Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

 Search:



** 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 December 30, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The missing key to Kelly's room.: Archive through December 30, 2000
Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 08:09 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Caz,

Quite right, and I have taken that train of thought into account. But.... do we know that that was the case? We assume that Jack must have known the patch inside out, but must he?...

Assuming Jack bumped off Stride, for example, I find the choice of Dutfield's yard as pretty poor for a rip action. A cul-de-sac, with a well-frequented club next door where anyone could (and did!) come at any time. It could well be that Jack was still there as the body was discovered, and made his escape as the alarm was being raised in the club. Crazy luck if that was true.

Chapman's murder site at Hanbury Street was little better. Indeed, if witness reports are true, Jack, or at least his victim, was actually heard at the vital moment. Even Nichols was possibly 'saved' greater mutilation because Jack was disturbed before he could really get his knife going.

The Ladies knew their patch inside out. Jack could have used them to show him the way to a secluded spot. Eddowes's case could have been typical, she shows him the way, they see a Bobby on patrol in the square, wait until he has gone:

EDDOWES: OK, he's gone.

JACK (for it is he): What if he comes back and catches us?

EDDOWES: Oh, he'll not be back for 15 minutes at least. I serve customers here every day and never see a soul except him, We're quite safe.

JACK: Hah! 'We're' is good, Madam.
(CHOP-HACK-SLICE-MINCE-GOUGE-RIP-etc.)

Love,

Bob

Author: JackisBack
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 11:22 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Bob, I love your sound effects, can you create a wav file of these sounds, using an dummy and not a real person, please...

Author: alex chisholm
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 07:20 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Apologies to all for this interruption to the current discussion. Recurring Internet problems have prevented me keeping up to date in recent days, and I feel Wolf’s post of the 16th merits a further response.

Wolf, I wholeheartedly agree with your observation that "the slightest word slip can send posters into a fit of apoplexy." A similar concern prompted me to counter your assertion that the Telegraph’s coverage of Kelly’s inquest, being from a newspaper account, "is therefore unreliable." In doing so, it was an awareness of the differences you highlight, and a few others, which led me to choose the phrases "on the whole" and "corresponds well" rather than ‘invariably matches exactly.’ I’ve never thought the Telegraph should be viewed in isolation, or that anything reported therein can be taken as unquestionable fact. Nor would I recommend that the Telegraph report be relied upon in preference to official papers. Indeed, I suspect I’m every bit as wary of newspaper reports as your good self. I would simply add that I’m no less wary of official sources.

As I see it, both official and newspapers accounts are, on their own, equally unreliable. Both must therefore merit equal consideration. They should, where possible, be viewed together if we are to have any hope of approaching a fuller understanding of events. Consequently, any generalised predetermination that one source, official or otherwise, must be privileged as ‘reliable,’ the other debased as ‘unreliable,’ could, in my opinion, foster partial and thereby potentially distorted views.

With regard to the presented differences, it may well be a "neat trick" to offer an opinion on the general age of a person from the report of their voice, but this is a trick Sarah Lewis clearly felt able to perform. Her official statement to police on the 9th Nov. records "Shortly before 4 o’clock I heard a scream like that of a young woman, and seemed to be not far away." In view of this, given the option of the Telegraph reporter introducing invented testimony or the official recorder omitting portions, I would consider an official omission to be more probable, and believe that on this point the Telegraph more accurately records given testimony.

The Telegraph then seems content to offer a general indication of the proximity of the sound, and, to my mind, the official account is probably more precise in this instance. A view seemingly supported by coverage of the Inquest in other newspapers, such as The Star of the East, 12th Nov., which reports: "A little before four o’clock I heard a female voice scream "murder" loudly, the sound appearing to come from the direction of the deceased’s house."

With Prater’s testimony, the omission by the Telegraph of her lodging house light statement clearly seems to compound this report’s apparently mistaken "a quarter to four." As for the location from which the voice proceeded, it is perfectly conceivable that "from the court" could be thought sufficient to indicate "close by." Just as "close by" in no way negates the voice coming "from the court." As other press versions of inquest testimony also record the cry emanating "from the court" it would be tempting to favour the Telegraph account, were it not for the Times report of 13 Nov. This relates the same testimony as "The sound appeared to proceed from the court and near where witness was." Perhaps then, in this instance, both official and Telegraph reports omit portions of given testimony.

