|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 14, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The missing key to Kelly's room.:
Archive through June 14, 1999
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:52 pm |        | September 1996
One of the many puzzling aspects of the Mary Kelly murder is the fact that the door to her room in Miller's Court was locked when she was found. The police had to break it open with a pickaxe. Joe Barnett said that the key to the door had been lost for some time and that he and Kelly entered by reaching through a broken window to bolt or unbolt the door. Why then was the door locked? Had Kelly found the key and neglected to tell Barnett? Did the killer have the key?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:07:38 +0200
From: Adam Wood
There are two ways of looking at this, depending on if you accept Mary Kelly as a victim or not.
Firstly, if the victim WAS Kelly, the Ripper must have locked the door. This leads us to whether the key had already been found and was already in the lock, or the Ripper was known to Kelly and had removed the key on a previous visit to Miller's Court.
Secondly, if the victim was NOT Kelly, she may have found the body (or been involved) and saw it as a good opportunity to escape Whitechapel. She would certainly have locked the door to give herself more time.
I believe the victim WAS Mary Kelly. The Ripper chose random victims and did not know her. If he had paid a previous visit to Miller's Court, why not murder her then?
She must have found the key since the break up with Barnett.
Kelly had her own room (the only victim to do so), and this gave the Ripper the opportunity to carry out the extensive mutiliations. He then simply locked the door and walked away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
From: OdeToPOE@aol.com
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 03:30:13 -0400
Most likely, Kelly came home with 'Jack' opened the door by way of the broken window and then died. 'Jack', who did his work without being noticed whatsoever (including massive fire place flames), then decided to lock the door... You don't have to be anything to understand these things!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 16:49:21 +0100
From: Koji
There are numerous possible reasons behind the locked door.
Advocates of the Joe Barnett theory (of which I am not) obviously say that since Barnett was the murderer he knew all about the door and this would easily explain how it got locked.
One could also say that Mary Kelly was not the murdered woman and that Kelly was the murderer, found the key and locked the door behind her when she escaped.
I find both the above outrageous however. I believe it was simply the case that Kelly had found the key beforehand. This is the only explanation that makes sense if you consider Barnett to be innocent and Kelly to have been the murdered victim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:04:40 -0400
From: OdeToPOE@aol.com
Couldn't 'Jack' have simply watched Mary unlock the door when they went inside and then mimic the procedure when he left?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 14:18:55 -0700
From: ngallagher@cts.net
I can't believe this small thing has caused a lot of controversy. The door had a spring lock, so when it was pulled to, it would close shut. It can then be opened by reaching through the broken window. Joe barnett admitted this to Abberline during the investigation. He said that the key was indeed lost for some time.
It is unfortunate that small things like these could complicate an already complicated case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:02:30 -0000
From: Martin Wolverton
Kelly and Barnett had been living apart for some time. It seems to me that she had probably found the key and saw no reason to tell him. The killer then retrieved the key from her room, locked the door behind him, and walked away with it in his pocket.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 96 09:54:49 -0700
From: Paul Emmitt
I agree with the respondents who say either Kelly found the key or Barnett's lying. Something that's always made me suspect the latter is the illogic of Barnett's statement about the key. He said that "the key had been lost some time ago,and when they desired to get into the room they pushed back the bolt through the broken window." BUT the window wasn't broken until Oct.30,the day Barnett moved out.The ten days between window and murder don't seem as long as "some time ago",besides,during those ten days Barnett only "visited" Kelly,and so he would hardly have call to push back the bolt.As usual with this case things don't add up.And what makes this issue even more perplexing is the fact that the above quote about the key came through Abberline--who knew quite well that the door had been pickaxed down;that photographers had been inside the room;and that if it had been merely a matter of pushing back a bolt,that's exactly what the police would have done. After all,Abberline himself was on the scene,so why did he seem to accept Barnett's inadequate expanation:as numerous invetigators have said since,someone had a key! I'd be interesred in hearing what peole think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 11:09:07 +0000 (gmt)
From: Simon Naji
About the locked kelly room at Miller's Court. Is there some confusion between locked and bolted? If the key had been lost, and the inside bolt was being operated through the window, do we know for sure that when Kelly was discovered the door was LOCKED rather than BOLTED? If we don't, then all the discussion about the key is rather pointless. However, whichever is the case, to secure the door after undertaking such brutality does indicate considerable coolness and presence of mind. Hardly the action of a raving lunatic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 19:04:01 -0800
From: Robert Crawford
Re: the missing key of Mary Kelly. Whether or not it's of any significance, one fact rings loud and clear- It helps distinguish Kelly from the other four victims in that the key at least strongly suggests that her murder wasn't a random one.
