|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 10, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The missing key to Kelly's room.:
Archive through November 10, 1999
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 02:28 am |        | G'day Bobs Hilton & C,
BOB HILTON: you asked if your records of Kelly's inquest were incomplete:
My copy says that Julia Venturney said: "I heard no screams of "MURDER", nor any one singing."
CORONER: "You must have heard deceased singing?"
VENTURNEY: Yes, I know her songs, they were generally Irish".
I got my copy from 'Casebook Productions/Jack the Ripper, (Inquests, Mary Jane Kelly). No she doesn't say anything about a door. It was actually Mary Ann Cox, who heard someone in the Court at 6:15am, but heard no door bang, after him. Venturney may have mentioned 'A STRANGE SOUND WITH A DOOR', but no one at the time thought enough about it to record. Her statements of not hearing "MURDER" and not hearing singing, contradicted the others, which was what they wanted to hear.
BOB C: If Kelly's room was partitioned off of what was origionally a shed, why would a self-locking Yale lock be installed?
Looking at Stewart's diagram of Miller's Court again, I notice how close Kelly's door is to the 'staircase', (which I'd say was origionally the front door to the shed). I'd say that MacCarthy knocked out a door, when he partitioned a room and more than likely wouldn't have bothered with a 'self-locking Yale lock'.
If MacCarthy was wealthy and thoughtful enough to install one, why didn't he own a spare or master key?.....OR DID HE?
LEANNE! |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 03:26 am | | Dear Leanne,
I think you are in danger of creating something out of nothing. I don't know of anyone, certainly not myself, who says that MJK's door was fitted with a 'self locking Yale lock', a phrase you have used verbatim at least twice in the above posting.
Yale locks were very expensive and were almost certainly NOT the type of lock fited to MJK's door. What I believe was fitted was a type known as a night latch which operated in much the same way as a Yale ie it shot the bolt home automatically on closing the door.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Boris
Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 05:04 pm | | Ms. Perry,
What are you getting at? Your rants on this subject are getting quite wearisome. The killer simply opened the door and left. |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 05:20 pm | | G'day Boris.
It's good to see that you can offer something constructive mate. Must be that enormous intellect combined with your overwhelming sense of humility that's prevents you from posting something remotely thought provoking.
Lets hope you can overcome this disability as I'm sure we'd all like to hear your thought on the subject.
Jules |
Author: Leanne
Monday, 08 November 1999 - 02:36 am | | Hello,
Bob: I'm sorry mate, I just looked at your 'July 25' post, which says that you believe Kelly's door was fitted with a 'spring-loaded night-latch'. I typed too quick.
BORIS: I am just challenging the idea that 'Jack' opened, shut the door and pissed off! I would love to know the truth, even if that's how he did it. If that's it, why didn't they just reach through the window on the morning of the 9th, if it was "easily done"?
Thanks Jules. I too, am eagerly awaiting an intelligent post from 'BORIS'!
LEANNE BERRY! |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Monday, 08 November 1999 - 03:12 am | | Hi,
The "Mystery of the Missing Key" has caught my interest (sorry to make it sound like a Hardy Boys Title though!).
The things as I understand them to be:
Barnett's story was that the key had been lost for some time, and that they just reached in the window and flipped the latch. At first I wondered what the big deal was since if we beleive Barnett, then the door auto-locks when you close it (so Jack didn't have to take one with him to lock the door).
What seems strange is that apparently no-one on the police force figured out that you could open the door this way, even though they were all standing there "waiting for the dogs". If Mary had to reach through her window every time she came and went, someone living in Millers Court would have known this and during interviews the police might have found this out.
But, maybe nobody told the police this bit of information, and they couldn't see the latch in the dim light so they just forced the door.
And, maybe no-one really liked the idea of having to lean close to the window and stick their hand in the dark to feel around the door, knowing what was inside. Hardened police not-with-standing.
One can believe the following converstation might have taken place:
McCarthy: You don't have to break the door, just reach in the window and flip the latch.
Police : Oh yah? You reach in there and open it then.
McCarthy: I'm not putting my arm in there.
Police : Then we're forcing the door.
Would you reach in that room? I doubt I would.
The above is pure fancy on my part, and hardly counts as dealing with the facts. So, I'm going to try with the facts as we know them, and see where that gets me (other than into trouble!)
a) We do know that the door locks.
b) No key was found in the room.
c) There was a broken window
d) Barnett told the police you could reach the "latch" and unlock the door.
e) Barnett claimed they did this all the time (or at least that he did) and (I think he claimed) it was easy.
