Archive through November 12, 1999

** 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 November 12, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The missing key to Kelly's room.: Archive through November 12, 1999

Author: Bob_C Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 04:18 am
Hi Leanne, Nowhere have I heard or read that Kelly broke the window during a row with Barnett. It was onlytestified that 'she broke it some time ago when she was drunk.' Why would she have to rely on Barnett to open the door? Why couldn't she do it herself? And why should she bother to block the door with a table, when the door was latched by the spring lock? It may well be that Kelly was awake, or woken, by the attack. The cry reported by at least two witnesses may have been hers. If she cried out, then before her throat was cut. This indicates a slightly different MO from Jack, as no-one else ever heard a noise from any of the other killings. It may be that Jack had to change it, because he had to attack from the right side, instead of the usual left, of his victim because of the wall against the bed. The wounds described may well have been defence wounds, which would then indicate that she at least became some knowledge that she was being attacked. If awake the whole time, or woken by the attack, well, your guess is as good as mine. Regards, Bob
Author: Leanne Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 04:26 am
G'day Bob, It's got me 'beat' too, why MacCarthy didn't know how to get in, without demolishing his door, after he found out about the broken window.... Something for us to think about!!!!!! Maybe it wasn't the original lock-type that was installed when he partitioned the room? What do you think? LEANNE SCAREY!!!
Author: RLeen Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 04:40 am
Hello Everybody, Lots of interesting thoughts on this subject, and here's another few to further muddy the waters. Mary Ann Cox, a credible witness of events in the night in question, made no mention of MJK and "carrot chops" having difficulty in entering the house. That is, in the scenario where Mary is virtually housebound because her reach is not sufficient to unlock the barrier, she would have had to ask her jolly client to put down the booze and open the door. Therefore, if it was a latch it could in some way be left open to progress through through the doorway. But was it a latch? I still have difficulty with accepting this. Now reports differ, but did the police break the door down with a pick, an axe, or a pick axe handle. The difference is quite important because a dead lock would not yield. Therefore the latch would allow some lateral movement of the door which even a Lestrade could discern as a latch. Would the police then break the door down knowing that the only barrier was a latch which could be levered....by a pick-axe perhaps. Can anyone confirm the mode of entry for me? Finally, there is no mystery to MJK taking clients home. It is probable that Ms Cox did likewise. I reckon, from her testimony, that she had at least two clients home with her on the night in question. So what does this prove? Absolutely sod all of course, but if someone can answer my questions the whole enigma might be closer to a solution in my mind. Selfish person that I am. Caz, I saw the programme that you mentioned and fairly gruesome it was to. Did you notice any parallels between the monstrous Bundy and JTR? The way that he had to seek out another victim after his initial target, perhaps? Your thoughts would be, as ever, most welcome. Thanking you for your consideration and trusting that I haven't bored you rigid. Rabbi Leen
Author: Leanne Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 05:08 am
G'day Bob, Caz and Rabbi, As it is 1am here, and I've had a busy day, I'll have to go to bed now! But carry on and I'll check your comments first thing in the morning. This is interesting. Bob, I remember reading somewhere that the window was smashed on the night of the violent row, (during which items where thrown), but I can't find it right now. I also read in a post here once, that someone performed an experiment recently, with broken windows, and concluded that it was impossible to reach a catch, for someone of Mary's height. I'll print out these last few posts here, and read any others, in the morning! Good night all, LEANNE EYE-STRAIN KELLY!
