Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 08:00 am |        |
G'day Jon!
Maybe you just solved the mystery of what's under the table, in that photograph! Maybe some 'wet, sloppy flesh' slithered off onto the floor!
The locks in your drawing appear on the opposite edge of the door, to what I saw after seeing a diagram of Kelly's room. I'll try to find that diagram! Plus the installed latch is much higher than I imagined.
Remember, they had to install it in a spot that could be reached via the broken window panes.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 08:24 am | |
G'day Jon,
I just found a photo, posted by yourself on 'The Missing Key...' board, 'Archive through July 16 1999' on Friday July 16 1999, 02:07 p.m.'
Bowyer reaching through the lower broken window pane to move back the coat, would have to crouch. Therfore, until the window panes were removed, an observer wouldn't have been looking too far 'down onto the table'!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 08:24 am | |
Good morning Leanne
The rudimentary sketch above is with the door closed and the locks are on the side nearest the viewer, ie through the window.
The door was hinged on the right (it opened to the right in the direction of the bed) therefore the handle/locks were on the left, as viewed from outside.
How do you mean they're on the wrong side?
Your point about the lock assumes it was seperate and installed to suit the broken window. What makes you think the latch was recently installed?.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 09:31 am | |
Leanne
The poste you quote me from say's more than that. From the existing testimony it appears Bowyer looked through the farthest pane in the right side window (as viewed from the yard). That window is divided up into 4 panes of glass. Bowyer say's the lower one farthest away (from what?) we assume farthest from the corner.
Now, I dont think anyone is going to suggest that this is also the same hole that Barnett suggested he reached the latch from. Its clearly too far diagonally from the door for anyone to reach. Therefore one of the other two right-hand panes must also have been broken. And Dr Phillips tells us that the window had two broken panes, this confirms our suspicion, he also tells us that he looked through the lower one (same as Bowyer), which clearly indicates that one of the upper panes had to be the other broken pane. And as we can see the upper left pane is also too far from the door then we can safely conclude that the other broken pane was the upper right one, exactly where it would need to be for to reach a latch on the back of the door. This is not rocket science, just logic. But even at that, it is only a reasonable deduction by process on elimination.
Therefore the two broken panes were the bottom left and top right, as viewed from the yard.
Now, you told us that the table may have obscured the latch, and as you can see that in order to reach the latch a person would have to reach through the upper right broken pane, therefore looking down on the table, from this perspective.
Right?
A table which you place behind the door will not obscure any latch or handle as viewed from the upper broken pane.
(whew)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Steve
Friday, 29 December 2000 - 01:37 pm | |
Hi All
You might be interested in a scale diagram I posted on another board Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs. This is based on a 1/6th modelled reconstruction of the photos.
The dimensions for the items discussed are.
The bedside table 18"x24"x27"high.
The distance from the window to the lock appx 20"
The pile of flesh on the table. No more than 4" high.
On the question of the lock I think that the type of lock used was a simple sash lock which operated by stopping the outer door knob rotating by means of a lever on the inside or a key from the outside. The murder didn't have to do anything to the lock, simply opened the door and walked out. The door would still be locked from the inside, and it's probable that it was Mary herself who dropped the latch while she was entertaining a customer.
On the question of the object under the table I've posted some info on this on the MJK markings board. I'm sure that the object seen is the cuff of the ladies jacket seen on the table in the second photo.
Steve |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 04:57 am | |
G'day everyone,
I've just seen the other photo of 'The view from the foot of the bed' and staring at the table and the door behind, I can see that Jon is more likely right than me.
I still believe the killer left via the front door and my mind keeps asking me: "Why didn't anyone looking throught the window, even think to try to reach the lock/latch?" Even Joseph Barnett, who viewed her body through the window, didn't even volunteer the secret method of opening the door.
LEANNE! |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 10:49 am | |
Assuming that Barnett was not JTR for the moment, one could put down any odd behavior on his part to shock.
Assuming that he was JTR he would not be shocked. Then he probably would have thought of the method but if he was JTR he wouldn't have been real anxious to help even if there was no foreseeable way it could have incriminated him. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 30 December 2000 - 10:53 am | |
Yes Leanne, the simple solution is that Jack left by the door, the 'missing key' is a red herring, nothing to do with the murder. He pulled the door closed behind him and it latched, thats all.