While I appreciate that all this is a product of personal preference or individual interpretation - such is history - I consider that a critical comparison of official and newspaper reports, afforded equal status, offers the best hope of resolving some of the differences that otherwise seem so troublesome. As a result, I don’t think any conceivably unequivocal dismissal of either source as unreliable, from any contributor of your standing, should go unchallenged. Hence my initial interjection on this point, which I hope, so far, has necessitated no re-commissioning of suits of armour or chain-maces. - Sorry Bob.

Best Wishes
alex

Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 18 November 1999 - 11:11 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Alex, and everyone else,

I tend to agree with the most of your points above. I was very suspicious for years about newpaper reports, having often read pieces covering events where I was present, and also sometimes involved. It was very often so that I wasn't able to recognise anything from the coverage, and had to assume that the reporter had been in the wrong town.

I then became, through curious chance and mistake, copies of police security files including one claiming to contain information over myself. The contents were the biggest load of hogwash imaginable, full of errors, misinformation, lies and deceit. The persons responible for it had, without bothering to check even the most elementary fact, simply written what was evidently personal opinions. Later, having to correct but not wanting to show their own lazyness, they purported complete fairytales to try to justify themselves. This file was an official police document that, had I been suspected of some crime, would have been used as background material to help judge innocence or guilt!

The extremely nasty and very loud bang that followed is probably still ringing in their ignorant, stupid, lazy, deceitful, (and in one case demoted) fat heads. My file is now correct. How many others are corrupt?

If official documents can contain such elementary errors, irrespective of gounds, what chance is there for us to become an absolutely true report of some event long gone? I do agree that newpaper reports do not necessarily give less real detail as official reports. It just seems that we have to take everything with a pinch of salt if we don't want to get it all wrong.

At the same time, when, because of some remark or critic, a blood-bath breaks lose on the boards. I don't necessarily think it always bad. As we know, when someone wants to prove how right they are, they will generally leave no stone unturned to do it. That can bring some very useful points to light that otherwise would not have been raised, even if the person is otherwise completely in error.

The only thing that doesn't belong on this, or any other board, are the personal insult-types like against Paul Begg and others in the past. The silly little schoolboy types just fill air.

Best regards

Bob

Author: Boris
Friday, 19 November 1999 - 09:04 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Yeah Bob, no more insults against dogma, go ahead try to rewrite history.. Are you a fathead Bob?

Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 06:56 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
There are several possibilities how Jack entered Mary Kelly's room on that fateful night way back in 1888. Here are some :
(1) Jack had the key and unlocked the door , letting himself in.
(2) Jack knocked on the door or asked from outside to be let in , and the victim inside let him in.
(3) Jack knew about how to open the door via the broken pane , and let himself in this way.
(4) Jack arrived with Kelly and entered at the same time she did.
(5) Jack used a lockpick or skeleton key to unlock the door to allow him entry.
Are there any other possibilities ? What do people think is the most likely way that the killer entered the room ?

Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 17 April 2000 - 07:37 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
The most likely and easiest way, was 4. Any other would have her screaming her lungs out, and make her defend herself like hell. From a fight is little or no evidence, only some slight defense wounds, but nothing to justify an unlawfal entry.

Case 2 seems a possiblity, if he was a trusted person or a premeditated client.

Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 03:30 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day,

All but No.5, point to the killer to have been someone that Kelly knew and trusted.
1. If she found, then gave the key to someone, she would have known that person.
2. If he knocked, then I don't think he would have just been let in. That's not how prostitutes got their clients.
3. If he knew about how to open the door by reaching through and none of the other residents knew this little secret, (I'd say that they were very careful not to be seen doing this), but Jack knew!
4. It's a little stonger possibility that Jack entered the room with Kelly, but again how popular was it for prostitutes to bring their clients home? (in the 'Ripper' rein?)
5. I think the 'Skeleton Key' thing is a little too 'colourful'!

Leanne!

Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 03:38 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day,

I wish we knew a bit more about the state of the door, before it was axed:

Was it locked plus bolted, before it was axed open? This would have made it impossible to just open it with a skeleton key. Also, if skeleton keys were available at the time, why didn't the police own one?

