|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 1, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The missing key to Kelly's room.:
Archive through July 1, 1999
Author: Jane T.
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 06:35 am |        | | Is there any chance that someone may well have been laying in wait at 13 Millers Court? MJK strolls home drunk into the dark room unaware...Surely stalkers aren't a modern phenomenon. |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 06:57 am | | Guy,
It seems to me the WM took whatever he could get, and used it up to the max according to his aberrant predelictions, on an ad hoc basis. With respect to Kelly's room, he used it but didn't ask for it, and he didn't reject prostitutes because they didn't have such facilities. Few had a private room to use, most had sex in the streets; and he might appear unusual, and attract attention to himself by requiring a room, especially during the Terror.
I'd think there'd be no way he'd use a public or semi-public tap to wash blood off his hands anywhere in Whitechapel, he'd have to be daffy to do this considering how many people were looking for someone to do precisely this kind of thing. Likely he mutilated Kelly with most of his clothes off to prevent getting obviously bloodied, and further had a towel with him to wipe his hands and wrap up the organs. Thus he wouldn't appear bloody when leaving Kelly's room.
David |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 07:19 am | | David -
I agree almost entirely - I too think that the choice of indoor venue was most likely Kelly's, but I would entertain a slight possibility that the murderer could have been seeking a greater degree of privacy than previously, considering how close to being caught he must have been in earlier cases.
As to the tap - it seems to me also that stopping to use such an amenity would be far too dangerous. Hence, I don't think we can give much credence to Major Smith's "blood-stained-water-in-a-sink-in-Dorset-Street" story relating to the "Double Event" either.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 12:21 pm | | Hello All,
I was intrigued with the reasoning about the Yale type lock that may have been present on the door to Kelly's room. Unfortunately, we have to remember that M'Carthy, the landlord, was present at the scene and would thus be able to inform the police about any spring-locking security device on the premises. I think it more likely that the door was locked by a simple bolt fixed on to the door.
However, it could be argued that those present were just so shocked by the sight they saw that it was easy for them to overlook the possibility of a bolt on the door. Cue smashing the door down with an axe. But in that case, when the shock had worn off and the door was to be replaced, the lock would have severely, and visibly, damaged the door jamb to such an extent that it would be an easy to conclude that the door was locked, is it by a mortice?, and not bolted.
Do we have any additional information which could cast new light on this mystery. Something of the nature of a forensic report of the door itself, or a bill for fixing any damages.
Trusting that this may be of some interest.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Stephen Tunney
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 01:01 pm | | I agree that it is unlikely that JtR washed up at the sink/tap in the courtyard. However it's possible that within Kelly's room there was a jug of water and small basin for private ablutions. Was any such item found by the police, and was it bloody or clean? Or perhaps JtR used some damp towels to clean up and then burnt them in the fireplace.
The point is not strictly relevant to the question of the key. If the door could be unlocked by hand through the window pane, then presumably it could be locked too by the same method, one which JtR would have observed when Kelly let him into the room. And if it spring locked itself upon being shut, then there's no problem at all for Jack. |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 15 June 1999 - 10:14 pm | | Stephen,
MJ did have such a basin, but police described it as "disused." The murderer did not wash in her room.
The idea of the murderer starting that fire to burn his own towels just before he left, leaving the fire burning as he walked away in Dorsett Street, is an intriguing one. Everyone seems to think he needed the fire for heat, ventilation, or light while mutilating Kelly, but this is a different take we appreciate.
Another concept on the fire that I myself had awhile back is that the buring clothing means something symbolically with respect to his identity, or with respect to his dementia. The fire may be interpreted as life, among many other things. He made the clothes "come alive" in the fireplace---? Any takers?
David |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 07:24 am | | Yep David, I'll buy.
I have a feeling our Jack was deeply into symbolism and needed everything 'just so' for his deeds. You could well be right about the fire having special significance to his purpose.
