The missing key to Kelly's room.

** 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 **

The missing key to Kelly's room.

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The missing key to Kelly's room.

SUBTOPIC	MSGS	Last Updated
Archive through December 30, 2000	40	12/30/2000 01:17pm
Archive through January 01, 2001	40	01/01/2001 03:46pm
Archive through January 07, 2001	40	01/07/2001 08:04am
Archive through July 1, 1999	20	07/01/1999 06:42pm
Archive through July 13, 1999	20	07/14/1999 03:49am
Archive through July 16, 1999	20	07/16/1999 04:07pm
Archive through July 8, 1999	20	07/08/1999 12:48pm
Archive through June 14, 1999	20	06/15/1999 03:48am
Archive through 26 February 2002	40	03/01/2002 03:02am
Archive through November 10, 1999	20	11/10/1999 03:59am
Archive through November 12, 1999	20	11/12/1999 03:59am
Archive through November 14, 1999	20	11/14/1999 12:28pm
Archive through November 18, 1999	20	11/18/1999 06:53am
Archive through November 6, 1999	20	11/06/1999 04:05am
Archive through September 23, 1999	20	09/23/1999 04:47am
Elizabeth Stride	157

Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 05:48 am
Hi Leanne, The key did go missing, didn't it? All I asked was does anyone think the key went missing because Jack stole it? Simple question really. Nothing to do with the timing of the broken window or how MJK came and went. Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 07:11 am
G'day Caz, Yes Caz, I think Jack stole the key....on the same night that the window was broken. LEANNE
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 09:54 am
Anyone else? Apart from those who think Barnett was Jack? Love, Caz
Author: cue Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 05:53 pm
Hi I don't think the key would be any use to Jack.He wouldn't use it to enter her room,not knowing if any one else could be in there.He just happened to pick up a girl with her own place.She was dead room or not!! cue
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 08:39 pm
G'day Cue, The press at the time thought that her killer had locked that door before he fled. Mary's door was locked on the morning that her body was found. Her landlord had to use an axe to open it and get to her. Mary and her boyfriend, Joseph Barnett, reached through the smashed window pane nearest the door to open and lock it while she was alive. That window had two panes smashed 10 days before her death, during an argument between the pair. I can't work out: if the key was lost before that fight, and Mary's door was self-locking (as most people argue), how did she unlock it when she wanted to get in? Can you help me out?.....anyone? LEANNE
Author: cue Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 09:26 pm
maybe she told Joseph the key was lost when it wasn't. That could have led to the fight later! I was under the impression the window was broken at the same time as the key was lost! That was lucky,lose the key and then the window gets broken that allows them to open the door??????!!! cue
Author: brad mcginnis Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 10:54 pm
Did you ever consider that the window was broken on purpose because the key was lost. Maybe one or the other had the key and claimed it was lost. The only way the keyless one could get in was to break the window. Just a thought....Brad
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 01 March 2002 - 03:02 am
G'day, Inspector Abberline said: "Barnett informs me that the key has been missing for some time and SINCE IT HAS BEEN LOST they have put their hands through the broken window and moved back the catch" After Kelly's death Barnett gave the press his version of the cause of their quarrel on the 30th October: "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." LEANNE
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 01 March 2002 - 04:33 am
G'day, I'll be away for the next two weeks so if you don't hear from me for a while, don't think I've lost interest in this. I'll read all your comments when I return!!!!!! LEANNE!