And now, I'll state my main assumption. If the following statement is untrue, then some (not all, but some) of my following arguements may not be valid. I'm assuming that the police actually checked out Barnett's statements of fact. Meaning, when Barnett said the key was lost, the police asked people in Miller's court if they ever saw Mary with a key. This information would be lost to us now, as they would just send some junior detective down to see if they can find out if anyone saw her with a key. If it checked out, they go "Oh, ok". Either they didn't write it up, but just concluded Barnett was "reliable" or such details have been lost (as many of the files have been). But, if they didn't investiage such facts, well ... I admit it, I can't really make some of the conclusions I do.
Anyway, going with that assumption in mind,
I'll try and deal with Barnett's claims at c) and d).
If it was impossible for Barnett to reach the latch through the window, then the police would have caught out Barnett's statement as a lie. They may not have figured out on the day of the murder that they themselves could have done this, but they would have checked on it being possible once Barnett said that's how it was done. If the police couldn't do it they would have had Barnett show them how he did it. And if he couldn't do it, they would have arrested him on the spot. They didn't (arrest him), so it must have been a plausible explanation of how to get into the "locked room", at least for Barnett!
But what about Mary?
This takes longer, so:
Let's start with the lock itself.
Either:
1) The lock doesn't require a key to lock the door or to unlock it (at least from the inside for the latter)
In which case we have no problem yet.
or
2) The lock does require a key to unlock it, even if it will relock without one.
If 2, then Barnett would have been caught as a lier and the police would have held him longer for more questioning
Is this likely?
Again, I don't think so. The police questioned Barnett pretty closely, if they had caught him in such an obvious lie they would be all over him. I think we're pretty safe to assume that 2 above can be ruled out, meaning if you could reach the latch you could unlock the door. For similar reasons, I think we can assume the door will lock itself without the use of a key.
So, I think we're safe to conclude that
a) the door would lock on it's own and
b) if you could reach the latch, you can unlock it without a key.
Now,
It either locks
3) every time you close the door
or
4) the lock can be set to "open", meaning the door can be shut without it locking.
If 3, it always locks, then we can conclude either:
5) Mary had a key, and Jack takes it with him
or
6) The key was lost, and Mary reached in the window to unlock the door
and if 4 (the door can be left "open", we still may have 5 or 6 for "locked doors",
but also:
7) Mary may have kept the door unlocked when she was out, locking it only when she was inside
I'll start with 5)
5) Mary had a key and Jack must have taken it.
But, if Mary had a key, then Barnett is lieing about having lost the key. If Barnett is lieing, it seems highly improbable that no-one knew that Mary had a key to her place. Someone, in all probability, would have seen Mary unlock her door with a key, which would show that Barnett was lieing, and the police would have caught Barnett in this lie. However, Barnett's testimony was never shown to be false, and given how simple it would have been to demonstrate "the key wasn't lost, I saw her use it all the time", I think it becomes highly improbable that Barnett was lieing.
Furthermore, Mary and Barnett probably asked McCarthy for a replacement key, and he may even have validated the story. For these reasons, I think it's safe to conclude the key was lost, ruling out 5, that Mary had one in the first place.
This leaves us with
1) a self locking door
2) no key
3) a window through which Barnett (at least) could reach to unlock the door
4) the possibility that the door can be left "open"
If 4 is not true, so the door can't be left open, then that means Mary had to lean through the window to open the door since we've ruled out her having a key already.
There's been great discussion if this was possible, but if it's not, then similar to how I argued above for Barnett, the police would have grabbed Barnett because his explanation of how to get into the room becomes an "impossible explanation" for Mary. It's not enough that Barnett can reach the latch, but someone of Mary's size would have to be able to. Because, if it's not possible for her to reach the latch from the window, then she had to have a key. I've already concluded Mary couldn't have a key because, as described above, if she did the police would have figured it out, and this would again bring suspicion on Barnett for lieing, etc. etc.
So, either someone of Mary's size could reach the latch
or
the door could be left unlocked
And what if the solution is as simple as that? When the key got lost, Barnett could reach the latch through the window, but it was a bother to do and tricky if you were drinking or if it was dark, etc. And maybe Mary couldn't reach it, but if the door could be left unlocked, once he left she had to keep the door "open" when she was out.
