Archive through December 28, 2000

** 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 28, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The fire in Kelly's room.: Archive through December 28, 2000

Author: Jon Friday, 22 December 2000 - 03:45 pm
Hello Michael Maybe you never realized this but your poste is comprised of statements begining with "I think", "I believe", "I think", I am certain". This is no way to put mysteries to rest, they need facts. Jon (just teasing)
Author: Diana Friday, 22 December 2000 - 03:50 pm
I read somewhere recently a suggestion that those clothes might have been thrown on the blaze to try and snuff it out rather than as fuel. Someone else said quite a while ago that clothing does not burn well. I have often speculated that Jack had a "thing" about fire. Suppose Kelly brings him home as a customer. He starts building this great honking blaze in the fireplace. Mary, seeing it, panics. "Oi -- wutcha think ye be doin -- air ye daft? Ye'll burn the plaice doon!" She then snatches the nearest items, her friend's clothes and tries to smother the flames. Jack flies into a rage and the rest is history.
Author: Michael Lyden Friday, 22 December 2000 - 04:52 pm
Diana, It sounds like you're confusing MJK with Mr.Scott of the SS.Enterprise! Merry Christmas, Mick Lyden.
Author: Diana Saturday, 23 December 2000 - 09:27 am
You could be right. I don't think I'm real great at writing dialogue in dialect.
Author: Harry Mann Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 03:44 am
Diana, What was the customer using to build a big blazing fire. Horse droppings perhaps?.
Author: Diana Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 08:41 am
Harry -- I don't know. All I know (and my informant could be wrong) is that clothing is not supposed to burn very efficiently. The question arises: Could you make a fire that would be big enough and hot enough to melt the spout off of a teakettle using clothing alone? How much clothing would it take?
Author: Grailfinder Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 12:01 pm
But what proof do we have that the fire was hot enough to have melted the kettle on that night? Until we can prove that Jacks actions were responsible for the Kettle, we would be wrong to assume that the fire was a large one. In my opinion, there could be a clue to the kettles condition prior to the 9th Nov, in the story of Mary Jane visiting her neighbors and sitting with them all afternoon, (drinking tea perhaps) If Mary Janes Kettle was already damaged, she would not have had the means to invite her mates in for a cuppa and gossip. Also, I have never read that items such as tea, sugar etc, were among the items found in her tiny room, so why have the kettle in the first place?. The answer, I think, is that Kelly used this kettle not to make tea, but for boiling water to wash her 'always white and clean' apron, perhaps the broken spout was deliberately melted off by Mary Jane or Joe, so as to be able to pour out the water at a reasonable rate of flow, rather than the slower trickle of a spout?. Mary Janes habit of walking out 'bonnetless' would I assume, in the smokey/sooty streets of Whitechapel, call for a frequent wash of Marys long hair, hair that she was proud of. A spoutless kettle would be an ideal implement for rinsing off her hair over the tin/tub (the thing under the bed?). The above is of course, mere speculation, but this is my point! so is the assumption that the fire in Kelly's room that night, was so fierce that it caused the spout to melt. The fire is I agree, an important part of the case, and finding a reason for Jack lighting it, may yield clues to his identity or motive, but the only real clue we have of the fires size, is the fact that it was still warm later that day when the police entered. This could imply three things, (i) the fire was indeed large, and had been burning for hours, or (ii) something on the fire kept it burning, such as body fats from Mary's heart perhaps? These fats, when soaked up by the clothes in the fire, would behave like a candle and burn for hours as in the spon/hum/com theory. Or (iii) Kelly's time of death is wrong, if the witness reports of Kelly being seen between 8 and 10 of the morning, are correct, then a fire that she may have lit at say, 10:30, could still be smoldering 3 hours later when the police entered. Of course it could have been Kelly that started the fire! she and her mates may have been running a stolen clothes scam, selling them in nearby petticoat lane. The scam would work like this, The whore strips her 'respectable' client of his clothes and kicks him out, knowing that he has no choice but to remain silent, else his behavior becomes common knowledge. Now maybe the 'Kelly Gang' done this once to often and to the wrong man? Jack could well have been one of their ex-humiliated customers seeking revenge? "have a grand Xmas everyone"
Author: Grailfinder Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 01:05 pm
oops
Author: Michael Lyden Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 04:10 pm
Seasons greetings to everyone, Consider these possibilities: 1.The Kettle got damaged on an earlier occasion,probably after Mary let it boil dry. 2.Jack used the clothes left in the room to stop himself getting messy.He then burned them fearing the police would use them to pick up his scent using the bloodhounds. 3.My earlier more simple explanation that jack burned anything he could find to keep warm whilst waiting for an opportunity to make his escape. Have a great Christmas everyone and let's hope the new year brings us a solution(one that doesn't involve aliens or ghosts!!) Mick Lyden.