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 - 11:26 am | |
| Jon -- I disagree. In that neighborhood and among the poor and desperate almost anything Mary had would be at risk. Remember the pitiful items that Eddowes and her boyfriend pawned? Besides that Mary had one very valuable item, her life! We are told that she was afraid of Jack. I think she would have locked the door. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 07:07 am | |
With due deference to the last two postes, maybe at long last we are within reach of a sensible conclusion about this ever-revolving point of discussion. With nothing worth stealing and with no reason to be proud of her home, Kelly almost certainly left the door on the latch when she went out, thereby affording her a far quicker and less hazardous means of entry than reaching through a broken window. When indoors she'd have set the latch to function for the increased personal security it gave.
Regards, V. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 07:40 am | |
Viper, you said it all for me!
It seems likely to me that the broken window trick was saved for the odd occasion, possibly only once or twice, when Barnett or Kelly had accidentally locked themselves out, through forgetting to leave the door on the latch when departing. Then Barnett simply recalled the emergency method he had used to regain the couple entry.
No one else need ever have seen it done, or known about it, and the killer simply left by the door, letting it lock naturally behind him. No mystery.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 31 December 2000 - 06:45 pm | |
G'day Viper and Caz,
VIPER: Are you saying that Kelly didn't fasten her door when she left the room? She was too short to reach the latch anyway and had to rely on Joe Barnett to let her in, but he had gone!
If Kelly set the latch to 'function' whilst indoors, then you must believe that her killer was invited inside by her, and it was someone that she felt comfortable with.
Putting Joseph Barnett aside for now......................George Hutchinson!!!!!!!!!!!
Leanne! |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 05:51 am | |
Leanne,
I am indeed suggesting that Kelly didn't lock the door when she went out. She did lock it when indoors.
The overwhelming likelihood is that she took her killer home with her in the expectation of providing him with sex, as she had done dozens of times before with other men. MJK had the advantage of her own room, something that we know many of her near neighbours didn't share, so there's no doubt she'd have made use of the facility.
I have never seen any reason to support the view that Kelly's murderer broke in to the room after she had retired alone. It's an unnecessary complication. Assuming that we believe the witnesses, we know she was working that night and that she took at least two men home.
If Hutchinson's statement was correct then the most likely murderer was the well-dressed man he saw. If it wasn't correct then we are forced to examine Hutch's motives. Read one way he himself is certainly suspicious, (placing himself with the victim, timing of his statement, detail it contained etc.). However, the alternative is that Hutchinson was a publicity seeker who spotted his chance when he heard of Sarah Lewis' inquest testimony, and that his whole statement was well-concocted fiction. If that's the case then we are back to square one, because between about 1:20 a.m. and the time of her death Mary could have picked up clients about whom we know nothing.
Regards, V. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 04:43 pm | |
G'day Viper,
OK I agree that it's most likely that she didn't lock her door that night. With Joe gone, she'd have to keep asking taller people to reach through and unfasten the latch, ruining the methods 'secret-ness'. Besides, up until then, the murderer wasn't known to function indoors.
However, I don't feel she was likely to take any man home to her 'safe' place, unless she knew the man, somewhat. (not necessarily Barnett). If she took two men home that night, she probably knew the other one too.
LEANNE! |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 09:11 pm | |
Mary Jane wouldn't make an appointment with a John for her normal prowling hours, would she? At that time, she'd be walking the streets, looking for customers, and wouldn't be referring to a book, since she wouldn't know how long a given ad-hoc customer might (ahem) take. Therefore if we consider that JtR made an appointment with her, the liklihood would be that it would be in the morning, during non-prowling hours, and thus perhaps that there is something to what Mrs. Maxwell said.
David |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 08:22 am | |
Hello everybody,
could someone help me.
I do not know exactly how a kettle is done, I just think I know.
Could we say that when the spout of the kettle is melted (I suppose, if I am right in the way I represent myself a kettle, that the spout is the protruding "little tube" from which the liquid (tea) comes out from the kettle) and the kettle is covered off the same kettle is thus at this point ermetically closed ?
Do we know if there was something in the kettle at the moment of the discovery of the Mary Kelly murder ?
It seems nothing has been stated on this subject at the inquest neither by the doctors nor by the police.
Am I wrong ?
Thanks a lot.
Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 09:04 am | |
Hello everybody,
just to precise the post above : I suppose that the kettle was made out of stain. The kettle and the spout.