Author: Monty Friday, 01 March 2002 - 07:14 am
Hi all, Could the key be taken as a pointer like the apron that was placed in Goulston St ? Perhaps he placed it somewhere and no-one attached any significance to it. Just an idea Monty
Author: Peter Wood Friday, 01 March 2002 - 12:51 pm
Monty I said I'd find you! Who's hunting who? Grailfinder Great joke! Leanne, Caz et al: For my part I think the ripper took the key with him (Caz, not just because my beloved diary says he does) - I would hazard a guess that he took it so no one else could open the door to Kelly's room. Who knows? Maybe he thought it would buy him more time in his escape. Maybe he hadn't counted on people just looking through the window. The evidence that the ripper must have taken the key away with him? The door had to have been locked with a key, otherwise when Barnett was called to the scene he would have shown Abberline etc how to lift the catch through the broken window. And if McCarthy had had a spare key he would have used it. Therefore the door was locked with a key. Someone took it away. I believe that someone was the person who murdered MJK. I don't think he took it as a memento, I think he took it to stop people gaining access to the room. Regards etc Peter
Author: Monty Monday, 04 March 2002 - 07:47 am
Peter, Stop stalking me and return my Y-fronts. Re:- The Key This is indeed a momentous day. For I totally and utterly agree with you. Shocked and confused Monty
Author: Peter Wood Monday, 04 March 2002 - 05:53 pm
Monty You are no more shocked and confused than I am. Someone actually agreed with me on the Casebook! It wasn't y fronts, it was silk knickers, the ones with 'Spice Girls' on the front. Regards Peter.
Author: Bob Hinton Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 08:31 am
Dear Peter, But wasn't Barnett called to the scene after McCarthy had forced the door? Bob Hinton
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 01:42 pm
No Bob He was already there. Regards Peter
Author: david rhea Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 02:09 pm
How do you stop people from having access to a room that has a broken window close to the door and a way to view the murdered MK.After the police had waited for hours to go in they could have called a locksmith to open it.I suspect that the police were so chagrined after the bloodhound fiasco they just machoed it down.How strong could that door have been that a good shoulder or foot could not move it.Perhaps the killer just locked the door from the window.Surely it could be done or MK would have had to keep her door unlocked all the time.The key was gone-it had been gone for awhile and landlord McCarthy was to cheap to have an extra.It was really no problem for any concerned.
Author: Peter Wood Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 05:30 pm
Dave Believe it or not, doors and locks were probably more robust in those days than they are now. These days we mass produce everything, whereas back then craftmanship was still the word. You couldn't just pop down to your local walmart and pick up a five lever mortice lock for under ten quid. Therefore I think it wouldn't have been easy to have kicked in a solid wood door with a robust lock on it. No David, the fact is clear. Barnett was present with the police, before the door was forced. Clearly he would have pointed out to them that it was possible to open the door through the window, if that had been possible. There can only be one conclusion. The door was locked with a key. The person who locked it was the person who killed MJK. JTR? But I agree with you to an extent. Jack's attempts to keep people at bay really were very poor. Regards Peter.
Author: david rhea Friday, 08 March 2002 - 03:30 pm
No matter what Barnett did or didn,t say. If you could open it from the window it seems to me you could lock it from the window unless the door was only locked the night of the murder.Barnett did say the key was missing, and he had undoubtedly gone in and out through reaching through the window. Anyway if the window could be used, why did't the police go in the window.In the pictures it looks large enough.Barnett must have not said anything to the police about the key at that time, and neither did McCarthy.The police were chagrined in having to wait for blood hounds that weren't coming.I don't imagine at that time they paid mucattention to either Barnett or McCarthy.I imagine they waited to see the lay of the land before they said much of anything.
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 06:54 am
G'day, A lengthy newspaper report that is included with the official Home Office files on the Kelly murder which are held at the New Scotland Yard, contains the following: '...John [sic] Barnett, 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....' This proves that the key went missing at this time, because the latch method of opening the door would have only been possible if the window had a hole in it. Mary Jane Kelly, (who owed several weeks rent money), had only 10 days to ask for and get another key cut and paid for by McCarthy. LEANNE!
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 07:41 am
I dare say if they could get his first name wrong, they could get other salient details wrong. Also, although the newspaper report states that they "cohabited until a week ago" and that they 'seperated in consequence of a quarrel in the course of which the window was broken', it does not say that the two incidents happened at exactly the same time. The window could have been broken weeks, if not months, earlier and the row between them could have been simmering until Barnett decided he could take no more. It's rather like ... your husband smashes up your favourite C.D., you stay with him for a few weeks but, deciding that you can't forgive him, you leave him citing as your reason "you broke my Huey Lewis and the News C.D.". Do you see? Peter.