Did he also take a change of clothing with him on his jaunts? If he was dressed as a soldier or sailor or whatever, did he have his 'normal' clothes with him (in a black bag sometimes??) to change into immediately after the killing? In Mary's case could he have burned his bloody 'costume' on the fire, so he would not be caught with it in daylight while making good his escape?
Sorry folks, just trying to 'unlock' the mystery as usual, but not using the relevant 'key' ie topic :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 - 08:20 am | | Hi folks! What did the police find in the fireplace? Wasn't it a hat brim or something? If the murderer burned any of his clothes in the fireplace, would there be evidence...like buttons or hooks and eyes? Buttons were made from a variety of things...metal, horn, shell, jet, wood and even knotted cord, so it is possible that a shirt ,for instance, could be totally consumed by fire if it had wooden buttons. Collars were detachable and made from paper or cardboard, so they would be consummable by fire. I would have loved to have sifted those ashes from Mary Kelly's fireplace.
Edana |
Author: chris swindells
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 07:33 am | | hi
well for what it's worth, this is my theory
it was not mary kelly who was killed. it was another prostitute using her room which from the info given, i believe happened.
Mary Kelly was seen going out at 2pm i think.
Now, lets suppose that the lock was a standard one (which i believe but thats another story) and that the key had been found by her and she had locked the door and taken it with her.
The prostitute who used the room saw mary with a 'client' and knew she would not be using the room.
So this other woman went to kelly's rooms, reached through the window and using the catch opened the window. As yet, no-one has given the theory that the window would open. By looking at the photo of the room I appears to be an opener. So this other woman is now in the room.
Along comes jack. maybee or maybee not known to kelly. He tries the door and finds it is locked. See's the window, probably open as at that time of year the weather may well have been warm. Climbs in and initially slashes her neck. It is interesting to note that the way her neck was cut on one side and near to the edge of the bed suggests that she was in a typical slleping position and probably asleep. So having slashed her neck, starts to 'rip' her in the usual fashion. He decides there is not enough light and starts / increases the fire. at this stage he realises that the victim is not kelly. This would either have 2 effects.
1. angers him greatly hence the brutal attack on the face
2. if kelly was the intended victim all along and maybee JTR was a hired assasin, decides that this was the only chance he would have to kill kelly, cuts her face beyond recognition so as no one will recognise her and everyone will be convinced that it is kelly who is dead especially his 'employers'
The fact that kelly was seen by 2 seperate people the morning after suggests that she was un aware that this happened. obviously once she found out she dissapeared pretty quickly.
The idea that JTR killed her in daylight is in my opinion unacceptable. He may have been a psycopath but was not stupid and did not take unnecessary risks.
In my opinion, regardless of who JTR was, it is mary kelly who holds the key to the whole mystery
anc comments on these theories is more than welcome
chris |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 02:12 pm | | As the window to Mary Kelly's room is being discussed I thought that this photograph would be of interest.
 |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 06:39 pm | | Hi y'all.
CHRIS: If you're new - Welcome aboard. Many of your misconceptions can be cleared up - as mine are --- by reading a bit more, preferably from primary sources.
For instance, the weather for all the murders is given in a couple of the newer books on the market, plus online at the excellent website Casebook Productions ... They have a discussion board here which links to their site.
STEWART: Welcome "home." Your generosity is awesome. Forgive my ignorance if these questions fall in done-to-death territory:
1. What year was the Miller's Court pic above taken?
2. Who took the photo?
3. In the four-paned window next to the entry door --- Is the upper right pane broken, or is that jagged splotch a mixture of shadow and my wishful thinking?
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 12:27 am | | Hi Janice,
The above photo is the external shot of the room taken on the day of the murder.
The rather low, smaller window on the right is the one Bowyer and McCarthy looked through. On the original print it appears that both panes of glass on the right side of this window are broken. The photograph was taken by the photographer brought in by the police. As you know, this building was demolished in 1928.
Thank you for your interest.
