Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 09:46 pm |        |
Dear Everyone,
I have received today a sample of the type of lock I believe was fitted to Mary Kellys door.
It has been supplied by a specialist firm dealing with antique locks, and is typical of the cheap spring bolt type of lock fitted to the type of property found in the east end.
It is constructed out of pressed steel, cheaply made and simply assembled. The bolt operates on a spring, just like a Yale lock, pull the door to and the bolt shoots home.
There is a round knob on the inside of the lock which is used to retract the bolt, and another catch that holds the bolt back in the open position.
If someone could email me and tell me how to do it I would be only too happy to post photos of it on the board.
I will be making up a minature door and doorframe and fit the lock to it so it can be seen working. I will be bringing it to the conference in Bournemouth. If anyone would like any details of this lock, including photo's please don't hesitate to get in touch.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Judith Stock
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 10:44 pm | |
Well done, Bob!! I look forward to seeing you AND the lock in Bournemouth.
Judy |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 06:59 am | |
G'day Bob,
If that lock is 'typical' of those used in the East End at the time, how come no one tried to retract the bolt on the morning Kelly's body was found?
See if it's possible to lock your minature door, just by closing it, without using a key!
Well Done!
Leanne (yes I'm back!) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 07:41 am | |
Dear Leanne,
Alice's Springs had the same problem as I recall.
Rose-Bush :-) |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 08:13 am | |
Hi, Bob:
Congratulations on acquiring the antique spring-lock. As does Judy, I will very much look forward to seeing the lock in Bournemouth.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:09 am | |
Dear Leanne,
Yes it operates just like a Yale. Pull the door to and the spring bolt shoots home.
I believe no attempt was made to slip the lock for two reasons. First it's not possible to tell from the outside what type of lock it is, secondly releasing it by reaching through the door is not as easy as supposed and would entail a lot of bother and the risk of personal injury.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:15 am | |
Bob
(devils advocate here)
Why would McCarthy not know what type of lock it was?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:31 am | |
Dear Everyone
Here goes \image |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:32 am | |
Well that didn't work! Anybody out there got any idea how to post a photo on these boards?
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:35 am | |
Once again
\image {photo of lock} |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:35 am | |
\ i m a g e {name.jpg}
(enter it without spaces)
or just email it to me and I'll do it for you. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:50 am | |
 |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 10:25 am | |
Dear Everyone,
Many thanks to Jon for finally getting it onscreen. Just to answer Jon's point, McCarthy would know what lock was fitted, but did he know about the broken window? And if he did perhaps he thought a cheap receiver easier to replace than his arm. I must admit sticking my arm through a window and having it surrounded by jagged glass isn't my idea of a fun time!.
Anyway to the lock. As you can see it has two round knobs on it. The larger upper knob slides left to right and withdraws the bolt. The smaller lower knob locks the bolt either in the unlocked position or the locked postion. You will all be invited to have a good fiddle with it at the conference. Touching and meddling will definitely be allowed!
Obviously if anyone wants to have a copy of the photo please download to your hearts content it is naturally copyright free.
all the best
Bob Hinton
PS Many thanks to Jon without whom this photo would probably be winging its way to the Hubble telescope. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 11:01 am | |
Hello everyone,
Bob,thanks for the excellent photo' and Jon,thanks for helping to get it to us.
Bob,could we see the other side too(he said ungratefully)
Jon,I think it is most likely that McCarthy did know the type of lock that was fitted and was acquainted with its various functions.however the most important question,surely is whether he knew Kelly's alternative method of gaining entry.Maybe if he did indeed know this, he was reluctant to say so.
Put yourself in McCarthy's position that morning.
Would it be wise for any man, to boast to the police by saying:
"I know how to get in without a key,its easy"!?
Although strangely enough, Joe Barnett did just
that in his statement to Abberline!
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 12:13 pm | |
| Bob, Not wishing to be a killjoy but you have produced a lock which may or may not be the type used on Kelly's door.Although you may believe it to be the type that is not proof enough.Many people have stated that P.C Long made a mistake in believing that the evidence was not at Goulston St at 2.20am.Working on the same principle it is possible that the person who described the lock as a spring lock also made a mistake.Furthermore the key went missing to Kelly's room sometime prior to the murder.We dont know if that key came to be in the killer's posession and that he did not lock the door with it before leaving the room. If it was a spring lock and locked automatically when a person closed the door on leaving why was it believed in many quarters that the killer left by the window.I have known many cases of keys to go missing presumably lost only to be used at a later date by criminals to gain access into premises. Also if Kelly had no trouble in gaining entry by placing her arm through the window ( God knows how many times ) then the police would have done so.For this has been pointed out above Barnett informed Abberline of this fact. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 12:17 pm | |
Bob
Am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?