Author: Edana Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 05:26 am
Hi all! I remember reading that it was a violent quarrel that was the cause of the window being broken..but what if the window was broken because Mary had lost her key and the door was locked and the only way to open it was to smash the window and reach in? I could see her hanging on some guys arm all drunk and silly while he smashes the window for her and reaches in. I know Mary must have been more cautious than normal because of the murders, but she wouldn't turn away somebody who seemed to her 'ok'. She needed the money. Edana
Author: Bob_C Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 08:09 am
Hi all, it has been written, I believe, by a number of scribes, that it was a violent quarrel that caused the window to get broken, but nowhere is it recorded in any contemporary document or testimony, as far as I know. (We ignore any contemporary newspaper reports, which were often pure fabrication.) Ergo, someone has assumed it was the quarrel and written it down. The next reads it, assumes it to be true, writes it down and so on. This is unfortunantly the source of much disinfomation, like black bags and farthings, even though the persons may well not have intended it. Kelly was said to have been 5 feet 7 tall, which was an average height for a man those days and over average for a woman. Kelly would not have had any problem, I submit, to getting her door open through the window by reaching in. The door catch being on the side nearest the window, it would be, as reported by Abberline, easy to reach. I have suspected that they could have first opened the sash window to get better access, but from my experiences in London with this type, the damn things were usually either jammed, glued immovably by paint, weight cords broken, wood rotted or any combination. Best regards, Bob
Author: Kellys Window Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 08:42 am

Author: Jeff Hamm Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 11:21 am
Leanne, Thanks for the info from the reports. I don't have my source books and was relying on memory (bad idea). Guess my recollection about eye adjustment was false. However, from Barnett's statements about reaching through the window to unlock the door, and Abberline's quote of saying "It is quite easy", tells us just that. It was possible. Why the police didn't notice? Since from the above statements we know it was possible and not difficult, so we can only speculate. Bob's suggested the police weren't thinking. And, they were in a fair amount of confusion. They waited for quite some time expecting the bloodhounds, questioning people of Miller's Court. The police did some rather strange things at the time (like erasing the G.Street message) which don't make sense to us now. So, it seems likely that when anyone looked in through the curtains, their attention was immediately drawn to the scene on the bed and they didn't look around the room. The police were confused as to what they were to do, enter or wait for the dogs. Why did they finally decide to enter anyway? Did someone higher up arrive? If someone arrived on the scene and "took charge", then they may have just ordered the door broken open and didn't listen to anyone going on about window's and latches. - Jeff
Author: JackisBack Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 03:54 pm
I can't find, for the moment, the exact reference to an extra key being found in MJK's room. I may have read this in one of the posting which is a good example of error begetting error. If I find the reference again, I will post it, until then, I may have been mistaken but anyone who can verify any info concerning this second key, please feel free to post it. JiB
Author: Leanne Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 04:05 pm
Good Morning Bob, Jeff, Caz, Edana and anyone else that wants to read, In the book 'A Treasury of Victorian Murder', comic artist Rick Geary, compiled his work using 'the journals of an unknown British gentleman, who lived in London during 1888.' On page 56, his captions say: 'Joe Barnett moved out on 30 October, after a violent quarrel, during which a pane of glass was shattered....Apparently the rooms latch key had been missing for several weeks, forcing the occupants to shoot the bolt by reaching through the broken window....yet the door was left securely locked by the murderer!' Joe could have been standing near the door, with Kelly on the bed, during the row. Mary may have thrown something at him, he ducked, so the object went flying through the window! J.B. could have taken the key as security, when when he moved out, because so long as the key was missing, Kelly would have to rely upon his regular visits and their alternative mode of entry. The 'Diary' says: 'With the key, I did flee I had the key The clothes I burnt' Shirley Harrison writes: 'But Joe Barnett stated that it was then found'. Where she obtained this information, she fails to say. But as it's a point against the 'Diaries' authenticity, I doubt that she made it up. LEANNE VERRY!
Author: Boris Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 08:55 pm
And the muck goes on and on and on.... Leanne, Leanne quite contrary, how does your garden grow? Excuse me please, I'm an Aussie see... how my mind drifts to and fro...
Author: anon Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 09:00 pm
You know Boris, I think you talk a lotta sense
Author: Wolf Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 10:36 pm
I went through the key debate with Leanne some months ago and had exhausted the topic, I thought. I'm not going to cover old ground again but thought I'd chip in some information. "Deceased has lived in the room with Joe for ten months both together - they lived comfortably together, once broke the two windows..." Inquest testimony of John McCarthy. "She used to get tipsy occasionally. She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk..." Written police report of Julia Venturney taken by Inspector Abberline. But was it a drunken fight? "Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time (11:15), I remained until about 1:30 when the door was broken open, I think by Mr. McCarthy, I think by direction of Superintendent Arnold who had arrived." Inquest testimony of Dr. George Baxter Phillips. Dr. Phillips didn't gain immediate entry into the room because he reminded Abberline and Beck that they were under orders to wait for the bloodhounds. It was Inspector Arnold who arrived with the news that the bloodhounds weren't coming and that they were to enter the room. McCarthy took a pick axe and levered the door open (see illustration from The Illustrated Police News, Saturday, November 17, 1888.) He did not destroy the door other than force the lock. When the police were finished at Millers Court, they boarded up the windows and pad locked the door. Defensive wounds? What defensive wounds. "...the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds..." Dr. Thomas Bond's report to Scotland Yard. "Both arms and forearms had extensive and jagged wounds. The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in. long..." Dr. Thomas Bond's post mortem report. The entire body was mutilated including the arms and forearms and yet the hands, which one would suspect would sustain defensive cuts, have only one, "small superficial incision". Discuss amongst yourselves. Wolf.
