000 - 01:53 am
Simon: concerning your earlier post RE: The Ripper escaping Kelly's room via the window: There is a drawing of the Ripper exiting the Kelly window from an illustrated caricature from the Police Illusrated News (November 17, 1888). The drawing shows a very sinister looking Ripper with knife in hand leaving an (apparently) slid-up window into Miller's Court. This is an incorrect representation from sensationalist press interpretations: the windows to Kelly's room in Miller's Court did not slide up or swing out (or inwards), as I indicated in an earlier post. The fact that the windows were broken (possibly before the key was lost) and the fact that Barnett and Kelly reached through the broken pane to unlatch the door release precludes a sliding or swinging window: why risk reaching through a serrated glass pane two or more feet to unlatch a door bolt if you could open a window by reaching up (or over) a couple of inches through the broken pane and unhinging a semi-circular latch or pushing the upper pane up? (much less risky in terms of getting cut). Clearly, the latter would have been the prefered option as it would have been much easier to do through the broken window pane as depicted in the outside photo of Miller's Court. But it was not a option as the windows did not open. Clearly then, the killer left through the door, as he had entered.
Author: Glenn Baron Saturday, 15 April 2000 - 11:25 am
Scott, some dubious logic here, in my opinion. Reaching through the broken window to unlatch the door involves 1 extra operation (reaching through). Opening the window to do it involves several (reaching in, unlatching window, opening window and finally closing and fastening window). I know which I'd do. Windows in that area were (and still are in the remaining old houses) 'sash' windows, i.e. two-part windows, both halves of which slide up and down. These are fastened in the closed position with (typically) a rotating cam device which ends up drawing the two sections tight together. Apart from security, this cuts down on draughts. These cams, when fully tightened, can be difficult enough to undo from the normal position, but from the disadvantaged position of reaching in,up and round they could be very difficult indeed (we have several sash windows in our 1850's-built house which used these devices. I replaced the catches as our children couldn't open them and would have been unable to get out of the windows in case of fire). Anyway, this difficulty, plus the much greater fuss involved, would I'm sure have led them to lean in and unlatch the door if that was a reasonable possibility. Also, why would Barnett lie about this? Evidently Miller's Court was a busy place and Kelly and Barnett would have been observed entering via the 'window method' many times, no? Why would he risk being contradicted by neighbours (and quite possibly coming under suspicion) when he could just as easily have told the truth? Finally, on Apr 10th and again above, you state categorically that "the windows did not open". I've checked a couple of the books I have to hand (including Sugden) and can find no reference as to whether they did or did not. Where is it stated that they were fixed shut, or is this your deduction ? (I'm not challenging you here, just that I might have missed the reference or might have to shell out for yet another book :> ) Regards, Glenn
Author: Scott Nelson Saturday, 15 April 2000 - 05:00 pm
The deduction that the windows did not open is based on the facts that: 1) the police had the door forced when they were ready to enter the room, instead of opening and entering through the windows, both of which were already broken, 2) When the photographer came to photograph the body, the entire window frame (the larger one to the left) was removed to get the picture(s), instead of being opened (Daily Telegraph, November 13). From this I infer (always dangerous) that the smaller window, reached through to unbolt the door, also didn't open. Both windows were subsequently boarded up in an identical manner. The discussion about reaching in through broken glass to unlatch a window was simply that they (Barnett, Kelly) would have probably prefered to do this if they could have done so, even though it would involve an extra step or two to get the door open. To unlatch the window would probably have involved exposing only the hand to glass serrations, whereas the entire arm would be exposed in reaching through the glass to the door bolt. I have looked for, but cannot find any evidence that either Barnett or Kelly (aside from the knife wounds to her arms) had healing cuts or scratches on their arms.