This lock, if it is a good example of a spring-lock, would require a little dexterity for a one-handed operation, operating it at arms length through a broken window.
It would be required to push the left-most knob back against the pressure of a spring while using the thumb? to move the smaller knob up (or down) to retain the retracted bolt, correct?
When Barnett suggested he (they?) would open the door by reaching through the broken window, I have to wonder if he meant that he reached through and pushed the farthest knob back while Kelly opened the door in the normal fashion. A two person operation?, that was never fully explained.
For this lock to be used we might have to accept that the large knob was not stiff, slightly rusted, and required little pressure at the same time the smaller knob also required little pressure, not slightly rusted?.
A one-handed operation might be easy in your example but a rusted well used version in-situ may be a different matter.
An interesting find Bob, I wonder if any other examples are available.
Regards, Jon
(If you have any other pics, just let me know)
(I see you have a key-ring, pity Barnett didnt think of that  ) |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 12:24 pm | |
Sorry, one further question....
Do we assume the door had a typical door-knob which when turned allowed the bolt in your picture to rotate?
Can you confirm if your spring-lock device has such a fitting for a regular door knob? or is this spring-lock a separate fitting to the regular knob & key entry of the period.
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 01:03 pm | |
Hello again,
Jon,I think I'm right in saying that this lock has an iterior knob only.This knob however, has a lateral rather than rotary action.Sliding this Knob to the left(if your viewing Bob's picture)retracts the bolt.
I think it is very important to point out here,that this type of lock is not lockable using the key.The key merely functions to draw back the bolt.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 01:23 pm | |
Mick
The reason I ask is because there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether Kelly's door had one universal lock/spring-lock device or two seperate fittings.
I have been of the opinion that the regular mortise lock & door knob of that period was still attached to the door but the spring-lock we keep reading about was a seperate fitting possibly installed a little higher on the back of the door, probably about chest height, more in line with the upper broken pane of glass.
I had to wonder if Bob's lock helped support my perspective or not. Apparently, from what you say, it does.
Accepting its all speculation in the end.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 01:51 pm | |
Jon,
As a lot of this is guess work for us all,I would suggest that,if two types of lock were fitted to kelly's door to afford extra security,then it would more likely be a spring or mortise lock, with a normal bolt fitted to the top or bottom of the door.This seems to be the most common arrangement today.
I tend to think that a single spring lock and nothing else was fitted to the door as I would have expected Barnett to mention it in his statement.Barnett told Abberline that getting in was "Easy".If other bolts were fitted this surely would not be the case.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 02:11 pm | |
Dear Everyone,
To answer the queries in order,
Ivor,
I fully appreciate that this may or may not be the type of lock, and I am not offering anything as 'proof'. What I am saying is that taking all the information available from contemporary sources, taking the best advice available today from experts in the field of antique locks, this is the type of lock I believe was fitted. Could I be wrong? Of course I could.
You say that Kelly had no trouble in gaining entry by the window method. Really? How do you know that? I built a mock up of the window/ corner of the room many years ago to test this theory and found it achievable but with a great deal of fuss and bother. It was also certainly dangerous. There are indications that Kelly left her door 'on the latch' when she went out.
Jon,
You have picked up on something which had never occured to me before, two people opening the door using the window method. This would be much simpler. With Barnett at 5'7" and Kelly at just over 5' it would make sense that Barnett would do the reaching and Kelly do the pushing. I do however thnk this is complete nonsense, mainly because I didn't think of it Well done, this idea certainly has much merit.
Since there is some interest in this I will photograph other views of it if you would be so kind as to work your technical magic again.
When you see the other side you will see that it can only be operated by a key, not a door knob.
Mick Lyden Spot on!
Jon again,
I don't believe the door had any other fitting other than a fixed door knob for purchase. You must remember a mortice lock is very expensive, not only to buy but also to fit, requiring the services of a skilled carpenter. Anybody can fit this type of rim lock - its just screwed on. All the accounts at the time only mention one type of lock being fitted.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 02:21 pm | |
Hello again everyone,
It just occurred to me that,although we think of this door as being kelly's front door, it was probably the unmodified backdoor that used to belong to No.26.The point being that front and backdoor locking arrangements invariably Differ.