Author: Grailfinder Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 06:52 pm
Hi Mick 1. Had the kettle been damaged this way the bottom would have melted. 2. Why are you so sure that Jack got messy? 3. If Jack was cold, he had only to put on the mans coat that was in the room, far safer than starting a fire and maybe attracting attention of the neighbors. And lastly, I cant speak for the rest of us, but I would love a solution involving either Aliens or ghosts, best Xmas present ever. cheers
Author: Michael Lyden Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 08:09 pm
Hello Grailfinder, To get technical about kettles for a moment(I can't believe I just said that),the weakest part of the kettle was almost certainly the solder joint which held the spout on and would be the first thing to "go" when subjected to higher temperature than it was designed to withstand.This would be the case, if it was for instance left to boil dry.Solder has a lower melting point than Copper.All of which gets us nowhere nearer the truth of course. To address your second point I fail to see how Jack could have avoided getting just a teeny bit soiled as he plunged his hand in and ripped out MJKs heart! Lastly your third point.If, as I suggested that Jack burned the clothes to destroy any bodily sent he may have given them,he was hardly going to don a coat,take it off later then leave it behind when he went and why would lighting a fire on a cold November morning look in any way suspicious.I,m sure poor people like Kelly burned all sorts of rubbish so all kinds of odd smells must have emanated from chimneys. Regards, Mick Lyden
Author: Judith Stock Monday, 25 December 2000 - 01:40 am
Dear Grailfinder (are you also known as Sir Percival?) and all, While agreeing that a solution involving aliens or ghosts,or a combination of the two, would be a grand gift for the new century, I rather hope we will never find a true solution. And even when presented with what might be an answer, there will never be incontrovertible proof as to the truth of that answer; how can there be? There can only be theories, strong suspects, VERY strong suspects, the ever-popular conspiracy theories, and my own personal favorite---Howdy Doody in a Sooty suit. I know how goofy that sounds, but until I see the Polaroid of Jack standing over Mary, there will be real difficulty in convincing me that ANYONE has been positively proven to be the Ripper. I love this hunt in which we are all engaged, and I love haunting the boards, reading posts of new Ripperologists. I love watching the trek through the maze, and will occasionally post, but mostly I enjoy meeting the people who are involved in this quest (sound familiar, Grailfinder?). The hunt is far more fun than reading about some sad little man with emotional problems, who thought the solution to his unhappiness was the plunder of a woman's body. After all, we are still interested in the I-5 and Green River killers, because their names and motives are unknown to us. I daresay there have been more books written about Jack the Ripper than any other serial killer; I propose the reason for this is that he IS unknown to us. How much can one say about Ted Bundy and his miserable justifications for what he did? So guess on, and propose whomever. I have to agree that the spout of a teakettle probably doesn't hold the answer to this problem, but isn't the speculation grand? Regards to all, and best wishes for a lovely new century. Judy
Author: Diana Monday, 25 December 2000 - 07:48 am
The people on the scene said the fire from the murder night caused the damage to the kettle. Here is where I leap into speculation. I am going to assume that they said that because something led them to believe it. I think that they found the spout lying detatched in the ashes. If it had happened on an earlier occasion or been done on purpose the spout would have been thrown out by Mary or at least placed in a handy spot (the mantle?) with a view to having the kettle repaired. This tells me something else. Mary was poor. Every posession was precious. Unless she was very drunk or dead she would probably not allow her teakettle to be ruined. Carroty mustache brought a whole pail of beer to her room earlier in the night. It is possible that either he or Mary started a fire in the fireplace while he was there and after he left she went to sleep in a drunken stupor allowing the teakettle to be ruined. Then she wakes up, sees the blaze and snuffs it out with the clothes. Possibility two is that the kettle was ruined after she died which means Jack had something to do with it. Is it possible that the beer got spilled (by accident or design) on the clothes? or directly on the fire? Pure alcohol burns rather well, but being a teetotaler I have no idea what would happen if you lit a match to beer. We are told that a whole pail of beer went into that room and we are told there was a roaring fire fed by we know not what. I'm wondering if theres a connection.