Stewart |
Author: chris swindells
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 03:15 am | | hi janice
i will take a look at the site
but what other misconceptions have I???
please infom me
chris |
Author: Wolf
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 01:40 am | | Greetings Chris, welcome to the boards. I see some problems with your theory and would like to explain.
1) Mary Kelly was indeed seen at 2:00 a.m.. This sighting was by George Hutchinson who stated that he watched Mary as she was picked up by a man near Thrawl Street. He followed the couple back to Dorset Street and stood watching the entrance to Miller's Court for a period of about 45 minutes before growing tired of the wait. Kelly was thus inside her room until at least 2:45 and probably the rest of the night. If you believe Dr. Bond's impossible estimate for the time of death, then she was killed at around 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. and thus the body was Mary Kelly.
2) If the witnesses, Hutchinson and Mary Cox are correct, then Mary was in the habit of taking her clients back to her room with her. Any one who saw her leave would have to assume that she would be returning when she found a new client, including a killer who wanted to kill only her. If he had killed the wrong woman then he would run the risk of Mary and a client walking in on him.
3) The murder took place on an early morning in November. It had been raining most of the night and it was cold out, the temperature at around 3°C (38°F). The window would not have been open and indeed, according to one report, there were rags stuffed in the two broken panes and an old coat was used as a heavy curtain to keep out the draft. it is pretty clear that the window would have been shut.
4) The door may have had an old mortise box lock, Thomas Bowyer said that he had looked through the keyhole, but it is evident by both Joseph Barnett, who had lived there, and Inspector Abberline, who investigated, that the lock on the door was a spring loaded Yale lock which you could open by pulling back the catch. The door would automatically lock when pulled shut so no key was needed to lock it. A mortise lock doesn't work that way and can only be opened or locked with a key. The theory that the Ripper had a key or took the key away with him is a tired red harring that has, for the most part, fallen out of favour.
5) The body of Mary Kelly was identified by Barnett by her eyes and hair. She was also known to the police on the beat and to Detective Constable (later Chief Inspector), Walter Dew who was one of the first policemen to have seen the body of Mary Kelly. If it was not Mary that was killed that morning, then it would have to have been someone with the exact same eye and hair colour, with the same texture and length of hair, with the same general build and body shape.
6) You may not agree that Mary Kelly was killed at around 10:00 a.m. because the Ripper wouldn't be so foolhardy, but modern medical evidence points to this time of death, at least three witnesses saw her alive that morning, and killing Kelly in a locked room was a lot less dangerous than murdering Katherine Eddows in Mitre Square with it's nightwatchmen, police patrols and three seperate entrances from which anyone could wander upon him at any time.
I hope that wasn't too discouraging for you because you obviously have your own opinions about the Ripper, but being critiqued will help you gain more knowledge. This whole site is one large learning experience and if you stick around long enough you should be okay.
Tell me what you think.
Wolf |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 07:20 am | | Thanks Wolf,
Your posts are always informative.
What about another play on words about keys and stuff? Was Kelly's heart the 'key' to the whole mystery? 'With the key I did flee' becomes 'Mary stole my heart, so I stole away with hers' or 'I took the heart of the matter away with me', and using the word 'key' instead makes a convenient rhyme and scans well, another funny little game, particularly as ownership of keys WERE at least discussed at the time, presumably in the press as well as by the police. Jack may have been laughing again at the police for even thinking keys were an issue if the lock was as you suggest, Wolf. Headless chickens spring to mind again :-)
Any thoughts?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 07:26 am | | Ohmigod, I just had a thought:
"The knave (Jack) of tarts, he took her heart, and stole it clean away".