Of course whether any of this is relevent or helps us ,is open to question!
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 02:40 pm | |
Dear Bob,
The lock you have kindly presented for inspection is not the kind of lock one would find on a door of a period earlier than 1888.
In my humble opinion this lock is from a period
c.1900.
Rosey the Twirl 0---W |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 03:00 pm | |
Hello Rosemary,
I know that Bob has done a good deal of research in this area,but from where does the information that you have based your opinion on,come from?
Can you elaborate?
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 03:06 pm | |
Bob
There was a progressive thought process going on here (two locks issue).
What I was thinking about was something I mentioned earlier this week (I think) that McCarthy owned all the premises in the court and as he likely knew all the various types of door lock, or all the door locks were the same.
This is where I may have been mistaken as No13 was an addition to the back of No26 so in reality this extension was newer than all the other premises in the court, therefore the door may have had a different generation lock attached to it. The door used for number 13 may have been the previous outer door at the rear of No26 (Mike) or another door from another premises altogether with a mortise lock that doesnt work, a different lock or no lock at all, maybe actually in inside door adapted to fit an outer frame, thereby requiring a simple screw-on type lock as Bob has suggested.
Notice how easily we wander off on a tangent?.....anyone else having a slow day?
Jon |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 03:36 pm | |
Bob, You asked how do I know Kelly obtained entry using the window method. Well, it is in the evidence.Also read the post above by Mick Lyden.
Also If the door could only be opened by two people how would Kelly gain entry if she came home alone at a very late hour? I cant see her knocking up a nieghbour every time she returned home late alone.And more to the point McCarthy would have known what type of lock was on the door because he was the landlord who let the room.Yet he had to break the door open to gain entry.Also I would like to know if the key was lost before the windows were broken because if so how was entry gained into the room by Barnett or Kelly.If of course the locking device was not left in the open position.But in saying that we do not know what lock was on the door we can only guess. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 03:49 pm | |
Hello Jon,
I get the overall impression from what I have read that,This partitioning off, of kelly's room was done with the minimum of exspense.By all accounts,the partition itself seems to have been "Thrown up". There was a gap between the two panels which transmitted the light comming from Kelly's room ,making it visible to any body using the staircase at the rear.
As far as the door is concerned,the cheapest option would be to retain the original one(with its lock) of course.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 04:51 pm | |
Dear Mick,
Designer of lock-neutralisation technology...an obscure art-form.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 05:06 pm | |
Dear Rosemary,
Say no more!
Mick Lyden |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 05:33 pm | |
I can accept Barnett being the more fastideous type who might concern himself with locks, bolts & keys but Kelly, as with likley many of the other women who lived in the court came and went constantly and would they even bother locking their doors?
Kelly, having nothing worth stealing, might have simply pulled the door closed. Afterall Maria Harvey was sharing the room and neither had a key but both would come & go seperately at their leisure.
I vote she didnt lock her door.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 06:29 pm | |
| Very good point Jon, People in fact were not in the habit of locking their doors. Evidence of this was produced by police officers after the Eddowes murder when they were seaching the area.They found that many of the premises they encounted remained unlocked. I live in a Victorian house which was built for a Doctor in the 1880s which retains all of the original door furniture.No spring locks though. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 07:27 pm | |
| Jon, As you stated other women stayed with Kelly and they had to come and go seperately at their leisure.It would be lot of hassle to open the door through the window. Even more so if the person was blind drunk as Kelly often was.So yes I also vote that she never locked the door. Which leads us to a very interesting point indeed.We know that the door was locked on the morning of the murder.It had to be smashed open.The killer could have placed something on the inside of the door so that it would not open from the outside and then leave through the window. However no one mentioned anything about something jamming the door closed.So Jack could have locked the door with the missing key.Or if the lock was of a particular type he could have sprung the lock shut as he left. If the door was in fact locked with a key that really would make things interesting. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 07:43 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
The particular lock I have in mind would unlock on both sides of a door. It also has a seperate
locking mechanism which can only be operated from
the inside of a room.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 07:52 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
As far as I am aware the only mention in the official records of the window method of entry is in Abberlines statement at the inquest where he says:
"- I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time& that they opened the door by reaching through the window...."
