|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 September 23, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The missing key to Kelly's room.:
Archive through September 23, 1999
Author: Jon
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 08:10 am |        | Regarding the flash......
I think Kelly's left leg in the foreground of the picture, from the knee down to the ankle appear very blanched, or light, with loss of detail as compared with the rest of the photo.
Also the bottom corner of the bed in front of her left foot. Take a look at her left shoulder, the white chemise, these area's appear lighter with a loss of detail, I'm wondering if we are seeing the affects of a flash gun, sulphur or whatever they may have used, but they did have the ability to 'flash' an indoor scene back in 1888, I'm just not sure how many different way's of doing it there were.
Any photographic historians lurking ?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 25 July 1999 - 09:15 am | | Dear Everyone,
My poor computer suffered an almost terminal breakdown at the beginning
of June but now I am glad to say it has done a General McArthur and
returned!
I was surprised to see all the interest on the Missing Key debate. I have
always been very interested in this and covered it quite comprehensively in
my book.
For what its worth here are my thoughts.
What kind of lock?
As far as I am aware there was only one type of lock mentioned as being
fitted to MJK door, and that of a 'spring bolt' variety. Linus Yale launched
his lock into the world in 1853, however it was very expensive. It also used
the barrel principal which does away with a through key channel. In other
words you cannot peep through the keyhole of a Yale lock.
The type of lock I believe was fitted to the door was referred to as a night
latch (I have a sample) This looked just like a normal lock, had a through key
channel, so you could look through the keyhole, and was very very cheap.
The bolt was spring loaded and shot home automatically on the door being
pulled to. On the inside of the lock there was a knurled knob which when
turned withdrew the bolt. This knob could also be slid down to lock the bolt
in the open position, leaving the door on the latch.
From the outside the lock appeared just like a normal mortice lock, unlike a
Yale type which is readily identifiable as such.
Next the broken panes of glass. The window was a sash type which when
closed gave you four panes of glass, two on top and two below.
The broken panes I believe to be : top right and bottom left for the following
reasons.
At the inquest Bowyer gave evidence. He describes how he found the body.
He says:
"I went round the corner and there was a broken window in the farthest
window..."
It is quite clear that he is telling you the position of the broken pane in relation
to his position coming round the corner, however he has made an error in
referring to the pane of glass as a 'window' which causes some confusion,
seeing this Inspector Charles Ledger interrupts.
"I have made plans produced and they are correct plans of the premises"
Thomas Bowyer now continues his evidence but now using the plans to
indicate which pane of glass he is referring to.
"I refer to plan and I mean the farthest pane of the first window the small
one." Again he uses the expression 'farthest' to indicate exactly which pane
he is referring to, in both instances, before and after using the plans, the
relevant pane is referred to as the farthest which strongly indicates he is fixing
the position of the relevant pane using his position coming round the corner.
And that pane is the bottom left.
If as someone has suggested he was using the position of himself relevant to
the plan to fix the position of the pane, ie indicating bottom right, then surely
his first sentence would have been:
" I went round the corner and there was a broken window in the nearest
window" He didn't and it wasn't.
As for the other broken pane it must have been top right as that is the only
pane through which it is possible to turn the knob to draw back the bolt.
This indicates this was the pane that was broken first some time before the
argument at the end of October. We can deduce this because Barnett stated
that he used to reach through and open the door, since he left Millers Court
on the night of the October row and did not return (to inhabit) it would not
have been possible for him to have put this theory to the test before hand.
From this we can deduce the bottom left pane was broken on the night of the
October fight.
It is not a simple matter to open the door doing this. I built a mock up of the
corner of MJKs room and tried it for myself. Bearing in mind the danger
from broken glass, the only way it was practical was to stand on the window
cill, hold the drain pipe with your right hand and reach in with your left, it is
not easy.
Since the windows were boarded up shortly after the body was removed,
and there is no mention of it, I think it can be said that Abberline was quoting
Barnett when he referred to the action as being easy, rather than through
experimention.
I was very impressed with the photo enhancement, but would ask you to
consider two points.
1. Enhancement done on anything but the original print is largely a waste
of time.
2. No body knows when the famous exterior shot was taken, it could
have been twenty years later for all we know - enhancing a photo you don't
know the origins of seems like a pointless exercise to me.
Like Schwarzenegger "I'm back!!"
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 25 July 1999 - 09:44 am | | Hi Bob
Glad your back, now you've just got to find your sense of direction, and we'll be off to the races :-)
(hitting the wrong board, first time out)
Way back on July 16th, I posted an analysis that tends to broadly agree with your recent poste, but I also concede that the Bowyer statement WAS made at the inquest, in front of a diagram, and NOT in Millers court, describing himself turning the corner.
So, it CAN be infered that he was pointing to a diagram in which he is merely pointing to a broken pain farthest away from himself, and near to the downspout.