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 26 December 2000 - 08:31 am
Diana--Hello. Being a non-drinker, you might not know this, but beer is only about 5% alcohol (or less) and is not the least bit flammable. Even most hard liquors won't burn. I agree about the spout, however. It might be worth noting that Kelly's own clothes and boots were not burned, though they were sitting next to the fire. Is there a reason Mrs Harvey's were thrown in the fire, and not Kelly's? As for time of death, consider the following. If a room is illumined, and it is pitch black outside, a man standing inside the room cannot see out the window, unless leaning very close against it, or with a hand cupped up to it. Bowyer said in the Daily Telegraph that there was blood on the glass of the windows when he went to look inside. Did the murderer lean up against the window to look out before making his escape? Does this indicate it was dark outside? (Is it likely he would have left in broad daylight if his hands were still bloody?) Personally, I don't think the murderer would have stayed in the room for any length of time once the sun came up. Mr.Carroty was hardly being discreet, and I suggest that he be counted out. Though some of the speculations about rigor & etc are interesting, I suggest the crime occured around 3 or 4 a.m. A person of interest is the man leaning against the lamp post opposite the court, though I don't believe this was Hutchinson, who I now tend to write-off as a publicity hound. All idle speculation, of course.
Author: Michael Lyden Tuesday, 26 December 2000 - 06:27 pm
Hello Mr. Palmer, The point about Boyer's observation that there was blood on the window pane is an interesting one.If we assume that the blood was on one of the two broken panes,(this is most likely the case, as most of the "action" took place on the other side of the room)then whos was it.Could it have come from the drunken and uncoordinated kelly reaching in to pull back the catch and catching herself.Or could Jack Himself have reached in,been startled by a noise and ripped his own arm! The point I am driving at is that if the blood was indeed Jack's then he was somebody who knew about the "other" way of opening Mary Jane Kelly's door.This would indicate that the Ripper was not Mr. carroty moustache but a later visitor. I am of course assuming that the blood on the window pane was not Kelly's transfered from Jacks hand . I think had this been the case then something would have been made of the fact that there was a bloody hand or finger print on the glass. Regards, Mick Lyden.
Author: Michael Lyden Tuesday, 26 December 2000 - 09:13 pm
Hello everyone, We all seem to be edging away from Kelly's fireplace and it's getting damned chilly. Seriously though Mr.Palmer,I agree that Hutchinson was seeking publicity but only by fabricating the details of the man he saw with Kelly.It was as if he was saying to everybody I am the only person to have seen Jack the Ripper and I know exactly what he looks like!Apart from the embellishment I think Hutchinsons statement is sound. Now I'd better throw another shirt on the fire coz I'm freezing! Mick Lyden.
Author: Diana Tuesday, 26 December 2000 - 11:08 pm
Regarding knowledge of the method used to open the door: If Kelly and Barnett had been using this method for awhile, anyone passing through the court could have seen them reaching through that hole to open the door on any one of numerous occasions and thus become aware of the method.
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 02:13 am
G'day R.J. Palmer, In which 'Telegraph' report did you read that Bowyer said that there was blood on the glass of the window that he looked through? I just found one report that said: "I looked THROUGH the window and saw a lot of blood". LEANNE!
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 02:20 am
G'day again R.J., Thanks for telling us that beer is not flammable! I just read in a contemporary newspaper, while searching for that comment from Bowyer: 'No trace of this beer has been found in the room, nor the pewter in the ashes of the grate.' LEANNE!
