Archive through November 6, 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 6, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The missing key to Kelly's room.: Archive through November 6, 1999

Author: Caz Thursday, 23 September 1999 - 07:28 am
Hi All, We had original Victorian sash windows in our previous home. We lived there for nearly twenty years and the windows which were in regular use hardly needed any maintenance apart from a lick of paint when we were in the mood. One window was hardly ever used and, sure enough, one really hot summer's day I went to open it and found it was jammed due to overpainting. But that was soon remedied. So does this make Rob's scenario possible? That drawing Bob referred to is most odd. The caption says the murderer is escaping from the window, so the artist clearly imagined Kelly's sash to be in working order. But poor old Jack looks most awkward trying to clamber through backwards, not to mention quite unprepared for any person who may be walking through the court at that precise moment! It looks more like he is entering the room, not leaving it. So the artist did not make a very good impression on me I'm afraid. :-) Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 03:18 pm
G'day everyone, Ah the Key, the key, the key. Those nightmares about keys are returning to haunt me again. Forgive me if someone has already mentioned this before, I don't feel like sifting through all the posts. I read this last night: 'At MJKs inquest, Julia Venturney stated: "I had heard Kelly singing Irish songs in the past, but didn't hear any that night and other than hearing a STRANGE SOUND WITH A DOOR, the court had been very quiet". Ideas? LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 28 October 1999 - 12:25 am
Hi Leanne, The picture you mentioned doesn't help much concerning the curtain for the reasons stated at the time by Bob Hinton et. al., i.e. the picture may well not have been taken at the time of Kelly's sad end, but later as a souvenir. I am not claiming that Kelly had no curtain at that window, but one is not mentioned anywhere. This is important, I think, because surely the Police at the time would have noted it's being drawn/not drawn for obvious reasons, just like the coat was noticed. I have also read somewhere that the broken window panes 'were stuffed with rags'. This does not appear in any photo. Where did you read the bit about J. Venturey? It does contradict statements from at least one other witness, who even named the song that evening, and interests me. (Seriously) The 'rundherum' about Kelly's key suprises me a bit. Barnett testified that the key was missing for some time and you got in using the (broken?) window to get at the door-latch inside. The latch type was not described, but such self-latching (not locking) types were so common then and also much later that I don't feel there can be any real question about that point. Barnett was not interrogated about this, so far as we know, and the Police at the time evidently did not even question it. Barnett, even if he had been Jack, would have had no need to lie about it anyway, indeed, he would have put himself needlessly at risk had he done so. Best regards, Bob
Author: Leanne Thursday, 28 October 1999 - 05:20 pm
G'day Bob, I read about Julia venturney's statement in Bruce Paley's book: 'The Simple Truth'. On page 204, giving details of Kelly's inquest, it says that she went to bed early but passed a sleepless night and heard nothing but "a stange sound with some door". Other than that, the "court was very quiet". This contradicts the statement of Mary Ann Cox, that Kelly sang the 'Violet' song plus the statement of Sarah Lewis of hearing the "loud cry of 'Murder!' I read somewhere that some of the female witness statements were ignored because they were contradictory. I'd say that Julia's was ignored, because they preferred to believe that Kelly cried 'Murder', as this helped to determine a time of death. About the photo: Stewart says underneath, that it was taken on the day of the murder. The same photo appears again under the post of 'Jon, Tuesday July 20'. This post is about a "curtain just visible at the left side of the larger window". This curtain could have been drawn back to allow enough light to take the photographs of the victim. Barnett was taken to the police station, after the discovery of the body, and interrogated by Abberline for four hours. He had his clothes examined, his alibi heard and was probably questioned about the key and his pipe found at the scene. Barnett later told the press, that his clothes were examined and that he was 'playing whist until he went to bed.' Why did he not mention 'the key' or 'the pipe'? LEANNE!
Author: Leanne Thursday, 28 October 1999 - 05:30 pm
G'day Bob, Bruce Paley's book says: "the 'Standard' provides a much more detailed account of Venturney's testimony." LEANNE!