It's also possible that Kelly *claimed* that the key was missing in order to discourage Barnett from coming back after their verbally abusive fight on Oct. 30th. Then, the Ripper found the key either before or after the killing and merely used it to lock the door to buy himself some time in case any possible witnesses came calling before he'd established a safe distance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:55:52 -0400
From: John Alexander
One piece of JTR fact that never seems to be understood, unless I am viewing the situation incorrectly, is the locked door at the Mary Kelly murder scene. Much always seems to be made of the "fact" that since the door was locked behind him, JTR must have had a key to Mary's room. However, does not Philip Sugden point out in his book "The Complete History Of Jack The Ripper," that the door to Mary's room was equipped with a sring-loaded lock and would engage automatically whenever the door was shut? |
Author: Anonymous
Wednesday, 02 December 1998 - 10:37 pm | | Hi John,
From my understanding of it, the key would only be required to open the door, not lock it.
Which is why it was possible for Barnett & MJK to open the door via the broken window.
If wrong, then please correct. |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 06:32 am | | Hi all,
A couple of thoughts on the key question.
I know old period doorlocks,(So-called spring-mortice locks, I believe, replaced later by so-called 'Yale' locks) that lock on closing. If Kelly's door was fitted with one, and there's no reason why it could not have been, there is no difficulty as to the question of the key.
There is no evidence that the window was broken on the day that Joe left (Oct 30th), Julia van Turney reported the window being broken 'several weeks before by Kelly when she was drunk'.
Joe Barnett visited Kelly 'almost every day' after he moved out so even if the window was broken on, or even after, the 30th Oct, Joe doesn't need to have lied. He would have known from his regular visits about the method of entry.
I do wonder why McCarthy, the landlord, smashed the door open. As owner he must have known that the door lock could be opened without a key from inside and he knew about the broken window because he'd looked through it as he was fetched by Thomas Bowyer. Or was it that it just didn't occur to him?
I have read some boarder's opinion that the lock would not be reachable through the window, assuming that only one pane was broken, because of the distance and the possible reach of someone like Kelly.
I cannot accept, however, that Barnett would fabricate such a sensless lie, thus drawing attention to himself for no reason. He had only needed to have said that he had no key. (He didn't live there anymore).
I would even presume that the police would have proved his statement by opening the door as he stated it was done, otherwise a key must have been available and that would have incriminated him. Any unsucessful attempts would certainly have been put on record as well as rather more over Mr Joe Barnett Esq.
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 09:09 am | | I think it's been said elsewhere that the lock on Kelly's door was described as a spring-lock by Walter Dew, which means that automatically locked on the door closing, but probably had a catch on it which meant that it could be 'locked' open (if you see what I mean), thus allowing Kely to simply push open the door. If locked, she could simply have reached through the window to undo the catch.
The mystery, though, is why McCarthy took a pick-axe to his door. What landlord doesn't have a spare key? Especially in an area like Spitalfields. |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 09:37 am | | Hi Paul,
Good to hear from you.
McCarthy didn't have to have a spare key, or perhaps didn't want to admit it because of immediately becoming a suspect.
The area was, even for those days, bleak. The houses were mostly old and slum-like and a door with a functioning lock and key was probably a rarity.
I lived with my family in nr. 6, Derwent Road, London SW10 from 1969 to 1973 with two other families in a three-story house built ca. 1860 and we didn't even have a functioning door catch, let alone a lock and key. The street was full of yobs, thieves and villians but we never had anything stolen, although you could walk in and out day and night.