It is not my absolute resolve, that this is the case. But, in reply to Jim, I think its fare to admit, it certainly CAN be read it that manner.
Much to our discontent, Jon |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 01:52 am | | Dear Jon,
Where am I? Embarrassment factor of about 10 there I think!
As regards to your posting I have to disagree. If you read the inquest testimony it is quite clear.
Bowyer is giving evidence. He says:
"I went round the corner and there was a broken window in the farthest window"
He is indicating the position of the broken window from the corner he just went round, it cannot possibly be from his position relative to the plans because they have not been produced yet! The plans are produced to clarify the misuse of his word 'window' when he clearly means 'pane'
The plans are now produced and once again he indicates which item is relevant by the use of the word 'farthest', which shows that once again he is speaking of a position relevant to his position at the corner of the building.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 02:12 am | | BOB! Glad you & your computer made it back. (Those quill pens get boring after a while.) One of your window statements is intriguing ... Hopefully, my research will pan out soon - so I can get back to you on that.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 01:35 pm | | Hi Bob, thanks for the clarification on the type of lock. I started the recent "Yale" discussion but only because I was trying to differentiate the spring lock from a mortise box lock. As Rabbi Leen pointed out, confusion was being caused by semantics and the differnce between British and North American names. The night latch that you describe is exactly what I was trying to explain. From the back and forth confusion, I guess I didn't do a very good job.
Thanks for the imput and clarification.
Wolf. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 05:25 pm | | I've been asked to post the layout of Millers Court and environs. This comes from Sugden's Complete History:
 |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 07:15 pm | | Stephen,
How do I ask this question with delicacy?
Where did Mary Jane go to attend to her bodily functions? I don't see "it" anywhere in the diagram. Was "it" searched by the police?
Thank you.
David |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 08:33 pm | | Hi, David:
In plans of nineteenth century courts that I have in a book about Liverpool, such courts had two privies at the end furthest from the entrance to the court. I am sure that a similar arrangement pertained to Miller's Court as well.
There was by this date municipal sewerage. However, each "water closet" might serve as many as ten houses, or at a rough estimate, fifty people each.
I have no information on whether the privies were searched by the police, but one would think that they did a search of the neighborhood of 13 Miller's Court which might have included at least a cursory look into the water closets.
We might also assume that Mary Jane Kelly and her men friend(s) had a need to use the water closet sometime during the fatal night. I am thinking particularly of Mary Ann Cox's testimony of MJK's arrival home at 11:45 p.m. on the night of November 8 accompanied by the Johnny boy with the carroty moustache and billycock hat carrying the quart pail of beer. . . .
Chris George |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 06:24 am | | Hi All,
Right, I think I've got this worked out now:
I suspect we may be debating vagaries such as the brightness and contrast settings on our individual computer monitors, but to my eye at least, it seems clear that the upper and lower panes on the right-hand side are broken.
Glad to see you back on the boards, Bob. Your description of the lock as a night latch makes a great deal of sense. Having both a keyhole and a spring loaded bolt, and being cheap enough to have been used on a place such as Kelly's, it fits very nicely with all of the information we have.
Your point about enhancing anything other than the original photo is well taken, I'm just working with what we have available. Bob, do you know if any such work has been undertaken on the original?
To my knowledge, the photo was taken on the day of the murder.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 10:39 am | | Dear Jim,
I'm afraid I don't know if any work has been done on the original but again it is pointless unless we know when this photo was taken.
There are indicators that suggest that it wasn't taken on the day.
If you can get a really clear copy have a look at the doorstep, it looks as if there is a puddle of water there which might indicate that someone has just scrubbed it, which would negate it being on the day. The other thing is the yard looks remarkably dry when in fact it had been raining all night only stopping at 10.30 that morning.
Secondly, after the body was taken away only a couple of hours later the windows were boarded up.
Thirdly I cannot see why the police would want a photograph of the outside of the building, I appreciate today they do, but in those days photography was rarely used in crime fighting. I believe these were the first photogrpahs taken of a Ripper victim in situ. I appreciate that they might want a record of which panes of glass were broken, but if thats the case they obviously failed and in any case if they thought the broken panes were important surely they would have definitely established this at the inquest instead of leaving us with this puzzle!
To me the photo has all the hall marks of one taken much, later as a souvenier. If you look at the shadow cast by the wall with the door in it, it suggests that it was taken some time in the morning,(as you look at the windows you are facing South) now compare that with the other famous Miller Court exterior shot showing the entrance and the name plate. The shadow in the entrance clearly shows this was taking in the morning (you are now looking North.) Now most copies of this photo are trimmed off but if you see the original you will see to the left of the entrance a spindle backed chair which was used by an old woman who used to charge sightseers to see the scene of the crime, so that is definitely not on the day. Now I'm not a betting man but I would say there is a fair bet both these photo's were taken on the same day. The chair still there tends to suggest that the woman is standing out of shot. If she had gone for the day she would have taken heer chair with her.