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 08:01 am
Leanne--The Daily Telegraph of Saturday, 10 November 1888. I'll quote it: "Accordingly Bowyer knocked at the door of Kelly's room, but received no answer. Having failed to open the door, he passed round the angle of the house and pulled the blind of the window, one of the panes being broken. Then he noticed blood upon the glass, and it immediately occurred to him that another murder had been committed." But this detail doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere (at least to my knowledge) and should probably be approached with caution. (The entire article can be found on p. 336-345 of The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion) Cheers, RJP
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 12:15 pm
Hello R.J, That was an interesting snippet you mentioned, about blood being on the window of 13 Miller's Court!. I've never seen that mentioned, if you are right, and though it's not part of my theory, it could mean JtR left by the window, not the door!. That could explain the "strange noise made by someone, with a door",an observation made by Mary Cox, I think. Thats if it falls in the right time scale---between 4 and 6 in the morning. Perhaps she was mistaken in thinking it was a door, maybe it was Jack opening the sash window to leave and cutting his hand in the process. I don't think he would have gone anywhere near the window while the room was lighted, no matter how dim. This man, JtR, was NOT an utter madman. He was a contrary,-- a contradiction, every piece of flesh, every organ he cut from Mary Kelly, was carefully placed on the bedside table and on the bed. Only blood, which he wouldn't have complete and immediate control over was on the floor!. Even though looking at the body on the bed,it looked as though a madman had attacked her with complete homicidal abandon, it wasn't so, he was very tidy, he didn't paddle in blood. Of course he was mad enough to be able to kill, but sane enough to know what he was doing when it came to the mutilations, and he was very clever in keeping tidy and not inconveniencing himself with "things" under his feet while working. I believe he killed her in a cold insane rage, but only a very calculating, and dare I say it, "sane mind" could have performed those mutilations. I'd say he was of a strong mind when he did that,-- in the way it was done,-- he left no clues to his identity, (for the Victorian police), he knew exactly what he was doing. But I bet the forensic department of todays CID would have had a field day in that room, THEY WOULD HAVE CAUGHT HIM!. I think when we read of JtR and what he did, we should think a lot about the area and the state of the people who lived in it, and probably he was of the same class, life was cheap if not worthless. Which, really is the most significant, the murders or the mutilations? if he had just killed 4 or 5 women, we wouldnt be comparing theories today. The killings didn't matter that much, they were worthless old prostitute vagrants, the mutilations mattered though! This was the Victorian view, (to my mind). The mutilations could have started a trend with potential killers, and spread. I think the police were mainly concerned with keeping it confined to the worst part of the Eastend, and it would have been a bonus if they could have picked him up, but in my view, they should have done better than they did. After all, thats why he got away with it wasn't it?, THE POLICE WERE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. REGARDS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR to ALL, Rick
Author: Grailfinder Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 01:24 pm
The newspaper report of the 'blood on the window' is also a problem to me. Perhaps some of our more knowledgeable members could clarify its existence, or give an explanation why it was reported as being there? Blood on the window, would I feel, give credibility to the newspaper reports/Artist sketches of 'The Murderer leaving through the window' and in turn, supports the evidence for the door being either locked or had a table blocking it. Although the police report which states that the table next to the bed (see c/s photo) was within the doors ark/swing, suggests that this table was hit by the door when it was pushed open, and would also suggest that there could not have been another table in front of the door, else how could the door hit the other table? (sorry if that sounds confusing, too much Xmas spirit, hic) what I am basically 'trying' to say is that, If table(A) with the meat on, was hit by the door as it was pushed open, then there could not have been a table(B) blocking the door from being opened, or am I reading the reports wrong? did the police mean that table(B) was hit by the door?, not that this has anything to do with the 'blood on the window' and my only excuse for drifting off the topic, is that I'm pissed. Where the blood was found is also an important issue, if the blood was on both the inside and outside, then this could mean that either Jack left via the window. Or after leaving the room, he had a look through the window for himself, to experience the view that would greet Mary Jane's discoverer. However, if the blood was on the inside only, then I would suggest that Jack may have moved the makeshift curtains aside in order to check the coast was clear before exiting the room, and in doing so he passed blood from his hand to the glass. Of course, the fact that the only report of the blood comes from a Newspaper and not official sources, calls for caution on our part, and until further facts about its existence is available then any discussion we have about it, can only be speculative, "but fun" cheers, hic