Author: Bob Hinton Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 12:23 am
Dear Leanne, I posted a reply to your posting of the 9th Nov 0925, but apparently the site had a fit. What I said was this, I am once again having trouble with supposedly verbatim quotes. In the inquest testimony Abberline statement reads as follows: "I am informed by the witness Barnett that they key has been missing for some time and that they opened the door by reaching throught the window, a pipe also in the room........" There is nothing there to indicate how easy the reaching operation would have been. Since the windows were boarded up later that afternoon and remained boarded up for some time, I think its highly unlikely that Abberline attempted this trick himself. I understand that some papers carried the bit about it being easy to open the door using this method, but do you trust the Inquest testimony or the papers? And even if Abberline did say that it is more than likely he is relying on Barnett rather than his own experience. I am a shade over 5' 7" and I could not reach in through the window to open the latch. I could do it by standing on the sill,holding on to the drainpipe with my right hand and reaching in with my left. It is not impossible but I wouldn't describe it as 'easy'. The indications are that MJK left the door 'on the latch' when she went out. all the best Bob Hinton all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 02:21 am
Hi all, Wolf, you have summed up, I think, most of the points here, although absence of wounds on her hands do not, I submit, prove that she did not try to defend herself. Someone being so attacked would defend themselves most likely by crossing their arms over their bodies or face, not try to grab some weapon that they possibly couldn't see anyway. She may have been dragged out of sleep by the attack and had time to cry out, once. May. Bob, to state that you could not reach in to the door latch suggests that you have pretty accurate dimensioning values of Kelly's room. Can you let me know what they are? I have estimated (rather rudely)from the information that I have that it should not be difficult by going in to the shoulder, being a distance of about 30" from inner window to lock, but that has been taken from drawings of Kelly's rooms that may well be far from correct. I have also tried estimating from the photo according to brick size etc, but the result was too unreliable to be accepted. Barnett has testified unmistakeably that the door was so to open, and he was alledgedly not tall either. Average height for male persons then has been stated to have been about 5ft. 6-7". Could it be that the sash window let itself be opened to lean right in? The alternative would be that either a tall person had to open the door or, as you say, Kelly left the door 'on the latch.' If that is so, then Barnett was lying, apparently for no reason. Best regards Bob
Author: Photo Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 04:21 am

Author: Caz Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 05:41 am
Hi All, To Rabbi Leen, Referring to your post of 10th November at 08.40am, this is not really the right board to reply to you regarding a comparison between JtR and Ted Bundy, but it may provide a welcome break from Kelly's Doorstep for a moment or two (and anything to make that miserable Boris happy, though I somehow doubt that's possible :-) ). What Bundy's case showed me was how different each serial killer can be and how careful we have to be with profiling. Here was a man who had no difficulties with communicating and socialising. He was intelligent and well-educated. He was not pig-ugly, did not feel inadequate, in fact quite the reverse, he had a highly inflated ego. As far as we know he was not abused by adults as a child, although he was bullied by his peers and thought 'odd'. His murders seem to have been triggered when the first great love of his life rejected him. He then proceeded to kill some forty lookalikes, changing territory when things got too hot. After escaping twice from custody his crimes took on a more desperate, disorganised flavour when he attacked four girl students indoors as they slept in their sorority house. He finally killed a 12 year-old girl (complete change in age) before being arrested, tried and executed. The smarmy git conducted his own defense, giving himself his finest hour, loving every minute of the public attention, denying any wrong-doing and showing no remorse when found guilty. With Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, the victims changed over the series until younger women who were not prostitutes were targeted. Bundy's last victim was much younger than all the others. So was JtR's. I can't explain why this should be except that the first victims might be more specifically chosen because their age and physical appearance resemble the focus of the killer's hatred. Later, for some reason, this becomes of lesser importance to him. As we can only guess what sort of man JtR was, it's difficult to pick out traits which he might have shared with Ted Bundy. One thing I have difficulty with is Mary Kelly picking up any old tramp off the street (like Kosminski for example) in October or November 1888 for an indoor fourpenny session of hide the salami ;-) . I know she was desperate for money but she must have had quite a few regular clients she could trust. And as Bob says she'd have to go some to pay off all that back rent at once (unless MacCarthy was exaggerating her arrears in the hope of a sympathetic hand-out). Perhaps she had a very special client lined up, knowing Bowyer was due round, who had promised her that her immediate money worries were over. In which case, someone very much like Bundy would certainly have fitted the bill. No, Rabbi, you never bore anyone rigid, that's my prerogative right now. Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 11:16 pm