So, she keeps the lock in the "open" position, either by a toggle on the actual mechanism or by blocking it with something so it can't "catch".
Now, she doesn't have to reach in the window every time she comes back, but could lock the door when she has business so that people don't walk in. In such a case, Mary would lock the door when she brought Jack in. Since the lock is now in "lock mode", he just closed the door when he left, and it locked behind him.
Jack doesn't have to take a key
Mary doesn't have to reach through a window Barnett didn't have to lie
if the door could be left unlocked
Just a long winded thought.
- Jeff Hamm |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 08 November 1999 - 03:12 am | | Hi Leanne,
Macht nichts, meine Lieber, we all make mistakes. The bit about the shed puzzle is covered in Phil Sugden's book, I think. (I haven't got it to hand at the mo'.)
Kelly's room is claimed to have been partitioned as in my last post above, however, and that seems to be pretty well established, see the diagram of Millers Court available in a number of different publications.
About Jack just pissing off, I think he nay have done just that. Why not? Even if the door had had a non-latching lock, and would thus have been presumably locked with a key, it would have been no trouble for Jack to have nipped out after the job was done, we can assume that even Jack would be familiar with door-locks, keys and their functions.
Why the door was broken open? I suspect that everyone was so shocked and numbed by what had happened, even the police, that 'they just didn't think' about getting in without a key.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 08 November 1999 - 03:21 am | | Hi Jeff,
Wow!
We posted together so I didn't get to read your post until after I'd sent mine above.
Most of your points are quite valid. I myself have pointed out previously that Barnett had no need to have lied about the missing key, even if he had been Jack! Indeed, he would have put himself at great risk had he done so, as you remark.
I myself am quite content to let Barnett's testimony stand, which is why I wrote about them all being too shocked to investigate the matter.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Monday, 08 November 1999 - 03:36 am | | Hi Bob,
Quite the timeing there! And I'm posting from New Zealand!
I agree with you, obviously, that Barnett, if innocent, has no reason to lie about the key and the window, and if he's the Ripper even less incentive to lie.
If we take his statements as valid, then I think the simplest explanations are the police either didn't realise they could open the door via the window (or alternatively, didn't want to) and that Mary just left the door unlocked when she was out.
As for Jack. When he was done, well, he left. It's what he did in all the other murders, he just left and seemed to vanish. I can see no reason why he would do anything different this time. Dispite the amount of blood he would have on him, he could have been naked, wiped himself off with the clothes that he burnt, got dressed, put his hands in his pockets, and left.
- Jeff |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 08 November 1999 - 04:01 am | | A memorial for Mary Jane Kelly will be held tonight at 10 pm EDT in Stephen Ryder's chat room
http://www.casebook.org/chat1.html |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 09 November 1999 - 05:25 am | | G'day Jeff, Bob,
Abberline said: "Barnett informs me that the key had 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. It is quite easy".
Jeff, what makes you think that all those 'hardened' Chief Constables and Inspectors, were 'blind' in the 'dim' midday light and couldn't see the catch?
If Barnett viewed the body, by looking through the window, chances are he was there before the door was forced. 'The Star', on the 10th of November, reported how Barnett looked through the open window.
Inspector Abberline took Barnett to the station and kept him there four hours. They examined his clothes for blood stains, questioned him about the key and the pipe found in the room and accepted his weak alibi: "and was playing whist there until half past twelve, when I went to bed".
Joseph Barnett met Mary Jane Kelly in April 1887, as she was 'walking the streets'. He approached her as a customer and they agreed to 'remain together'. Kelly still loved Joseph Flemming, but Barnett "showered her with gifts" and he looked "very respectable for one of his class".
He lost his well-paying job, about a month before Polly Nichols was killed, and could no longer 'shower' her with gifts. Kelly was already concerned about the unknown murderer, because Joe read about him to her.
After 20 months together, Kelly could no longer bear Joseph Barnett and according to Julia Venturney she "was very fond of another man named Joe" (Flemming).
THE REST IS HISTORY!
LEANNE KERRY |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Tuesday, 09 November 1999 - 12:44 pm | | Hi Leanne,
Indeed, the police not seeing the latch seems strange, but there are possible explanations which don't require too much "suspension of disbelief".