Leanne!

Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 05:46 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Due to inspiration from the other board , let me propose a further point :
(6) The killer came to the room and found the door unlocked and no-one inside. He hid inside the room ( perhaps under the bed ) and waited for the victim to return. When she was asleep , he came out and attacked.

Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 06:05 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Leanne,

About no.4: Since all the victims were killed outside, she felt maybe more safe within doors? And we know she took some men to her home that night.

Simon: I prefer no.4 for one main reason. It always were the victims that lead JTR to their murder site. JTR probably thought Mary Jane would lead him to some secluded spot in an alley, but apparently he was very lucky that night, because this one took him along to her home. I'm sorry to say he had the night of his life.

Jill (yak, I hated it to write this)

Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 07:03 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day,

Jill: OK No.4, but No.5 is rediculous!

Simon: Have you seen the size of the space, under Kelly's bed? If you think the killer hid between the right side and the wall and Kelly's head was lying closest to the right side, wouldn't she have sat up in fright? Hey maybe the killer was hiding in the chimney?

Leanne!

Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 07:46 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day Leanne !
No , not personally I haven't ! How big was the space under Kelly's bed anyway ?

Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 08:27 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day Si,

Take a look at the famous body-on-the-bed photo, here in Casebook, suspects/May Jane Kelly. The photo is right down the bottom of this page.

There wasn't much room to squeeze under, plus there's something else under the bed, or holding the bed up.

Imagine Jack squeezing under, this single bed, with his weapon, plus whatever he carried it in, plus something to fuel a fire! If he didn't turn up with anything to fuel a fire, so he could at least see what he was doing, he must have known that someone was going to leave some clothes behind for him to burn!

Leanne!

Leanne!

Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 19 April 2000 - 05:06 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day,

Back to your 5 points:
1. Jack may not have had the key. It may still have been lost.
If he didn't lock the door with a key when he left, then he must have been aware of the hand-thru-window method, used it, then blocked view of the bolt from the window with the table and it's contents.

2. If Jack knocked, then asked for entry, he must have been expected and trusted.

3. If Jack let himself in, he was aware of the hand-thru-window thing.

4. It is very possible that Jack entered at the same time as Kelly did.

5. If Jack had a skeleton key and entered while Kelly was out, where did he hide and how could he be sure she wasn't going to bring anyone with her?

If Jack had a skeleton key and entered while Kelly was home, why didn't she scream the house down?

Leanne!

Author: Bob Hinton
Friday, 21 April 2000 - 04:55 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Everyone,

Why not look at the simplest explanation, Jack arrived after Mary was asleep and found the door open (unlocked).

all the best

Bob Hinton

Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 21 April 2000 - 08:55 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day,

OK, If he wasn't well known to her, how could he be sure that Kelly wasn't going to scream her lungs out?

Leanne!

Author: Jeffrey
Friday, 21 April 2000 - 12:42 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hello Bob & Leanne !

Your simplest explanation could very likely be correct, but why then this room? 13 Millers Court was well off the main (Dorset) street. You actually had to pass down a passageway and enter the court to reach Kelly's room. Also locks were one of the hottest items for sale in England and surely most people were locking their doors when they went to bed for the night. I think Kelly, who was very aware of the Rippers' reign of terror in her neighbourhood, would have taken some safety precautions.


The Ripper didn't just go around checking doors to see if they were open, and what's to say there wasn't a Mike Tyson lookalike on the other side of the door. Thinking about this though, he may have simply ducked into the passageway to avoid an oncoming constable or someone, and it was then he heard Kelly singing, or he may have seen the faint fire-light?

The point is though that the evidence does suggest Kelly had undressed, folded her clothes neatly and placed them in a neat pile on the chair. She had placed her boots then, in front of the fire probably to dry out, and had nothing on but the white chemise. Whatever happened after that, it does look to me like she had closed up shop for the night.

Jeff D

Author: Diana
Friday, 21 April 2000 - 03:50 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
I have begun to wonder if maybe Jack hadn't been stalking Kelly for awhile. Hadn't Julia Venturney moved out right before the killing? Jack watches Mary with intent to get her, but she has invited Julia to stay with her and there is nothing he can do. He doesn't want to take on the two of them. But as soon as friend Julia departs Kelly is attacked and killed. In fact, Barnett testified to Kelly's fear of the ripper. Maybe that was why she had Venturney with her. She may even have suspected she was being watched.