Author: Bob Hinton Thursday, 28 October 1999 - 11:55 pm
Dear Bobc & Leanne, Self locking (operating in much the same way as a Yale lock) locks had been around since the Regency period (early 1800's) They were a cheap and fairly effective type of lock to fit. Venturney's testimony interests me. The inquest has her saying: '....I heard no scream - deceased often sung irish songs-' and absolutely nothing about a door. I would have thought that if she had said something as important as that it would have appeared in the inquest records. Unless of course my records are incomplete but I don't think they are. About the photograph, there is as far as I know absolutely nothing to show when the photo was taken and indications to suggest is was taken at a later date. I know Stewart has stated that it was taken on the day, but I've no idea what he bases this assertion on. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Leanne Friday, 29 October 1999 - 04:58 am
G'day Bobs H and C, It would be interesting to see a copy of 'The Standard's' report on Kelly's inquest, to find out what Venturney actually said. In this book, the words "a strange sound with some door", are in quotation marks. This may not have sounded important enough for anyone to report or record, as the fact that she heard nothing else, contradicted what was considered important testomony. I don't disbelieve that Kelly sang and cried out "Murder!". Venturney just didn't hear that, but if she did hear a 'strange sound with a door', that would be very interesting! About the photo: How long after the day of the murder, were the windows boarded up? and in 1889, Dorset Street became a multi-storeyed car park. LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Friday, 29 October 1999 - 07:00 am
Hi Leanne and Bob, Leanne, as far as I know, the windows were boarded up the same day. Correct me please, someone, if I'm wrong. Bob, I don't know, of course, either, when or why the photo was taken. Taken for the police as evidence does not seem to be the case, what would such a picture prove? For some newpaper or news agency is more likely. Private hardly, how many private persons then had photographic equipment? It could have been the photographer called by the Police, of course, taking a shot for his own use. Does anyone know the source of this photo? Regards, Bob
Author: Bob Hinton Saturday, 30 October 1999 - 03:53 am
Dear BobC, Actually photography was an up and coming hobby in those days, but thats missing the point, the photo could have been taken twenty years later! I personally believe it was taken on the same day and by the same person who took the photo of the entrance to Millers Court. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Leanne Saturday, 30 October 1999 - 05:52 am
G'day Bobs, Stewart says that the photo was taken by the photographer braught in by the police. It would have shown that the smaller window had two wholes. He also says that the building was demolished in 1928. On page 24 of the book: 'The Many Faces of Jack the Ripper' there is a modern photo of the multi-storey car park, that now covers Dorset Street. It says that it was built in 1889, to boost trade in the area. LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 09:44 am
Hi, Leanne and Bob, I have tried to see if I can see the holes in the upper and lower panes, but in the picture quality of the copy I have, I believe I can only imagine them. Existance of the holes would, of course, be evidence. Does anyone have a photo of such a quality as to show beyond all doubt that there are holes there?. That would be proof beyond doubt. Bob, I agree that Photography would well have been 'up and comming' at that date, but I tend to not include the most of the East End inhabitants, for obvious reasons, as being in the forefront of that hobby. Non the less, it would indeed be very useful to really date the picture. The original point concerning curtain or not, if yes, why was no remark made about it at the time? It would tend to indicate that the search of the premises was not as detailed and complete as we may have thought until now, whch leaves us with asking what further may also have been missed? Best regards, Bob
Author: Leanne Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 08:58 pm
G'day Bob, Go back to 'Archive through July 22, 1999' and view the post of Jim Dipalma on 'Wednesday, July 21'. He too was interested in the holes and used his 'image enhancement' software on the photo, to define exactly where the holes were. LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 10:45 pm
Hi Leanne, I was away from the board for some time and missed the above archives, thanks for the tip. The evidence of such does rely on enhancement of a picture by electronic means, however, and may, or may not, be accurate to the point of definitely indicating the breaks. I do not intend to demean Jim's work, but I have learnt in all things Jack to be double and triple cautious. If the photo is 'day of crime', however, then Kelly had evidently had a curtain in the left window. The right window is supposed to have had a pilot coat as curtain, or, as the left curtain was not mentioned anywhere, could it be that a cutain was also at the right window (also not mentioned) and the pilot coat just used to stop the draught from the broken panes? Regards, Bob
Author: Leanne Monday, 01 November 1999 - 04:02 am