Am I wrong ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 01:29 pm | |
I think that its more likely the kettle was made out of copper or tin , rather than stainless steel : it would have been like a small pot with a lid on top , to allow the water to be put in. The handle would have probably have made an arch above the top of the kettle , being fixed to it on two sides. The spout , yes it would have been like a small tube , would have protruded from one side , when the water was boiled it would have been poured out through the spout.
According to Ripper author Martin Fido , both the handle and the spout of the kettle had fallen off in the grate of the fire. This is because apparently the solder holding them on had melted , possibly due to a fierce fire in the grate.
Now this is important ; the police would have been able to tell the difference between the spout rusting off , being broken off and melting off. If it had been melted off the solder metal which held it on would have run down the side of the kettle when it became liquid due to the heat. If it had snapped off there would have been no such melting.
Since the police did not find it necessary to comment on the contents of the kettle , we can assume it was either empty or contained only water. The kettle would have been boiled for tea , washing or for having a bath - in Victorian times people often bathed by standing on a metal tray full of hot water in front of the fire , and washing themselves down. Otherwise they would have washed their hands and faces using a china jug of cold water and a large china bowl.
The kettle wasn't hermetically sealed as the spout didn't melt , the metal holding it on to the kettle melted and the spout fell off. Thus there would have been a hole in the side of the kettle where the spout had been. Since the handle had fallen off as well , the kettle would have been basically useless at this point.
Simon |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 05:00 pm | |
Hello Simon,
thank you for the very exhaustive answer, I must absolutely go through it very carefully.
Then I come back.
Of course I meant copper.
Thanks. Bye. Graziano |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Saturday, 14 July 2001 - 09:08 pm | |
Simon,
What a fantastic answer! Your best ever! And this from an art student, no less.
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 08:43 am | |
Don't clap , just throw money !  |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 09:09 am | |
| An alambic retort. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 02:12 pm | |
| Simon if you examine all the photos you will see that there is a tin bath tub under Mary Kellys bed. Chloroform reacts with alkaline metals, this makes them unstable, a fire would then finish the job off! ED. |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 02:01 pm | |
| If the killer threw a chloroform soaked rag onto the fire where the empty kettle sat, the fumes would react with the solder. The solder would become unstable and a fire would cause the solder to melt. ED |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 04:16 pm | |
Ed,
You are making things way,way too complicated.
The solder joints melted because the kettle was left to boil dry.No huge furnace-like blaze and no chloroform.
Regards,
Mick |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 05:20 pm | |
| But surely , although that might affect the spout Mick , it would not affect the handle. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 06:02 pm | |
Arfa, I did my research concerning chloroform at Roche and Guys Poisons unit London.
Chloroform would make the solder in the handle and spout unstable. ED
I have mentioned on several occassions that cholorform is 40 times sweeter than cane sugar this is why the killers placed cachous sweets in Liz Stride's hand. To account for any smell, this was because chloroform was also used in the printing industry to fix photographs to newspaper. Remember, Stride was killed very near to the printing room of an anarchist newspaper. ED. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 05:09 am | |
Simon,
the amount of damage done to the kettle would depend entirely on how long the fire burned after the water had evapourated.
Ed you may have studied at the poisons unit,but the simple fact is that solder melts when you heat it.it doesn't need to be rendered chemically unstable.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 01:21 pm | |
Dear Arfa,
I think Ed. is attempting to put substance on the
conflagration...kettles do not NORMALLY melt at the seams - even without water. Hence, something
happened to trigger a high temperature in the fire-grate...chloroform is just one explanation?
Could have been Jack throwing the rest of his rum
away signalling a much needed (hic) period of temperance.
Boosey Roosey :-))) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 07:25 am | |
Dear Bob,
Amongst Ed's more lucid deductions :-)was the suggestion that an accelerant had either been
used to start the fire in the grate...or been added to the fire at some point. Ed insists this accelerant was chloroform which had to be disposed
of prior to leaving the premises.
But, there are other likely accelerants...and human fat is known to generate high temperature when burned off.
Ed has the idea that some oil-cloth was burnt...an
integral clue to the perpetrator and the content of this oil-cloth container. There is no evidence that oil-cloth was burnt in the fire-grate...only the suggestion of some type of cloth-ing.
I think Ed may have a point about the accelerant.
Was it spirit based?