Author: Jon Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 10:00 am
If I recall correctly there were two broken panes in the smaller window. Upper right and lower left (of a 4 pane window), which one was broken as a consequence of this quarrel?. If the upper right pane was broken to enable access to the door latch then possibly the lower left pane may have been broken due to the quarrel. Therefore Leanne, unless we know which pane was broken in the quarrel, the broken pane is no help in determining when the key went missing. Regards, Jon
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 05 May 2002 - 06:40 pm
G'day, I just read in the book titled 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion' the full inquest testimony of Kelly's friend, Julia Venturney. This includes: "she broke the window a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk." Kelly took Julia in to stay with her and Joe on or around the 27th of October. No sooner did Julia leave than Kelly took in a second friend Maria Harvey, on October 30th. This was the night that she and Barnett had that row in which he left. OK, if the window was broken on or around the 27th of October when Julia moved in, that was "a few weeks ago" and could have been the start of a fight. This fight was over Kelly's friends staying, not over a previously lost key! LEANNE
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 06 May 2002 - 06:42 am
G'day, Reading over early posts to this board, I can see that alot of posters think it's obvious that Kelly found the key sometime in the ten days between Barnetts departure and her death. If this is so, then why on earth would she keep this a secret from Barnett? Would not she have welcomed his frequent visits bringing gifts and money? The pair were on friendly terms, and if there was just the one key to her room, he couldn't have moved his stuff back behind her back! LEANNE!
Author: Jeff Hamm Monday, 06 May 2002 - 05:26 pm
Peter, Let's assume Barnette was there at the time the door was forced (I'm not saying he was, just I'll accept your assumption). Let's assume that one could not reach through the window and unlock the door (again, I'm not saying this is the case, but again I'll accept your assumption). Accepting both of these, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the door was LOCKED with a key, only that a key was required to UNLOCK it. The lock could have been left "inoperative", meaning you could shut the door without it locking. So, even without a key (or a broken window that one could reach through), one could still come and go as they pleased by leaving the door unlocked. If Kelly had no key and couldn't reach through the window (assumption 2), she had little choice but to leave the door unlocked. To lock the door, just activate the lock, and close the door, which she might do when she went to sleep or had a client, etc. But then, she would be inside, could unlock the door, etc. Meaning, you can't draw the conclusion that just because a key might have been required to unlock the door that it must require a key lock it. Leanne, I think you're right in trying to determine, if it's possible, when the key went missing relative to when the window got broken. Unfortunately, all we have is the statement that the key was missing "for some time", which isn't very helpful or specific. However, it's possible that the key was lost before the window was broken. It could have been lost while one of them (Joe or Mary) was at home and the one that was out lost it. Until it got broken, they had no choice but to leave the door unlocked. Or, they actually broke one of the window's to get in (as suggested by Brad above), and the 2nd was broken during the row. They don't tell McCarthy about this because they don't want to have to pay for the window. Or, third, they were lucky and had left the door unlocked when they both went out and lost the key. Again, having to leave it unlocked until the time when the window gets broken. Of course, there's no evidence for any of these. But then, there's no evidence that Joe stole the key on the night the window got broken either. All I'm suggesting is there are reasonable scenarios that account for how they managed to get in and out of the room without a key or a broken window (ok, techniquely #2 requires the broken window). - Jeff
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 06 May 2002 - 07:19 pm
G'day Jeff, "for some time" is not the only statement we have. We also have Julias statement: "She broke the window a few weeks ago..." This puts the time that the window was broken to the time when Julia first moved in. If Barnett was there or not, reaching through the window to undo a latch should have been obvious to those looking in. Especially McCarthy who would have wanted to save his door. Therefore her door must have been locked with a key, rendering the latch-method useless! Someone had the key and used it!...FULL STOP!!!!
