Author: Joseph
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 12:40 pm |        |
Hello Diana,
I've been looking for a picture of the exterior of Ms, Kelly's room; you mentioned that the picture from which you gathered your calculations was "(under Dorset St.)".
Can that picture be accessed from the Casebook home page? If that is possible, could you guide me through the process?
Thank you for your time |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 02:28 pm | |
| Look at the green strip to your left. Click on "Back to the Casebook" When you get there click on "Victorian London". When you get there click on "Whitechapel: then and now". When you get there click on "Dorset Street". It is the second picture. |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 04:29 pm | |
| Thank you for your help Diana. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 10:08 pm | |
Am I missing something,--if a latch can't be seen when it's right next to the window, because there is not enough light, how could Barnett identify Mary's body from a distance of 7 to 8ft by hair and EYES?!
If the key went missing on the day of the "heated row,when the window was broken"--that would be the 30th Oct,-- how did Barnett know the key was missing, when he moved out that day!
If he DID know, how many times would he have had reason to want to open the door before he or Mary devised the way of reaching through the broken window? and how many times would they have been together when opening the door?. Barnett took the key when he moved out.
Rick |
Author: Jon
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 12:35 pm | |
Leanne
I'm getting the impression that you think the body-on-the-bed photo was taken from outside.....2 yrs ago we thrashed this out with Red Demon (who thought the same), the pictures were all taken from within the room, after the door was forced and after the Doctors had finished their inquiry.
Regards, Jon
(the story in the Times is incorrect) |
Author: Michael Lyden
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 02:02 pm | |
Hello Jon,
Although it is obvious that the more recently discovered picture of kelly was taken inside the room, I was under the impression that the full length"body on the bed" photograph was taken outside.I have read several books that desribe how the window frame was removed for the purpose of photographing the body.
For example Bruce Paley tells us that"the window frame was removed and the police photographer took several pictures of the remains".Is Paley quoting from an unreliable source?Could you clarify for us Jon.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 05:39 pm | |
G'day guys,
Yes yes yes, to get a wide-angle shot showing as much of the body as possible, they would have had to remove the window pane and set the camera up outside.
LEANNE! |
Author: Steve
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 01:25 pm | |
Hi All
For what it's worth I agree with Jon that the photos were taken from within the room.
From the work I've carried out the position of the camera in the full length shot was in a direct line with the wall between the two windows.
The photo is not a wide angle but the standard view area for a 1/2 plate camera positioned just under 12' from the opposite wall,at a declination angle of 11Deg. These figures are taken in respect to the point on the rear wall at the centre of the image.
One other point to support this is that the photo was taken with a key light source located at the foot of the bed, as shown by the shadows cast by the mattress onto the bedstead.
One question. Where does the idea that Barnett viewed the body at the scene come from?
Steve |
Author: LeatherApron
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 04:23 pm | |
Greetings fellow Jackologists and Happy New Century to you and yours! May it be filled with blessings! I have returned, obviously, from a brief respite.
Alegria,
Go girl!
Joseph,
You can consider me part of your "WE" team any time you like.
Paul A. Smith,
I would like to thank you for lending your considerable talents to Ripper media. The Hanbury Street and Liz web pages are the first I've seen. I particularly enjoyed the eerie music. Cheers and keep up the good work! Please e-mail me with links to more web pages at your leisure.
All,
The missing key is not IMO a "red herring". It is only considered such by those who believe it can not possibly lead to the identity of the murderer. Even though my personal opinion about the GSG is that it has nothing to with the murderer and any theory that someone espouses after following its trail is useless, I do not call it a red herring and am willing to listen to and discuss the matter simply because it is part of the total case. I would ask that the same consideration be given to the missing key issue. Sorry for nitpicking.
Several nights ago I happened to catch part of a MSNBC special about SK's. One of the psychologists and criminologists stated that after performing either 114 or 140 (I can't remember which) personal interviews with SK's and MM's he could honestly say that the only similarity they shared was that they were emotionally and morally bankrupt. This again goes back to the belief that though the end result is the same (dead bodies) the cognitive processes used to get there are completely idiosyncratic. No epiphanies there, sorry.