If Stewart happens to have known this patch he'll almost certainly grin, from the 60 or so cars parked in that street at various times then, ca. 20% were stolen, 50% road-unworthy, 20% more or less gutted and 99% without tax.
My car? No comment.
Bob |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 04:22 pm | | I'll make this a quick one -
I t seems entirely plausible to me that McCarthy would be so shocked by what he had experienced that he wouldn't be thinking clearly enough to point out the futility of breaking down the door - when the Police told him "The door's locked, you'd better break in for us", he would probably have been so eager to comply, he'd just pick up the axe unquestioningly. |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 04:23 am | | Hello Guy,
Yes, that is quite likely, assuming McCarthy had no key. If he had had one, he could have fetched it in the same shocked condition because the police would have certainly asked if one was at hand. Take into account the time that elapsed between discovery and the forced entrance to the room because of the wait for the bloodhounds.
Bob |
Author: Guy Hatton
Saturday, 05 December 1998 - 01:45 pm | | Hi Bob!
Fair point, but sadly I suppose we'll never know whether McCarthy had a spare key or not - maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I take it, though, that we're in broad agreement that why he should have broken the door down need not be treated as such a mystery.
All the best.
Guy |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 06:58 am | | Hi Guy,
No, not a mystery. It is true that we tend to discuss things that don't really need discussing but isn't that part of the whole?
What tantalises me is the knowledge that almost certainly in all the discussions we have read or had on the board until now, the real Jack has been named at least somewhere, sometime by someone.
Jack, you devil. We'll get you yet.
Bob |
Author: Kirsty Pickersgill
Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 02:49 am | | Could it be possible that Mary knew Jack and was in fact his mistress??
If you go by the Jack the Ripper diary and that James Maybrick is the killer, it is said he was having an affair. It states quite clearly that he is seeing another woman. "Tonight I see mine"
Could it be then that if he was Mary's lover, that he had a key to the apartement??
Just a thought. |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 10:38 am | | Hi Kirsty
I have just written on this subject to your last posting so I'll leave the bit about Maybrick.
The idea that Kelly knew her killer is an idea that I strongly uphold. There was evidently only one key to the door, however, and that was, according to Joe Barnett, her ex-lover, lost.
If Kelly had at some time, maybe while drunk, have given her key to someone is unlikely, but possible. The window next to the door was broken, however, and the inner door catch could thus be accessed and operated from outside. Kelly had apparently done this for some time.
Take care about chronological errors, however. In the 1880's, you didn't jump into your Porsche and thunder all the way down the motorway to London just to jump in bed with a prostitute. If James had a lover, then she was near enough for him to reach on horseback/rail or carriage. He says 'Tonight', if he said it.
Regards
Bob |
Author: Eric Vaughn
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 07:53 am | | | As to the key or lack thereof,it's a case of monkey see,monkey do.(After all, there is a fire.) As to the strangeness in Mary Jane Kelly's murder apart from the others, the killer has a clear objective:Give them as little evidence as possible. Apparently the heart has some sort of value in the field of evidence research in the 1890's. The face that can't be drawn won't be placed anywhere by casual acquaintances who don't know for sure who she is.JTR is in a total state of paranoia and I think I know why, but I won't ruin the mystery for you. (BTW, the sequel to this murder is out.Simply type in "Julie Sund",or "Carole Sund" or "Silvina Pelusso" into your search thingy. The initial story is almost complete today.It's when they find the author of it that the fun and horror begins though.) |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 12:44 pm | | What's the connection, Eric? If they haven't found the bodies yet (and given that Yosemite is a pretty wild area, they're just as likely to have run off the road as to have been killed by a Jack-a-like) then I'm puzzled.
Peter. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 22 May 1999 - 12:50 pm | | Hi All
Looking at the above postes I see the suggestion that the door to Kelly's room may have had a mortice lock, but was the spring lock part of the mortice lock (Bob.C.) or a separate spring-lock installed on the door?.
If Kelly was in the habit of using the spring lock, which latches on closing, then to gain entry she need only reach thru the window to un-latch the spring lock, as presumed elsewhere.
But the actual door lock (mortice) was operated by a key, and it could be that on this morning it was the mortice lock that had been 'locked' using the 'mysterious' key.