Author: Jeff Hamm Monday, 06 May 2002 - 08:56 pm
Leanne, Ok, so we might be able to pin down the time of the window, but I was talking about when the key was lost, and not when the window was broken. As I mentioned, there is no need to assume that the key HAD to be lost after the window, but it would be nice to know the temporal order. Unfortunately, there is nothing in any of the statements that really seems to indicate which came first. (Ooops: there just might be! See my next post - Jeff's editing) Also, whether or not reaching through the window to UNLOCK the door was possible, how does that in any way mean that you needed a key to LOCK the door? The conclusion just does not follow. The only thing that follows from the assumption that reaching through the window was not possible is that to UNLOCK the door, you needed a key. Since you argue that Barnett stole the key, then you must believe that Kelly could leave her door UNLOCKED, otherwise how did she get in without it? She was seen to enter with customers without Barnett there to let her in after all. And, if she could keep the door UNLOCKED, then the killer could have LOCKED it without a key from the inside when he left. - Jeff
Author: Jeff Hamm Monday, 06 May 2002 - 10:47 pm
Actually, I'm about to correct myself here concerning my claim that there is nothing in the statements that suggest a temporal order between the losing of the key and the breaking of the window. If memory serves me correct, which it often fails to do, I believe that Abblerline's inquest statement pertaining to the key does suggest a temporal order, although I'm not 100% definate that this is what he said. But I think his statement reads something like ... the key has been lost for some time. Since then they've unlocked the door by reaching through the broken window... This is not a direct quote as I don't have my books in front of me at the moment, but I seem to recall something like the "since then" part, which would imply that the key was lost after the window was broken. Of course, it also implies that Joe continued to live with Kelly after the fight where the window got broken, and after the key got lost. It also would mean that there wasn't a time when the key got lost that the window wasn't broken. However, if I've misremembered the quote, and there is nothing like the "since then" part to suggest the temporal order of window-key, then I would have to retract this correction. - Jeff
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 04:13 am
G'day Jeff, Abberline said: "I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & that they opened the door by reaching through the window, a pipe was there and used by him." Nothing was said about "since then" or how easy this was. (I take this information from the book: 'The Ultimate JtR companion.) and it is from: 'The Inquest papers taken on the day of the hearing'. After he moved out, Barnett would regularly visit Mary with gifts. If Mary was in the habbit of leaving the door unbolted, I'm sure an innocent Barnett would have informed the police of this possible means of entry for her killer. Once the window was broken, Joe and Mary reached through to UNLOCK the door. At this stage the door wasn't being LOCKED with a key, maybe just a latch, because the key was gone! No one however, could figure out a way of opening the door on the morning her body was found. Maybe they tried, but it was locked with the disappearing key and was impossible! LEANNE.
Author: Jeff Hamm Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 05:01 am
Well, this should come as no surprise, I have mis-remembered the quote. Abberline's testamony reads (in Evans & Skinner's "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" pg. 376) " ... - I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & that they opened the door by reaching through the window, ...". One could reasonably infer that the window was broken first, but he doesn't say "since then", which definately would put a temporal order on these events. However, I would suggest that if this detail (missing key and window reaching) was worth mentioning, as Abberline felt it was, then if the order was "the other way round", he would have have included that detail as well. Meaning, we would expect to see "that they left the door unlocked, but once the window was broken, they resorted to reaching through the window ..." or something like that. No, I can't point to anything that says something like this, obviously, but then I can't point to something that definately includes a direct statement of temporal order either. Unless maybe the newspapers contain something, but then we're left discussing the validity of newspaper reports. However, my point has been that regardless of the order of the events, there are easy and simple explanations that do not require unsubstantiated claims about Barnett stealing a key. Unless, of course, there's a report out there that directly states he did steal it. The explanations I give are, of course, also speculations. But, given two speculative explanations that can equally explain the data, the only way to weigh them is on how likely are they. And we do this by trying to see where the explanations lead if we follow the implications of them. Since it's obvious that if the key is lost, the window can be reached through to unlock the door, and the door can be left unlocked, and that it self locks on closing if you set it to do that, no problems exist in terms of how the Ripper could locks the door when he leaves. Also, no paradoxes or complications arise from these assumptions (I've posted earlier on problems that would occur if these things were not true so I won't repeat them all here). The Barnett "stole" the key prior to