Leanne, Mick, Rick, and other Barnett lovers, unite!
One idea crossed my mind recently when I re-read the Schwartz/Lipski episode thread. Could the man who followed Schwartz for a ways, the Pipeman as some affectionately call him, have been Barnett? The description fits him except for the height of 5'11" but it is possible that being as short as Schwartz was and being on or off the street curb, etc. that he misjudged his height. Barnett could have realized while leaving the scene after Schwartz that he might do well to go back and make a go at the prossie since Schwartz had already seen her with someone else.
"Okay lads, you can put me straitjacket back on now."
I am, my fellow colleagues, your obedient servant,
Jack |
Author: Jon
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 06:08 pm | |
Sorry Michael
I have been away from the boards all week (so much to read !!! gasp)..
Paley was reporting the same story that was printed in the Times, which was incorrect.
The door was secured, windows boarded up and a constable posted at the spot, all to keep the morbid onlookers away.
Jon |
Author: Michael Lyden
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 04:10 am | |
Hello,
Leather Apron,I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I'm a "Barnett lover" but if you read some of my recent posts that should put things right!
Jon thanks for the info.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: LeatherApron
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 01:07 pm | |
Mick, Oops! Sorry, mate. I read all my e-mails before posting and probably simply confused you with someone.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 12:25 pm | |
Not this tired old subject again I hear you all cry!
But,being a pet subject of mine,I thought I'd share with you a few thoughts that occurred to me recently,
In the last lengthy discussion we all had on this topic,with the help of Bob Hinton in particular,I was able to get a clear picture of the type of lock that was most likely fitted to Kelly's door and I was also able to see how she may have used it.
I agree with Bob when he suggests that Mary used to leave her door in the "Latched open" position to enable her to enter No. 13 without any bother.
I am now of the opinion that Barnett and Barnett alone used the "Hand through the window" trick and that nobody else(with possible exeption of Kelly)knew about it.
One enduring mystery is of course the question as to why nobody worked out how to enter the room without forcing the door,after the discovery of Kelly's body.
In the light of the conclusions drawn in earlier discussions on this subject, I now look at it this way:
It was probably immediately obvious to anyone who looked at the door,that if it didn't yeild after a push,that the latch wasn't on.
Just picture for a moment the average front door.In every case I can think of,there is a knob on the inside only,which enables you to let yourself out. But if you have lost the key there is now way, short of breaking the glass, of getting in.I think it is unlikely that Kelly's door was fitted with glass.
Now how about the two broken panes in Kelly's small window?
Had this window been NEXT TO the door then I think it is much more likely that the idea of reaching through the broken pane and fiddling with the lock would have occurred to somebody.
The simple fact that the window was round the side made the whole idea much less obvious I think.
Your thoughts please.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 01:05 pm | |
Hello again,
Here is an important point I left out in my last post.
As I explained the likelyhood is that Kelly relied on the latch rather than the window trick,to let herself in and it is my contention that Barnett and Barnett alone used and knew about the window entry method.We now have an interesting situation here.
It is highly likely,because of the Ripper scare, that when Kelly was indoors she would have made damn shure the latch was off.This means that if Barnett was visiting Kelly,he need only to have Knocked,for her to let him in.
However if Kelly was asleep when he called.....
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 09:02 pm | |
Hello again,
(Come on someone join in--anybody?).
Here I am again with yet more thoughts concerning kelly's door.
After reading Bob Hinton's excellent book,I started thinking about Barnett's arm through the broken window trick again.
According to Bob,who actually made a life size mock up of the corner of Kelly's room,the process of putting an arm through the broken pane and slipping back the bolt was not at all easy. Nowhere near as easy as Barnett had made out when he spoke to Abberline.All this tends to support the theory that Kelly left her door latched open each time she went out.