Author: Michael Lyden
Friday, 21 April 2000 - 07:24 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hello fellow posters,
In an earlier discussion, the possibility was put forward that Jack entered Kellys room in her absence and hid under the bed.I too, have considered this scenario.I have examined an uncropped example of the kelly photograph and I am sure the object under the bed is a tin bath or pale and looks fairly large.Taking this into consideration,it seems that there was probably enough room for jack to slip under the bed.Incidently the aforementioned pale was probably the one used by the police,to carry away the variuos organs and bits of flesh and was probably used by kelly as a"G'zunda".
Regards,
M.Lyden

Author: Diana
Friday, 21 April 2000 - 08:09 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Boy did I mess up! Julia Venturney moved in before Barnett moved out. Later she moved out and was replaced by another friend of Kelly's. Please ignore previous post. I hope Anon doesn't have a field day!

Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 22 April 2000 - 04:31 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day,

I agree that Kelly would have bolted her door. If not, why did she install it?

Elizabeth Prater, told the inquest, how she barricaded her door with 2 tables before falling asleep.

Diana: If Jack wasn't Barnett, he must have stalked her enough to know that she was no longer living with him and that her prostitute friends were no longer staying there.

Venturney stayed there, in that tiny room, possibly forcing Barnett to sleep on the floor. No sooner did Julia leave than Kelly immediately took in a second friend, Maria Harvey, on the 30th of October. At 5 or 6pm that night, Barnett and Kelly had a violent, heated row and he moved out.

Leanne!

Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 22 April 2000 - 04:49 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day Bob,

OK, thinking...thinking...thinking:

Jack waited until Mary's customer left,
gave her time to undress and fold her clothes neatly,
Hoped that she was too drunk to bolt her door,
Loitered outside, while all those people were coming and going,
hid the knife in his trouser poket, so no passers-by would see it,
Opened the door just enough to see Mary in bed, asleep,
Snuk in, closing the door behind him so no one could see,
Walked up to the left of the bed,
Drew out his knife, Mary wakes, screams "Murder" once, so he puts his hand over her mouth,
Slices her throat from her right to her left, in the dark,
Then he lights a fire so he can make a jigsaw puzzle out of her body,
Thinks: "Oh that's a nice heart, it would look great in my collection".

I think that trying to write a 'script' of the final scene, will help us to see the possible solution!

Leanne!

Author: Diana
Wednesday, 26 April 2000 - 11:24 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
I'm wondering about Mary's motive for playing musical roommates. Suppose she started to suspect Joe Barnett. She doesn't want him to know what she is thinking, but she doesn't want to be the next victim either. So she invites Venturney to live with them so that he will not dare to try anything. As soon as Venturney moves out, she gets Maria Harvey in there. And it is significant that Joe did not like their presence. We only have his word as to why. I'm not clear on when exactly Harvey moved out, but with her went Kelly's last vestige of safety. If Harvey had remained, Jack probably would not have been able to kill Kelly, whoever he was. If he was stalking her, he probably was waiting for Harvey to go.

Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 26 May 2000 - 08:47 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
G'day All,

If Mary Kelly didn't volunteer the information about the lost key to McCarthy, but instead installed a self-locking lock, that could be unlocked from the window; Plus that huge assemblage of police and intelligent 'Victorian elders', couldn't see this new lock (so had to axe the door open), Could the small table with 'the flesh stripped from the body' have been put there by 'Jack', to block the view of the new lock from the window?

Leanne!

Author: Michael Lyden
Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 08:28 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hello everyone,
The crucial question we must ask when discussing the missing key to Kelly's room is,what type of lock could have been fitted to her door?This may seem irrelevant to some but let me explain why I think it is important.
As we know, after the key went missing, both Kelly and Barnett used to let themselves in by reaching through a broken window and sliding back part of the latch mechanism.Inserting and twisting the key would have actuated that same part of the mechanism also unlocking the door of course. The most important question is, did the lock include a mechanism that prevented the manual operation of the catch? ie. a locking action,enabled by the key only, that would stop anybody pulling back the catch?If the door could be locked in this way then it must have been locked by the killer eqipped with a key.But if the lock was of a simpler non-locking design, then I think that the question of whether Jack had a key or not is irrelevant.
Does anyone know their tumblers from their wards?
Is there an expert who can give us details of the type of lock that could have been fitted to the door at No.13?
Any comments would be most welcome

Mick Lyden

Author: Jon
Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 09:59 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Mick
A short answer to that question..
Go to the message board menu, at left and do a 'Keyword' search on "spring lock" (two words within quotes)
You will get a bundle of previous postes, we've had exchanges on the type & make of the lock before.