Author: Glenn Baron Saturday, 15 April 2000 - 06:16 pm
Can you point me to a photo which shows reasonably clearly which part of the panes were broken? The only one I can find shows them as dark patches with no indication of which parts were missing and what the relative 'danger' might have been of both methods of getting the door open. cheers Glenn
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 08:19 am
G'day All, Simon: Read Inspector Abberlines inquest statement again, the whole sentence: "BARNETT INFORMS ME that it (the key), has been missing for some time, and SINCE IT HAS BEEN LOST they have put their hand....." I wonder too, why Barnett never offered this alternative method of opening the door. If we assume that he never turned up until after the door had been axed, how come he identified the body, by peering through the broken window? If he was so in love with her, wouldn't he want to view the body up close, hoping that it wasn't her? Instead he just said: "HAIR & EYES" or "EAR & EYES", but he was so sure that it was Kelly's body. Glenn: I saw a photo once, where the broken panes were clearly visible. (I'll have to dig it up again, tomorrow). The lower broken pane was small, and the higher one was larger than some photos reveal. We discussed the broken window once on Casebook, and after performing an experiement, someone concluded that the hand-thru-window method, would have been impossible for someone of Kelly's height! Leanne
Author: Glenn Baron Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 12:52 pm
Reaching in... Much will depend on which panes were broken, and where the missing parts are, so I'd love to see that photo! In the meantime, if you look at the photo of the back wall right here on Casebook, you'll see that the distance from back wall to doorway is exactly 2 brick-lengths, i.e. 18 inches. Also, the window is set slightly into the back wall so, assuming we're talking about a Yale lock whose catch is about 2" from the edge of the door, then the distance to be reached is itself about 18". My wife is about 5'7" and her reach is 24" from start of armpit to knuckles. If the broken panes were on the door side of the window and the holes of a reasonable size then it would appear perfectly easy to reach in to unlatch the door, but we need that photo. Get to it Leane :> If it wasn't possible, then we are left with two difficult facts to deal with : 1. Barnett lied, and .. 2. The police didn't have the brains to test his assertion and prove it was a lie. Cheers, Glenn
Author: alex chisholm Sunday, 16 April 2000 - 01:28 pm
It seems to me that the idea of anyone identifying Kelly by �peeping through the window,� first promulgated I believe by the Star, 10 Nov. is simply nonsensical. As I see it, given the time and location of this reported �interview� with Barnett together with evident contradictions and errors, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the content of this report, although it may be worth reproducing here for others to draw their own conclusions. �In a public-house close by Buller�s the reporter succeeded later on in finding Barnett, who is an Irishman by parentage and a Londoner by birth. He had lived with her for a year and a half, he said, and should not have left her except for her violent habits. She was a Limerick woman by birth, he says, but had lived in Dublin for some time. She went by the name of Mary Jane, but her real name was Marie Jeanette. He knew nothing about her proceedings since he left her, except that his brother met her on the Thursday evening and spoke to her. He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window. To our reporter Barnett said he and the deceased were very happy and comfortable together until another woman came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected. Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights he quarrelled with the woman whom he called his wife and left her. The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money. He called several other days and gave her money when he had it. On Thursday night he visited her between half-past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her. He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position of life as herself. Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her.� As for testing Barnett�s claim, the complete version of the Telegraph report of Abberline�s inquest testimony relating to opening the door from the window ran as follows: �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.� This seems to suggest Barnett�s claims were tested. Best Wishes alex
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 17 April 2000 - 12:09 am
G'day All, I think that photo was in the book, that Julian Rosenthal lent me and I gave it back to him on Saturday night! It was that phsychic one. Looking through Casebook, I found a post by Jim Dipalma on Tuesday July 27, 1999, in 'Archive through September 23 1999'. To view it, go to 'Specific Victims/Mary Jane Kelly/The Missing Key to Kelly's Room'. This photo shows the broken window panes as clear as that book did. Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 17 April 2000 - 12:27 am
G'day again, While you're there, that a look at 'Jon's post on 'Friday, July 16, 1999 - 11:07am. Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 17 April 2000 - 05:47 am
G'day, Also look at Jim DiPalma's post of Thursday July 15, 1999 - 8:19am. He made a very good comment, which no one bothered to try and debate: He said that if Barnett was there and told Abberline how easy it was to open the door, BEFORE it was axed down, there would have been no need to axe it down. If Barnett told Abberline how easy it was, AFTER the door had been axed, it would not have been possible for Barnett to demonstate this or Abberline to try it himself, on a destroyed door! Alex: This seems to suggest that Barnett's claims weren't tested! Leanne!
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 17 April 2000 - 06:41 am
G'day Leanne ! Barnett may well have been there , looked through the window , and gone WITHOUT telling Abberline about how he opened the door. He was probably in a state when he saw the body , no-one was going to ask him a question like that. And he wouldn't want to linger around the crime scene. Thus I'd say he told Abberline about how he opened the door when he was being interviewed , after the door had been broken. Its my opinion that Kelly didn't lock the door at all , she just left it open when she went in and out with the door ' on the latch '. Neither Mrs Cox nor Maurice Lewis describe Kelly as going around to the window or locking/unlocking the door with a key when she went in or out of the room. Thus it might have been Kelly was unable to use the broken pane to unlock the door , so she didn't bother locking it in the first place. It was probably pretty safe not to do so in those days. Looking at the windows , I think they probably did open and were sashes , however they were probably tough to open in any case. The complicated shape of the window suggests this on the photo. If the door had a bolt its possible the Ripper could have bolted the door , left via the window and locked the window behind him using the broken pane : he may not have known that the bolt could have been reached from the broken glass. This scenario suggests the victim let him in willingly or he entered while Kelly was out.