What nobody seems to have considered is that it is all very well struggling through the window to push the bolt back against its spring,but then you've still got to open the door!
How was this done? Would Barnett pull the door inwards holding the bolt knob whilst pushing the actual bolt back.considering the fact that Kelly's door opened inwards towards the right,this sounds almost impossible.
Can you help me out here Bob?
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 06:14 am | |
G'day Mick,
Reading 'The Ultimate JtR Companion' that contains 'raw' information from Scotland Yard Reports, there is an early press report on Kelly's murder that contains two references to her lock/key:
'The street door was locked but the woman had a latch key'.
'The last person to have left the place must have closed the door behind him, taking with him the key from the SPRING LOCK.'
As this reporter was there on the scene, I'd say he would have looked at Mary's spring-lock.
I'm trying desperately to understand this lock/key argument, but could Kelly have had a simpler latch-lock installed without Barnett's knowledge....to keep HIM out and so that she could get in and out without his help!?!?
Leanne! |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:33 pm | |
Hello Leanne,
The last time we all "Thrashed out" this particular aspect of the case,for once I felt we had made some real progress.
If you remember Bob Hinton managed to obtain an original,unused sample of a Victorian "Night latch"-also known as a spring lock.In the case of this device though,the term "Lock" is a bit of a misnomer in that it can't actually be locked!
A list of the devices features and a description of their functions may help clarify matters.
Firstly the device included a bolt that could either be drawn back from the inside,manualy, or drawn back by the use of a key from the outside only.As Kelly's door was not fitted with a doorknob,it may help to think of the key as just a "personal" doorknob!
The most important detail to bare in mind though,is that the door could NOT be locked using the key.The only security afforded by this lock was the fact that when the door was closed, the bolt automaticaly shot home,so of course anybody wishing to enter would need a key or a broken window pane!
However no facility was provided to latch the bolt closed(lock it).
There was infact a latch mechanism included, but this enabled the bolt to be held OPEN only.
The fact that we were able to match Bob's lock with Mary Kelly's was not through guesswork alone.A lot of logical deduction went into the process!
Hope this helps you Leanne.
Regards,
Mick. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 07:04 pm | |
Hello again Leanne,
I think it is highly unlikely that Mary could have afforded luxuries like extra locks and anyway she would have to had sought McCarthys permission first.Of course you know what his reply would have been - "LOCKS? NEVER MIND LOCKS,WHERES ME BLEEDIN' RENT"!
Regards,
Mick |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:11 pm | |
G'day Mick,
Also, as The Ripper wasn't known to venture inside his victims home, Mary wouldn't have felt an extra lock was essential.
Leanne! |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Thursday, 11 October 2001 - 07:53 am | |
Well Leanne,
Mary must have been fully aware of the risks when she continued taking customers back to her room!
Regards,
Mick. |
Author: stephen miller
Monday, 07 January 2002 - 09:57 am | |
Hi, Everyone sorry to rekindle this subject but what about the Landlord would he not have a key surely most Landlords keep keys to the rooms they rent out if this has been discussed before I apologise if not do we have a new suspect in the Landlord ( I can't remember his name)
from steve miller |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Monday, 07 January 2002 - 11:27 am | |
Hello,
As I scanned the boards,looking for a topic of conversation that took my fancy,I thought to myself "Ah,Stephen Miller's Caught my attention"
Sorry Stephen,I can't resist a the opportunity to make a mediocre pun when it presents itself.
To be serious though,I think it is highly likely that Landlord John McCarthy was asked by the police whether he had a spare key to Kelly's room and must therefore have been under suspicion at one time.Whether McCarthy had a Key or not,his answer was obviously no,as he ended up having to break open the door with a pickaxe.
I think if I had been in McCarthy's shoes that morning and did own a spare key,I would have denied the fact!