Author: Qbase Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 01:29 pm
Hello, Why would JTR leave via the window? G
Author: Judith Stock Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 04:11 pm
Dear Q and all, Quite right....why WOULD JtR leave through the window? Fair question and one that can only be answered in one of two ways: either he had a window fetish, and ALWAYS left rooms that way, or he didn't...he left by the door. The answer that leaps immediately to mind regarding the "presence" of blood on the window, is that, considering the carnage that had been wreaked inside that room, I'd be surprised if there were NO blood on the window. Neither of the above, of course, is a real answer, but just my thoughts on a snowy winter day. Happy new year to all, judy
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 05:06 pm
G'day Qbase and all those people who don't know, The 'Mary Jane Kelly's Missing Key/Broken window Panes' issue has caused alot of debate here in Casebook in the past. Go to the message board menu on the left, click on: TOPICS / RIPPER VICTIMS / SPECIFIC VICTIMS / MARY JANE KELLY / THE MISSING KEY TO KELLY'S ROOM. Start by reading Stephen Ryder's very first post on the issue in the first archive, then browse all the other comments. Let me try to get you interested: Mary's front door key went missing prior to her death, but her door was found locked on the morning her body was found. Her landlord had to put an axe to it to get in. Her boyfriend Joseph Barnett told Inspector Abberline that "it [the key] has been missing for some time and since it has been lost [he and Kelly] have put their hands through the broken window and moved back the catch." The window was broken during the couples heated row, nine days prior, in which Barnett left to move elsewhere. Although it was never stated, the key must have vanished after the panes were broken, otherwise how would Kelly have reached through to open/lock her door? R.J.: That telegraph report was the only one that even implies that Bowyer found blood on the glass. It has already been ramed down my throat that: "we can't trust everything that we read in contemporary newspapers." Leanne!
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 05:59 pm
Ms. Stock--hello. Dr. Gabe, one of the doctors that viewed Kelly's body said "There was comparatively little blood, death having been due to the severing of the throat, the mutilations having been subsequently performed." Looking at the existing photographs, we can see that this is so. It was Dr. Bond's opinion that "the murderer would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands and arms must have been covered". So if there were blood on the window, it might signify something. Or maybe not. Regards, RJP
Author: Grailfinder Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 06:26 pm
Hi Leanne I agree that this topic has been covered in the past, and the board you point out has some very interesting thoughts and theories. However, it never does any harm to go over the 'coals again' (sorry!) and who knows? one of our newer members just might offer an idea/thought that has not been raised before. You say "Although it was never stated, the key must have vanished after the panes were broken, otherwise how would Kelly have reached through to open/lock her door?" I would have thought it was the other way round, surely the window was smashed because the key had been lost? If you take a look at some of the Artist sketches, you will notice that there is more than one window broken, and one of these broken panes may well have been damaged during Mary and Joe's fight, however, I think the broken pane nearest the door latch could have been broken on purpose by either Mary or Joe on the night that the key went missing. I have locked myself out of the house on many occasions and have had to break a window to get in, its the natural thing to do surely? It is reported, that Joe told the police about the key being lost and Mary's method of entry, but why no statement from her landlord? surely the first thing one does when your key is missing is to ask the landlord if he has a spare? McCarthy obviously did not possess a spare key, but he must have been curious as to how they managed to continue going in and out of the room, and I have always thought that he knew more about Mary's movements than he said when questioned. And finally, although I agree with your statement, "we can't trust everything that we read in contemporary newspapers." it is also, equally just as important, that we do not ignore or dismiss these reports, we have so little 'official Prime Source evidence' that if Jack is ever to be identified, then the evidence to prove his guilt will 'I guarantee' come from some source other than the police records/prime source. cheers