Therefore on this morning reaching thru the window to un-latch the spring-lock was insufficient to gain access. The door would have to be forced open.
- Who had a key?
- Why didn't McCarthy have a spare?
Not new questions, I know.
But I'm guessing that the reason the door was forced, was because we are dealing with two separate locks.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jeff D
Sunday, 23 May 1999 - 08:41 am | | Hello Jon (& Everyone)!,
..... and I must says how nice it is to see you posting Jon. Your question, though not new, is certainly an interesting one, and one that has remained a mystery to many investigators. I understand where you are coming from though, and I think that the door was locked, besides having the spring-latch (whatever) in place.
When you consider that there were people, police and investigators hanging around outside the room for hours before they gained access, they surely wouldn't have just stood there talking amongst themselves. I think that they would have studied the area outside of the murder room (the immediate vicinity, the court) quite closely in this time, gathering information, and looking for clues, along with trying to determine the best way to gain access to the room itself. One point that is significant to this part of the investigation, is the fact that the police wouldn't have had too much trouble securing the area. A policeman at the entrance to the court would ensure that the only people present, were those that were involved in the investigation. I understand that there was a sink in the courtyard for example, the killer could have had to use this to clean hiself up ?
During this time, I'm sure they would have looked through the windows at the unspeakable horrors many, many times, and studied the door itself from inside and outside. McCarthy would have known about the types of locks on the door, and if it was a simple matter of releasing the spring latch, he would have told someone this, or at least the clever people who were at the site would have figured this out. Hence, I believe that the main lock had to be in place. They surely wouldn't have broken the door in unless they absolutely had to, which does bring us back to the "missing key" mystery. Whether the key was needed to lock the door is another question though.
Many people, time, and time again, have stated their belief that Mary Kelly held the key to unravelling the entire mystery, and I think this is reasonable thinking, when taking everything we know about the murders into account. This then brings us back full circle, to Kelly having been at least a little familiar to her murderer. I think she knew her killer, but then again this has caused endless debate over the years. In my own train of thought, and for what it's worth, I think the facial mutilations are significant, although this does bring me back to the controversial area of profiling.
Good observation and question Jon.
All the best !
Jeff D |
Author: Bob_c
Sunday, 23 May 1999 - 10:47 am | | Hi all,
Sorry to have been away for so long, but duty has priority.
Jon, good questions (Hi Jeff) about the key, but I do think the truth is simpler as we may think. The key, said Barnett, was missing for some time. There were other witnesses who could support that statement, or Barnett would have been reported as telling falsehoods.
The room was a tumble-down place, and keys could not be simply copied as nowadays. There was not anything suprising about McCarthy not having one, replacements were simply too expensive, having to be more or less hand-made. I do think the spring lock was the only one but if the type is that which I am thinking of, it was a spring-latch with double-lock. That means it could be latched without key, (exit without key) but could also be locked fully (opened with key only).
I think the door may have been smashed open simply because no-one knew about the spring catch, or at least didn't think about such things, taking into account the murder, which must have greatly occupied all minds involved.
My main reason for believing the key lost is as stated above, Barnett stated that it was lost and his statement was never questioned by the police, who were looking desperately for clues and would have jumped on any inconsistancy.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Jeff D
Sunday, 23 May 1999 - 02:17 pm | | Hello All !
.... heya Bob, it's great to hear from you again!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always been of the opinion that there were actually 2-keys at one time. I thought that Mary had a key, and Barnett had a duplicate, and it was Barnett who then lost his key. Am I way off base here ?
It probably was a matter of the door being self-locked upon exit, and no key was required to lock it, but I do think that if there was only the spring-latch lock keeping the door closed when the police arrived, that they would have figured an easier way rather than smashing it in. With all the time spent prior to actual entry, and the fact that they must have peered through the window many times to assess the situation, they must have had an idea about the door, and they must have actually needed to smash it to gain entry.
Jeff D |
Author: Caz
Monday, 24 May 1999 - 05:16 am | | Hi All,
Yep, Jeff, I got the same message about the two keys, Barnett having lost his, and Mary using hers that fateful night/morning to get in (with her killer in tow?)