Regards, Jon

Author: Michael Lyden
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 06:51 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Thanks Jon,


Mick.

Author: Diana
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 07:59 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
I posted this on another thread instead of here where I should have posted it. We think Jack trolled for victims. We also know that his depredations were committed within the confines of a relatively small area. What would keep him from wandering into Miller's Court one day just in time to see Joe or more likely Mary, with her arm through that window up to her armpit working the lock. "Aha" says Jack. "This one's young and pretty. Its not safe to do them on the streets any more with all the patrols, but I see how she gets in." Then he comes back in the wee hours of the morning when she's asleep, opens the door, creeps in, and the rest is history. Another thought arises. It has been remarked that Jack had always done older women before and Mary was a departure. Suppose he saw Venturney or Harvey with their arm through the window. (Can we find out their ages?) When he comes back he covers the face with the sheet and kills. Only then does he look and see that his victim is a younger woman.

Author: Jon
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 12:16 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Diana.
Just a small matter, Millers Court was not a thoroughfare, no stranger would be standing behind her. The court, or yard, was not much bigger than some modern-day living rooms. If Jack was seen in the court he would be remembered, a stranger would have no business being there, unless as a customer of a streetwalker. And if he was a customer, then one of the residents knew him. These were close knit communities, even though strangers came and went, the locals knew all their neighbours and there business.
Your potential stranger would have been leaving another house in the court.

Just something to keep in mind.

Author: Diana
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 03:47 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Lets see -- delivery people, visitors of residents, or any one of a dozen pretexts (anyone seen my lost dog?) or as you pointed out a customer of a prostitute. Just because someone knew him did not make it impossible for him to be Jack. Were they really that close knit with half the populace being transient? George Hutchinson loitered outside Mary's door till the wee hours and got away with it. Maybe Jack was one of Mary's customers. He would have had ample opportunity to watch her unlatch the door.

Author: Michael Lyden
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 04:52 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hello everyone,
I have just been reading through the many archived posts on this subject and have found it all very interesting.
But when a subject such as this has been has been discussed so thoroughly in the past,it is difficult to bring anything to the disussion that isn't just a rehashed version of what has been considered before.
However a couple of pionts occurred to me as I was reading, that as far as I am aware, have not been raised.
Firstly, in his interview with Abberline,Barnett explained that the key to No 13 had gone missing and described how he and Kelly would reach through the broken window to move back the catch allowing them to enter the room.But could just one person perform this maneuver or would it take two?Let me explain.
It was probably quite tricky putting an arm through the broken window and pushing back the bolt.Note that I said push and not pull because we know that the door opened inwards to the right.This means that, looking at it from inside the room,the bolt would have to have been drawn to the left to disengage it from its housing in the door frame.The bolt would then have to be held in this position against the tension of the spring whilst the door was pushed inwards with the other hand.
Looking at the photograph(the one showing the broken windows)it would seem that this was a much more dificult task than Barnett made it out to be.So when in his statment when Barnett descibed the method he and Kelly used to enter No13, did he mean one operating the bolt and the other pushing the door?
Secondly if we consider the situation at Millers court just after the police arrived,at first it seems puzzling that nobody worked out how to enter the room witout a key but maybe as I have explained, things weren't quite so simple.Also we must remember that orders were given that nobody was to enter the room until the dogs arrived.Now with this in mind all thought probably turned from how they were going to enter the room to when were they going to enter and to the awful task that lay ahead.

Regards,

Mick Lyden.

Author: Michael Lyden
Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 05:24 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
On second thoughts ignore the first bit!

Mick Lyden.

Author: Jeffrey
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 05:20 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Mick,

When they did get to go into the room, for some reason the had to SMASH the door in ! There were a couple of broken windows, probably a rickety old door and not much more than a thin sheet of plywood seperating it from the rest of the house.