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 07:18 pm
Warwick--Hello. One question before I call it a day. Are you certain that the windows to Kelly's room could be even be opened? You may wish to refer to the photograph on the Main Casebook item titled Victims: Mary Kelley (the third page of the article, I believe). I know this has been discussed before, but my memory fails me. I am relatively certain the small window did not open; I believe the larger window was removed in order that the photograph be taken; though I may be wrong on this point. I imagine someone will chime in here with an answer. You are quite right in pointing out, that Bagster Phillips said that 'on the door being opened it knocked against a table', but it is somewhat difficult to know exactly how close it was to the door, even when examining the two photographs. Phillips also said 'the table I found close to the left-hand side of the bedstead', so it appears (to me, at least) that it was far enough to the left that it would have been possible to exit through the door. All IMHO, of course. But look at the various photographs and tell me what you think. Regards, RJP
Author: Judith Stock Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 08:19 pm
RJ.....I never meant to imply that MJK was alive while the mutilations were going on. I do know that blood essentially slows and stops after death. I obviously misspoke, because what I meant to say (and it came out wrong) was that with the bits of Kelly being draped around the room as they were, and the killer enjoying himself so totally, I would not be surprised at the presence of blood anywhere. That was all I meant to say...there are no arguments to be had from me; I'm in too good a mood and won't have it spoiled by a disagreement. Ta for now, Judy
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 27 December 2000 - 09:08 pm
Of course I agree with you R.J.,there was plenty of room to exit through the door. Say there was one ft of brickwork to the door frame, a door of 2ft-8in, allow 4ins for frame, 2ft for the door to fly open before hitting the table, the table perhaps 2ftsquare, and the bed 3ft,-- that adds up to 11ft, and the room was 12ftx10ft. But don't forget, R.J. I'm only commenting, it's not my theory,-- I do believe he went out through the door,-- and locked the door after himself. The window that was broken was quite a bit smaller than the main window, it doesn't look right, and you could very well be correct in thinking it was fixed,--but who knows!. I'm a bit of an admirer of Dr. Bond, he infered there was plenty of blood,splashed up the wall, when the Ripper cut her throat, that soaked the pillow and top righthand corner of the bed, then ran to the floor making a pool two ft sq. There must have been a lot of blood, he didn't strangle her first, he went straight for her throat with the knife after she screamed "oh murder", otherwise why was the sheet cut, frayed and bloodsoaked, if he had strangled her first he wouldn't have needed to cut her throat through the sheet. Then, it was a freshly killed body, and he cut it to pieces immediatly, it was bound to seep and weep all sorts of body fluids including more blood in that process. I think Dr.Bond described the bed as blood sodden My regards Rick
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 04:09 am
G'day Grailfinder, You're right mate! There's no harm going over old 'coals' again. I am reading through old posts to heat up my memory. I think I seemed stubborn in my beliefs back then, but there was something not-right about Mary's lost key/ locked-door thing. If people want to see the broken window panes, that some people believe Jack squeezed through, go to the post titled: 'Kelly's Window' Wednesday November 10, 1999 - 08:42 a.m. I think a view of this will end this belief. I hear those people thinking: "Ah, but obviously Jack opened the window and squeezed through, then shut it again behind him". If her window was that easy to open, why didn't they employ this method on the morning her body was found? Everyone viewed her body first by peering through the window - even her boyfriend! No, I reckon Jack left her room that morning by going through the front door. But wait, there was flesh on a table blocking an outsider's view of the installed latch. I believe that the killer walked around to the broken window, reached through and pulled the bloody table across to block the view of the latch from outside. This gave him a reason to pile the flesh on the table, plus shows that he was aware of the Kelly/Barnett secret mode of entry! Leanne!
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 04:25 am
G'day, The picture of the window that I mention above, can be found in the ('MISSING KEY TO KELLY'S ROOM' board, in ('ARCHIVE THROUGH NOVEMBER 12 1999.) Look at the post made on (WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 10, 1999 - 08:42 a.m.) THANKYOU, Leanne!
Author: Diana Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 07:45 am
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.