Mind you I'm quite prepared for someone to come up and say that the photo in question has the date and time written on it!!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Wolf
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 12:55 pm | | Hello all.
David, the map of Miller's Court from Sugden which Stephen has used, is based on one in The Daily Telegraph of November 12th. This map is a bit suspect in that the tiny box labeled "dustbin" actually appears on some contemporary maps as being larger than depicted here. The fact that it would appear on a district map at all would tend to mean that it was a much larger and more substantial structure than a simple "dustbin". It would seem likely that this was the privy and was thus situated right next to the water tap. Possibly the Telegraph, taking into account Victorian sensibilities, decided to relabel it the dustbin.
Was it searched? Hard to say, there are no reports left in existence that expressly state this, but it is likely that it was, considering that the privies in Dutfield's Yard were.
Bob, I had always assumed that the photograph was the one which Dr. Phillips had the photographer take on the morning of the 9th. If it's not, then this photo could have been taken at any time and thus your absolutely right, it's useless to try and make out broken window panes that may not even be there.
Wolf. |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 05:07 am | | | Nothing is useless if it stirs minds to thought. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 02:12 pm | | Hi All,
Bob, I quite agree that we need to establish, if possible, the exact time when the photo was taken. To the best of my knowledge, it was taken on the morning of the murder. I've operated under the assumption that it is a crime scene photo, taken when the court was sealed off and as such accurately depicts the state of the windows of MJK's room when the body was found. Of course, if the photo was taken even shortly after the court was re-opened, its value as evidence is nil.
Since the time and date on which the photo was taken seems to be a crucial point, may I suggest we defer further discussion on the contents of the photo, and try to establish when it was taken?
Much as I hate to muddy the waters further, it may also very well be that I am looking at this with a late 20th century-centric view of the matter. From what I've been able to gather, it seems to be standard modern police practice to preserve the crime scene to the greatest extent possible, in order that crime scene photos accurately record the physical evidence. In 1888, crime scene photography was a fairly new practice - even if the photo was taken on that morning, can we safely assume that the crime scene was undisturbed prior to the time the photos were taken?
Meanwhile, I'm off to check the photos to which Bob referred.
Obfuscatingly yours,
Jim |
Author: Kaye Englmeier
Tuesday, 21 September 1999 - 12:17 pm | | | The "curtain" alluded to in the left window area actually appears to be nothing more than light reflecting off of a continuation of the wall into which the window is set. Buildings built in that era tend to have very thick walls. |
Author: Rob Buckley
Wednesday, 22 September 1999 - 11:32 am | | Hi all,
Perhaps I'm being dense, but why are we talking about broken panes of glass here. Its commonly accepted that, and visible (well sort of) in the photo that a lower pane in the small window was broken.
You don't have to reach through this broken pane to release the lock, you would just have to release the window catch and lift the lower part of the window upwards, which can be seen in the photo. Then you could lean through the whole lower part of the window to release the door catch.
Err that's it |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 22 September 1999 - 04:40 pm | | Hi all.
ROB: This scenario works if that particular window proves to be the sliding sash type. My research narrowed the probable date Miller's Court was built ... and of course, the infamous window may have been installed at a later date, it certainly differs from the far window. Sash windows did exist in the Victorian age, but I'd sure like a look at the Millers Court builder's plans. Don't suppose you have the blueprints tucked into YOUR desk drawer, eh?
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 22 September 1999 - 11:43 pm | | Hi Rob & Janice,
Judging by the photograph the window in question is almost certainly a sash window. There is a drawing showing the murderer escaping through this window which quite clearly shows this. (I know the subject is imagined but there's every chance the window is not)
However in common with most sash windows you would probably find it jammed solid, either through warping of the frame or overpainting. To operate properly sash windows require a lot of maintenance.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 23 September 1999 - 02:00 am | | BOB: Good point about the maintenance of sash windows. Do you know how a sliding sash differed in appearance from the mock sash? Both were around in Queen Victoria's day.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Rob Buckley
Thursday, 23 September 1999 - 04:47 am | | Hi all again,
Thanks Bob for agreeing and then disagreeing, but assuming the photo shows the correct window/s it is very obvious that the window type is a lifting (sash) type.
Saying this window was probably jammed is a big assumption. These windows don't work when they are not used! This happens today because of modern ventilation systems, in the Victorian times I'm sure that window might of been in frequent use.
Can I just point out that much has been guessed about how somebody could lean through a broken pane of glass and at full stretch undo a lock, and then push the door open. Is it not far more obvious that you unbolted the window, and lifted it and then leaned through and opened the door.
I used to do this as a kid when my parents wouldn't let me have a key. They used to leave a little side window open so I could unlock and push open the window nearer the backdoor.
Now I realise that Barnett claiming it was possible to open the door through the window, if proved wrong makes him a better suspect, but it is obvious that is not a false statement and that the door could be opened through the window.
Regards Rob |
|
|
|
|