There is nothing there to say how often this trick was performed or how easy it was. My own experiment shows that the only way to use the
window method is to stand on the ledge holding the drainpipe with your right hand. Reach in through the broken window with your left hand and push back the bolt. I'm 5'7" and I only just managed to do it.
I don't believe I said that this could only be done by two people - I believe I said it would be simpler. My own personal belief, backed up by indications, is that MJK left the door on the latch when she went out.
Your comment about your own house is very interesting and backs up what I have been saying. Spring locks, or to give them their proper names, night latches, were very cheap. Kenrick & Sons catalogue for 1890 has them at 30 shillings a dozen, whereas a decent mortice lock by Milners was priced at nine shillings each. Obviously a doctor, a comparatively wealthy man, would not dream of having cheap night latches fitted.
Rosey,
I am reliably informed that night latches, spring loaded locks have been around since Regency times. The particular lock I have photographed is from the period 1875- 1910 (approx) As mentioned above Kenrick & Sons catalogue dated 1890 has illustrations of very similar locks.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 08:09 pm | |
Ivor
You raise a couple of good points there.
The scenario, as I see it, was, Kelly brought her killer back with her as a customer, it was she who released the spring-lock to 'lock' the door so as not to be disturbed. When 'Jack' left the room he simply retracted the spring, opened the door then pulled it closed behind him, it locked again.
I don't see reason for the missing key playing any role in this murder, from what we know to date.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Michael Lyden
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 08:49 pm | |
Hello,
Ivor and jon,I'm sure,during the Ripper scare that a lot of people,especialy women living alone,used locks if they were fitted. Or,as in Elizabeth Prater's case,barricaded themselves in with tables or chairs against the door!I suppose it was down to the individual.
If we accept that the type of lock fitted to Kelly's door was the same type as Bob has shown us,then under normal circumstances the door could not be opened form the outside without a key.
For me,the idea that Kelly lazily relied on the latch instead of the broken window method,is an appealing one.The following statement led me to this conclusion:
In one statement,Mary Ann Cox describes how,after bidding Kelly(acompanied by blotchy face) goodnight,she(Kelly) banged the door shut.
Now surely if Kelly and Blotchy face Where going to use the broken window trick,Mrs.Cox would have said something like "I bade Mary Goodnight and then they dissapeared 'round the side of the Building"!
I made this point a While ago and somebody said"Ah but, the window trick could have been performed just before Mrs.Cox met up with Mary"
However this could not have been the case.
Given the nature of the spring lock(the bolt must be held whilst pushing open the door) and the method of entry described by Barnett,Mary Cox would either have seen them actually in the act of of opening the door,via the window, or caught them before this happened.Neither can be true in this instance.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 09:04 pm | |
Bob,This lock works on the same principle as a modern yale lock. The situation in relation to the lock is now clearer to me.
Jon,I have to agree with you now that I know ( thanks to Bob and you ) precisely what type of lock we are dealing with and how it is used. As you stated, all the killer had to do was to close the door behind him and the door locked (if not on the catch in the open position).Well thats cleared that up for me. Thanks to you both.The killer had no reason to leave by the window as depicted in 19th Century sketches.He also had no need to use a key to lock the door when he left. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 05:59 am | |
Dear Ivor,
You have forgotten something...so why did'nt Mr McCarthy reach through the window and simply open it...if it is the kind of lock you visualise? The
mass-produced rim-lock that Rob is talking about is cheap and flimsy. A door fitted with this type
can be opened with one boot (their trade name is "one-booters").
And what is a "Yale-type lock"...its either a Yale or it is not.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 07:10 am | |
Dear Ivor,
I mean, if Joe says so, it must be true!Or Spring-Heeled Jack was at work?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 25 June 2001 - 07:20 am | |
Dear Rosemary,
I and others use the term 'Yale' type lock to indicate the type of lock it is, ie a lock that can secure a door without the need for a key. Calling a lock a Yale isn't meant to imply the lock came from the factory of Linus Yale its a generic term, like calling a cowboys revolver a Colt when in fact it could be a Remington, a Beale & Adams, a Starr, a Webley, a Smith & Wesson or any of the thousands of others available at the time.
all the best
Bob Hinton
PS Ivor did you say you're coming to the conference? If so I would very much like to meet up with you. |