Rosey:-) |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 03:05 pm | |
Arfa, apparently this was a fire of clothing no coal or wood-ashes were described in the report, so how did it get hot enough to disrupt the joints on the kettle? The heat from a grate-fire is unlike that of heat from a stove whereby heat sits directly under the flame.
It would have taken, a great deal of direct heat over a very long period of time to disrupt the joints from the handle and spout!
How long does clothing burn for? It burns quickly, if an accelerant was added, even quicker, but to remove the handle and spout it required something else! ED |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 09:08 pm | |
Hmmmmm.......
An accelerant would seem to fit the bill here. It would make the used woolen clothing burn hotly enough to melt the spout of the kettle. (Fido writes of the cooler, "smelly conflagration" that usually ensues.) But perhaps not brightly enough to draw attention to the room on the part of passersby. What would he use for accelerant, discounting the chloroform? Spirits of wine? Could he have brought a flask, ostensibly to share with MJ? She was an alcoholic, remember, and might have gone for that.
Hmmmmm......
David |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 11:54 pm | |
(sigh) I don't know........you guy's  |
Author: R Court
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 08:25 am | |
Hi all,
If we assume that Jack brought accelerant, be it narcotic or what, then he knew that he would be in some woman's room and that the room had a fireplace. This would mean that he quite possibly at least knew Kelly, and had probably been in her room before.
It would also mean that he knew she would have clothes to burn, instead of coal, wood, coke etc. and that he would need light to chop her up. If he needed light, which he didn't for at least Polly, Liz and Kate, why didn't he just light the candle in the room? I can't imagine he would have lit the fire just to keep himself warm during the proceedings, any tastey alcohol doing that better.
The kettle has puzzled me for years, a very cheap kettle may well have had the spout soft-soldered on with a 60/40 lead-tin, available then. This would, when the kettle had boiled dry, relatively easily have softened enough (ca.180-220 °C) to let the spout fall off. I have not been able to ascertain if such kettles were available then.
The kettles from that period that I have seen (yes, in our village in the 50's, such kettles were readily to be found on the farms around) had the spout pressed, wrought or even rivetted on. None of these would have lost the spout, even when boiled dry in the middle of a roaring conflagration. They were constructed to either sit in, or hang directly over, the fire and thus could not be so made as to allow bits to fall off just by the application of heat, no matter how much (OK, OK; within limits, of course).
Other types, of which I have no knowledge, may have readily been available then with e.g. hard-soldered or bronze-cast fixed spouts. Such a kettle could then have lost it's spout at temperatures around 450-600°C, which is extraodinary hot for a cloth fire, even with accelerator, but not absolutely impossible.
Bob |
Author: Qbase
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 08:27 am | |
Hello,
I watched a program here in the UK about fires and they tested intensive heat on how objects in rooms burn and melt quite badly. They used a pig as an example and the conclusions they come up with was the body fat.
Could any of MJK body fat been used to intensify the fire which resulted in the spout of the kettle to melt?
G |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 09:12 am | |
| Read the reports, scrutinize! ED. |
Author: R Court
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 11:28 am | |
Hi Qbase,
Suggestions were that the heart, found missing, could have been burnt but that does not seem to be the case. A heart would in any case not cause such a blaze.
The rest of the doctor's reports indicated that nothing else was missing on the body, so we should assume that that includes the fat, although certainly some could have been burnt without being noticed. Fat can burn like the devil, as anyone will report who has had a chip-pan fire.
Regards
Bob |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 12:38 pm | |
Actually on Nov. 10th, police returned to Millers Court with Dr's. Phillips & MacDonald to empty the grate and sieve the ashes.
Obviously they were looking for a missing body part(s), otherwise why bring both doctors?.
They must have suspected some body part was burned in the grate.....nothing was found.
Regards, Jon
(This report has always made me wonder if ALL organs actually WERE accounted for) |
Author: R Court
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 01:32 pm | |
Hi Jon,
That was what I was refering to, the "Pericardium was open below & the heart absent." .. (Dr Bond's postmortum notes.) indicating that the heart was already noted as missing on the 10th, and Police were therefore bound to search for it at the premises.
This is the only organ that seems to be recorded as missing, all others including uterus were accounted for, if the notes are correct. The searching of the grate was an obvious step to take, although evidently no traces of human flesh were found.
Naturally some fat could have been burnt, without being found missing, but not enough to have caused the blaze as it is claimed to have been, for then residues would have been found.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 02:37 pm | |
| Fat spits! ED everwhere! |