G'day Bob, Re-reading Kelly's inquest report, Mr. George Bagster Phillips police surgeon, says he was called by police: "on Friday morning at eleven o'clock, and on proceeding to Miller's-court, which I entered at 11:15, I found a room, the door of which led out of the passage at the side of 26 Dorset street, photographs of which I produce". So he had a camera and was taking photos! I realise he arrived before the room was entered, so the curtain couldn't have been pulled back then, but he surely would have been there after and may have taken that photo, as proof that the smaller window had two broken panes. What do you think? LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Monday, 01 November 1999 - 05:03 am
Hi Leanne, Good work, although it is no evidence that Dr. Phillips took the photos, only that he produced them at the inquest. It does seem very likely that the room was photographed from the outside on that day, however, and thus very probable that Mary Kelly had at least a curtain in the left window, the curtain not being referred to anywhere. The bit about the curtain being pulled back is a good point. If Jack had drawn the curtain, which we may assume in order to hide his activity from the outside world, then the photo was taken between the forced entry to the room and the boarding up of the windows on the same day. Therefore the curtain was drawn at entry of the police, and was pulled open to gain light for examination and photographing. This is, as far as I know, not recorded anywhere, which seems to me to be a bit curious. If they were not drawn as the Police arrived, then Jack would likely not have had a fire lit as he was chopping gaily away at Mary, and I don't believe he would politely open the curtains for her remains before leaving. Best regards Bob
Author: Leanne Tuesday, 02 November 1999 - 04:10 am
G'day Bobs and everyone, Bob C. you're right there, Dr. Phillips may not have actually taken that or any photos, but someone did and he had access to them. At the time, no one thought it was important enough to mention whether the curtain was drawn or not. Looking at the statements of other witnesses at Kelly's inquest: Bowyer got no answer at Kelly's door, so he went around and peered through the smaller window because it had two broken panes and he could easily move back the curtain/coat. This implies that the larger window had a curtain that he couldn't reach. Mary Ann Cox said: "There was a light in the window, but I saw nothing as the blinds were down". I'd say the light came from a little fire, created to keep the room warm and provide a little light. Jack could have performed the 'job', in dim light, threw the clothes into the fire and then made his escape through the door, quietly locking it with the key. Mary Ann Cox heard a man going down the court at 6:15am, (too late for the market). The coroner asked: "Did you hear the door bang after him?" Cox: "No....He made no noise". LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Tuesday, 02 November 1999 - 04:50 am
Hi Leanne, Yep, I agree, except for the bit about Jack locking the door. I subscribe to the view that Jack didn't need to lock the door with a key, it having a spring-latch. The key is reported as being lost and, as far as I know, no serious evidence has been found which could refute this. Best regards, Bob
Author: Leanne Thursday, 04 November 1999 - 03:33 am
G'day Bob, Do you honestly believe that MaCarthy, who couldn't afford or care enough to own spare keys to his rooms, could afford to have each one fitted with a new self-locking door? Why then, didn't he install one on Elizabeth Prater's room, at No 20 Miller's Court, who: "went to bed at half past one and barricaded the door with two tables."? Do you believe that he installed one on Room 13, which was a 'tiny room, partitioned off from his shed'? LEANNE!
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 04 November 1999 - 08:18 am
Hi Leanne, Why should MacCarthy have to had installed a lock in No. 13 at all? Spring locks of the type had been available for years and Kelly's was probably installed as the house was built. E. Prater had a room inside the building No. 26 with no door to the outside, therefore her's was an inside door which may well have had no, or no functioning, lock. Kelly's door, however, was originaly the or a house back door, an outside door that would have been fitted with a lock. The partitioning was the seperation of Kelly's room from the rest of No. 26, not just from a 'shed'. The passage and stairs to i.e. Prater's room ran alongside Kelly's bed on the other side of this partition. Kelly was a 'cut above the others' was reported by some who knew her. In any case she had a room, some may have called it at least an appartment, to herself. This was a 'luxury' many others certainly didn't have, even having it's own outside entrance and commanding a rent of 4s 6d per week, a large sum in those days. Why Joe MaCarthy let her run up an arrears of nearly 30 s. is a question that remains today. I can only suppose that he had a good heart and didn't want to evict, knowing what a desperate struggle such people had to even survive. Thomas Bowyer's unhappy visit next day may well have been anticipated by Kelly, risking as she did her life to get money during Jack's reign. Best regards, Bob
Author: Leanne Saturday, 06 November 1999 - 04:05 am
G'day Bob, Do you think that Kelly was paying McCarthy with little 'favours'? (typed with a little smile and a wink of the eye)! Looking at Stewart's diagram of Miller's Court, then reading my copy of the inquest statements, Elizabeth Prater said: "I live at 20 room in Miller's Court, above the shed. Deceased occupied a room below". The words: 'ABOVE THE SHED' stand out to me! Was the bottom floor of building No. 26, MaCarthy's shed? Sorry if this is obvious to other people, but I just realised! Describing Kelly as a 'Cut above the others', was a sick choice of words, don't you think?!!!!! LEANNE!