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 10:33 am
Dear Judith, Warwick: hello. Just a friendly note to assure you that I certainly had no intention 'arguing' any particular point! Torn envelopes, locked doors, curious graffiti... these are enjoyable puzzles for rainy afternoons and slow-work days, certainly nothing to argue about. I take my own crack-pot theories very unseriously and am always glad to hear opposing views. Diana--I would mildly suggest that the window to MJK's room was around the corner from the passage, and not in view to someone passing the court. Bowyer & McCarthy would have been in the best position to know about the ruse of opening the door through the window, but were evidently ignorant of the method. I don't think a court such as Miller's Court, would be subject to much outside foot traffic; I've found that it's easy to walk by the entrances to these courts without even knowing they are there. But then, who knows? (Besides, my theories are somewhat prejudicial, in that I'd like to pin this one on Barnett...) Best wishes for the new year, RJP
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 10:42 am
Hello Leanne, I don't think I have you wrong when I say we agree on who JtR could be/very likely was. But judging from your post last night, we seem to have a difference of opinion as to where the table with the body parts was positioned. If I read you right, you think the table was in front of the door as it opened so that it banged into the table almost immediately, and it was also in front of the small window, so that was the first thing Bowyer saw when he looked through the broken pane,I think R.J may think the same as you Leanne. I've always thought of the flesh laden table being at the left side head of the bed with a small space between the bed and the table. So when the door was broken open it fled back with some force and just before it reached wide open, it banged against the table. If it was my version the flesh would still be the first thing Bowyer would see, but at a distance of about 6ft or so. I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong, I'm just commenting on our different thoughts on the situation. My best regards Rick P.S. I hope you are enjoying your summer, I'm enjoying our winter-- I don't think!!! Hope you don't have any big forest fires
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 10:58 am
Hello R.J. Great minds think alike, I'm sure he's the guilty party. All the Best in the New Year to you too, Rick.
Author: Jon Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 12:42 pm
Rick / Leanne Rick, I think we both see this 'door-knocked-against-the-table' thing the same way. The door hit it as it swung open, not meaning the table was directly up against the back of the door, just that the arc of the swing eventually struck the table which was really between the nearside of the bed and the hingeside of the door. Leanne, I still fail to understand your point of the table obscuring the latch on the door. How high do you think this table was?....how tall are the legs, in your opinion? The table is in the photograph and there's precious little difference between its height and the height of the bed. If that table is more than 30" high, I'll eat my hat. Typically, I would expect it to be 24-30" approx, from the floor. How usefull would a latch be installed so low on a door? The typical height for a handle/lock is 36" from the floor, and when people install seperate latches they usually install them at chest height. So, if the latch was part of the handle, it was about 36" from the floor. If it was a seperate mounted latch it was likely anywhere from 45-60" from the floor. Why do you think the table was as high as 36"?, or conversly, why do you think the latch was installed lower than 30"? Or...am I still misunderstanding your point? Regards, Jon
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 05:40 pm
G'day Diana, What you say in your post above, could also apply if Millers Court, Dorset Street was the place where Jack returned to after each stalking night. I'd say that Joe and Mary kept their special entry mode secret, (i.e. Joe reached through while Mary kept a watch) WARWICK: Mate, I have seen so many photographs and diagrams of Mary's room layout over the years, that I know exactly where everything was. I keep reading your version of things, then I read what you thing my version is and I can't see the difference. No forest fires mate! They're not all that common, you know! JOHN: Mate, I am impressed with you mathematical genius of table heights etc. You say: 'The typical height for a lock is 36 inches from the floor' plus you say that the table looks about 30 inches high. How hight would it be with say 6 inches of blood and flesh piled on top? LEANNE!
Author: Jon Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 07:04 pm
LOL Leanne, speaking from experience, I can tell you that wet sloppy flesh will slither and slop over the edge of a flat surface, unless its piled in the centre, away from the edge. So,......how could you hide a spring lock if the edge of the table is pushed to the door? (are you serious about this?) From the window an observer is looking down on to the table...how on earth can it hide a feature fixed to the door? Jon (anyone just had supper?) :-)
Author: Jon Thursday, 28 December 2000 - 07:31 pm
Leanne I am really not trying to persuade you one way or another, but trying to imagine how you see a small table obscuring a door latch..... Excuse my poor excuse for a sketch, but this is how I see the view from the window. Can you tell me what it is that I dont understand? Jon P.S. this is not where I think the table is, my sketch indicates where I think Leanne places the table.