Regards,
Mick |
Author: stephen miller
Monday, 07 January 2002 - 11:47 am | |
Hello Arfa Kidney thank you for replying to my message you are probably right it was just an off the cuff remark from a newcomer but that's got my little scenario out of the way can I consider myself blooded now?
from steve miller |
Author: Goryboy
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 02:35 pm | |
Hi, all:
Could someone please set me straight on this whole key business? I'm now more perplexed than ever about the missing key, its significance (if any) and what the resolution of the issue might be. Have we all decided yet just what the missing key means to the overall investigation, or its relationship to Barnett as a possible suspect?
Me puir toiny moind's goin' in circles, so 'tis.
From reading Paley, Rumbelow, the boards, et al, logic tells me there were two locks: the main mortise bolt and a spring lock, like a Yale. The key to the mortise lock was simply missing for some time (more than the 9 days Barnett was in absentia), so Barnett and Kelly only used the spring lock, which they could manipulate by reaching through the window.
The missing key, then, really has no relevance to the case. From Cox's evidence, it appears Mary Kelly let herself into an unlocked room, the Ripper followed her in and did the deed. Then, when he left, he pulled the door to after him, the mortise bolt shot home (not the spring lock Barnett & Kelly unlocked by reaching in the window) and that was that.
On the other hand, I could be completely wrong, and Mr. McCarthy took the bloody thing.
 |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 05:47 pm | |
G'day Goryboy,
The key went missing when Barnett moved out on the 30th October, I think. It sounds like he took it with him, so Kelly would have to rely on his daily visit to get in. Either that or she couldn't venture out of her room.
According to Bob Hinton, who experimented, putting an arm through a broken window pane wasn't an "easy" task, for someone of Mary's height, however Barnett could have done it!
LEANNE! |
Author: Goryboy
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 07:20 pm | |
Thanks, Leanne, I appreciate the pointers.
Am aware of the reports that the key went missing after a fight MJK and Barnett had, in which two of the panes in the smaller window were broken, which would have likely been on or slightly before Oct. 30. The only reason I mention that the key may have been missing for longer than that is because of a statement Abberline made at Kelly's inquest, to wit: "Barnett informs me that [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." (My emphasis) Just sounds like a bit longer than 9-10 days to me. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 01:09 am | |
G'day Goryboy,
At 5:00 or 6:00pm on the 30th of October, Barnett and Kelly engaged in a heated row in which 2 panes of the window were broken and Barnett moved out. The 'Times' on the 10th of November reported that blows had been struck in this argument.
If the key was missing before the window panes were smashed, (i.e. before the 30th of October), how else would Kelly have gotten into her room?
No I don't believe she would have left the door unlocked when she went out. Why would she suddenly rely on the dangerous hand-through-window method?
Leanne. |
Author: Y2
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 01:51 am | |
The key - may be the key that demonstrates the Maybrick Diary is indeed a forgery. There is in fact no secret about the type of lock on the door of MJK's room. It was called a double action lock. The Yale lock is a modern equivalent. The door to Kelly's room would appear locked from the outside - but anyone in the know could simply reach through the window and operate the lock (from inside). The lock was easily within reach via the bottom broken pane in the small window.
When the police finally decided to enter the room, John McCarthy levered the door open (it was not broken down). A key later turned up probably a duplicate key subsequently found by McCarthy.
Maybrick claims in his diary that he took the key from MJK's room. But it had been missing for sometime previously. |
Author: Nick B
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 05:55 am | |
Im sure she had to resort to, as Leanne said: "the dangerous hand-through-window method."
It would have been hard, due to her height/arm length, but I would think it's possible.
Without a key, it would have been extremely difficult to enter the room.
I highly doubt that Kelly would have left her door unlocked, to gain access to the room more easily. It would have remained locked to both, stop theives stealing any possesions she may have, and also to stop intruders.
The public at that stage would have been extremely wary of Jacks presense, more people (especially prostitutes) would have taken more precautions to stay safe.
And just a thought in regards to the Maybrick Diary stating that he took the key from MJK's room.
We know that the key probably went missing before or on the 30th of October when Barnett moved out. MJK was murdered on the 9th of November.