Here's my line of resoning,
When McCarthy's fellow (I forget his name at the moment) went to collect the rent from Kelly, he told the police he knocked on the door, got no answer, pulled back the curtain (or blinds?) and when his eyes adjusted to the light (meaning lack thereof), he saw the horror in the room.
It's this statement, that suggests to me the following. That all the windows were blocked by curtains, or blinds, or jackets, or whatever, so you couldn't just look in. So, once the police arrived, pulled back the "curtains" and looked in, saw the damage, they let the curtains fall back and didn't look for a latch or anything else. And, despite the light outside, that doesn't mean the inside was bright, pending on the thickness of the curtains and how the sun falls in on her room.
But, what we do know, is they didn't find it from looking in. If they did, they wouldn't have to force the door. Why they didn't find it is because, for some reason they didn't see it or you couldn't do it. But, again, if Barnett's story was implausible, they wouldn't have just questioned him for hours, but kept him and probably arrested him. So if his story is possible, then, for whatever reason, the police missed it. If Barnett's story is a lie, he becomes a good suspect and the police would have known this. If it's not a lie, he's only a suspect because of his relationship to Mary. This makes him a good suspect, so the police questioned him for hours and his alibi checked out, then he's not a good suspect. But that's a different issue.
Anyway, I think, solving the mystery of the key won't help us solve the mystery of the Ripper's identity. If, as I suggested earlier, Mary keeps the room unlocked, locks it when she comes in with a customer, than Jack could have gained entry easily. Or, if one likes Barnett as a suspect, one could either assume that he came in with Mary, or showed up later, reached in and unlocked the door, and came in. In the latter one might expect Mary to get upset with him and for people to have heard a row, but if she was asleep ...
Anyway, the key itself is an interesting puzzle, but I don't think it's the key to the whole mystery (sorry, couldn't avoid the pun there!)
- Jeff |
Author: JackisBack
Tuesday, 09 November 1999 - 01:58 pm | | | Speaking of Keys. What about the key the Police did find in 13 Miller's Court, along with a pipe. Was that Key ever identified. Maybe Jack got caught by the old Alfred Hitchcock plot twist/trick from "Dial M for Murder" and took the wrong key and left his own. Someone said that fact is stranger than fiction. Maybe they are the same. |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Tuesday, 09 November 1999 - 07:11 pm | | Thanks for the quote Leeanne.
Abberline said: "Barnett informs me that the key had 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. It is quite easy".
I thought it was Barnett himself who said it was quite easy, but this quote indicates that Abberline tried it himself and found it to be easy.
- Jeff |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 02:08 am | | Hi all,
I have never heard of any other key being found in 13, Millers Court. Barnett's pipe, yes.
Once again, the reason for the door being broken open is, I am fairly certain, that all present were in certain stages of shock or unrest. Sitting back here and now, with all the time in the world to analyse, it is clear that we would find some things odd, or not easy to explain, but then, at the time and place, it was all different.
The police officers present probably knew nothing detailed at all about 13, Millers Court, except what was told them. Even then, there is the possibility that they either misconceived or misunderstood what was said.
If Barnett were present at that moment, it is not conceivable that he had not explained how to get in the place. It is conceivable that Barnett was there earlier, may have even explained to someone how to enter, was then taken for questioning with the room in the meantime being left closed and was not there as it was opened. His advice being either forgotten, not understood, or not known to those present, and their being guided by MaCarthy.... Bang! Door open.
More than any question about Barnett, it seems more suprising to me that MaCarthy didn't know. Maybe he just didn't think, either, and in such circumstances I don't wonder.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 02:23 am | | G'day Jeff and everyone,
The man who's name you forgot, is Thomas Bowyer and at Kelly's inquest he stated: "Knocking at the door, I got no answer and I knocked again and again. Receiving no reply, I passed round the corner by the gutter spout, where there is a broken window. It is the smallest window.... There was a curtain. I put my hand through the broken pane and lifted the curtain. I saw two pieces of flesh lying on the table." nothing about having to adjust his eyes!
John McCarthy said: "I accompanied him and looked through the window myself, saw the blood and the woman....I knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly and had no doubt at all about her identity." again nothing about dimness and he even identified the corpse!
Dr George Bagster Phillips stated: "As the door to Kelly's room was locked, I looked through the lower of the broken window panes and satisfied myself that the mutilated corpse lying on the bed, was not in need of any immediate attention from me." Phillips was called by the police, at 11am, to examine Kelly's body, which he had to do by looking through the window. Note his words: 'the door to Kelly's room was locked'. If he was forced to view the body through the window, surely he would have tried to figure out a way to get in?