Although no-one in their right mind would have been champing at the bit to get in that room for a better look at the scene, they knew it had to be done sooner or later, so I agree that forcing their way in was probably their only reluctant option.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen Tunney
Monday, 14 June 1999 - 12:37 pm | | Assume the key was genuinely lost. Kelly and Barnett seem to have been in the habit of gaining entry by putting their hands through the broken window and turning some lock-related gizmo on the inside of the door.
This is presumably exactly what Kelly did the night she was murdered (if it was indeed Kelly who was killed there, which I'm assuming it was). She led JtR into the room using her normal hand-through-the-window pane method.
Now either the door spring-locked when closed upon exiting, or else it could be locked the same way it could be unlocked, by using the hand-through-window-pane method. Either way, ther was no need for JtR to possess the missing key. In short, JtR closed the door shut on his way out and it spring-locked itself. Or, he remembered the way Kelly had gained access when she let him in, and reversed the procedure on his way out.
In the absence of more definite information about the door, it strikes me that the former is somewhat more likely, since JtR was not in the habit of trying to prevent people from easily stumbling across his handiwork. In other words, why would he go to the trouble of putting his hand through the window pane to lock the door on his way out?
The only reason I can think of is that he felt on this occasion that he needed more time to put some distance between himself and the crime scene because it was daylight. This suggests that the murder took place in mid-morning, some time after 10am (which conforms with the evidence of two eye-witnesses who claim to have seen Kelly that morning up and about). With it being mid-morning, the murderer wanted time to clean up and go away without being spotted (he may have had more gore on his clothing this time, and would have been carrying Kelly's heart and maybe some other body parts on his person). In clear daylight, with more people on the streets, he may have been more conspicuous had the body been quickly discovered with him still near the scene of the crime.
However, this is not crucial. If the murder took place earlier (during the wee small hours of the night), then it's still possible he would have wanted more time to put himself well away from the crime scene by the time the body was discovered.
Remember that JtR may well have come perilously close to being caught at the scene the night of the 'double event' (when he seems to have been disturbed during the course of the first murder and to have been still very close to Mitre Square by the time Eddowes' corpse was discovered.) If this is so, then he may have been a bit more nervous about being apprehended by the time he slaughtered Kelly (assuming always that Kelly was his victim and that he was also responsible both for the 'double event' murders).
But the simplest explanation is simply that the door didn't need to be locked on the way out from Kelly's apartment, since it locked itself on being shut. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 03:48 am | | Stephen -
It's nice to see the "key conundrum" so clearly and concisely straightened out. As (I believe?) a comparative new-comer to the boards, you seem to have managed to avoid the problem of not seeing the wood for the trees that other, more "experienced" commentators often fall foul of. It has always seemed obvious to me that, given the stated nature of the lock, no key was required by anybody at any point in the night's proceedings. And yet you will find people going to extraordinary lengths to claim that "the key must have been found", that "The murderer locked the door behind him with the key", and so on, usually for questionable reasons (such as peddling a document in which someone has written "with the key I did flee" or some such nonsense).
Your point about the possibility that the murderer wished to allow himself more time to clean up and distance himself from the murder scene after his close call(s) on the night of the "Double Event" has definite merit - it could also account for the longer-than-expected gap between murders - but I think we need to consider this point : that it was probably pure chance that Kelly's killing took place indoors. We know from witness testimony to her movements that night that she would take clients back to her room rather than do the business outside. On the other hand, the murderer may have decided to look for a prostitute with a room this time round, and may have rejected others who didn't offer that facility before finding Kelly.
As regards "cleaning up" - we must remember that there was no way for him to clean up before leaving Kelly's room - the nearest option was to go out into the court and use the tap there. Anybody doing so at around 10am would be sure to attract unwelcome attention to themselves very quickly, I submit. It is this liklihood of discovery that makes it difficult for me to accept such a late time of death for Kelly - more reasonable, I think, to expect the killer to have slipped away under cover of 4-5am darkness, without necessarily bothering to clean up to any great degree.
All the Best
Guy |
|
|
|
|