moving out is unlikely if he's not the Ripper. And if he was the Ripper, why not just say "the key was lost and we left the door unlocked?" Is this obvious explanation going to be missed by someone who had the forthought to hide away a key while still living with someone? Abberline's statement does imply they continued to live together after the key was missing, so if he stole it on the night the window was broken then my above statement is only comming from the implications of the situation described. And if Barnett did this, then the only reason would be because he knew he was moving out in the future and he wanted the key to get back in! But since he can't use the key while Kelly's around, we are only left with the door being left unlocked when they both go out because it is being argued that the window reaching can't be done (see Leanne's post above). So, even this explanation requires a door that can be left unlocked. Now even if he moves out that same day and takes the key, which doesn't follow from Abberlines testamony or anyone else's as I recall, Kelly can still get in and out. Again, unlocked door because in this whole situation Barnett has the only key. And the thing is, even if Barnett stole the key, which is not supported by any documentation what so ever but is a speculation made only because it casts him in a "dark shadow of suspicion" (this is an example of an add on), it still doesn't mean he's the Ripper because the door could be left unlocked. Kelly could have left it unlocked on the night she's killed, and anyone could have entered, killed her, locked the door without a key and left, or more likely, been brought to the room with her. Killed her. Locked the door and left. Not taking the key that wasn't there because it was lost and/or Barnett had it. And, if one wants to argue that the door cannot be locked without the key and that the window reaching is not possible, then why wasn't Barnett arrested as soon as he claimed the key was missing "for some time" when clearly the door was locked but it couldn't be unless you had a key!. So now this explanation leads us to the same conclusion that the door must be self-locking if set that way. The "Barnett stole the key" explanation is leading us to require the same conclusions as the simpler explanation. Every statement has an implication. Incorrect statements lead to either very complicated and unnecessary explanations, or to complete paradoxes that demonstrate the explanation to be false - and we are certainly at the former with explanations other than the key was well and truely lost, reaching through the window was well and truely possible, and the door could be left well and truely unlocked. With these things, we do not need to include Barnett's involvement in "theft of key". And without some evidence that can't be explained without the added "Barnett parts", then those parts are unnecessary add ons that have no support but do lead to consequences where we would expect evidence that does not exist (i.e., if you can't reach through the window, why wasn't he arrested on suspicion when he clearly said it was possible?) - Jeff
Author: Jeff Hamm Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 05:09 am
Leanne, Are you claiming there were two locks on Kelly's door? One that requires a key to both lock and unlock it, and some other lock that could be reached through the window? Can you provide a source for such a claim? The only description of the door and locks I find indicates a single spring lock (Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov, 1888; Evans & Skinner pg 336). Of course this same news report also states she had the key (pg. 339)! But, even if we ignor this report all together, why should we assume there were two locks? And if there were two such locks, can you explain why they didn't arrest Barnett immediately when he claimed the key was missing when it was necessary to lock the door as it was found? Sorry, but without some evidence of this second lock this is just adding more things without support for them. Sure, it isn't impossible that there were two locks, there could even have been ten, but there's nothing that even suggests there was more than one. As for why they didn't figure out you could unlock the door through the window? They don't appear to have looked for a way of opening the door. Any discription people have given about "looking in" describe brief looks and seeing the body, and that's it. The only one with any vested interest in protecting the door is McCarthy, and he had already glanced in the window and his statements don't suggest he was keen to look again. So, if he didn't already know it was possible, how could he suggest it? The doctor just looked in to ensure she didn't need his immediate medical attention. The police didn't look for another way in because they didn't need to - they could force it open with no bother to them. They were waiting for the dogs and when it turned out they weren't comming, they forced the door. And this wouldn't necessarily have caused a lot of damage. - Jeff PS. In your post above, you tell me that Abberline doesn't say "since then", but in your post of Friday, 01 March 2002, you put in big bold letters "SINCE THEN"? I'm confused? Which is it? I realise the March 1st post is not the inquest statement in Evans & Skinner that I'm citing. Isn't it a news paper quote covering the inquest though? Interestingly, I beleive that's also the one that includes the "it's quite easy" statement (which I've not mentioned recently, so I'm not sure why you tell me he didn't say this). Anyway, could you tell me where that news report is found (i.e., what book and page/chapter if you have that info easily at hand) so I can check it out??