Howzat?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Edana
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 08:55 am | | Hi Caz! How are you girl? Shades of Lewis Carroll! Heart of my heart, you bring back memories. It really wasn't Mary Kelly who was butchered, she just didn't have the heart to tell anyone. Sorry, couldn't resist. But really, there are so many 'heart' related connections here. Poor Mary Kelly by the end of that horrible night was not only reputed to be heartless, but actually was. Now, I'm beginning to feel a little yucky, especially after having viewed the sepia Kelly photograph which Stewart has kindly offered and Stephen has made available. The poor woman.
Edana |
Author: Stephen Tunney
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 02:49 pm | | I have little doubt that it was Mary Kelly who was murdered. If it wasn't, then she would have eventually turned up, and Joe Barnett would have been keen to know that she was still alive (unless he was the murderer. But of course, if he was the murderer, then the victim was a fortiori Mary Kelly).
As regards the key, see my earlier posting above.
As regards the time of death, my theory is that she was killed mid-morning, and that the medical evidence was flawed. As to why the police believed it in preference to the eyewitness testimony, I reckon the answer is class snobbery.
The police would have thought that the lower-class people who knew Kelly by sight couldn't be believed against the testimony of a qualified medical practictioner.
On the other hand, two other witnesses did hear a cry of "Murder" at around 4am which might have come from Kelly's room. But if it was Kelly who yelled that, then I don't think she was with the murderer at the time. She was observed by Hutchinson about an hour earlier with a customer. But I don't think that customer would have been JtR, because I don't think JtR was into having sex with his victims (and wouldn't have waited so long as an hour or more to despatch his victim). It may be that the customer and Kelly had a fight, or that the customer got a bit rough, and Kelly perhaps got frightened and maybe even thought for a moment that the customer was Jack. But he wasn't, and later in the morning at about 8.30am she met Mrs Maxwell and told her that she had the "horrors of drink" on her, and had previously thrown up. With Barnett unable to give her money the previous evening, she went out looking for more customers. And met one outside the Britannia at about 9am, with Mrs Maxwell again the witness.
If that scenario is correct, then she may have been less cautious than she otherwise would have been that morning (what with it being daylight and having survived a possibly unpleasant customer or two the night before); and so, quite unsuspectingly and off-guard, she brought Jack back to her room, oblivious to her impending doom. She knew her landlord wanted payment of some of the back rent. Barnett was out of the way, and so she decided to put in an early workshift by soliciting at 9am, despite feeling the worse for drink (she had been much the worse for drink at about midnight). Disastrously for her, as it turned out.
So I think Kelly survived the night, then went to a pub looking for more business, and met JtR there or on the street, and immediately struck a deal.
This explains the eyewitness testimony. Jack did the deed, but lingered more than normally because he was indoors and thought he had time to dwell on
the butchery and do a bit of tidying up. The only thing is, most theories reckon Jack was in regular employment. But then again, maybe he was planning to go abroad by the date of Kelly's murder, and had resigned his employment to make preparations for his departure. So he could have met Kelly outside the Britannia at 9am (Mrs Maxwell spotted her there at that time talking to a man).
Dr Bond--I think he just got it wrong. He reported that rigor mortis had set in by 2pm. I think Kelly was murdered at about 9.30-9.45am. A cut up body gets cold quicker.
Philip Sugden's excellent book sides with Bond and against Maxwell on time of death. But I think Mr Sugden is guilty on this point, like the police in 1888, of unconscious class prejudice. |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 06:37 pm | | Great post Stephen.
As an actor in fairly regular employment at the time, my own suspect fits the bill every time. Theatre closes, off they all go for after-play 'play-time', to drinking/gambling dens of iniquity etc. (MUCH more interesting in the East End) No questions asked when individual revellers slope off to bed, or otherwise, in the wee small hours. No need to get up early the next day, even with matinees to perform. Plenty of time to do a bit of butchery/surgery whatever, even up 'til 10am.
The Knave of tarts indeed....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 06:42 pm | | Sorry Edana, dear heart, I didn't mean to ignore ya. I got a bit Carrie-d away as per usual.
See you in Harvey Nicks dahling. Don't forget the Bolly ;-)
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