Author: alex chisholm Monday, 17 April 2000 - 05:04 pm
Hi Leanne As far as I�m aware, Jim agreed with the suggestive implication of Abberline�s comment before posing the questions you reiterate, and I believe at least Wolf and yourself �bothered� to respond. Wolf pointed out that the door was not �axed down,� and you proposed that Abberline was not confirming his own experience but merely relaying to the inquest that Barnett found the door opening easy. I fully concur with Wolf�s point, and believe I have previously addressed a proposition not dissimilar to your own but, as I can�t remember where, I�ll just repost the gist of it here. For me the reported wording of Abberline�s testimony is indicative. His relaying of Barnett�s information is reported as: �it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window.� By concluding with �It is quite easy,� rather than �it was quite easy,� or 'they found it quite easy,' I believe Abberline was no longer representing what Barnett had told him, as in previous sentences, but was confirming his own experience. After the police had concluded their business in Millers Court on Nov. 9 the door was reportedly padlocked, suggesting that it would have been possible for Abberline to test Barnett�s claim. It is for these reasons, together with my conviction that the police at the time were not complete incompetents, that I believe Abberline or his subordinates in all probability tested Barnett�s claim. Best Wishes alex
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 17 April 2000 - 07:49 pm
G'day Fellas, Simon: You say that Barnett may have 'gone WITHOUT telling Abberline how easy it was to open the door' and wouldn't have lingered there, but police took him straight to the station, where he was interviewed for four hours. They examined his clothes and heard his alibi and then "let me go free". I believe he could have been asked about the door/key then. Meanwhile back at Millers, at 1:30pm, the door was axed. (while Barnett was still at the station). You may be right in believing that Kelly may have left the door unbolted, as 'Jack' wasn't then known to enter his victims room. If Kelly's windows DID open, how easy would it have been to open them from the OUTSIDE, with two panes broken? If it was easy to just open the windows by reaching in through the holes, then climb in, why didn't they think of that on the morning they found her? If Jack let himself in, while Kelly was out, where did he hide? If he didn't hide, then Kelly's screams would have been heard by everyone. Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 17 April 2000 - 08:08 pm
G'day, About the 'man's clay pipe', that was found in the room. Barnett told Abberline that "he smoked it". Last time we debated this on Casebook, the "poor ol Barnett" people, assumed that it was obvious that he owned more than one pipe. I still can't be satisfied in believing that when a couple would have hocked anything for a little money to pay the rent, they would have overlooked such a luxury. Remember Joe was there earlier that night, then left to play games with his mates (without his pipe???) I reckon this is an indication that he returned to her room later that night. Check out the Telegraph inquest report, under: 'Inspector Frederick G. Abberline'. If he had planned to return there later and didn't want anyone to recognise him, he would have tried to disguize his appearance a bit. He could have tried to appear a little older, like a "foreigner" and curled up his moustache a bit! Leanne!
Author: Scott Nelson Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 01:42 am
I'm out of this debate folks; not enough data to quantify or qualify. Sorry Glen, Simon , Leanne, et al.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 05:42 am
I agree with alex that Abberline tested Barnett's way of opening the door ; if MJK was 5'7" in height she would probably have been able to reach the latch as well. For a reasonably tall person I think it would have been quite easy to reach the 18" or so to the door and doobry around to open it ,so I think we should leave it at that. As to clay pipes , they were pretty cheap and Joe could certainly have had another one. The point is though , could he have afforded the tobacco - perhaps not after he lost his job( I can go and look up the prices of these things if anyone wants me too). Tobacco might be one of the things an unemployed man would want to cut out. So if Joe had given up smoking there would have been no need to take his pipe with him when he left. If the killer had hid in Kelly's room , the most obvious place to hide would have been under the bed , then when Kelly had gone to sleep the killer slipped out. With the poor light in the room its possible that the victim might have missed him. There is evidence as well that the table was used to barricade the door ; take a look at the diagram of Miller's Court in Sugden p.312. The table by the door is in a different position to where it appears in the photo ( right next to Kelly's bed ). We know the door hit the table as it was opened , if the table was up against the door then it could have been pushed back as the door was pushed in. Given the two holes in the window glass I think it would have been possible to undo the window latch this way , but for Mary and Joe it would have been more convinient to undo the door latch and enter that way. Such rules need not have applied to the killer.
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 07:46 am
G'day Simon, There wasn't enough space under Kelly's bed for anyone to hide, SO I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE IT AT THAT! Lizzie Albrook said that Kelly: "wished she had money enough to go back to Ireland" and "if she had not been obliged to do so, (go out on the streets), to keep herself from starvation". So not only was she "fond of" another, but she was planning to move back to Ireland. If the table was up against the door (with body parts ontop of the table), and that heavy weight was pushed towards the bed, (when they entered the room on the 9th), then this indicated that the table and it's contents was placed where it was, to block the view of the latch from outside the window. Only two people knew that Kelly installed a latch, (three if you include the bloke who installed it)! Yes please Simon, check out the cost of owning more than one pipe in those days, for an unemployed man who didn't give up drinking for the woman he loved. Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 07:40 pm
G'day, Be careful before assuming that Barnetts claims of how easy it was to open the door were tested! Remember that the door had probably already been axed by then, so Police wouldn't have been interested in knowing how else they could have done it. If Barnett was let off the hook, because he didn't have any blood stains on his clothes and in their opinion an unshakable alibi, they might have thought it a waist of time to check it out. They wouldn't have been interested in proving how she opened and locked the door, before her murder. Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 19 April 2000 - 05:17 am
G'day, About the pipe: How could he have owned more than one pipe, if they couldn't afford to have another key cut? Leanne!