Author: Jeff Hamm Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 06:50 am
I've found the newpaper coverage of the inquest coverage here on Casebook, Nov 13, 1888, Daily Telegraph (page 6 I think). The relevant quote here is: "An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. 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. There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it." What I find strange is that the Daily Telegraph includes the questions, while the official inquest documents don't? Who was responsible for recording the "official" documents. In general, the whole of both reports are very similar, with only minor differences: such as the "since then" and the "It is quite easy" as examples. There are others differences of a similar nature as well, but I didn't notice any outright contridictions (in Abberline's full statement), only additional bits. The information even is presented in the same order. Unfortunately we're currently focusing on some of these very details, and so they aren't minor to us. I'm just curious as to why the official documents don't have the questions from the coroner and/or jury recorded? They read odd without them. - Jeff
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 08:15 am
G'day Jeff, There has been alot of talk over the years here about the type of lock that was installed on Kelly's door. It has been described as: "a cheap flimsy rim-lock." "a Yale-type lock, but not necessarily a Yale one." "a spring lock." and " she obviously installed a latch/catch behind the door when her lock was useless." Various newspapers covered Kelly's inquest and all wanted their reports out first, so all had minor differences in statements that change alot for us examining the case today. The 'Daily Telegraph' reported that Inspector Abberline said: "It is quite simple", so alot of posters believe that he obviously tested the method. Others believe he was merely quoting what Barnett said. "Since it has been lost" was reported in the 'Telegraph', as you have pointed out, but it is not in this early press report that was included with the Official files at Scotland Yard. This early press report can be found in: 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion', which includes the stuff that was anonymously returned to Scotland Yard. LEANNE!
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 08:53 am
G'day Jeff, What's this about Barnett steeling Mary's key? Barnett once lived there too! The room was in Mary's name, yes, but he would have paid the rent! He could have just retained possession of the key, thinking this was his way of 'contolling' the situation. They didn't continue living together after the fight peaked. Barnett visited Kelly as soon as the following day. If the police were so perfect back then, why was the Whitechapel Murderer never brought to justice? You're not the first person to ask me why wasn't Barnett arrested, and I don't understand why that proves he must have been innocent! He never said: "I kept the key as my security, therefore I MUST have killed her. Go ahead, arrest me!" LEANNE
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 11:18 am
Leanne, Jeff, in 1888, and today occasionally, a common and cheap way of holding a door closed was to cut a small piece of wood, say one inch by two inches, and four inches long, put a nail or a good hefty screw through the middle, and screw it, or knock the nail into the door frame. Turn the wood horizontaly across the opening edge of the door,-- the door is locked,--to those outside,--- and comfortably so for those inside. Hang a coat or some such on the back of the door covering the homemade fastener,-- and no one looking through the window is any the wiser than that the door is properly locked. If the key was lost, I'm damn sure McCarthy wouldn't have bought another lock, that wasn't the way landlords were in those days I'm sure. Kelly nor Barnett were in no position to "buy a lock, nor pay to get it FITTED". What was so special about 13 Miller's Court to warrant two locks on the door?. I would think a mortice lock would have been the most common lock to be fitted, and a door locked with a mortice lock is impossible to open without damaging the door or frame, --that is unless the lock can be picked. Rick
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 01:49 pm
Hi All, I see the Lock Debate begins again. The only places I have EVER seen as what type of lock it was(at least during contemporary times) was in the newspapers of 1888.(Sorry I don't have my paperwork in front of me to tell you exactly which one. Later I'll check. I know it's in 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook', just in case you can't wait.) And the consensus was that the lock was a 'SPRING LOCK'. So we can say any other type of lock we want to today.(How's about a Combination Lock?) But the evidence is there for us already, so we don't have to guess. Sincerely, Chris H.