Between that time, there could have been an opportunity to aquire a duplicate key, this would have saved time and effort to unlock the door by means of reaching in the window and unlocking it.
Nick.
P.S. How ya going Leanne? |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 06:37 am | |
If you look at the picture of 13 Miller's Court, the window is not that far from the door. Kelly could reach it. Barnett and Kelly were not in the habit of leaving the door unlocked. After Barnett moved out on the 30th, there is no reason to think that Kelly would break her habit and start leaving the door unlocked.
Nick,
Kelly could not have obtained a duplicate key. She had no money. Keys cost money, and she owed 29 shillings back rent.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Nick B
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 07:47 am | |
Yeah good point on the money 
Forgot about how much she was in debt.
Nick. |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 09:56 am | |
| It has been stated somewhere on this subject that McCarthy the Landlord propably had a key. He must have been on friendly terms with Kelly to have let her slide so long. I'm sure with the dense population of the area it would not be hard to let.I do wonder,if this was so,why the police had to break in.Was McCarthy there when the door was forced?I don't remember reading one way or the other. |
Author: Goryboy
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 11:53 am | |
Thanks, Leanne, I appreciate your comments. I'm not insisting the door was unlocked, merely repeating what I've read elsewhere (i.e., inquest witness Cox, a neighboring prostitute, stated she followed Kelly and her client up the path to Kelly's hovel and mentioned only that Kelly opened the door -- no reference to her reaching through the window).
But I think it highly unlikely that MJK would have left her door unlocked during the height of the Ripper Terror. I think it more likely that Cox simply omitted mentioning Kelly's window technique at her inquest. Why Cox would do this, I hesitate to guess.
I also must agree with your point about the key's missing from the date of the fight (Oct. 30). Why else would Kelly and Barnett have to reach through the window to unlock the door? The key's departure and the broken windows must have occurred at the same time. Which makes it seem likely that Barnett, in fact, stole the key.
This doesn't necessarily make him the Ripper, though -- merely a sad, silly, desperate git hung up on a heartless (ouch!) prostitute who was taking him for the proverbial ride.
All best,
goryboy |
Author: HERBERT SHAFFER
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 08:06 pm | |
David:
I believe that I read somewhere that he "McCarthy" was requested by the police to break down the door, which he did with an ax handle. That does indeed sound strange when put like that doesn't it?
Why would he break down a door he had a key to.
It was not as if he did not have time to return to his own home to retrieve it. It was only around the corner. Was he maybe hiding something? |
Author: Nick B
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 05:07 am | |
There are a few possible reasons for using an ax to break down the door:
1) He didnt have a spare key.
2) He was hiding the fact that he had a spare key.
3) He was just too lazy.
4) He didnt know how MJK opened the door through the broken window.
5) The door was jammed.
Nick. |
Author: Nick B
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 05:07 am | |
There are a few possible reasons for using an axe to break down the door:
1) He didnt have a spare key.
2) He was hiding the fact that he had a spare key.
3) He was just too lazy.
4) He didnt know how MJK opened the door through the broken window.
5) The door was jammed.
Nick. |
Author: cue
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 12:41 pm | |
Hi
Iwas just thinking,it was a good thing the window got broken in their fight,with the key getting lost at the same time? |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 04:03 pm | |
G'day,
How else would they have opened the door, without a hole in the window? Put their hands through the keyhole?
LEANNE. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 04:07 am | |
Question for anyone who thinks MJK was targeted from the start:
Couldn't the key have gone missing because the killer himself took it, in readiness for his cunning plans?
Seems like a simple enough chain of events. MJK's key goes missing at height of scare when the streets are their most unsafe for killer and victim alike. MJK is found murdered in her room.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 05:23 am | |
G'day Caz,
If the key was stolen by Jack BEFORE the window was broken, how then did she secure and open her door? Are you suggesting that she didn't bother locking her door?
If so, why would she and Barnett bother to start using the hand-through-window method, once the window was broken?
LEANNE! |