G'day People, John McCarthy said: "They had a row when the window was broken". This proves that he knew about the window and what caused it, by the time of the inquest. He may have been told about it, 1. Just after it happened or 2. He may have found out, on the morning of the 9th. The absence of wounds to Kelly's hands, (but for a 'small superficial incision'), suggest she just had time to move her right hand to cover her neck, before 'Jack' made the cut that killed her. She MAY HAVE woken at the slightest noise of someone struggling to reach through the window, saw it was someone she knew or was expecting a friend/client and didn't even move from the bed. When she saw the knife coming towards her, she MAY HAVE cried out "OH MURDER", in her soft dainty voice, pulled up the sheet to obstruct the view of her neck and then.... THIS IS ALL 'IN MY HUMBLE OPINION'!!!!! Laundress Sarah Lewis saw a man at 2:30am, opposite the lodging house door: "not very tall" and who: "wore a wide-awake hat". My book says: 'Another female witness corroborated the statement of Sarah Lewis, as to seeing a short, stout man standing at the corner of the court, at FOUR in the morning of the fatal Friday'. LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Friday, 12 November 1999 - 01:55 am
Hi Leanne, Where is it documented that MaCarthy spoke about quarrel/broken window? Or is it maybe just a supposition someone has reported, like so much about JTR. You mentioned Rick Geary's book earlier. I've got a copy of that too. It is amusing in parts, even a bit grim in others, but trots out the usual fairytails as do so many other sources, rings and Farthings just to mention one. Just because it stands written somewhere does not make it true. Unfortunantly even contemporary newspaper reports were often so inaccurate or false that they merited to be dismissed as fiction. In many news reports, one gets the feeling that the reporter must have been at the wrong wedding. The stout man seen by Lewis was probably CGH, but she did not say at 4 in the morning. That was the aproximate time that it was claimed by Prater and Lewis that a cry of 'murder' was heard. Lewis's testimony matched that of CGH well enough to corroberate that, assuming that CGH was telling the truth, he had waited from about 2.30 until 3.15 am and then left. Naturally, the scenario you describe about someone getting in could maybe have been the case, although that 'dainty voice' would try to protect herself with a sheet against a knife is questionable. If she had had time to do that, she would have had time to scream her head off more than just cry out. If you're thinking about Barnett again, they had seperated because she went on the street. He visited her regularly, we know, and they seemed to be on good terms, but he apologised that same evening to her, it is reported, that he could give her no money. The visit from T. Bowyer probably being anticipated, Kelly was very likely trying to get money from all sources possibly open to her. It is unlikely that Barnett, if he were Jack, would take the grave risk of visiting and on the same day murdering his own ex-partner (thus involving himself dangerously in the crime background), gaily forgetting the pipe he smoked while butchering at the scene of the crime, then to deliver such a, in your own word, 'weak alibi' to the police afterwards. There is just too little contemporary evidence to indicate that Barnett be remotely connected with Jack's crimes. For my part, I could just about consider Chapman/Klosowoski as being Jack, otherwise there is no real evidence at all against anyone. That is the tantalising on Jack. Best regards Bob
Author: Leanne Friday, 12 November 1999 - 03:59 am
G'day Bob, The bit about McCarthy, came after reading: 'Casebook Productions, Sitemap, Inquests, Mary Jane Kelly - http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/ In the 'Introduction' to Rick Geary's book, it says that it was 'compiled from the journals of an unknown British gentleman who lived in London during 1888-1889 and closely followed the increasingly savage killings.....The journals (amounting to twenty-four volumes) have been authenticated as dating from the late Victorian era and the facts within have been checked against known records of the "Ripper" atrocities.' Another book I have: 'The Whitechapel Horrors, Being an Authentic Account of Jack the Ripper Murders' was written by Tom Robinson, who resided in Whitechapel during the latter part of 1888. Under: 'The Dorset Street Murder', it gives an account of Marie Jeanette Kelly's inquest statements. On page 28-29 it says what Sarah Lewis, of 24 Great Powell Street said, and the next paragraph starts off: 'Another female witness corroborated the statement of Sarah Lewis........ at FOUR in the morning of the fatal Friday.' I said that 'dainty voice' MAY have pulled up the sheet, because George Bagster Phillips said: "and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition" was in a "saturated condition". If I saw a knife about to slice my throat, I'd try to duck under the sheet, if that was the only thing I had to 'protect' me. Why do people get 'hostile' when I say something to suggest that Barnett did it? That's why I typed 'friend/client' in my little story! I think it would have been a 'grave risk' if he didn't visit Kelly 'ON GOOD TERMS', earlier on that day, if he was known to do so. You imply that he PURPOSELY forgot his pipe! and his alibi of being "...IN BED' still seems weak to me. Best Regards, LEANNE!