To read the actual statements, go to 'Casebook Productions, sitemap, Inquest, Mary Jane Kelly:
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/
JACKISBACK: There was nothing said about a key, found in the room! Where did you find that bit of information?
LEANNE FERRY! |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 03:02 am | | Hi All,
Having read all these interesting posts for a while now, I have formed a few conclusions of my own.
After the key went missing I believe Mary would have left the door unlocked whenever she ventured out of her room. (Nothing worth nicking and easy for her to get back in on her own without having to use Barnett's little window trick.)
On returning, either with a client to entertain or by herself to sleep, she would probably have shut the door properly, effectively locking herself in. I do not think, at the height of the ripper scare, especially if she did mention being frightened of someone, that she would have left her door unlocked while she was in there asleep, even if she was expecting a friend. They could have knocked like anyone else.
If Mary was sleeping behind the locked door when an intruder entered and killed her, then Jack must have used the hand through the window trick to gain entry. Even then this doesn't necessarily put Barnett in the frame (hee hee). If Mary's killer had been stalking her and planning this he could have been watching Barnett and learned how to get into No.13.
But if Jack had accompanied Mary back to her hovel and struck while she was awake, he must have been such an unlikely candidate for the monstrous killer at large that she had absolutely no qualms about letting him in. This would seem to suggest that she either knew her cunning companion (by sight at least) or he was such a charmer (possibly one with plenty of spare cash) that she threw all her natural sense of caution to the wind.
These women who succumbed to Jack were feisty individuals with not a little common sense. The previous victims were pounced on and silenced before they could whistle. Most (apart from Eddowes) probably had no choice but to be out on the streets at the times they were attacked. But Mary Kelly had no need to take the huge risk of letting a complete stranger into her room on that occasion. I can't for the life of me work out why she would have done so. The rent could have waited another week, she seemed to have little difficulty attracting the men and time and age was not against her.
Sorry for the ramble.
Perhaps someone can tidy it up for me.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 03:13 am | | G'day Bob,
If Kelly was behind in her rent, why does it surprise you that McCarthy didn't know about the alternative way of getting in? Imagine this:
MAC: "OH, HELLO MARY, WHAT BRINGS YOU HERE, TODAY? HAVE YOU COME TO PAY SOME MORE OF THE MONEY YOU OWE ME?"
MJK: "NO SIR, I CAME TO ASK YOU FOR A SPARE ROOM KEY, AS MINE IS LOST!"
EVEN WORSE:
MJK: "SIR, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT SPARE KEY, DURING A FIGHT WITH JOE, I SMASHED A WINDOW AND WE CAN GET IN BY REACHING THROUGH. IT IS QUITE EASY!"
LEANNE MERRY (Christmas!) |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 03:58 am | | Hi Leanne,
My suprise is only due to MaCarthy evidently not knowing, or thinking, about the spring latch, and not anything about keys. Having looked through the window, he then knew it was broken if not before and should have realised that you could get in as Barnett (later?) explained.
Keys at that time were not so easy to become as today, anyway. They were mostly hand-made, and expensive. Even today, replacement keys for a very old lock are difficult to come by and expensive to have made.
Kelly owed 29s. rent at the time of her death. This was a very large sum of money for those days and Kelly had little hope of earning it quickly enough (at 4d. a go) to advoid eviction. Putting it delicately, she would probably not have had the stamina, let alone find the clients, to get herself out of trouble. She was facing eviction. I doubt if she was worried much about some key, especially as there was another method of entry open to her.
I suspect that she was desperately looking for someone who would get her out of the patch, as Barnett had done previously. Maybe she thought she had found someone, but it was Jack she found, and with him death.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 10 November 1999 - 03:59 am | | G'day all,
Barnett & Kelly's alternative way of entering, only became possible after the window panes had been broken. The panes were broken by a drunk Kelly, during their violent row. Maybe he took it!
As long as the key was missing, Kelly would have to rely on Barnett reaching through the window. That may be why he visited her so often. When he was unable to, she probably baracaded the door with the table. That may be why the table was so close to the door.
Caz: I don't think she was asleep when she was killed, because of the defense wounds and the possible cry of "MURDER!"
LEANNE HAIRY! |
|
|
|
|