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 03:30 pm
Extract from "Jack The Ripper: The Simple Truth. The fact that Barnett viewed the body by looking through the window means that he arrived on the scene before the door was broken open , in which case he could have shown the police his alternative means of entry-- assuming that he was aware of the situation. Even so, McCarthy would undoubtedly have known that such a means of entry was possible, and he certainly would have preferred to save himself the trouble and expense of smashing down the door to one of his own properties--unless the door had indeed been locked with a key, in which case Barnett's method of entry wouldn't have been possible, leaving the police no other choice but to order McCarthy to break down the door. As Donald Rumbelow concluded, " SOMEONE HAD A KEY AND USED IT, which is why the door HAD TO BE FORCED. Perhaps we should question the authors and ask them to prove all their words, after all, we can only parrot their words or use our own guesswork
Author: Jeff Hamm Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 06:14 pm
Warwick, A piece of wood turned horizontally only works if you put the wood on the side of the door away from which it swings. So, if it swings into the room, it would have to be on the outside. Mary's door swung into the room (it bumps the table by the bed when the forced the door). So, I don't think that could be it. As for Barnett looking through the window to identify the body, that could have been done after the door was opened and they didn't want him inside. I don't think there's a time mentioned when he did this. Also, I recall in earlier discussions of this topic that this report is considered questionable: it contradicts other reports so we can't be sure of which report is "true". But even if true, if Barnett's NOT the Ripper, then it's very probable he wouldn't have the presence of mind to think about how to unlock the door. The discription of how he interacts with Mary suggests he was very fond of her, and if he's not the Ripper, then he would be very upset and the last thing in the world he is going to be concerned about is McCarthy's door. In many ways, if he was there and did mention it after viewing her, that would be suspicious. I'm not at all saying he was there, as I will have to do a bit of reading/research and compare a few sources that might tell us when/where Barnett viewed the body. And there's no reason why McCarthy would undoubtably have known about the method of entry. By forcing the door, the only damage would have been at the door frame and where the lock inserts into it. This can be repaired but cutting out a section and inserting a new piece. I mean, they didn't smash through the door by cutting it asunder with an axe, they used a pick axe. This would mean they leavered it open near the lock. The fact McCarthy did it himself means he would have done it carefully for the very reasons you've mentioned. Chris, The spring lock is the only reference I've seen as well (Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov, 1888; Evans & Skinner pg 336). And a spring lock can be left unlocked, can be locked without a key, can be opened from the inside without a key, but requires a key from the outside. This is why I don't understand why it is insisted that a key was needed to lock the door. Since the police believed Barnett's statement that you could reach through the window to unlock it, and we have nothing to suggest otherwise, I just don't see why anything more elaborate is needed. Especially when the more elaborate explanations start spiralling in complexity in order to maintain themselves. It is exactly this sort of thing that happens when the explanation is wrong. Leanne, The "stealing" of the key are your words from Feb. 26, 2002 post above: "Yes Caz, I think Jack stole the key....on the same night that the window was broken." And you're right, he never said "I kept the key...", so why do you insist he did? Especially when he did say "It was lost" coupled with Abberline's obvious belief in this? Remember, Abberline was investigating the case at the time. And the only description of the lock we have fits with his explanation. No, the police weren't perfect, and I'm not saying they were, but they weren't the historic role model for Inspector Kluso (sp?) either. If Barnett had said there was no key in reference to a lock that required a key to lock it (see your post May 6th "Therefore her door must have been locked with a key,...") they would have realised he was lieing immediately. This is not a leap of faith and it doesn't mean I think the police were perfect at all, I just don't think that they had jelly for brains. Although they were arresting people on the street for much less suspicious reasons than being a recent ex-boyfriend who just lied about a key that the killer must have used to lock the crimescene, in this case they let him go. And that is the situation you're requiring us to accept. The reason, I think, they didn't catch the Ripper are the same reasons why modern serial killers are so hard to catch: there is nothing obvious to connect killer with victim - it's murder by stranger. The police at the time would have had an ever harder time than today because the modern police have so much more information on these kind of crimes and many more ways of putting someone at the scene (DNA, finger prints, etc) and yet still these are amongst the hardest crimes to solve. - Jeff
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 07 May 2002 - 06:26 pm
G'day Chris, 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Source Book' is the US version of 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion' I believe. In my copy the only reference to the type of lock/key on a door used by Mary Kellys is: 'The street-door was closed, but the woman had a latchkey.' This refers to the 'street-door' to Millers Court, not the door to her room. Is there another reference to her door/lock? I will be away tonight, but I'll check developments in this discussion as soon as I get home! Bye! LEANNE!

Add a Message