The room was not exactly Fort Knox. Remember too, as my Parents used to say, "we never had to even lock our front doors in my day". I have always wondered why they had to smash the door in. You would have thought at worst, a little jimmy with a screwdriver would sort it out, if reaching through the window wasn't an option.

I do think the killer knew exactly what he was doing and I agree with Diana, above. I might even go as far as to say the Ripper appears to have stalked his victims somewhat. I believe the evidence indicates the Ripper knew the scene of crimes very well. He knew his means of ingres and egress, and more than likely, the basic routines of the locals. I don't think that fateful night was the first time the Ripper was in Millers Court.

Jeff D

Author: Michael Lyden
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 09:54 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hello Jeffrey,
I tend to agree with you when you say that Jack was probably no stranger to Millers court.As for the actual method McCarthy used to get the door open,statments seem to vary.One source tells us he smashed in the door with an axe and another says that he inserted a pickaxe and levered the door open,who knows.One of the things that still puzzles me is that none of the witnesses living in Millers court who gave statements to the police, made any mention of Kelly and Barnett's alternative method of getting into number 13.
I would have expected Mary Ann Cox to have included in her statement something like "The man with the blotchy face and carroty moustace waited whilst Mary went round the side of the house,put her arm through the window...etc.But no Cox simply said "Mary and the man banged the door".Something about this omission of certain details just doesn't ring true.
After reading through many of the posts on this discussion, it seems that alot of people agree that Barnett and Kelly's hand through the window trick was no secret the residents of the court,but the witesses statements seem to suggest otherwise.Infact the only time the "window trick" is ever mentioned is in Barnett's statement to Abberline.(Somebody correct me if I am wrong).

Your thoughts please.

Mick Lyden

Author: Jon
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 11:02 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Well Gentlemen...we all poste about the same issue...

(copied from another board)
You recall the fact that Maria Harvey had been staying with Kelly previous to the murder? also little Lizzie Albrook had been in Kelly's company?
If what Barnett say's was true, about having to open the door through the window, then both Harvey & Albrook may have known about it too. Anyone arriving at the place with Kelly would see her use that method to open the door, especially Mrs Harvey, if she was staying there at all.
Unless, as is possible, Kelly simply left the door off the latch when she went out.
Anyone living in a room with two broken windows in a sash-type window frame is not going to be overly concerned about break-ins. Locking the door may have been Barnett's fastidious nature(?), but Kelly, being a street person, may have though it not necessary, "what do I have worth pinching?".

I think the whole issue is spurious.

Regards, Jon

Author: Diana
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 11:13 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
We are told that Mary was terrified of JTR. I think she would have locked the door. Could the secret method have been a two step process? First you nip around to the window and release the catch. Then you go around to the other side and bang the door open. Cox could have been selecting. All witnesses do this: omitting details they consider insignificant. Where was Cox standing when she observed this and when did she arrive there? 1) She could have been in a position to observe step #2 but not step #1, i.e. the passageway from Dorset Street. 2) She could have arrived after Mary disengaged the lock but before she opened the door.

Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 11:40 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
I like Barnett's statement at the inquest. "She did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me..." (!) Joe, what on earth did you mean?

Author: Jon
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 01:10 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Thats OK Diana, we are only dealing with opinions anyway.

I'll tell you how bothered she was about her life.....she still went out at night, alone, picking up strange men, with an uncaught murderous maniac about.
How bothered is that?

Regards, Jon

Author: Michael Lyden
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 01:17 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hello jon,
I disagree with you when you say the issue is a spurious one.When I wrote my previous post I kept in mind the fact that kelly let friends as well as clients into her room.But don't you find it odd that none of those people such as Albrook or Harvey,made any mention in their statements, of the method used by Kelly to open the door from the outside?Unless of course in the period between the key going missing and Kelly entertaining her last few customers,it just so happened that MJK only answered the door and let visitors in but didn't actually take friends back to No.13
Of course it is the number MEN who were privy to the "arm through the window" trick that is of greatest interest to us.
I know this discussion has been "done to death"(if you pardon the expression)but I still think much can be gained by re-examining the details with fresh eyes.

Regards,

Mick Lyden.

 
 
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation